Seconded on the Tapo line. I got a Tapo C120 earlier this year and they are surprisingly cheap (currently $28 at B&H) and fairly easy to work with. I found that I needed to initially connect it to their cloud service to get their app working with it, but once that worked, I removed its ability to phone home by blocking the MAC address from the internet on my router. I can still connect to it with RTSP and stream with VLC, replay video with their app, etc. with no need for internet connectivity. Just be aware that if it can't connect to an NTP server that the timestamp in the video will be off... but you can disable the timestamp. It also logs decent resolution video and low bitrate audio to microSD which is handy. I get about two weeks of archived 24/7 footage with a 256 GB card. One drawback is that it is limited to using 2.4 GHz WiFi, which I find to have more interference than 5 GHz in my location. Everyone's situation is different in that regard though.

Yes, but in this case the US Government is the bank... China owns $700b of their debt, and can effectively either ask them to pay it back (cash out) when the bonds mature or dump some - or all - of them on the bond market at any point they choose.

Dumping them reduces their value, including any of China's remaining holdings, but would almost certainly cause the US' credit rating to be downgraded - and therefore the interest required to service its debt - all $38 trillion and counting of it! - to go up. It doesn't take many fractions of a percentage point increase to cause the US economy real problems in that scenario. If they decide to cash out mature bonds, then the US either has to pay up - which basically means balancing cutting budgets and raising taxes to raise the cash, or printing more money and devaluing the Dollar to pay for it instead; meaning prices of US imports and the cost of servicing the remaining debt both go up again. Neither are going to be popular with the US electorate.

The final option would be the nuclear one; default. That would crash the US economy completely, and bring most of the rest of the world's down with it, but especially those that have a significant slice of the global financial markets and a heavy reliance on imports (US, UK, EU...), but less so for those that, for various reasons, don't import much and are less dependant on the financial markets (BRICS). A default would also mean that the US' credit rating and value of the USD would go way down, so interest rates go through the roof and the cost of imports would skyrocket. On the plus side (if you can call it that), with the USD being worth less compared to other currencies, and perhaps significantly so, it could become *really* easy for the US to export anything it can still produce once the dust settles.

So, I take it you didn't read and understand my comment? At no point did I say China's imports are considerably smaller than their imports - I actually stated the opposite (see the last sentence of the first paragraph) - just that it's not quite the almost absolute "all or nothing" OP implied.

To re-iterate: Plenty of countries make stuff China wants, and they do indeed import in significant quantities from many different countries, contrary to what OP implied, it's just that despite all those imports their exports *still* massively outstrip their imports (as your linked data clearly indicates). Also, OP implied they were just sitting on the resulting surplus as cash (virtual or not), which was the real point of my post - that they are not doing that at all. They are, in fact, weaponising it and turning it into the economic equivalent of an aircraft carrier by buying government bonds (e.g. the national debt) of countries that they may have a problem with in the future. Many of the rest they are shackling using Belt & Road loans. If it comes to it, being able to crash an adversaries economy by dumping those bonds, then hitting it with a barrage of cyber attacks, there's a pretty good chance they'll be on their knees and have a panicing population to deal with before anyone even needs to fire off any kind of conventional weaponry.

That's a very western-centric view. China imports a large range of products extensively, including western produce and finished goods. Examples include: specialist electrical and mechnical goods, especially for manufacturing their exports and for medical/scientific/power generation use; oil and gas; grain and soy beans; prestige western cars, mostly European; plus significant quantities of various ores, minerals, and other raw materials... They do have a significant trade surplus, but it's nothing like as vast your comment implies.

Regardless, it might just be a database entry of some numbers, but don't just sit on it but rather convert it into things like government gilts and bonds - "Treasury Securities", in US parlance. Still a database entry, but one that turns that fiat piece of coloured paper into a way to help out an ally, or into a notional lever they could pull to disrupt the economy of the bonds they hold; dump a large number of the bonds, and watch the economy in question take a dive as inflation spirals upwards. Yes, the book value of the rest of their holding goes down too, but that's still a better use of the money than just torching the virtual equivalent of a pile of coloured paper sat in a warehouse, Joker style.

