HFS+ has encryption through a bolt-on process.

APFS has encryption designed in from the core. They don't want to maintain the bolt-on that is only used for legacy / external drives any more, on the way to getting rid of HFS+ altogether.

HFS has been around since the 80s for fucks sake. It's okay for us to leave it behind when they've already done the heavy lifting of automatically converting everyone to APFS years ago.

Or, they are at the beginning of deprecating HFS+ in favor of the APFS file system they've been using for root volumes for almost 10 years now.

Why should they continue supporting a botched-together implementation when they have a file system that was designed with encryption at it's core?

Yes, because I'm sure that fucking Richard Nixon would have done anything different if he beat Kennedy in 1960. He would have invaded twice after bombing the place flat. You know, like he did illegally in Cambodia and Laos.

Holy shit some of you people are so god damn stupid.

So where does threatening to deport them all fit into that narrative?

Or are they they a politically protected set of migrants, and they just want to deport people that politically don't matter?

Explain why we need to "own" it rather than just do what we've done for 80 years since World War II - work with the country that actually "owns" it, to defend it for the sake of Democracy?

Is it just because you're a grasping selfish git?

And all he's doing is driving Russia and China closer together with his bullshit. So, like everything else he touches, he fucks it up and makes it worse.

The word "never" makes you incorrect. See: the Marshall Plan.

The US spent a lot of time, effort, and money rebuilding democracies in Europe after WW2. The USSR decided they needed to keep the spoils of war. The US, UK, and France gave it back to the people who owned it before Germany came knocking.

I agree that it's not the point of US policy now. Now it's "me and mine" which is exactly the shit we don't need.

Dictators are bad. There's no way around it.

And frankly I think you are probably braindead for defending dictators. I don't know what your problem is or why you would do that. Even if you are communist, defending a dictator is anti-proletariat.

What

I can see your genius showing through. I especially admire your citation.

Elections usually have observers from both parties to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen.

So ok, these are the kinds of election frauds that could happen, or have happened historically.

If we're going to be scientific about it, we should ask, "Where were the Republican observers? What is there testimony about what happened?" Any attempt to ignore the hundreds of observers that were present is just unscientific nonsense.

The rise of populism in Europe is a real trend.

Populism isn't automatically a bad thing: it just means that the general public is being represented (or appealed to). Obama was populist, and he was fine, literally the best US president of the century and it's not even close.

Populism combined with the belief that your country can conquer the world is a bad thing (like what Hitler did). But a knee-jerk anti-populist attitude is not nuanced enough.

I will also add that Ian Bremmer seems to see trade deals as an important part of Pax Americana, but it isn't. "Liking America" is also not Pax Americana. Pax Americana isn't a popularity contest.

Pax Americana happens because countries have a moderately reasonable belief that if they invade their neighbor, America will do something to stop them. When that belief is gone, Serbia will immediately invade Kosovo.

If you've got 1 bad cop, and 9 "good" cops who are covering for him, what you've actually got there is 10 bad cops.

You have it exactly right. I can see why you didn't post with an identity, you'd get punished by the reich wingers. Wage theft exceeds all other theft combined but maggots are still crying about shoplifters

Yes, Mexico is.