I have been awake too long so I am probably stupid.
Please have mercy.
I don't understand.
NASA says they goal of landing on the moon in 2028 is not realistic.
They are adding a launch in 2027 to do more testing.
Great.
It will be followed by one possibly two lunar landings in 2028.
Are the now 2028 landings primarily testing SpaceX integration?
The Artemis rockets are huge, and extremely expensive.
And the build time is considerable.
Now they are planning 3 rockets in two years,
each of which is not reusable?
Then they have to build those in parallel, which makes sense
but incorporating wha you learn in 2027, into rockets you have already
nearly finished seems an odd approach
iOS is one problem, but it goes for every other
device/server/desktop/appliance that you use.
You can take a lot of precautions, and mitigate
some risk, and ensure that operations can continue
even if something bad happens¹,
but you cant ever "be safe".
¹
""
There are known knowns; there are things we know we know.
We also know there are known unknowns;
that is to say we know there are some things we do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns—the ones we don't know we don't know
""
(Often attributed to Donald Rumsfeld, though he did not originate the concept.)
The different between taxes (you -must- pay (unless X loopholes applies to you))
whereas tariffs are voluntary and even more so then sales tax.
You may chose not to buy any products or goods that requires you
to pay tariffs.
Which is the primarily goal to begin with.
Influence consumer behaviour.
I realize that for some products and goods there may not be a
an alternative choice of products or goods that do have tariffs.
In theory, over time, these will be increasingly replaced by
products and services that have the competitive advantage of
not having to tariffs applied to them.
Once tariffs are in place for a year or two it is possible
that, domestic producers have expand capacity, have created jobs
have caused supply chains shift and new production is based on
the tariff based price structure
This however takes time.
And to what extent it happens is not easy to predict.
Some may think that the next president will remove all tariffs
the moment he or she takes office, so it is a short term problem.
The problem with removing them all, is if the above has happened,
and removing them will destroy American jobs.
There's certainly a case to be made for targetted tarrifs, legally enacted, to support specific industries.
The problem with broad tarrifs by executive order under emergency powers to address longstanding issues are numerous.
Longevity and stability of the tarrifs is questionable because a new executive is likely to cancel them, the executive that issued them is likely to cancel them, and they may also be cancelled by the courts because their basis isn't solid. For some goods where production is easy to shift, it still makes sense to move it ... but then it's easy to shift out again when the winds change; goods where setting up production is a many years thing aren't likely to move with the winds.
The broad tarrifs mean that for goods that are manufactured from components of many origins, it may not make sense to pay tarrifs on the components in order to reduce tariffs on the finished goods. Or that it makes more sense to move manufacturing from one foreign country to another than to move to the US. I get it if you want to move both manufacturing and resource extraction to the US; but it would make more sense to do it one step at a time... first develop demand for the resources in the US, then push to onshore the resource extraction... OTOH a lot of americans prefer resource extraction to be out of sight, and some resources are simply not abundant here.
The other factor is that many countries respond to our broad tarrifs on their exports with their own tarrifs on our exports. This can easily hurt US producers more than it helps them. US products become more expensive in those countries due to their import tarrifs as well as US import tarrifs on the inputs and often there are many non-US suppliers to choose from; possible increases in US domestic demand may not materialize because costs will go up for US consumers as well due to tarrifs on input and potentially loss of economies of scale if the reduction in exports is significant.
I may be a free trade maximalist, but IMHO, the current admin's tariff policy is a recipie for economic slowdown. Which does help their goal of reducing immigration: the best way to reduce economic immigration is to have a deeper recession or depression than the world at large; it also helps with traffic. Big inflation numbers also push stock indexes up and reduce the cost of servicing old debt, but increase the cost of revolving and issuing new debt.
> Once tariffs are in place for a year or two it is possible that, domestic producers have expand capacity
That's how tariffs would work if wielded for the right reasons. But now domestic producers have to pay tariffs on the very machines and inputs needed to expand capacity.
Once tariffs are in place for a year or two it is possible that, domestic producers have expand capacity
Once tariffs are in place for a year or two it is possible that consumers will be paying higher prices for inferior goods from providers that can't compete elsewhere.
In other words, there are both positive and negative effects --- and no clear way to predict which will prevail.
It's 19 century economics applied in the 21st century --- it's direct government interference in the marketplace --- the opposite of what Republicans spent decades railing against.
Those are exactly the groups that are meant to pay for the tariffs.