As of September, China is currently the third largest foreign holder of US T-Bills ($700.5b), after Japan ($1189.3b) and the UK ($865.0b), then you're rapidly into the long tail with Canada in 4th place at a "mere" $475.8b. That's quite a lot of influence, should they choose to use (read "burn") it.

But that would have ended with Russia not being owned by Russians.

The only thing "Russian" about the people that own Russia now is the country on their passports, which they probably don't use anyway because of the sanctions etc. from Ukraine and that many have citizenship in whichever country they have moved to. They sure as hell don't give a damn about the country, it's people, or anything else "Russia", besides their ability to keep extracting money and influence from it.

Of course, you could say that about a lot of the people that essentially own the rest of the world too.

Doubly so in this case, albeit of a slightly different nature. I keep coming across IP addresses that are managed by Cloud Innovations all the time, and almost always leased out to some sketchy ISP that is either heavily compromised by botnets, or an out and out "bullet proof" hosting provider. The latter are particularly interesting as they are presumably raking in the cash because they both covering Lu's rental fees and maintaining a business relationship because they keep cycling to new subnets as the previous ones get blocked. That implies they are not defaulting on the rental fees, and Lu is either oblivious to what that continual changing of ranges for the same customer implies or is fully aware of, and therefore supporting, this kind of activity.

10m IPs, huh. /checks blocklist. Yeah, I've got just over a third of that blocked & flagged as "Cloud Innovations" at the moment, most of which are in /16 and larger IPv4 allocations. About 7m to go, I guess... Thank $deity for IPSets...

National budgets simply do not, and cannot, work that way. Taxes go into a central pot, and then get assigned out according to the priorities of the state as interpreted by the government that currently controls the national purse strings, ideally without having to borrow any additional money although that seldom happens and is deeply unpopular when it does (see "Austerity" - governments typicallydo not live within their means, yet usually expect their publics to do just that). For the whole system to work, they have to both tax things that are easy to collect the tax on, and over tax those things to make up for the costs of things where it is not easy to tax. If you want any taxes spent to be proportionate to what they are raised from, then the outcome will be a LOT of essential services that are currently supported by the public purse seeing drastic cuts, forcing more people to go private or join a *long* waiting list, and requiring suplemental per-use fees.

For most people, sure the odometer will be fine, but some of us live in rural communities and have vehicles that are used a significant amount of time off public roads, but still need to be taxed for their on-road usage - think tractors or road-legal quad bikes, for a couple of very obvious examples. A simple "per mile driven" based on the odometer is not the perfectly fair "one size fits all" solution that it might at first seem to be if those kinds of vehicles go electric at some point, so I think a little more nuance may be required before this scheme sees the light of day. Privacy concerns aside, many of those issues could easily be addressed via GPS-based tracking of just public road usage, and could also enable more nuanced billing to try deter drivers from using busy roads at peak times, effectively turning any road that is applied to into a toll road.

It should also be noted that this is on top of existing vehicle tax, which is paid as an annual fee in the UK. People with large SUVs and commercial vehicles will still be paying more to drive those vehicles per year, but whether the plan is to shift more of that tax to the per-mile rax rates based on criteria such as the likely amount of road surface wear they will create, e.g. different per mile rates for larger vehicles, isn't yet clear, either. Overall, it's probably the fairest system for users of different types of vehicle classes and power trains to pay their share of the public highway costs, but the devil is always in the details and at this point there are scant few of those available to see where the issues people ought to be concerned about might lie.

They clearly do NOT think it is safe. From TFS, emphasis mine:

"It is important to differentiate between the highly toxic PFAS such as PFOA and PFOS for which the EPA has set drinking water standards, versus less toxic PFAS in pesticides that help maintain food security," notes Doug Van Hoewyk, a toxicologist at Maine's Department of Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry.

Less toxic is still toxic. So, they *know* it's bad for you (and probably the environment/local ecology too), just not as bad, and yet they still expect you to be grateful for their efforts and quite literally lap it up. Good luck getting that shit on the shelves of places like the EU that have reasonable food standards, regardless of any tariffs or TACOs.

