Also the major flaw in this plan is whether the assembly is in the US or overseas does not stop backdoors from being loaded.

It sounds like the person behind this does not understand how manufacturing works. If backdoors are being implanted into these routers, it is not some rogue foreign agent assembling the router. The backdoors are most likely designed in the firmware. Somewhere in the assembly process, a worker or machine will load the firmware. The assembly workers whether they are in the US or overseas do not know what is in the firmware. Their job is to load it. Another workers job may be to test the router by hooking it up to a testing machine.

I think the word that has some wiggle room is "consumer". Business grade routers are exempt however I did not read that business grade meant enterprise. There are business grade routers meant for small and medium sized businesses. They cost a little more than consumer grade ones, have better warranties, and most of the time use better parts. I can see a loophole being exploited by the router manufacturers is to launch a new line of business budget models that are basically the same models as consumer ones with slight changes. "It is in a different housing and the we updated [meaningless metric] to double."

And how will requiring the PCBs be manufactured in the US prevent backdoors from being designed in the system. The backdoors are at the firmware level not during assembly.

The problem is the solution is also shortsighted. Rather than target TP-Link routers, all consumer routers are affected. Business routers are not affected. Also making the router made in the US does not actually remove any back doors. The back doors were placed in the design not the assembly of the router.

And the thought never occurred to you the AI gives you code riddle with syntax errors somehow gives you the correct code. It must be my fault. Just like it was my fault that you assumed everything.

Regardless if I need or want help, you think I need help from you. I don't want your help. I don't need your help. You don't accept it when someone say "no" to you, do you?

I think he was talking about casting Orlando Bloom to play a younger Legolas ten years after he portrayed him. It was unnecessary as The Hobbit book did not feature Legolas. It has been a while since I read the book, but I only remember Legolas being mentioned briefly in the book.

The real question is how much studio interference will there be? A reason The Hobbit trilogy was terrible was it was a trilogy. But the trilogy was mandated by the studio. There was simply not enough material to make 3 movies only 2. Another reason was the studio interference drove away Guillermo Del Toro who was originally supposed to direct the trilogy. Peter Jackson had to step in as he was the head of the production company. Instead of years he had to plan for The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Jackson had weeks to prepare for The Hobbit.

It was not an argument from authority. I posted metrics about the movie. You have posted nothing but your personal opinion.

The Oscars are based on a voting system of peers. In this case a peers in the motion picture industry. My point is that is their opinion. How should your opinion negate theirs other than your own personal taste of the movie?

As a director, he has made the studio money. That is my point. Some directors lose money for their studios.

With that all said: Do you have any points other than your personal taste of the director's former movie that he is not credible.

His argument is his opinion of a movie projected onto another movie is equally meaningless. He thought the previous drama/comedy movie was boring. How does that make the director less credible when it comes to his new documentary movie?

Credibility is not the same as opinion. Your argument is your opinion which is based entirely on your personal taste of the movie should automatically negate everything about the director. If we look at metrics, the movie made $143M on an estimated budget of $25M at the box office. If we look accolades, it won seven Oscars. Besides your personal taste, did you have any points about the director's credibility?

Do you hear yourself? I never once specified what I promoted exactly. But it is my fault you assumed.

And that is the height of arrogance. You assumed that I needed or wanted or asked help. I neither need or want your help. End of story.

I have NEVER posted what was in my actual prompt. I posted GENERALLY what I asked. You assumed or imagined what I prompted.

So none of your criticism have any relevance if you don't know what I prompted, does it?

Unfortunately this administration is unlikely to pursue the case further.