- wyldberry parentGiven the increasing obviousness that there's functionally no oversight of NGOs and government funding, perhaps we just need some NGOs and get government grants for these critical services.
- My current working theory is that US systems are in general great, if you're smart and educated enough to not get scammed. There's a high level of knowledge you need to just exist in society without being preyed upon by some entity.
Unfortunately, healthcare is probably the most glaring example of this. It's already K-shaped based on the insurance you have (or don't have). In addition, most americans just aren't educated enough about their own bodies and medicine to accurately convey their problems to their care team, and that's before how likely they are to believe you.
I have a great PPO plan and spend a large amount of time each year researching care for longevity and curating a care team, or cash-only practices for things. If i lost that, then i'd be hosed. I can't imagine how people on HMO or medicare plans work.
NPs fulfil a very useful niche, even if that niche is "you tested positive for strep, here's your antibiotics" keeping physcians and PAs able to care on more severe persons.
- This applying to graduate degrees really does seem like the result of AMA lobbying to keep Nurse Practitioner numbers down. It is state and program dependent, but in some states NPs have prescribing authority, which cuts into the domain of MD/DO practice in the US. There are of course merits to the argument about NP training vs MD/DO training in Pharmacology, but overall this limits patient access in America to prescribed medicine.
Congress, at the behest of AMA lobbying, had kept the number of Medicare funded residency slots capped at the same number since 1997 until the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 which added 1000 new residence slots[0]. Starting in FY 2023 (October 1 2022) no more than 200 new positions would be added each FY meaning the full 1000 could be created no sooner than FY 2028 (October 1 2027). Given the medical school timeline of 7-10 years training (school, residency, fellowship) we won't see any meaningful impact from that until the mid 2030s.
The US already has a much lower physician to patient ratio than Nordic countries (as a comparison between wealthy, western countries). The us has 2.97 active physicians per 1000 population, of which 2.52 are actual direct patient care physicians[2]. For comparison Sweden is ~5 per 1,000, Norway 4.5 per 1,000, Denmark 4.45 per 1,000, and Finland at 3.8 per 1000. Extra Bonus (Russian Federation reports 4.0 per 1,000)[3]. Note these numbers are as of 2020.
In America, most people interface with doctors in order to get tests run and medicine prescribed. Reducing the incentive for RNs to move into NP by removing it's professional degree status will likely lower the amount of prescribing individuals a patient can interface with, increasing bottleneck and time to care.
[0] - https://www.sgu.edu/news-and-events/new-residency-slots-appr... [1] - https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8370355/ [2] - https://www.aamc.org/data-reports/data/2023-key-findings-and... [3] - https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/countries-with-the-most-...
- I personally can downplay them as a joke because it is a joke. The mostly likely path forward for anything like that would instead a certain oil rich province voting themselves independent and then asking the US for aid or to join.
And, if it wasn't a joke, then that's even more of a reason to consider meeting your 2% NATO agreement instead of just phoning it in.
- "ending last November" - Is the implication that a Trump presidency implies a risk of invasion from the South?
Canada has relied greatly on the United States providing a blanket defense guarantee of the continent. The Canadian military is currently operationally worthless across the board, save the cyber domain. There are many reasons for it that I'm not here to list out. However, that does come with grave consequences geopolitically and the Canadian government has been living in the 1900s.
The USA, via Alaska, provides Canada against Russian provocation on the West Coast[0]. This is similar to the near constant probing of NATO states airspace, especially countries near Ukraine [1][2]
The Canadian Navy is severely underfunded (along with the rest of the Canadian Armed forces)[3] with not enough ships to actively patrol and protect it's waters, especially in the North.
The North passages are incredibly important, and will become more important as trade routes. The entirety of the US wanting to buy Greenland is as a part of having an Atlantic outpost to control those shipping lanes. Those trade lanes can be significantly shorter than routes using Suez or Panama canals.
In addition to the trade routes, the US fears a Russian and Chinese alliance because of the access that grants to the North Atlantic. Point blank: Nato cannot build ships anymore, and the PLAN capacity is staggering. This is already independent of CN and RU intelligence probing of the entirety of the west coast.
The world has changed dramatically, and the only thing that really changed in November is that the USA is no longer pretending it can defend the mainland, defend NATO countries, and police shipping lanes on their own. The USA doesn't have the capacity to replace ships, nor do they have the knowledge anymore to do so.
