saubeidl

22 ms·

661.
Canada announces massive jump in funding to European Space Agency(reuters.com)
5 points by saubeidl 1y ago|0 comments
662.
by saubeidl 1y ago
Sure, it's a great fair-weather technology, makes some things cheap and easy. But in the face of adversity, it's a huge liability. Imagine Chinese Hackers taking down AWS, Cloudflare, Azure and GCP simultaneously in some future co
663.
by saubeidl 1y ago
Sure, but that is also a giant weakness. Say in a future conflict with Russia or China, or hell, even North Korea. They'd only have to take down a few services to completely cripple the West - the exact case ARPANET was designed to pre
664.
by saubeidl 1y ago
The problem is the people that sign our checks usually aren't technical, rational people. The system isn't designed for technical, rational decision making.
665.
by saubeidl 1y ago
Cloud in general was a mistake. We took a system explicitly designed for decentralization and resilience and centralized it and created a few neat points of failure to take the whole damn thing down.
666.
by saubeidl 1y ago
And there we go again, the Republican party - self-proclaimed paragon of the first Amendment - showing its true colors once again. Free speech for me, not for thee.
667.
Polish PM says railway track blast was 'unprecedented act of sabotage'(reuters.com)
10 points by saubeidl 1y ago|0 comments
668.
by saubeidl 1y ago
All you've done since 1945 is create boondoggles for us to deal with. Pretty much all of our problems are a direct result of your military adventurism in the Middle East. Stop fucking up our part of the world.
669.
by saubeidl 1y ago
A) Please be kind and not a snarky asshole, it really doesn't help your case. B) Again, Obama is America in this case. Your internal squabbles do not matter to me. Obama, Trump, whatever. America is unreliable.
670.
by saubeidl 1y ago
The "shitty anti-American attitude" is just a reaction to the shitty American attitude. Newton's third law, actio-reactio.
671.
by saubeidl 1y ago
This treaty didn't need to be ratified as it was signed through Obama's executive authority.
672.
by saubeidl 1y ago
Ratification is irrelevant in this case. Obama, acting as head of state, deposited instruments of acceptance for the US. Once that happened, your internal processes stopped being relevant to the international community. At that point, the U
673.
by saubeidl 1y ago
It isn't your right to comment on somebody else's website. Your argument makes no sense.
674.
by saubeidl 1y ago
Article 7 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, specifically > 1. A person is considered as representing a State for the purpose of adopting or authenticating the text of a treaty or for the purpose of expressing the con
675.
by saubeidl 1y ago
It's got importance for the Pacific trade to the US, not the land route to Europe. It is your problem and you're not exactly being great allies to us in ours.
676.
by saubeidl 1y ago
If one branch of your government says A and another branch says B, then that doesn't make other people fools. It only makes you look like you don't have your shit together.
677.
by saubeidl 1y ago
These are your internal implementation details. They only make you look untrustworthy, they do not strengthen your case.
678.
by saubeidl 1y ago
Re the US not having our back - here's just the latest evidence: https://apnews.com/article/pentagon-security-funding-baltics... Re China: We don't share any border or ocean with them and none of our interest
679.
by saubeidl 1y ago
See, this is exactly what I mean. In international law, they were treaties. Your internal squabbles do not concern us and just make you look unreliable.
680.
by saubeidl 1y ago
None of this addresses why we should see China as a threat at all. We thought y'all had our back - why should we have yours now that you've shown your true colors?
681.
by saubeidl 1y ago
Iran Nuclear Accords (negotiated by the EU!), Paris Climate Agreement are two that come to mind concerning the EU. There's obviously more, like NAFTA.
682.
by saubeidl 1y ago
China might be a threat to the US, but I don't see it being a threat to Europe. The fact that Americans are abandoning us in our struggle with Russia in order to pick a fight with China makes it hard to see them as reliable allies.
683.
by saubeidl 1y ago
The thing is - the Baltic states are in our sphere of influence, so Russia messing with them is a problem for us. Tell me why we should care about some island on the other end of the world. It would make sense to begrudgingly accept it, j
684.
by saubeidl 1y ago
There is no conflict in our nationalist interests though. We are too far apart, unless we split up Russia between us...
685.
by saubeidl 1y ago
They're on the opposite end of the world, our interests do not conflict, but even overlap (i.e. they're the only other major power taking climate change seriously)
686.
by saubeidl 1y ago
[flagged]
687.
by saubeidl 1y ago
And China needs the EU. No rising Chinese middle class without the world's largest wealthy consumer market. A match made in heaven ;)
688.
by saubeidl 1y ago
One could also phrase it more cynically as protection money. Now that no more protection is offered, there's no point in spending the money.
689.
by saubeidl 1y ago
The US doesn't really see Russia as an adversary under Trump. Which begs the question, why should the EU see China as an adversary? That's mostly an American thing, the Pacific doesn't really concern us. Maybe alliances will
690.
European Nations Decide Against Acquiring Boeing E-7 Awacs Aircraft(defensemirror.com)
134 points by saubeidl 1y ago|210 comments

More ›