This discussion on their inclusion in Mozilla is quite revealing:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/s...

Elsewhere it's claimed that they used a FIPS HSM to generate their keys.

I did not see who their auditor was.

Did eMudhra lie?
Did the auditor lie?
Are FIPS HSM's backdoored?
Do we have another Dual_EC_DRBG situation on our hands here?

If nobody is lying we could have just seen a huge cyberwar or false flag averted. Essential crypto gear could be totally buggered still.

PS Remember when Mozilla gave CACert absolute hell for years when they were tremendously more competent?

When do you think Sonic the Hedgehog was released?

I too would be tempted to riot if my government destroyed industry and caused high level of joblessness by shutting down energy production. Supposedly for environmental reasons, but only to start burning coal again. Like they did in Germany.

If your argument that your environmental solution is no better than status quo, then we agree in principle.

I thought we lured them all onto Facebook then ran for the hills?

Maybe the jacket has a kevlar fiber for support?

Of course they would do that.

This is unwarranted optimism, except for special permits, everyone in EU, including in Germany is getting banned. Including criticizing politicians.

I am not familiar with other points, but this seems to be spot on. You don't replace copper with aluminum for very known reasons. Recycling for most rare materials is only theoretical, as it doesn't happen in practice, and batteries in 2026 are still currently largely just landfilled instead of recycling. So if I extrapolate from these points - Michaux is spot-on while you are confusing what ought to be with what is.

We might disagree on many points, but I think we can both agree that recycling should be much further along for all aspects of common goods - batteries, electronics, consumer plastics, etc.

What in my "you had other people pay for your solar panels" response is not clear?

Dude...you just replied to an apple product.

So... Russia isn't actually gaining anything meaningful. In fact, they've twice had to revise their stupid maps because they didn't get anywhere near the territory gains they claimed to.

Every city they've claimed to capture in the last four years has been nothing more than a pile of rubble. A useless pile of rubble that you literally spent tens of thousands of cold Russian bodies to get. And you know why you think it's worth it? Because Russians are so fucking incompetent that, in fact, they are worth less than a fucking pile of rubble. So congratulations, you technically have a net gain, though it's still pretty meaningless. But every worthless rubble is important, because that's just how fucking poor and stupid you are.

You know why the loss of these datacenters is so problematic? Because the people you'd need to build more have either fled the country, or they've been traded for a pile of rubble.

I've been saying for years now that you have nothing to gain by staying in Ukraine, but you do have everything to lose. You're already losing it, but like a bad gambler, you're losing even more just to try to chase your losses. You can't regain your losses. Digging the hole deeper doesn't help you get out of it. I shouldn't even need to say that, but you're Russian, so it must be said, and even then you still won't fully understand.

Really the only reason you guys even continue is because you, as a culture, are willing to sacrifice every piece on the board to ensure your tsar lives for another ten seconds. You guys haven't changed a bit since your first tsar sucked off the golden horde.

What in my response make you think I don't understand what mitigation is? Be specific.

Your installation was subsidized and incentivized with tax dollars and above-market utility purchase rates, that in turn increased costs of electricity for everyone.

Citation required.

My understanding, based on Michaux 2021 work, that there is not enough minerals to manufacture required number of EVs. New technologies that use no/less of exotic minerals, more mining, more refining, etc. would be required to achieve that goal. All of this might be doable, but transition would be multi-decade long.

Mitigation is not happening because reducing emissions was never a goal of environmentalism. The system is what it does. Environmentalism reduces energy available to an individual (and therefore reducing personal freedoms and quality of life). Therefore, this is its purpose. The fact that alternative solutions, such as mitigation of climate change or nuclear, are not seriously considered just demonstrate that.