...it's

The obvious answer is to simply disconnect regions that impose internet-breaking restrictions. If a region believes the rest of the world is responsible for parenting their dumb children, and in particular they're willing to sue when someone else fails to live down to the standards they think their little sheltered idiots need to engage the world and that they're too incompetent to provision themselves, then merely politely tell them their entire region is insufficiently sophisticated to interact and pull their plug.

We really need a FOSS maintained "Gilead regions" IP block list, v4 and v6, for independent operators and national ISPs and DNS providers engaged to banlist those regions from interacting with the an internet that doesn't work for them. They have every right to decide for themselves, but not for anyone else.

FreeBSD powers my personal infrastructure and has for decades. It is easy to use, not bloated (too badly, though you now have to take steps to keep that damn Wayland out of a server, WTF, but you can with /etc/make.conf). Having eventually made the shift to Poudriere, the package and code management is very good. Fixes for maintained packages are an overnight thing, but some of the major upstream dependencies have the same level of responsiveness as in Linux - better than any commercial software, but not as good as pure FreeBSD.

Moving from SVN to git kinda sucked, but now it works well enough and gets the job done and keeps the Linux heads happy.

whut?

Time out, it kinda got ahead of us, everyone needs a break. Just unplug the whole internet and let NIST catch up. It's not safe to be connected without a current CVE database.

Scientists: There is no god.

Also scientists: There is likely a god, and he lives in his mom's basement.

Yes!

We must build an absolute monopoly on inventions which is permanent and heritable even if by so doing retard the progress of science and the useful arts. Without legislative protection, innovation would be like fire, expansible over all space, without lessening their density in any point; and like the air in which we breathe, move, and have our physical being, incapable of confinement, or exclusive appropriation. Society must give a permanent exclusive right to the profits arising from them, lest they be denied by their nature the status of property.

Just like every other trivial issue it will blown up until it is a major crisis.

I do not understand that you think that everyone having a new car made for them does not harm the environment. About 30% of an ICE car's pollution is from the manufacture and 50% of an EV. If you run an ICE on ethanol it means that the ICE car does far less damage to the environment. The cost to the environment will not be favourable even if we continued to use fossil fuels but the cost to the environment is not good with EVs due to their short lifespan yet ICE last much longer. We can agree that it is time to progress from fossil fuels even though we will argue about the extent of the problem but EVs are just another dead end technology. VW, Audi etc. are going with ethanol, hardly niche if you get out, whereas Toyota believe the future is hydrogen (water as exhaust). You are entitled to your opinion but my point is that it is just an opinion and the experts do not agree on the best way forward.

OK, now which do you think is better for the environment? A) Everyone buying a new electric car B) People converting their current car to ethanol - Why are we being forced to buy a new car when it will do far more harm than good?

> You can go visit Chernobyl right now. Yes but there are many areas which you are not allowed to go near. The idea of people living near is deceptive. They can tell which areas are relatively safe and there are people there but a mile down the road you would not be able to dig a foot deep hole and live to see your next birthday because the ground is simply a covering over a highly irradiated subsoil which must not be disturbed or the wind would spread the radiation.

Although current nuclear is the most expensive when you consider the total cost from start to finish the average person only considers the cost of a running nuclear plant producing his watt of electricity and that blinkered view sees nuclear as cheap, just like the electric car is great whilst it bumbles down the road but the total cost is horrific. Wind is not perfect but it is better but the short lifespan and pollution (massive grp structure with a short lifespan) is an issue.

Did as you say and am interested that you consider Russia a rich country or Kazakhstan...

If that were true they would not need to ban ICEs as they would naturally stop being bought. I totally accept that for many people EVs are the best thing since sliced bread but I do not accept that legislation should force their adoption. The people of Norway do not want to be forced to change even though many wish to change. Most of the headlines come from cities where a large section of the population live but those people out in the countryside live very different lives. City infrastruction should be electrified and trams and EV delivery trucks are essential but there are many cases outside the cities where that is not the case.

I do understand that this is in effect a religion and reality is forbidden in any discussion but I spent December and January in Sweden and while I was there I noticed that there were no EVs. I spoke to the locals and was told, very matter of fact, that EVs do not work in the cold weather. It was -27 and if you have your phone in your jacket pocket it dies after about 15 minutes. An EV has its battery under the floor so the effect is the same. I did find the difference between what the media tells me and the reality I saw shocking but not surprising given all the other rubbish I get like the idea that they create less pollution during manufacture when the battery alone creates more pollution on its own than an ICE car that lasts several times as long or the fact that they are only compared to petrol or diesel as if there are no other choices. It is a religion rather than a rational option which it would be a good option. EVs are not bad but they are not the right choice for everyone so why are they being forced on us when they are not always better unless you make out that there is no other option. In Sweden every gas station had ethanol and biodiesel avaiable so you did not have to buy an EV to get away from fossil fuel.