It's not going to get any easier to find definitely bot slop free software as time goes on; but we can be fairly sure about this stuff. Like hunting for low background steel.

My, we are an aggressively stupid dipshit today.

The only thing that meaningfully matters to a cargo ship is size.
Vessels are already slow sailing to artificially constrain bandwidth and prop up rates, and have been since COVID.

Nobody on earth is trying to build FASTER cargo ships, and haven't for 50 years. Jesus Christ. If only slashdot had a "doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about" filter.

Well, no, there's no law against shipping single containers at a time either. It just means a banana costs $100,000.

We have an entire thread here where you have ecological doomsayers are telling the world's most efficient transport industry how they can do things better. Sure.

Half the size? By what math?

It can carry 5300t. That's 215x 20t containers.

The largest container ships today are in the 23000 teu range which even if we assume they can't all max out at 20t... Let's assume 10t.... Is still 230,000t or 43x larger.

I can't say that I'm entirely surprised, given what else they've been getting up to; but it seems downright crazy to just unleash a slop engine without even giving your volunteers a heads up; then patronizingly ask if you can perhaps arrange a meeting to understand their concerns.

If your options are 'nothing' and 'hire bilingual tech writer' you can see the attraction of having a not very good but extremely cheap option; but just tossing away the expertise you already get for nothing out of some sort of weird technophilia? Is there actually some nutjob out there who was all "Oh, but machine translation makes my CI pipeline so efficient" or something?

If a store does this and they give you any guff at all about being let out you pull out your phone, call 911 and report a kidnapping in progress. Because that's what it is. The store's within it's rights to deny you entrance, but to deny you exit they have to have reason to believe you've broken the law in some way. You haven't. Their policy isn't the law. Let the authorities explain this to them.

Well, he renamed it and made minor changes around the edges so he could claim that it was broken and he fixed it. And then, of course, proceeded to violate the agreement he signed.

Excellent post, just a couple of comments.

First, it's interesting that Nikkos said "a previous administration", without naming it. It was, of course, Trump 1.0.

Second, international treaties on refugees don't require a country to accept every refugee and there are multiple examples where nations have made agreements that modify which county must handle asylum claims. For example, the US-Canada Safe Third Country agreement specifies that asylum seekers must make their asylum claim in whichever country they arrive in first. If the US and Mexico had a similar agreement, then refugees could not enter from Mexico at all. Trump tried to get Mexico to sign a Safe Third Country agreement, but Mexico refused -- and it probably would have been invalid anyway, since Mexico might not satisfy the requirements of a "safe" country under the US law that authorizes the signing of Safe Third Country agreements.

Instead, Trump signed the "Migrant Protection Protocols" agreement with Mexico, which was the "remain in place" agreement. You said that no other country should be willing to put up with it, but Mexico did formally agree to it, though only to avoid tariffs. Of course, Mexico has declined to renew the protocols in Trump 2.0 (though Trump announced they had, which Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum immediately denied -- Trump's habit of unilaterally announcing that an agreement has been reached obviously doesn't really work).

Anyway, there are lots of reasons why countries might agree to various limitations on asylum processes to manage refugee volumes, and these agreements are often perfectly valid under international and national law. Trump, of course, doesn't care about legality, or humanity, only what he can get away with.

I genuinely don't understand why slashdots downvote mafia attacked my former post as troll. Unless I miss my guess I have a fair couple of stalkers that just downvote every post I make, and then pepper my comments with bottish AC replies about Trump and No Kings. :|

Anyway, to your point, if you haven't seen it, I offer for your amusement something relative to your comment from the great Trevor Moore:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

"More people need to spend more time trying to enjoy their own lives instead of obsessing over what other people are doing."

Well jesus christ man, if we can't spend our idle hours scolding other people for what they wear/do/drive/eat/believe, what's the fucking point of social media even FOR then?

Well yes, if we radically change the rules about how we measure things, we can successfully re-apportion blame to the US, the inventor of slavery, war, and all things bad.

Congrats!

Honestly, the problem was Co. v. Riggs (203 U.S. 243 (1906)) that established corporations be treated legally like people.

The moment this happened it was the beginning of the exoneration of c-suites from the consequences of their actions. I suspect that if these individuals' freedom and wealth were liable for the consequences of their choices, the subsequent century would have played out rather differently.

Dipshit alert.
If you want to go to that granularity, there's no Black culture nor Asian culture, etc.

Literally, if there is a society of people that's a) uniformly a single ethnic group and b) collectively acts in ways that are identifiable and predictable to the group, it would be Scandinavians.

I'd recommend you read something by Geert Hofstede, if you can read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Who do you believe of two amoral organizations?

Rockstar: giant corp, obviously has a vested interest in painting the employees as shits
Union: ALSO a profit-driven organization just from another direction. Has a vested interest in showing the employees were sainted victims of corporate fascists.

Answer: neither, I simply don't give a shit and would happily see both Rockstar collapse and all of their organizing workers immediately unemployed.

Has it been determined whether the IT situation was related to the theft that occurred?

Obviously it sounds like basically no bad option was left unchosen when it came to their IT config; but I'm curious whether this was a situation where the perps were actually sophisticated enough (or unsophisticated at traditional smash-and-grab/balaclava-when-on-camera techniques) to incorporate the bad IT into the heist; or whether the entry was more or less pure physical access control failure that happens to put the general state of the system in stark relief?

Obviously if it were a heist movie there'd be a hoodie kid using the power of fast typing to haxx0r the cameras and guide the operatives while using a precociously cobbled-together AI to selectively delete them from the surveillance footage; but if the overall physical security posture was bad, and the building is largely accessible to the public, it seems entirely plausible that someone just cased the joint and walked in much as they would have 50 years ago; though a different interested party is probably hosting a C2 server or some exploitation payloads on their DVR.