Because they don't. That's the basic error. Yes, sometimes they cooperate. But the U.S. cooperates with China from time to time. And even with Russia, when it comes to the Ukraine War, especially with Donald Trump at the helm. Is the U.S. now a secret ally of Iran, because the U.S. sells soy beans to China, and Iran sells oil to China? As I say, you have a completely simplistic world view, lumping everything together, and blind to what really goes on.

Oil prices rise, and what's the U.S. answer to that? Lift oil sanctions against Iran and Russia. What does Putin want more than more revenue to finance his war? He does not need to step in in support of Iran. He got everything he wanted out of the conflict already. Even the amount of air defense missiles the U.S. could potentially sell to the Ukraine is reduced, because they are now all fired into Iran, 10 million dollar items, each to shut down a single 1000 dollar drone. North Korea acts according to the well known strategy: "Don't stop your enemy when he is making mistakes". And what does Trump? Getting angrier and threatening to leave NATO, which has nothing to do with the war on Iran, did not want the war in Iran, even warned him that this would be exactly the big blunder it proves to be. But I fully support the other NATO members here: You break it, you own it. Donald Trump led the U.S. in this quagmire without any necessity. It's his very own job to clean up the mess he made.

That's your error in a nutshell.

Yes, they are bad, and I don't want to live in any of the countries. But lumping them together and consider them a monolithic block marching in sync is such a misjudgment of reality, that it is exactly that simplistic world view I am referring to. If the police chases a suspected killer, do you expect the thief to come out in support of the killer, just because both are bad? No, the thief does not care if the police catches the killer or not. He will seize the opportunity with the eyes of the police somewhere else to continue stealing unimpeded. That's what Putin or Xi Jinping or Kim Jong-Un are doing right now. There is no point in defending Iran and getting into the line of fire. The eyes of the world are somewhere else, and they can continue whatever they are up to right now with less scrutiny.

The world is not a superhero comic, where the superhero with supernatural superpowers thumps the baddie and everyone applauds. The world is not a secret agent movie where there is only one real antagonist, everyone else considered bad is in serfdom to him, and his henchmen lack any marksmanship, while the agent will hit two of them with a single .22 round from 1000 yards away. And the world is not a chess game with a limited set of pieces, each with a limited set of legal moves, and you win by catching the enemy's king.

1) They knew it already. Nothing to see here. Iran was always the outcast on the Persian Gulf, being Shiite, anti-monarchist and Non-Arabian.

2) That's the whole point. Iran shows that you can do damage cheaply, and very expensive to defend against, even against an enemy with far superior firepower.

3) It was before, and like Hamas, it is so deeply rooted in society that you have to kill the population, e.g. commit genocide to get it out.

Why should China and North Korea come out in support? Do they gain anything from their verbal support? As long as China gets its oil from Iran (which it does, and cheaper than other countries), it just sits and waits. And North Korea could not care less for Iran, but grins broadly because the U.S. is wasting money and military power somewhere else.

Your whole idea how the world works is very simplistic and in a black-and-white, us-versus-them scheme.

1. You couldnâ(TM)t buy a 256 GB SSD drive in 2010

2. I like lots of storage, so I have an extra 2TB SSD. Itâ(TM)s pseudo SLC, so itâ(TM)s quite slow and bloody cheap.

The Mac neo puts fear into all the computer makers. With an A19 chip, there is just more fear.

Apple can build a much better model, with A19 instead of A18 for the same money. Customers will love it. And. no extra cost.

But just because they could not. Russia, being a imperialistic country since the Grand Prince of Moscow named himself Czar of all Russians, would immediately if given the chance.

Define "established session", and how it works with SIP or H.323, and what happens if signalling runs within an encrypted channel!

According to the writeup; there are two methods: it is possible for an extension to mark some parts of itself as 'web accessible'; and linkedin has assembled at least one characteristic file for 6,1000-odd extension IDs and attempts to fetch it to confirm/deny the extension's presence.

The other is based on the fact that the whole point of many extensions is to modify the site in some way; but the site normally has largely unfettered access to inspect itself, so they have theirs set up to walk the entire DOM looking for any references to "chrome-extension://" and snagging the IDs if found.

