Given the permissive and, well, stupid business practices that the U.S. allows, I’m sure a shell corporation there, an ownership transfer there, and you’ve got a de facto foreign owned company that’s every bit as answerable to the corporation, although not necessarily the U.S. government. I’m sure the shareholders won’t care so long as the stock price still goes up.
Those sorts of changes could presumably be executed much faster than working through the court challenges of nationalizing companies, or of building new facilities/swapping to new providers.
Not that I’m advocating sticking with what would still ostensibly be U.S.-backed tech.
I live in the U.S., and I ply my trade in tech and tech-adjacent sectors. I wouldn’t prefer it if the country I live in becomes a technological backwater and is passed on by the world, but I also am sort of reaching a point where I think perhaps FAFO.
10 points ·
I’m going to respond to a later comment of yours here for the sake of visibility.
Tucker Carlson flew to Russia to interview Vladimir Putin last year. That trip was financed by Tenant Media - the same group that was revealed to have been financed by Russia for the sake of spreading Russian talking points. Justin Trudeau gave testimony under oath that Tucker was shilling for Russia.
It is more challenging, generally, to show that politicians are illegally taking money from foreign interests because the pathways by which money is publicly disclosed are more well-known. So the pathways through which money may be hidden can also be followed to disguise the source of income. Unless one gets caught.
As did an aid of Rand Paul’s, who helped funnel Russian money into the RNC during the 2016 election, and whom was later pardoned by Trump, at Rand Paul’s urging.
[King] Bluetooth was extremely influential, joining the tribes of the region into one kingdom — which is why the *technology that unites electronic devices* is named after him.
I think Ukraine can only pull off a big attack like this a few times. Not because they’re incapable, or Russia, now aware of the method, can defend against it, but because each attack generates data. The more data you have, the greater the ability to analyze and spot patterns, which puts Ukrainian operators at risk.
Although it would be excellent if another attack happened very soon against another relatively irreplaceable Russian asset. But a campaign of smaller scale harassment throughout the country would suffice to harm morale and keep supply constraints, well, constrained.
15 points ·
Disclaimer, I’m just a rando with a search habit. Not like, a professional analyst.
It’s maybe not the dumbest to use them in this way - their carrying capacity meant fewer sorties per pound of munition delivered.
The other side of it is that keeping the strategic fleet demonstrably in use signals to other countries that Russia may be able to back up their nuclear saber-rattling.
2 points ·
I dug a bit deeper still after the above comment, and my additional findings ostensibly seem to contradict your sentiments, but actually lend credence to them.
My presumption is he’s throwing a fit because Greenland signed a mineral rights deal with the EU.
4 points ·
Your comment made me think of a video my wife showed me last week. I’m linking to an article about it, but the article contains a link to the video, which is hosted on X.
Right. In real life you can look someone in the eye and see some semblance of humanity (or at least fear). Online, it doesn’t matter what you say or how you’re perceived, because people get to hide in their perceived anonymity. And you never know when some psychopath with no morals or sense of decency is going to have you swatted.
27 points ·
The following should be taken as a bit of a ramble because I want to express this idea I have, and I don’t think it should be taken as any sort of attempt to correct or challenge what you’re saying because I don’t think what you’re saying is in any way incorrect.
I think the right wing shift is a mirage that is being perpetrated by corporate-owned media. That’s not to say that every media outlet is racist or is explicitly attempting to push a narrative, but I think that the large corporations in the U.S., at least, that own news media have a vested interest in not offending both monied and powerful interests. In that regard they are avoiding reporting on topics that will rally the public, or are outright changing how they report on certain topics.
Which is a lot of words to say that I think what we’re seeing is false consensus driven from the top down, rather than a ‘bottom up’ shift in opinion. I think many of the normal folks are ill-informed, or outright propagandized.
Doesn’t change the outcome, or the opinions held by so many, though… _sigh_
4 points ·
Since you’re bringing up language points, I’m wondering if you’d be willing to take a left turn with me.
What are your thoughts about applying the phrase “extraordinary rendition” to their situation?
I feel that it’s appropriate, but I haven’t seen anyone using it.
7 points ·
And for those who aren’t rich but have jobs with decent employer-provided healthcare, it will make those people fearful of undertaking any protest actions that may see them on the wrong side of a doxxing campaign or an illegal detention.
It’s about threading fear through the fabric of society.