A factor in this that is not mentioned is that companies selling
goods to the US may have made an effort to lower prices,
altering production to lessen tariffs or in other way tried to
offset the extra amount US consumers have to pay.
The big problem EUs continuous big talk on digital sovereignty,
which is a good and vital concept, is that funding is ridiculously
lacking.
Terms used like;
“European hyperscale cloud”
“Sovereign infrastructure”
“Strategic autonomy”
“European data centers for critical workloads”
Which ended up in various efforts and projects
Digital Europe Programme,
Recovery and Resilience Facility,
IPCE
(I am not deeply familiar with EU projects)
I believe funding was around low hundreds
of millions (€) total
To build one hyperscaler region might cost around €10 billion.
The second problem is that systems that were suggested
out of it still relied on US software stack, US computers,
etc.
It is not like the EU member states could not fund it,
some estimates say aggregated EU and member states have
spent €350 billion in Ukraine.
That is not to say they should not do that,
nor to suggest you have to chose one or the other
but it is demonstration
that EU+Member states can fund massive efforts,
If deemed important enough.
and EU+Memberstates so far have not felt an urgency or will
to really invest in digital sovereignty.
The EU doesn't really fund many things directly. It's total annual budget is just 170 billion euros. It can fund research and coordination projects but at the end of the day the EU is mostly a coordination mechanism for sovereign states. Looking purely at EU projects is not really a useful lense to get an idea of what is happening...
Good examples should be complete music pieces and they should be commented: where is important information? How are the numbers computed? How are commands organized? What is the practical workflow for making changes?
Syria was an absolute hell under Assad for dissidents, can't blame America for that. Iraq and Libya maybe, though Saddam and Gaddafi weren't exactly great leaders to their people either.
Anyway, IMO the thing about Iran is that it's mostly Shia, and the population isn't that religious, especially not in cities. Unlike Syria, Iraq and Libya of the past, they aren't ruled by a secular dictatorship, but religious extremists. So, while US intervention in Iraq, Libya and so on created space for religious extremists to rise, I think getting rid of Iranian government could actually do the opposite - give a chance for secular opposition to rise.
> Syria was an absolute hell under Assad for dissidents,
And now its an absolute hell for everyone.
Is that really progress?
Humanitarian Crisis:
Over 60% of the population faces food insecurity.
Millions are internally displaced, often living in
overcrowded, inadequate, and unsafe, temporary shelters.
Economic Situation:
The economy is devastated, with skyrocketing
prices for basic goods, high unemployment,
and a massive depletion of household resources.
Infrastructure and Health:
Roughly half of all hospitals are non-functional.
Access to electricity, clean water,
and sanitation is severely limited.
Education and Safety:
Roughly 1 in 4 schools are damaged or destroyed,
affecting education access.
The security situation remains volatile,
with an elevated risk of violence and
armed conflict in various parts of the country.
As of late 2025, the situation remains dire, with
continued, significant, and long-term deterioration
in the daily lives of civilians.
> Each program has a fixed authorization period (for example, the 2003–2016 framework for up to 9 billion USD, with about 3.8 billion remaining by the last extension
you mean, the US should repeat 1953 coup with the hope the outcome would be different. Communists and most military dictators in modern history have been secular...
Syria became a hell for its citizen exactly because Obama run away from enforcing the very red line (chemical weapons) he himself had drawn (for himself). He basically allowed the massacre to escalate.
I fully agree that this is disconcerting form a privacy standpoint,
and the danger it poses when Microsoft gets hacked.
As for it being user hostile.
I am pretty certain that thousands of users a year are delighted when something has gone wrong and they can recover their keys and data from the MS Cloud.
There should perhaps be a screen in a wizard,
Do you want your data encrypted?
y,n
If (yes)
Do you want to be able to recover your data if something bad happens?
(else it will be gone for ever, you can never ever access it again)
y/n
I don't understand. NASA says they goal of landing on the moon in 2028 is not realistic.
They are adding a launch in 2027 to do more testing.
Great.
It will be followed by one possibly two lunar landings in 2028. Are the now 2028 landings primarily testing SpaceX integration?
The Artemis rockets are huge, and extremely expensive. And the build time is considerable.
Now they are planning 3 rockets in two years, each of which is not reusable?
Then they have to build those in parallel, which makes sense but incorporating wha you learn in 2027, into rockets you have already nearly finished seems an odd approach
reply