"Request a demo of Entercept, the first and only platform designed to identify and track foreign influence in your software."

I do love a good disinterested vendor writeup...

"As a whole, the open source community should be paying more attention to this risk and mitigating it."

So, if I'm understanding this right, the solution is for more people to work for free so I can just blindly grab whatever; not for the people already getting their software for nothing to care even slightly about their dependencies?

Obviously the originalist interpretation of freedom of speech is "so long as congressional republicans claim it's 'neutral'". Very subtle constitutional law, that.

I think there are (at least) two different distinctions at work; rather than a direct opposition between 'buzzwords' and 'jargon' at the level you describe.

Both are jargons for the purposes of being nonstandard or very locally standardized usages within a particular group; but when people say 'buzzwords' there's a specific pejorative implication, while 'jargon' is usually implied to be legitimate and useful at least within its subject area.

Obviously legitimacy claims, rather than linguistic ones, make the boundary a bit fuzzy; but there are some tells. A jargon term(in the positive/legitimate sense) tends to go places: if someone doing analog signal processing says 'bandwidth' it may confuse ribbon enthusiasts; but it touches on a whole bunch of related concepts: bands have widths and 'wideband' and 'narrowband' are what they sound like they would be; bandpass and bandgap filters do frequency dependent attenuation in ways that either allow a particular band through or heavily attenuate a particular band. When a project manager says 'bandwidth' they mostly just mean ability to do work, with a slight extension available to say you are too busy if you don't want to say you are too busy "I don't have the bandwidth/the team doesn't have the bandwidth". If you try to extend the concept; by, say, combining the 'bandwidth' of two people you end up with The Mythical Man-Month rather than the link aggregation or NIC teaming that you'd get if you told the networking guy that you needed to eliminate a bottleneck. That's what really marks the example phrase as 'buzzword'. You've got a metaphor drawn from baseball that barely even makes sense in the context of the sport(people only 'touch base' if the timings on opposing teams are particularly tight); then 'offline' is at least meaningful in the context that it is drawn from; but actually kind of confusing in context(are you taking it offline because it doesn't need to be handled synchronously or by everyone in the meeting? Because you don't want it on the record? Because it doesn't require drawing on the connected resources it would have if it were online?), then you've got 'align', which is vague at best misleading at worst(is 'aligning your bandwidth' working on the same things, specifically avoiding overlap? some of both?).

That's really, beyond more or less subjective judgements that engineering and science are more respectable than suit stuff, what makes 'buzzwords' feel slimy. Unlike 'jargon', which can be obscure to the layman but tends to have lots of internal connections that are consistent and enlightening; 'buzzwords' tend to be a lot of relatively surface-level borrowings that lack internal implications and which range from merely not-illuminating to actively obfuscating.

Linguistically both are jargons in the sense of being specialized local vocabularies; but 'buzzword' tends to imply little or no useful internal consistency; more or less ad-hoc borrowing of shiny-sounding words from random places; while 'jargons' in the 'respectable' sense are quite often cryptic on the surface; but have relatively massive bodies of internal consistency within the jargon. "Touch base" is practically plain english compared to what a mathematician or a physicist means when they say "field" vs. what a farmer or someone with a lawn in the suburbs means; but it's also shallow: there's nothing illuminating about the implied analogy to baseball, there aren't any additional things to be inferred from the idea that the people touching base are members of opposing teams trying to reach the base first(indeed, that's probably actively misleading); while 'field' as the set with specific operators defined is a little esoteric; but there are large areas of math that use, and in some cases flow from, that definition.

Just for the sake of technical correctness; paying for foreign expertise with imperial extraction is a technology. It's over in the pointy section of political science; and going by the number of people who end up dead or in exile after a failed implementation, it's not a trivial matter.

One of the tricky bits, potentially one that they've had trouble with of late, is that pulling it off effectively usually means pretending that that isn't what you are doing, for the legitimacy and prestige, while keeping in mind that that is what you are doing, for realistic planning purposes. It's all well and good for foreigners and low-level patriots to think of 'Russia' and 'the USSR' as essentially synonyms; significantly less helpful if your military or economic planners even periodically lose sight of the fact that that's a handy aspirational position rather than a truth.

No, not yet.

Innovation still largely happens in the West. China and others are rapidly catching up, but they're not there quite yet. And their disadvantage of cheap labour is slowly diminishing as well as the Chinese people demand that they benefit from the whole thing as well.

That is all smoke & mirrors. How many companies from Europe do you see outsourcing to the USA because of the lower minimum wage and the weaker unions? None. Because those are just bullshit arguments they've been peddling for decades because they work. Sadly, our politicians these days are (in general, a few exceptions nonwithstanding) both incompetent and corrupt, so it's working even better now.

