I've actually been peripherally involved in something like this, I think it was September 2000, maybe a few months later.
An ATC system where they had two networks, the "office" network and the "core business of actually directing flights" network. The offices were around 10 miles away from the airport, which is where the ATC mainframe and - obviously- the ATC tower were. There was a bridge between the networks.
There were building works going on in the city, and they cut the cables while excavating. The agreement with the provider was that there would be two high speed lines and that they would not be in the same bundles of cables (or maybe glass fibre, if that was a "thing" back then). Unfortunately they had not insisted in the cables being in the separate ditches. The excavator cut both connections.
This should not have been a problem, two separate networks right? The critical one was at the airport and the whole point of that setup was so things would carry on if the offices were cut off. Most of the network group worked in the offices rather than at the airport. Some component was in the offices, the router at the airport was set up so that the control traffic to that component had the highest priority.
Bottom line, the core network was nominally unaffected, but a router there was trying to reach the office network and it was using all of its processor power for that. The core network pretty much came to a standstill. I can't remember how long that outage lasted but it was several hours.

Lessons were learned and all that.
The offices moved to a new location a year or so later, something which had been in preparation for a few years by then. New offices, new cables, whatever.
In 2003 (or maybe early 2004) something similar happened, an excavator chopped the connection. I was working on the mainframes at the airport from the offices so obviously I was affected, I just drove to the airport and carried on from there, everything worked exactly as it was supposed to - the offices could communicate with each other and the ATC Tower had full access to the ATC mainframes. It took a few hours before the two networks were linked to each other again but nobody outside noticed anything.

Has he done anything Elon Musk has not also done?
The only "possible" is sleeping with someone who is believed to be a Chinese spy, and I don*'t have access to his "friends" list to see if Russian spies are in there.

Google Search is not the only search engine, and it's really rather shit nowadays.

Google is essentially threatening to restrict access to a service it's neither the only one nor the best at providing. If nothing else, it'll force the students and teachers to investigate better options - something they might not have done otherwise. Not a smart move on the part of Google...

Well, for all of those who gloried in the 50ly Traveller 2300 XYZ map of known space, spending days manually entering the data into MacSpin just to get a cool (useless for game play) 3d view of local space, this data should give them something to spend a fair amount of time plotting.

About 1900 square degrees. It's a very rough measure but I find it easier to visualize.
41000 sq degrees in a sphere.

Microsoft used to use predefined NTP servers to set users' clocks, no provision for spreading the load and no consultation before they did it. Maybe millions of XP clients every day, and large numbers of them at pretty much the same time.
What could go wrong?
Oh.

It's almost adorable when you find someone who believes one side is less corruptible than the other.
It's like saying the banker who embezzled your retirement is less icky than the the guy who stole your car.

Just a hypocrite. Like, honestly, most "green" advocates.

even if Germany has made some dumb decisions in the last decade wrt to shutting nukes

That decision was taken after the tsunami wrecked Fukushima and that happened in March 2011, something which makes for a very long "decade". I never saw the immediate point, the chances of an earthquake triggering a tsunami which takes out a nuclear power station are not that high in Germany.

"reality has a well-known liberal bias"
As we both know, reality has no bias; but Colbert's comment is so delightfully self-affirming that narcissist progressives can't stop repeating it as fact.

Personally, I think any society needs both liberals and conservatives to be healthy. Lately, progressives seem to delight in actually killing conservatives. (shrug)

Liberals cheerfully explore the world, and while many fall off cliffs, get eaten by bears, and eat berries that kill them, the ones that survive make progress possible. Without them we wouldn't have found wonderful new places better than where we were, animals to domesticate, and delicious berries that are good for us. Confident, naive liberals die in droves but pull civilization forward.

OTOH, conservatives are insurance for survival. They DON'T explore where stronger, dangerous hostile tribes may lurk to be led back to our village to enslave/kill/eat us. They don't eat those lovely red berries because the blue berries our ancestors have eaten have kept us healthy and well for centuries and are good enough, thank you. They do not accept strangers because if someone was a decent good person, why would he have been driven out of HIS village and come here?

Which is more important, survival of our tribe, or advancement for our tribe?
Trick question: both. The tension between sides is fine, rational, and normal; both should be encouraged. In a healthy society, our educational system would put out both.

What's odious to me is certainty. (To be clear, I find the same sort of certainty among Evangelicals and it is equally if not more repellent. And I consider myself a person of some Faith, maybe that's why?)

I get it; as a liberal you *have* to be confident that whatever whacky bullshit you're following today MUST be right, it MUST be better, or you wouldn't chase after it like an OCD squirrel. What's ironic is that most of the values leftists insist are core humanist values - even humanism itself - was born in the hearts of deeply religious men like Luther, Erasmus, and Scottish Presbyters.

Nationalize the discussion all you like but the US government itself isn't secure if it depends on Starlink, Microsoft, Google, or Amazon, either. To assume assume that these each have a nationalist bias is one thing, to assert that it is automagically in line with the policies and goals of the US government (or the party in power, if you will) is provably absurd.

The internet has become a major strategic context (resource? arena? theater?). Any country that maintains its sovereignty MUST insist that they control their own destiny there. OTOH only China can really say that national/corporate interests align reliably; it takes a level of central planning and control that most* would say is odious to western democratic humanism. In the west, I believe it's farcical to think that a government could possibly keep up with megacorps in this realm; it just demands too much nimbleness. So we have governments which MUST depend on corporate actors to stay in the race.
It's a puzzle which is only being repeated in AI.

*honestly, I'm not even sure what passes for western democratic values any more. Free speech? Free thought? Free religion? Secret ballots? Informed electorate?

Are you saying there was a smoking gun when it came to Huawei? All I ever saw was politicians claiming they could be doing something bad but never any form of proof, or even what they were supposed to be doing which was bad. This was during Donald's first Administration and it was luminaries like Tom Cotton jumping onto the bandwagon but never actually making substantative claims.

AI lets any cretin who can click a mouse shit out a social media app in 5 minutes.

And when someone eventually asks me why slashdot stopped publishing, I'll explain it's because the normals all departed in the face of relentless leftist screeds & waves of bot posting.

I'll save this little gem for them and explain how an Indonesian pedophile with a bot legion cosplayed as an American.

... And you prove that you don't actually want facts, merely to reinforce salacious things someone else told you.

You are the "news consumer" that's the problem.