Not exactly a 'declare installed extensions'; but it looks like, out of some combination of supporting the use cases where an extension and page actively interact by design and either not wanting the possibility or not wanting the complexity of trying to enable 'invisible' edits(presumably some sort of 'shadow' DOM mechanism where as far as the site and everything delivered with it knows only its unedited DOM and resources exist; but the one the user sees is an extension-modified copy of that one, which sounds like it could get messy), inferential attacks are fairly easy and powerful.

Where exactly does supporting 3 people on $133k/year count as 'upper middle class'? You could be doing a lot worse, and many are; but that's not just tons of money in a HCOL area; and that's also lower than twice the median salary for full time employees with bachelor's degrees; so you are calling either a single income household doing a bit better than median or a dual income one doing worse 'upper middle class'; which seems pretty ambitious.

It's hard to train a cow to keep its cellphone charged; so you can see why you need something to keep their tracking collars topped up.

Realistically, the status quo has arguably outrun the dystopia there. Your phone already does far more than anything you could get into the power envelope of a bracelet or embedded chip implant, and if for some reason you've raised enough eyebrows that you'd be hauled in for an RFID read DNA is a pretty indelible identifier.

It's not 100% ironclad; but penetration is broad enough that you've basically got the majority carrying highly fingerprintable RF beacons and the minority standing out for their relative radio silence and attempts to deal in cash. Expensive and uncomfortable ankle trackers are good business and feel nice and punitive, just to remind the wrong sort of people we aren't happy with them; but you don't really need to impose a surveillance society when it will build itself for you.

My (admittedly anecdotal from the totally unscientific sample of random stuff I've had reason to work on) impression is that some 'shared' BMC ports had oddities related to network controller sideband interface speeds, since NC-SI is what the BMC is depending on if the NIC is on someone else's PCIe root. It's not like the BMC actually needs a faster link for much(normal management traffic probably doesn't fill 10mb and mounting virtual media may be literally once-in-a-lifetime) so the actual speed of the NC-SI interface was not a burning priority; but it left things up to the NIC whether it would support remaining at gigabit speeds and just quietly slipping the trickle of shared traffic in(presumably slightly more complex; but seems to be what the newer ones do) or if it would knock the link rate down visibly to simplify the case.

You see little echoes of similar behavior elsewhere. The intel desktop and laptop NICs that support 'vPRO' will be GB or 2.5GB when the system is on; but quietly drop back to 10 or 10/100 when it is off and it's just the management engine listening. Some enterprise vendor USB docks do similar things; looks like a normal USB NIC when the OS is up; but drops to a lower speed and operates quietly over, I think, some sort of oddball vendor-defined messages if one of their systems is plugged in but off.

Still, you got it wrong, because the curve around 100 is flat, and given that the IQ is rounded to a whole number, a significant part of the population has an IQ of 100 (or 99.5 to 100.5). Thatâs what the curve vs. triangle was aimed at. Add to the fact that individual results can vary a lot, depending on the exact Series and the current State of mind of the one tested, results between 95 and 105 are well within the IQ-100 group.

I assume that, as an exercise, getting 5 simultaneous introductions working makes for a better paper; but is there a reason why you would want that in practice? Especially if there is any wobble in the ratios either randomly, across generations, or in the presence of certain environmental conditions that tweak the plant's metabolism one way or another that sounds like it would be a real pain in the ass to have to re-balance (and, if different patients are deemed to need different combinations even a perfectly stable plant is going to need re-balancing of the outputs) vs. very specifically going for a specific target output per-plant(or e. coli or yeast or whatever is easiest to bioreactor) and then just mixing to taste after purification. Is there some advantage I'm not seeing?

I realize that there are cases where some plant-sourced pharmacological effect looks like it is actually driven not by the identified 'active ingredient'; but by dozens or hundreds of assorted things, and in that case you just have to live with the complexity if you get better results with that than with purified isolates; but if you are deliberately engineering for very specific outputs why a mix of 5?