I've been involved in a few location decisions on the company level. Pay is a factor. But language is a huge one (what good is cheap work if they don't understand what you want them to do?), logistics is another (how far is it from our current location, and how easy to get to?), surrounding infrastructure, availability of qualified people nearby, options for additional space to expand, heck I've seen a company move HQ because the new location was closer to the CEOs home.

Yupp, the Silicon Valley style of solving everything. Companies buying into that soon learn that manufacturing is a lot more than a couple people/robots doing stuff.

That's what I said. Assume for your example that you need not just a few techs, but also at least one or two people who actually understand how manufacturing works. Where do you get these people when there are no more manufacturing jobs?

Let's force all the decision makers (politicians and CEOs) to make a month-long "vacation" in Detroit. Drop them off with nothing but their clothes in the city center. They all got where they are because they're so smart and successful, so shouldn't be a problem, right?

Do I really need to point out how hysterical you sound? Applying the burden of proof and standards of evidence of criminal court to a free association question? Really?

That's basically treating the possibility that someone might not want to go on a date with you as in the same category as the state laying criminal charges against you; which is lunatic tier.

Obviously, anyone treating internet hearsay as particularly reliable is about as sensible as someone who believes online product reviews; but both of those groups are an order of magnitude, or more, less wrong than someone who thinks that internet hearsay or online product reviews need to be on a beyond reasonable doubt basis with FRE and an appeals process and stuff.

You actually make a reasonably convincing argument for the idea that the republican party does have principles; they just overlap pretty weakly with the ones they pretend at.

The most striking break with history is the bit where Nixon-level criminality used to be politically problematic.

A lunatic like Jamie Dimon. This is basically a dupe, though written by someone else. It makes the same points, including the mistake of not accounting for the exit of Britain from the EU GDP total. I wonder how the authors of this article are acquainted with Jamie Dimon?

Jamie Dimon's Blunt Message for Europe: 'You're Losing'

(The original story is from CNBC)

You probably don't have to imagine 25% tax; that's right around the "government revenue (% of GDP)" value for the US; though it does seem kind of wild to see something as regressive as what's basically a sales tax cranked that high unless the product in question is specifically being discouraged; which is clearly not the intent here or we wouldn't be commenting on this article.

Well, some of that is for classes for people who can't see that default 3-pixel wide scrollbar on Windows 11 in high contrast dark mode. :-)

Yeah, you're blessed to have one of each. Until they start conspiring against you, which you KNOW is going to happen.

For all my pro-life ramblings, we were granted only one child. He's 22 now. I'm not sure if I'm jealous or worried about you. Keeping up with two toddlers after age 50 can't be easy.

In other news, by marrying close to my age, I'm spending 51 to 54 in caregiving activities to the point that I can't keep up with a 40 hour a week job, and the job market is such ain't nobody gonna hire me anyway, so I'm striking out on my own and trying to trick old people into paying me $300 to back up their Windows 10 boxes and switch on TPM in UEFI if it exists:

https://informationr.us/

You'd be hard-pressed to find me in favor of just about any of the current administration's policies; but it's worth noting that the big deal with demographic crunches is the extent to which they don't play by the normal rules of what having savings or having debts means

There's already a lot of wiggly behavior with sovereign debt vs. household; since you get into what currency the debt is denominated in and all kinds of hairy macroeconomics rather than a nice, simple, "assume that the economy is more more or less arbitrarily large vs. your net worth and what you'll be buying; your ability to buy stuff varies directly with your assets or available credit"; but a problem with labor supply more directly hoses the supply of goods and services that are actually available.

It's still not unlikely that people who have cash in hand will be ahead in line vs. people who are offering IOUs; but the fundamental problem is that there are now more wrinkly asses to wipe and fewer geriatrics specialists to wipe them; rather than just you not being able to afford a nursing home because you've got debt. With that sort of supply constraint having money is still probably a betters strategy than not having it; but, since there's a genuine supply constraint, having more money mostly makes the price go up; rather than increasing the amount you can buy.

Provided they know at least some basics about the thing in question.

As with pretty much all tools: They are most effective in the hands of a professional, and might be dangerous in the hands of a novice.

AI can replace a lot of intro-level workers. Honestly, most of the stuff I get out of AI is intern-level, be it code or text.

BUT - how then, do people move up from intro-level ?

And that's the kicker. For a couple decades now, companies have essentially gone "nah, we don't train people, we hired them once someone else has trained them". Well, good luck with that when the last few places where people can gain experience fall away.

The focus on quarterly results will be the downfall of western civilization. We will be eclipsed by countries like China who have decades-long plans, even when much of the rest of their system is shit. Nobody wants to live in a dictatorship. But even fewer people want to live in a completely ruined economy.