You mean... like the former JCPOA with its sharp enforcement teeth? (that everyone other than Trump's ego agreed was actually working before he tore it up?)

Over the past half-decade (ie since the current "country" has existed), Iran has not been the aggressor in any of the conflicts it's been involved with, nor has it broken any treaty it has signed. Why do I bring this up? Because the other side -- namely US (and Israel's hand up Trump's posterior) has repeatedly been the [direct!] aggressor, and also demonstrated that it cannot be trusted to adhere to anything it signs.

Uh, Trump tore up the treaty we had with them and unilaterally re-imposed harsh economic sanctions.

That's practically a textbook definition of "stopping them from investing in their own future"

(Meanwhile, he's in the process of repeating the NAFTA->USMCA process and "negotiating" a *worse* deal than what we had before, and branding it as a victory)

It's not that "they removed 10Mbps support" so much as the underlying ethernet hardware (MAC and/or PHY) used by that new router simply doesn't support it. Might not even support 100Mbps either; once you cross into multi-gigabit world, sub-1Gbps support is the exception rather than the rule. Why? Because that would require a more complex (ie expensive) design and be utilized by almost nobody.

The 80486 processor was _technically_ capable of addressing 4GB of RAM. But given that the largest 30-pin SIMM produced was limited to 16MB (due to 24-bit addressing) in practice the upper limit was 128MB, using 8* 16MB SIMMs. (I'm not aware of any mass-market motherboard with over 8 30-pin SIMM slots, but I'm willing to be corrected) Late 486 boards supported 72-pin SIMMs which could theroretically go up to 128MB, but the largest FPM (not the later/faster EDO!) SIMM I was able to find is 64MB, and those 72-pin-equipped 486 boards appeared to still be limited to just two slots, again, for 128MB effective max.

(Additionally, many motherboards were limited to using only 16MB or 32MB max RAM due to cost-cutting with respect to the onboard L2 cache)

And sure, you could use a nice flashy GUI on an Amiga 500 with its M68K and 512K of RAM, but that doesn't mean the A500 is terribly usable for real-world tasks today. Like it or not, folks expect modern $10 systems to achieve far more than what was state-of-the-art thirty years ago.

...Because that's the upper limit of high-end 486 motherboards.

The 80486 was essentially e-waste by the year 2000. Even ultra-conservative Debian completely dropped support for the i486 over decade ago (with Squeeze going out of LTS in Feburary of 2016 after a 5 year run)

Incidently, the first Linux install I ever performed was in early 1997, on an ISA-only 486DX33 motherboard +200MB pre-DMA IDE drive that I literally rescued from the trash.

Hate to burst your bubble, but this scenario has played out under every adminstration... ever. A company cannot sponsor someone for a security clearance until after they are hired, and it can easily take months for the clearance process to complete... with no guarantees of success.

These delays -- or worse yet, the strong possibility that you might fail to get a clearance -- are why folks that already have security clearances are a _lot_ more valuable for DoD/etc contractors.

(FYI: I had a roommate who later went to for Lockheed Martin, and he effectively twiddled his thumbs for six months while the clearance paperwork worked its way through the bowels of the DoD. This happened during the first term of the notoriously liberal Bush/Cheney admininstration.)

Oh noes! In order to avoid spending a little bit of money to help ffmpeg maintain a quality codebase, they'll instead spend a *lot* more money switching to something else... and still be faced with the same "maintenance isn't free" problem when they continue to freeload off of someone else's work.

(And that's putting aside the basic problem that there isn't really "something else" that itself isn't built on top off ffmpeg, which drives up the costs of switching even more. Of course, there may be commercial products that do this stuff already, but .. that's still going to cost you more on an ongoing basis than just tossing some relative breadcrumbs towards ffmpeg's maintainers!)

The UAW doesn't design cars. Their members assemble said cars to the supplied spec, using the supplied parts.

Underpowered drivetrain? Not the UAW. Poor interior quality (eg material choice or NVH)? Not the UAW. Buggy/laggy infotainment? Not the UAW.

