Just like what happened when the US government purchased GM, Chrysler, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac?
(I actually agree with your points, but this reply is the obligatory counter to your post and needs to be addressed.)
The US typically approaches this by purchasing the products from the companies, or using trade pressure to make another country purchase products from them -- rather than by buying them out. The US government isn't talking about buying ExxonMobil, Raytheon, Boeing, etc. This is definitely weird.
and GOP became socialist.
As everyone in that reddit thread pointed out, that quiz is about fascism not socialism. The open debate is: Does the author of that reddit post not know the difference, or are they intentionally confusing the two as a form of misdirection? The post has merit even though it mislabels things.
I sometimes use it to archive especially insightful conversation on reddit.
If America really cared about their citizens, the Unemployment rate should consist of All Americans divided by the number who work. Getting that number to one would be amazing.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes that number. It's called the employment-to-population ratio. Since there many different opinions on how to interpret the data, the BLS publishes it every which way. Most press reports what is called the U-3 number because most economists agree that it is the most useful one.
This has happened to many a developer over the years because the shell scripting languages ignore errors. No AI required.
cd /
cd $targetdir # Oops! Targetdir doesn't exist!
rm -rf * # Deletes files from root directory
Somewhere between 1 and 3.
Those are the kinds of moments where the population finds out if their nation is truly democratic or not. Any government that decides that turning off the ability to communicate is not doing so for the benefit of its people.
It's standard operating procedure in dictatorships to flip the "internet kill switch" as soon as something happens where the government needs to control the media.
Oh, and just to add one more thing . Some network protocols just fundamentally can't work under NAT. Ex: FTP. So party of the reason this seems to worn is because we changed the way we design protocols to be NAt compatible. That's dumb. The Internet should just work.
I work for a company that makes large industrial machines. Some of the machines are, themselves, networks. They have motors and sensors and encoders and PID controllers and more. But too many of those devices assume ipv4, as do the corporate networks they live behind. So we have to assign all the embedded devices IPv4 addresses that don't conflict with the corporate s network, then apply NAT. It is overcomplicated, and so I can't remotely monitor the devices. To solve this there are a gzillion 3rd-party companies each with their own tools and APIs for remote monitoring.
Each device ought to be able to assign itself a unique IPv6 address and we could talk straight to it. Instead we go through a myriad of 3rd-party NAT hacks to get there.
A firewall is fine. Multiple levels for firewall is fine. Multiple levels of firewall each one rewriting the IP address is a nightmare. Often time today teams assume NAT is a firewall feature, when in reality firewall don't need NAT to function. It's just a hack.
We have made it work, but it is costing us dearly. End-to-end addressability is fundamental to the original design of the internet. It enables any two nodes to communicate directly without needing a third party to broker the connection. For example, decades ago two people could play a video game over the internet without needing a 3rd-party server. IPv4 exhaustion and widespread use of NAT broke the model, handing control over to centralized services. So today, my cell phone can't ping your cell phone without going through someone else.
The Internet went from a democratic self-healing system to one where big corporations dictate what protocols we can use to connect.
Us old farts pine from the old days. Today's network engineers are fine with corporate control because they don't know anything else. Time will tell how big of a problem this really is.
Perhaps governments that want the citizens and corporations to police speech should provide a webapi like https://gov.br/IsAcceptablePos... that returns true or false, so we all know what is okay and what is not.
It seems we 100% agree, but based on your final jab I think you missed the key point. I am not saying "both sides are bad." A more accurate paraphrasing would be "anti-science positions are wrong no matter what side they come from." But even that misses the crucial point. Take a look at what the OP posted:
Even very liberal people question the use of fluoride these days.
This person asserts that typically, conservative people question the use of fluoride, not liberals. Anyone watching the current US news cycle might conclude that too. But historically, it was the other way around. My point was this: People should stop associating concepts like "liberalism" with Democrats, and "conservatism" with Republicans. It doesn't work like that. Parties change their positions over time and cannot be mapped to these basic (and overbroad) concepts.
This realization helps people break free of partisan thinking. I have had hyper-partisan family members who don't care if their position is stupid. But if I remind them that a liberal once held that position, well suddenly they question it. I've seen the look on their face: "How could I possibly have had a liberal thought? Impossible!"
You are exactly right when you stated "Mainstream Republicans took the stupidest ideas from the lunatic left and made them the center point of their platform." Just understand this completely shifts people's assumptions about party identity. If someone chooses to, based on data, consume raw milk, consolidate power in a unitary executive, and raise tariffs -- that is totally fine. But they should not call themselves conservative. And we should call it out when people erroneously assume that a belief is conservative or liberal when really it's just "dumb."
The anti-fluoride and anti-vaxx movements have always been on the Democrat side. Under Trump, those anti-science conspiracies are being embraced by Republicans as well.
This is, once again, a reminder that Trump and MAGA are not conservative movements. Anti-science positions are not, and were never, solely the domain of one party. They just chose *different* anti-science positions. The Republican who believes that climate change isn't real is applying the same kind of wrongthink as the Democrat who believes that alkaline water cures cancer.
Nah, the large Microsoft hops they have their documents on the cloud anyway. Share drives and local SharePoint have been replaced with OneDrive, Sharepoint online. Outlook is in the cloud, messaging is Microsoft Teams, etc. Half the people open a document from SharePoint and edit it in the online Microsoft Word and don't even know they are doing it. Then if you get really fancy, you have documents in ERP systems that are on the cloud too.
PLUS: The hybrid solutions are sneaking into things that are supposed to be on-prem anyway. So IT goes through all the work to setup their ERP system on-prem (SAP, Oracle, etc.) but then a bunch of features require cloud connections to work anyway. So technically the documents are local, but maybe your indexer, search, analytics, virus scan, and reports all require the cloud. It's the worst of both worlds, and it is becoming the default.
Reality must take precedence over public relations, for Mother Nature cannot be fooled. -- R.P. Feynman
