GitHub don't "ban Cuba" - Cuba is embargoed by US government sanctions.

I don't care what you do, but probably good to at least be aware of the crime you offered to commit for a bunch of guys at a conference.

If you are worried that a commercial off-the-shelf router from your ISP is doing unpleasant things with your data and traffic at the network level I have some rough news for you about basically every device you connect to it and all the software on those devices.

Work device policy? Give me a work device.

The Luddites weren't a class of backwards technophobes, they protested the uncontrolled introduction of technology that materially devastated their ability to exist in the labour market without social policy controls to avoid driving thousands into poverty in the name of increased profits to the company owners.

You know... exactly the issue at hand.

Owning the value of other people's labor isn't the same as producing it.

The most prevalent form of theft is wage theft.

Even AES-256 thinks that 128-bit is good enough. The -192 and -256 variants increase the key length but not the cipher state - and the -128 key schedule has actually been shown to be stronger than -256.

The other variants were only developed because it was a contractual requirement that there _be_ a differentiation of three distinct levels. Not that they be stronger, they just have to be algorithmically incompatible so that e.g. a medium-security printer couldn't print high-security documents.

The automatic and manual vetting on the App Store absolutely catches maliciously or accidentally insecure apps - and importantly is *re-run* to catch apps with insecure embedded dependencies after those vulnerabilities are found.

If you've had an app on the store, you probably know this first-hand; as I do.

I don't know where your assertion that it has never worked is based, but I assume it's from some land where the security of non-trivial applications and platforms is an all-or-nothing precept. Must be nice, there - what OS do you use?

If you don't know the ownership graph of your allocations you can stop looking for the reason your performance sucks.

Writing code that runs fast requires a planning<-->analysis feedback loop.

Vietnam.

... Korea, Bay of Pigs, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria...

Hell, you've been fighting at least one side of civil war in Somalia for the last 30 years and I'm sure that's going just great.

- Private capitalist ownership of inelastic public infrastructure

^ this.

Also, stop looking for ways to feel better about burning fossil fuels and just consume less >_>

But when your app is 1.99USD and somebody in Australia buys it for 2.49AUD based on Apple's baseline price tier conversions, Apple still pays the Australian sales tax and GST due on that. Apple administer the international business and tax obligations for doing business in every jurisdiction. When the AUD falls by 25% against the USD because of a slump in domestic mining exports, Apple just absorb that cost.

Global digital sales aren't just a matter of processing money; and wouldn't be even _if_ credit card networks and digital banking had the coverage they claim. There are significant legal and business overheads and they all get subsumed by that 30% cut.

Is that profitable for Apple? Yes, but largely because they can leverage the legal and business synergies they were already committed to for their physical presence in so many countries, and the global data processing capacity they already need for their integrated online platforms.

Stores make margins. They're not zero-cost, nor are they zero-value; why should they have zero revenue?

Since you seem to be saying that you'd rather get 30% of $1.99 than 2% of $500,000 and are willfully ignoring the per-transaction overheads, relative scale of the business, and the fact that Apple/Google/Valve etc. pay all currency conversions and tax obligations from their cut; you can excuse me while I go back to not taking your position on capitalist economics or international retail seriously.

Unfortunately the economic problem with nuclear isn't the $/kwh but the time-to-return on the capital. By the time a nuclear station has paid off enough of its construction financing to make any dollars for the financiers a coal plant has been raking in a solid return for three to five years.

Reducing the capital outlay and construction time by 2/3 almost regardless of thermal efficiency makes an enormous dent in the economic viability of new-nuclear.