Also not the UAW -- owners that don't maintain their vehicles.

What is the UAW's fault? Assembly errors. Assuming said errors weren't actually made by robots, part suppliers, or written into of the instructions the UAW was working from.

That's not how the law works. Even with today's MAGA-neutered NLRB.

(FYI, every business owner knows the government already dictates quite a lot about how their companies are structured, run, and otherwise governed)

I'll call your anectdote and raise you mine.

My ex (a highly skilled ICU nurse) was utterly screwed over by her supervisor in a cut-and-dry case of workplace harassment. The nurse's union -- that she wasn't even a part of -- fought on her behalf and won, yielding a decent settlement that included back pay and removing her from a career-ending blacklist.

Meanwhile, when it comes to politics, you're confusing cause and effect. The reason why most unions lean heavily Democrat (notably excluding those representing law enforcement personnel) is that the other candidates (and/or office holders) are campaigning on (if not actually enacting) policies that actively screw over their members. Blaming unions for this is like blaming the proverbial nerd for his face being in the way of a bully's fist.

Incidentally, it's illegal for normal union dues to fund political activities. Just like it's illegal for churches to do the same. Or at least it was until this past July.

So you're saying their reluctance to hire folks has nothing to do with the macroeconomic situation where entire industries are being whiplashed by the "brain" farts of the cheeto-in-chief and his ongoing quest to take a wrecking ball the century-old economic structure of the domestic (and global) economy?

It isn't, and you don't.

Google is implementing this in order to comply with legal requirements that (1) require them to sanction "bad" people, and (2) place them on the hook for security and malware on Android *even if not distributed by Google's storefront*.

Meanwhile, other regulations require that the device maker lock the hardware down so that mere mortals cannot mess with the radio -- be it transmitting OR receiving -- It's a literal felony to listen in on cellular radio bands. Depending on how the hardware is implemented, this can mean locking down the hardware too.

So sure, you own the inert hardware. But the software isn't yours; it never was -- Unless you wrote it from scratch, anyway. But you can't do that either, as anything to do with breaking digital locks (describing how, creating/distributing tools, and the actual breaking of said locks) that would allow you to run arbitrary software is also a felony in most of the world.

you left out:

4) $employee may need to be a US citizen (and/or physically performed in the US) if you are involved in any sort of government [sub]contracting.
5) Timezones are a bitch, especially when there's an ocean in the middle.
6) You don't want to have to deal with language barriers
7) Complying with labor, tax, workplace requirements, and undoubtedly many other laws of $other_country is a huge administrative PITA if you don't already have a business presence there.
8) etc

The assertion was "When have taxes ever paid for more than a quarter of what the government spends?"

I answered that. ("approximately always", where the exceptions were during existential crisies such as, oh, WW2. but even then I imagine )

So you moved the goalpoasts with "Can you please look at that and tell me tax receipts are not any kind of limitation on spending?"

I also answered part of that ("state and local governments generally have to have balanced budgets as a matter of law"). the federal governement doesn't have that sort of direct restriction (beyond the "debt limit" political football that only seems to matter when Democrats are in charge), but the feds still have to pay back their own debts -- debts nearly entirely owed Americans, I might add. Levied taxes (which includes tariffs) is effectively the only way they can do that. Technially there are other ways, eg investment profits (including interest on loans given out) or direct gifts to the government, but those are a proverbial drop in the bucket.

As for your "print the money and index inflation away", that only works when they keep the actual inflation rate below the rate of return on treasury bonds. When we have competent, reality-based elected officials that work to better the nation as a whole, that tends to happen. Not so much at the moment.

So I once again repeat my point about not letting facts get in the way of your hyperbole.

Uh, most (if not all) of this country's entire existence?

For example, in FY2024 federal taxes paid for about 3/4ths of the government expenditures, and that is historically pretty high. State and local governments tend to generally break even ("balanced budget") as a matter of law.

But let's not facts get in the way of your hyperbole.