Given most people think "dams, reservoirs, and turbines" when they hear the word "hydro", it's also worth pointing out that the UK has a lot of untapped tidal potential as well; the Severn estruary in particular is one of the largest tidal bores in the world, twice a day, and its energy potential will only increase as sealevels rise. Combine that with some suitable storage system, and you'll have another clean (once set up) and predictable supply capacity to offset some more of the current carbon-based baseload.

So... Did you work on Microsoft Excel, the Intel Pentium, or both?

You jest, but it truly is terrible. Take this bit (if true): "(According to the report, more than 60 percent of students who took the previous version of the course couldn't divide a fraction by two." My immediate reaction to that was "WTF!?" You just need to double the denominator and simplify if possible and it's all integers no matter what, but, even if you don't simplify, 2/6 and 1/3 both answer the question "what is half of 2/3?".

That's not just a failure in maths skills, it's a failure in basic comprehension and ability to conceptualise a problem, which is far more wide-ranging and impactful than just being bad at math.

Sure, but nothing tangible would be lost - just some notional "Market Cap" reduction which is only really meaningful to Wall Street types, although that would also impact people's pension's etc.

Where nVidia would be exposed would be is companies have bought significant quantities of their chips, but go bust when the bubble pops without settling their invoices from nVidia first. Best case that ties up nVidia's cash while the bankruptcy process happens and they get a significant slice of the outstanding financial pie. Worst case the companies in question all implode with significant debts to multiple parties, their assets (mostly nVidia's chips) get sold off to pay off those debts, but nVidia still gets next to nothing once the assets are divied up. Combined with a heavily reduced market cap, that leaves nVidia with a significant reduction in cash-in-hand and a lack of value with which to help secure loans and investment, which in any case would need to come from a financial market reeling from a multi-trillion dollar bubble pop. The reality is more likely to be somewhere in the middle, but nVidia isn't going to sail through this completely unscathed either.

It's not just about the packages and whether they are malicious or not. These, so far at least, are not - AFAICT they don't even *claim* do anything at all that is functionally useful to a coder so they are never going to get downloaded; their sole purpose is to earn the uploader some of these TEA tokens which, when amalgamated across a few hundred thousand packages, is presumably worth something to them, or why bother? Now that the jig is up, the people that do like to peddle such malware are probably not looking too kindly on whoever pulled this off.

That's the secondary issue here ; like many similar things, whoever came up with this TEA token either didn't consider, or didn't care about, human nature. Anyone with half a clue, or the slightest care about the integrity of such a scheme, should be well aware by now that if you can earn something of value (which need not be monetary) by doing some online clicks, likes, shares, uploads, or whatever then some asshat is going to try and exploit the system so they can get all the benefits without the effort. If your system isn't baking in countermeasures against that kind of abuse, then it's a PoS that should never have left the drawing board but, all too often, human nature rears its head again and says "ship it anyway!" and the enshitification continues.

They hyperscalers are building out (or re-activating) grid-level power supplies for DCs that are not online yet, so are essentially not included in the 2025 figures. All Electrek (a pro-green energy site with a very obvious bias to that effect) are saying is that we collectively built out enough solar and wind to exceed the overall global increase in demand during 2025. Sure, that's a good thing, but it says nothing about how much excess non-green capacity was decomissioned last year (relatively speaking, hardly any), or by just how much that annual green capacity roll out will need to ramp-up to avoid building/re-activating additional non-green power plants to power the new hyperscaler DCs over the next few years (quite a lot, unless the AI bubble pops and most of them never get built).

Frankly, I'd prefer it if they just stopped trying to put a positive spin on everything green and told it like it is for those too dumb/lazy to read between the lines. Yes, we're collectively rolling out greener energy sources at a decent clip, but still far, far, below the rate needed to achieve any meaningful mitigation of mankind's effect on the climate in the timescales that are probably required. According to Electrek nearly everything moving us towards a net zero economy automatically gets an A+ when the reality is probably closer to a B-, or even a C+, must try harder.