[0] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/russia-planes-alaska-us-fighter...
[1]- https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_237721.htm
[2]- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2025_Russian_drone_incursion_i...
[3] - https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-greenland-panama-canal-wh...
- This is a mean-spirited interpretation of what happens when you claim nation state.
Generally the government (as of now) is not paying private (but maybe some Critical Infrastructure companies) companies to secure things. We are in the very early stages of figuring out how to hold companies accountable for security breaches, and part of that is figuring out if they should have stopped it.
A lot of that comes down to a few principles:
* How resourced is the defender versus the attacker? * Who was the attacker (attribution matters - (shoutout @ImposeCost on Twitter/X) * Was the victim of the attack performing all reasonable steps to show the cause wasn't some form of gross negligence.
Nation state attacker jobs aren't particularly different from many software shops.
* You have teams of engineers/analysts whose job it is to analyze nearly every piece of software under the sun and find vulnerabilities.
* You have teams whose job it is to build the infrastructure and tooling necessary to run operations
* You have teams whose job it is to turn vulnerabilities into exploits and payloads to be deployed along that infrastructure
* You have teams of people whose job it is to be hands on keyboard running the operation(s)
Depending on the victim organization, if a top-tier country wants what you have, they are going to get it and you'll probably never know.
F5 is, at least by q2 revenue[0], we very profitable, well resourced company that has seen some things and been victims of some high profile attacks and vulns over the years. It's likely that they were still outmatched because there's been a team of people who found a weakness and exploited it.
When they use verbage like nation-state, it's to give a signal that they were doing most/all the right things and they got popped. The relevant government officials already know what happened, this is a signal to the market that they did what they were supposed to and aren't negligent.
[0] -https://www.f5.com/company/news/press-releases/earnings-q2-f...
- Attainable isn't about benchmarks and performance, it's ecosystem such as supported kernel hooks for AAA games to invest the time in maintaining their anti-cheats and other parts of the game-as-a-service platform.
It's also about the market accessibility and penetration. When the base level MBA at it's lowest RAM settings is reliably running AAA games is when you might see more interest in the platform from those studios because much like the iOS market, people running Mac tend to be more readily monetized, especially through things like in-game cosmetics.
- It's really easy for people who work in tech, or tech adjacent to recommend this, but in my experience, getting anyone to try nearly anything on Linux is very rough. Friends who wanted to "take control of privacy in their life" never made it beyond a week of trying to use a Linux distribution.
We have decades of training in the consumer market for very simple install patterns using UIs, and minimal messing with configurations. The people in gaming who overclock and tweak their settings are a huge minority in gaming. Those people are the ones most likely to be able to grok switching to Linux, but when they get there and find that most of their favorite apps don't work like they are used to, they go back to Windows or Mac.
My hypothesis is that for Linux Gaming to truly take off, you'll need a true desktop (not steamdeck which i use weekly) that makes it a handful of "clicks" to get whatever they want installed working. That means you'll need a commercially backed OS where developers maintain all the things needed to support near infinite peripheral connections for a variety of use cases, clear anti-cheat interfaces, and likely clear DRM hooks as well.
- It will depend on if gaming studios continue to invest in a Linux Desktop experience. It's common to run your game server on Linux, but MS, partially through DRM support to the big media companies, creates an environment very strongly suited towards shipping your game binary to a hostile environment.
This is partially why major (effective) anti-cheats have migrated to the Kernel. Windows allows the big-budget games, which are often competitive games, to operate with a higher level of game integrity, which leads to more revenue generation.
MacOS is not an attainable gaming support platform in general, as the people who are interested in the AAA games are going to need a Pro series or similar quality device which prices a large part of the current windows gaming audience out.
As an example: it's not too expensive to buy a laptop that runs valorant, and then be funneled into the skin shop. You can get a lot more sales that way than you can through the crowd of people who are on MBP, though perhaps the MBP crew is more likely to be a whale.
note: Valorant is not supported on MacOS due to the anticheat requirement, but the hypothetical still stands.
- Good thing they thought of that. Disclaimer: I was at Riot During some of the Valorant dev cycle and the stated goal in this tech blog [0] was a huge goal (keeping latency < 35ms).
