I know there is an XKCD about standards (and adding yet one more to create yet more confusion).
"Standards"
https://xkcd.com/927/

But that said, HTML, CSS, and JavaScript are all terrible standards in many ways because of their complexity (and major design flaws like JavaScript having vastly too many global variables). Asa an alternative, what if, say, we all just used something like Scheme (or Common Lisp) to encode web documents and web code as S-expressions in some semantically standardized formats? Scheme can be very compact in its implementation.

Or as the XKCD mentioned here says:
"Lessons learned from implementing minimal Scheme six times"
https://twolodzko.github.io/po...
https://xkcd.com/297/
"Lisp cycles XKCD #297: âoeThose are your fatherâ(TM)s parentheses. Elegant weapons for a more⦠civilized age.â"

Now, it doesn't have to be Lisp-like.I get the paren hate:
"What makes Lisp difficult to read?"
https://www.reddit.com/r/lisp/...

And there is a lot to be said for significant-indentation languages like Occam or Python. Smalltalk is another great language. Or even some variant of a safe C.

Even a Forth-derivative perhaps that could be literally less than ~2K in size at the core. Although I get that there is a fine line between flexible and flabby in readability in a language that can change its own fundamental syntax or that makes naming intermediate variables unlikely as a form of documentation. Same with any language that supports arbitrary macros like C or Scheme which can change the fundamental nature of the language. Although at least in, say, Racket Scheme you see the language level set at the start of some code to know what you are getting into.

The main point is just that yet another adhoc problematical language like JavaScript was not needed (even as TypeScript papers over the worst warts). And CSS conceptually is broken for big projects ("Atomic" CSS is one style to help with that). And adding end tags with names in HTML (like XML) is another broken concept as are other aspects of HTML. Yes, programmers can work around and manage the issue in these web fundamentals, but why should we have to?

While a simpler browser for HTML etc is a good thing if it really is well written, better standards for encoding and sharing information will ultimately get us further and be more energy efficient and be more reliable and be more programmer-friendly.

I've long been a fan of triples for doing some of that data encoding, but that is even further out.

Tangentially, here is a Libre Plane 2021 talk I put together on free standards for social media being more important than free implementations:
"Free/Libre Standards for Social Media and other Communications"
https://pdfernhout.net/librepl...

I know this all may sound pie in the sky (and it is, given current social dynamics), but consider if we used the usual buggy lot-of-library junky (and now AI slop) code only with an intent to translate web content encoded in problematical standards into content encoded in better simpler standards for other code to consume. Sort of like Amazon did at one point with a server-side engine to process HTML pages and transform them for low-end Kindle browsers -- but in this case converting HTML plus CSS plus JavaScript into something like, say, S-expressions for web content that was not yet written directly n the simpler standards. Maybe the junky translator code might not be perfect, but it might be good enough and runnable in distant containers so that the local code that processed the simpler standards could be more secure and reliable.

Also related: "Simple Made Easy"
https://www.infoq.com/presenta...
"Rich Hickey emphasizes simplicityâ(TM)s virtues over easinessâ(TM), showing that while many choose easiness they may end up with complexity, and the better way is to choose easiness along the simplicity path. ... We should aim for simplicity because simplicity is a prerequisite for reliability. Simple is often erroneously mistaken for easy. "Easy" means "to be at hand", "to be approachable". "Simple" is the opposite of "complex" which means "being intertwined", "being tied together". Simple != easy. ..."

Ideally a group like the US National Institute of Standards and Technology or the US Library of Congress should fund this sort of work. And a group like Archive.org should have a lot of input to those standards on how to make the content simply versionable and simply archivable.

Anyway, just something I have been musing on and off again for many years...

As we used to say in the security profession, the weakest link is not the software, or the hardware, it's always the wetware.

Throwing money in trump's direction, you say?

AI Overview
Investigative reports by organizations like ProPublica, Reuters, and the Center for American Progress describe various financial conduits connecting Russian oligarchs and elites to figures and family members within the Trump orbit through real estate, shell companies, and direct gifts.

