No, this is deeply disturbing.
The person "whining" is the head of the regulatory body that gets to decide what can be broadcast, a supposedly non-partisan role, and yet he's just straight up threatened to cancel the licenses of everybody who's not vocally supportive of what you term the current regime.
This is.. not huge news? Google is discontinuing its own Widevine server, but Widevine is not going anywhere, you can still run your own server or use any of a number of third-party hosts offering it:
And surprise surprise, the blog post in question appears to be very thinly disguised marketing for one of those third parties.
Also, the Google service was free and came with no SLA or support, meaning anybody remotely serious about DRM was not relying it on in the first place.
> And surprise surprise, the blog post in question appears to be very thinly disguised marketing for one of those third parties.
To be fair, there is no official Google announcement to link to. They seem to have announced this very quietly and it is easy for someone to go to the Widevine docs and build something around the server without realizing it’s going away.
I think that is right technically, but there is still real migration pain here for teams that quietly depended on the free hosted path. The annoying part is usually not swapping providers. It is finding every place license issuance, renewal, and failure handling got baked into the stack and validating it before the old service disappears.
Believe it or not, you're both correct! China is closing more (old, inefficient, polluting) coal plants than anybody else, and opening newer ones than anybody else.
How is a single destroyer going to protect 50 oil tankers at once? Oil tankers are almost comically unsuited to warfare and you don't need missiles to penetrate their non-existent defences, they can easily and cheaply be taken out by drones. Here's Ukraine doing just that for the Nth time last week:
As the friendly article says, the US military has no idea about how commercial shipping works and how hard it will be convince anybody to transit through an active war zone.
How good is an Iranian navy really? At this point, seriously asking, why is there anything left of an Iranian navy? If we're in a shooting conflict that's a war not a war, why would they not be going after anything that could be considered a blockade? I'm going with these guys didn't have a real plan, and that block the straight is something they actually didn't consider so nothing in place to counter. It's Keystone cops
Ukraine's entire navy was sunk in the first 3 days of the war, and 4 years later Russian Black Sea fleet knows to stay in port as more than half of their ships have been sunk by Ukrainian missiles and drones.
The don't have a navy per se, just speedboats fitted with missiles, whatever is left of it. Enough to drive the insurance costs sky high and interdict tanker traffic through the strait. Also their navy port is right next to the strait, I wonder why.
"A navy, naval force, military maritime fleet, war navy, or maritime force is the branch of a state's armed forces principally designated for naval and amphibious warfare;" --wikipedia
Also, comical is a great description. I was aware that Iran has a speedboat navy, but wtf that video?! How much is AI? The shot with the giant flame throwing rockets flying slower that the speedboats is hilarious. I guess perspective is everything??
I guess you could call a fleet of dinghies a navy as well by that measure. Anyway, they no longer have their navy, because according to Trump it was, uh, 'knocked out'.
What they do still have however, is enough Shaheds to interdict tanker traffic through the straight.
Iran doesn't need a navy to sink cargo ships going through the Straight of Hormuz, they just need a handful of guys in the mountains with a stock of rockets or drones.
Not congruent to what I wrote:
Why would the batch size be 1?
Must it be the US military?
What anti-drone capabilities do Destroyers have or could be made to have?
If the tankers are primarily for the benefit of Asia and not the US do you risk bringing additional parties with a grievance into your conflict?
When the action you are talking about is, for anyone other than the US or Israel, signing up to become a co-belligerent with the US & Israel in their war with Iran? Yeah, the realistic options for who might do it are pretty limited.
Seems tinged in political fog. For instance, if China wants tankers to have safe passage they can present diplomatic arrangements with the other players (US&Israel and/or Iran) indicating they are there for escort only. Belligerence would not be up to them if they were forced to defend their merchant escort.
Kuwait, Qatar, UAE, Iraq, and Saudi are all US allies and they all rely on the Straits for exports. If they can't sell oil/LNG, they will be in much bigger trouble than their customers, who have other suppliers to choose from.
The simple solution seems to be to put the Trump fortune up as insurance collateral. If he's so confident that the war's such a good idea, he needs to put some skin in the game.
And yet tons of people do buy brand. Specifically to show it off. "Look at me! I'm rich! See, I'm wearing LV pants, Jimmy Choo shoes, I've got tUMI luggage, a Rolex watch, and a Prada bag.
Any better than 1000s of < $100 bags? It's not more durable. It's not going to last longer. It's not going to carry more or less stuff. You can find 100s of not 1000s of bags who if you slapped a Prada tag on would be considered just as stylish (meaning if you did a double blind test and either put the logo on both or removed it from both, no one would tell which was which)
> It's perfectly healthy to use brand as a heuristic to help yourself more easily buy products that work well.
Sure, though I know lots of people that assume expensive = quality and confuse that with expensive brand = quality. It doesn't. The chintziest items I've owned have been expensive "high end" brands. That's not to say all expensive brands are bad. Only that expensive well known brand only means they're good at marketing. It does not mean their product are quality. They might be, they might not.
The article doesn't have anything to do with brands as individual concepts or its idea as a quality or status marker. The article is a reflection on how different working in an industry that competes primarily on brand differs from industries with firms that build their brand based on a multitude of factors extrinsic to brand image itself.
When Hitler invaded Poland, it took all of two days for basically all of Europe to realize that they were about to replay the Great War (which we now call WW1).
Of course it took longer for it to blow up into a truly global war (Pearl Harbor etc), but a conflagration across Europe is hardly a "small regional war".
Declaring war is one thing, but if you look at how leaders actually responded it's another (notice the 8 month gap from the declaration of war, into actual fighting). They were still willing to negotiate with Hitler, because most western leadership also wanted the communists to be destroyed and thought Hitler would do just that without attacking them. They were willing to push for this literally until the tanks were invading their streets.
Once Hitler invaded France the "phoney war" turned into a real war. [1]
The other "helpful" suggestion is that, if you can't use the app, you can apply for a regular full-blown tourist visa (Subclass 600), which costs $145 and takes weeks if not months to process.
reply