This was only really doable because Riot has invested significantly in buying dark fiber and peering at major locations worldwide [1][2]
[0] - https://technology.riotgames.com/news/peeking-valorants-netc... [1] - https://technology.riotgames.com/news/fixing-internet-real-t... [2] - https://technology.riotgames.com/news/fixing-internet-real-t...
- This has been a long time coming. The big buyer for 737 consistently has been Southwest. Before a recent ownership shakeup, Southwest wanted to only operate the 737 airframe, and avoid as many new features as possible to keep training costs low, and maintenance costs low.
New activist ownership has pushed to diversify frames and phase out reliance on the 737 frame which is significantly more inefficient than modern frames. Boeing doesn't want to make 737s, but they are locked in because of this demand.
Source: Family member trains pilots at Southwest after retiring from a major airline carrier after a career as pilot/check-airman.
- It would be wild news if a firearm was able to discharge without a round in chamber. Even without information, for it to discharge there must be a a round in chamber.
Marine Corps order for MP and armed guard standard is round in chamber, weapon on safe, slide forward, hammer down. It stands to reason that is the standard case for all military LEO.
All that to say, anyone who says you shouldn't have a round in chamber is living in a fantasy world.
- Again, burying the lede of the article which is about the last remaining pesticide that was effectively targeting the mite colonies. Six months of lost work is not the make or break for this, as this mite has been identified as a problem for at least a decade. This is a *treatment* of the mite problem, for which we have over a decade of research, proposed solutions, etc on.
That said: this mite problem is because of our industrial agricultural practices by bringing invasive species into the country to create a honey industry. The solutions to this are generally a combination of the below (at a high level):
1. Evolutionary arms race where scientists in academia and industry consistently try to find or invent new molecules that will harm nearly exclusively the mite, or perhaps genetically engineer a more resistant honeybee
2. Improve sterilization practices and protect existing swarms, and quickly identify mite infestations that could wipe the colony out.
3. Change of keeping practices to more accurately mimic nature, which is a challenge, because these bees are not native to the ecosystem, and native bees do not face these pressures because of a variety of reasons in the colony life-cycle.
This article is not about how impactful the "efficiency improvements" the government did by removing stability and the ability to plan long-term that occurred earlier this year. That was, at best, a drop in the bucket for this specific problem. You gotta stop looking at who is currently in charge when you're looking at a problem that initially was identified in 1987[0].
[0] - https://tsusinvasives.org/home/database/varroa-destructor
- Honeybees are not all bees, and are less important than wild/native ground bees[0]. By making this about trump, you are burying the lede here:
"Alarmingly, every single one of the mites the researchers screened was resistant to amitraz, the only viable mite-specific pesticide—or miticide—of its kind left in humans’ arsenal."
This is to be expected, eventually evolution will produce a small amount of a species that is resistant to a chemical, then those will likely be hyper successful at breeding. Honeybees are not native to the Americas, it seems like we've imported a major feast for these mites. Perhaps there's another organism that preys on these mites. Nature often provides the a cure with the poison.
[0] - https://choosenatives.org/articles/native-bees-need-buzz/
- The more well compensated someone is, the less likely they are going to be to speak out. The employees are more than comfortable.
Also, the incentive structure for reward (stock price etc) is predicated by squeezing every last bit of monetization out. They already know ahead of time how much money a new feature could bring in, and the potential litigation cost before hand. If revenue > litigation/fine expense, they are going to do it.
- Let's be sure to have a meeting to consider staffing a committee to plan appointing a board to oversee a transition. Who would have the authority to have this meeting and appoint it? Congress. Who is in power in Congress? Oh right. If Democrats didn't want {x} to occur, they should have used their majority to get what they wanted done. The reason this is happening, is because those in power want this capability to exist.
When the Republicans eventually lose power, a more refined version of this playbook will be executed by the next team.
- Late to reply, but yeah no one is eager to do it. Unfortunately being good at security means being really good at work that is boring, tedious, and not glamorous, which also measures poorly into OKRs and other facets of shipping culture. Unless the team has really strong leadership that can get the security engineer ladders divested from the SWE/SRE ladders.
I literally just finished up writing up something that does supply chain provenance checking across 9 languages and still have a lot of edge cases to handle. It's not fun, but it's honest work.