Luxury Real Estate Purchases

  According to a Reuters special report, at least 63 individuals with Russian passports or addresses bought at least $98.4 million worth of property in seven Trump-branded luxury towers in southern Florida.

  Critics and investigators note that cash-heavy luxury real estate purchases provide a way for foreign nationals to move large amounts of money into U.S. assets.

Shell Companies and Campaign Financing

  The Center for American Progress reported that Kremlin-linked actors used anonymous bank accounts, shell corporations, and wire transfers to move millions around the 2016 campaign and presidential inauguration.

  In 2018, public documents released by attorney Michael Avenatti alleged that a firm linked to Russian billionaire Viktor Vekselberg deposited $500,000 into a shell company controlled by Donald Trump's former personal attorney, Michael Cohen.

Direct Event Funding and Personal Gifts

  A September 2026 investigation by ProPublica revealed that Russian oligarch Umar Kremlev bankrolled hundreds of thousands of dollars in expenses for Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding after-party in the Bahamas.

  ProPublica reported that Kremlev—who has close ties to Russian President Vladimir Putin—paid for private island rentals and fireworks through a Dubai-based entity.

  Donald Trump Jr. and his wife acknowledged the funding on social media and called Kremlev a personal friend. President Donald Trump later stated that his son would repay the money to Kremlev.

Things that make you go, "Hmmmm"

...it seems like the current US administration is acting as an agent for the country's enemies

Just be evil . . .

I find it difficult to believe that you are quite so uninformed about the real situation on the ground, but if you're a professional troll you're really bad at it.

Radar installations:

"Blinding the US? How Iran destroyed the $1.1-billion American missile radar in Qatar"

https://www.firstpost.com/expl...

Bases in Middle East:

"13 U.S. Bases in Middle East Nearly Uninhabitable After Iran Missile Strike"

https://defencesecurityasia.co...

Ship transits:

"commercial ship transits of the Strait of Hormuz per month"

https://www.globalmilitary.net...

I find it difficult to believe that you are quite so uninformed about the real situation on the ground, but if you're a professional troll you're really bad at it.

Exactly.

On: "A Palantir spokesperson told Bloomberg the company "is not responsible for the underlying data nor identifying intelligence deficiencies" and that there is no evidence its software was at fault."

Is AI now an aspect of Mother Nature? Reminds me of:
https://2001.fandom.com/wiki/F...
  ""Let me put it this way, Mr. Amer. The [Palantir] 9000 series is the most reliable computer ever made. No 9000 computer has ever made a mistake, or distorted information. We are all, by any practical definition of the word, foolproof and incapable of error." -- [Palantir's] HAL 9000 to BBC reporter Martin Amer"

https://humanisticsystems.com/...
        "Dave: How would you account for this discrepancy between you and the twin [Palantir] 9000 [that did not kill lots of school girls]?
        HAL: Well, I don't think there is any question about it. It can only be attributable to human error. This sort of thing has cropped up before, and it has always been due to human error.
        Frank: Listen HAL. There has never been any instance at all of a computer error occurring in the [Palantir] 9000 series, has there?
        HAL: None whatsoever, Frank. The [Palantir] 9000 series has a perfect operational record.
        Frank: Well of course I know all the wonderful achievements of the [Palantir] 9000 series, but, uh, are you certain there has never been any case of even the most insignificant computer error?
        HAL: None whatsoever, Frank. Quite honestly, I wouldn't worry myself about that."

What do you call an AI (or human) that never asks questions, never seeks confirmatory evidence, never asks for clarification, never points out conflicting priorities, and/or never refuses illegal orders?

Onec again, the deeper issue is "the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity."
https://pdfernhout.net/recogni...
====
Military robots like drones are ironic because they are created essentially to force humans to work like robots in an industrialized social order. Why not just create industrial robots to do the work instead?

Nuclear weapons are ironic because they are about using space age systems to fight over oil and land. Why not just use advanced materials as found in nuclear missiles to make renewable energy sources (like windmills or solar panels) to replace oil, or why not use rocketry to move into space by building space habitats for more land?