- This isn't rocket science. What's going on is having the keys to the kingdom with regards to serving videos to influence the mind of a user with extremely precise targeting.
China doesn't want USA doing that, and banned their social media. USA doesn't want China doing it because they've been doing it all over the world to everybody since Radio Free Europe, and likely before.
- In doing my masters, i've noticed a similar trend coming from TAs in technical programs.
Much more emphasis on "homework" being readings to prepare for lecture. Lecture to cover salient points, but then to reinforce with in person labs, and then the actual "lab" credit in an isolated environment with access to AI tooling network blocked.
I think AI is forcing us to think about what learning actually means, and to rethink how much the ability to think matters, what understanding means, and what knowledge we need to operate in today's world. It will take some getting used to.
- I'm probably responding to you being intentionally obtuse but:
Assuming that's true, TikTok, at the behest of the CCP, can (and will) amplify the reach of that outrage to an outsized impact. If the outrage is 5% of TikTok users in the given nation, and that 5% is thrown into the FYP of 50% of the users in that nation, that's an impact that any power that be dreams to have.
- At best this comment implies there's actual an actual smoking gun related to what functionally are nation-state capability and operations to influence populations external to their own, specifically related to TikTok/ByteDance. If you have an AP government level understanding of how China and the USA work, then you can probably understand that this is an intersection of: government laws, great power competition, and wealth seeking behaviors. When you control the algorithm, everyone downstream of it is at the mercy of the power structures and incentives of your top level leadership [0]. Consider the following:
1.) How Chinese companies interact with the CCP: they are 100% subservient with a CCP party member who can pull the CEO in at anytime and assign them tasks related to studying Xi thought and other party material, as well as demand the company do anything for the state.
2.) What great power competition looks like including economic warfare (tariffs, massive state subsidies to protect national defense, influence operations for allies, securing raw materials, reducing reliance on rivals, etc).
3.) How espionage in general works in support of political aims, and especially how each nation uses it to further their goals. For China, it's always been about vacuuming up as much data as possible, and then later on finding use cases for it. The disruption side of their practices are successful if they make chaos in an adversary that forces them to spend time on dealing with that instead of confronting them. Each nation acts in their own interest and are absolutely ruthless here in a way the average person rarely can comprehend.
4.) The free pass given to China related to tech and social media industries. American Social Media is banned in China[1]. Why do you think that is? There are many reports/cases of American intel/military use cases of social media to influence outcomes worldwide[2]. China wasn't going to allow this. But we are supposed to allow them access to us? We know this is the case because we would do the same in their position[3]. There's a reason it's banned in India[4].
5.) We know China influences the Douyin algorithm[5] locally to promote behaviors the government perceives as healthy or important to state interests. This often manifests in pushing more STEM related content and suppressing the ragebait content that flourishes in other nations[6].
Even if the leadership of Bytedance were 100% on board with not pushing CCP interests to the USA and world, there's no mechanism of protection or redress from them. The CCP can, and will, disappear high profile people at will with no repercussion, and replace you with someone who will listen. Any smart nation who wants to protect the minds of their citizens would do well to extremely regulate social media in their country.
In your case for "Americans upset over Israeli treatment of civilians". Assuming that the American outrage is 100% organic on it's own: It is in the best interest of China to amplify that outrage and make it seem stronger than it is for a variety of reasons:
A. This will have knock on effects for policy makers and their aides who are hyper-tuned in because if their constituents want something, voting for that is how B. Anything that disrupts American foreign policy and allies is an asset at weakening the grip the dollar has on international markets C. Israel is an extremely talented producer of technical people. If the relationship between the USA and Israel sours, then suddenly a pathway opens for China to get access to the incredible tech that Israel develops for various US programs. (This is also ignoring their incredibly advanced spyware capabilities in their private sector, which is morally repugnant, but it does exist).
[0] - https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.07663 [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_ma... [2] - https://web.archive.org/web/20160410083943/http://www.reddit... (look at the most addicted cities) [3] - https://theintercept.com/2022/12/20/twitter-dod-us-military-... [4] - https://apnews.com/article/tiktok-bytedance-ban-china-india-... [5] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0j0xzuh-6rY [6] - https://networkcontagion.us/reports/the-ccps-digital-charm-o... [7] - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/25/the-growing-li...