Biological weapons like genetically-engineered plagues are ironic because they are about using advanced life-altering biotechnology to fight over which old-fashioned humans get to occupy the planet. Why not just use advanced biotech to let people pick their skin color, or to create living arkologies and agricultural abundance for everyone everywhere?

These militaristic socio-economic ironies would be hilarious if they were not so deadly serious. ....

Likewise, even United States three-letter agencies like the NSA and the CIA, as well as their foreign counterparts, are becoming ironic institutions in many ways. Despite probably having more computing power per square foot than any other place in the world, they seem not to have thought much about the implications of all that computer power and organized information to transform the world into a place of abundance for all. Cheap computing makes possible just about cheap everything else, as does the ability to make better designs through shared computing. ....

There is a fundamental mismatch between 21st century reality and 20th century security thinking. Those "security" agencies are using those tools of abundance, cooperation, and sharing mainly from a mindset of scarcity, competition, and secrecy. Given the power of 21st century technology as an amplifier (including as weapons of mass destruction), a scarcity-based approach to using such technology ultimately is just making us all insecure. Such powerful technologies of abundance, designed, organized, and used from a mindset of scarcity could well ironically doom us all whether through military robots, nukes, plagues, propaganda, or whatever else... Or alternatively, as Bucky Fuller and others have suggested, we could use such technologies to build a world that is abundant and secure for all. ...

The big problem is that all these new war machines and the surrounding infrastructure are created with the tools of abundance [otherwise they would not be so powerful or capable of so much rapid destruction as well as rapid creation]. The irony is that these tools of abundance are being wielded by people still obsessed with fighting over scarcity. So, the scarcity-based political mindset driving the military uses the technologies of abundance to create artificial scarcity. That is a tremendously deep irony that remains so far unappreciated by the mainstream.

We the people need to redefine security in a sustainable and resilient way. Much current US military doctrine is based around unilateral security ("I'm safe because you are nervous") and extrinsic security ("I'm safe despite long supply lines because I have a bunch of soldiers to defend them"), which both lead to expensive arms races. We need as a society to move to other paradigms like Morton Deutsch's mutual security ("We're all looking out for each other's safety") and Amory Lovin's intrinsic security ("Our redundant decentralized local systems can take a lot of pounding whether from storm, earthquake, or bombs and would still would keep working"). ...
====

Oh, you got a job as one of the Pentagram's force of "Cyber-warriors" I take it? I'd rather live under a bridge than become a war-whore, but to each their own I guess.

It's between Chums Corner and Interlochen (Interlochen State Park also hosts one of the few stands of virgin white pine in the state.)

Perhaps you missed it, so I'll bold the important part:

1) Article 5 only requires other NATO nations to respond as they feel appropriate to their own national interest. Full involvement is not required.

What national interest does the the US have in any Estonia or any of the Baltic chihuahuas, other than as a foil to annoy Russia with?

Two considerations:
1) Article 5 only requires other NATO nations to respond as they feel appropriate to their own national interest. Full involvement is not required.
2) Estonia is small enough that Russia could overrun the entire country in a couple of days, long before the NATO bureaucracy would be finished dithering about whether to respond or not.

As has been demonstrated in Ukraine and Iran, the US is now a paper tiger, with a military armed with finicky, high tech weaponry which is easily overwhelmed by a flood of low cost disposable drones. For example the multibillion dollar THAAD system protecting (for the gods only know what reason) Israel was disabled by some drones costing about the price of a used BMW attacking the long range radar systems it relied on.

The crash was near Grawn, well away from the areas that are nice to live in. Last time I was there Grawn had more trailers than stick-built homes. Migrating waterfowl love the corn fields and small lakes in that area.

The point is why do we "need" so many pilots when the only countries we reasonably need to protect against are Mexico and Canada?

Not in the US, we're at least a decade behind the curve and our sclerotic military procurement system looks to keep us there.