archomrade [he/him]

  • 7 Posts
  • 520 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 20th, 2023

help-circle
  • It just occurred to me that convincing someone of leaving a social media site is a lot like convincing someone to leave a big city.

    They have friends there and have grown accustomed to the vibrant and diverse activities, but realistically nothing they do or have there can’t be replicated in a smaller town, a smaller media site.

    They’re liable to put up with a lot of shit to stay with their community, but eventually people get pushed out and find greener pastures and a quiet space for themselves elsewhere. At least, that’s what I attribute to what I perceive to be a higher average age on the fediverse.

    I’m too old to find the constant stimulation and activity attractive anymore, and I much prefer the freedom to move around and be choosy about my media choices.



  • I think there’s an argument to be made that Trump and Netanyahu are uniquely situated over other fascists, but I think their dominance is more a function of taking up all the oxygen rather than them being uniquely evil/competent/popular (at least when it comes to trump)

    I agree that Netanyahu has proven to be extremely effective as a politician, and is leaps-and-bounds more educated/intelligent than Trump (pretty sure he has 3 or 4 degrees, from MIT and Harvard and was rumored to be a prolific student).

    I think if/when he ever gets voted out/thrown in jail/assassinated, he will leave Israel as a moldy peach to whoever takes his place. They’ve effectively burned their good-will, even between 5-Eyes states, and managed to elevate/coalesce the surrounding regional powers and their reputations (Iran and Lebanon are currently getting a ton of credit for not taking the bait and escalating with Israel, and that’s done quite a lot to rehabilitate their reputations in the ME and with Global superpowers like China and Russia). Even if there was a successor as prolific as Netanyahu, they would be left without the standing or connections that he had, and western appetite for more escalation from them will have effectively run out.

    All that said; the problem of Israeli imperialism won’t go away with him, even if it will be a lot less effective in his absence. We need to start thinking of Israel as the Ethnostate that it is, and reevaluate their role in our foreign policy. I think if there’s anything their war in Gaza has proven is that they are far more ideologically fascistic than anyone in the west really was willing to recognize. That they didn’t end their war and return to their apartheid domination, and instead chose to continue escalating into genocide and now expanding their border with Lebanon, shows that their imperialism is of a different type and scale than the US’s has ever really been. They are far less content with soft power diplomacy than we are.

    I really wish this generation was less enamored by the ‘great-men’ historical interpretation - it blinds us to the broader influences and motivations involved with international conflicts.















  • It depends on the attack vector. Typically you’re right, but malicious .lnk files are often paired with other malicious methods to infect machines. Sometimes they’re configured as a worm that copies and spreads when a flash drive is connected, sometimes they’re configured to download a remote payload when another script or program is started. The problem is that it’s a type of file that’s often overlooked because it seems innocent.

    It isn’t necessarily the case that the Trojan needs to be interacted with by the user in order to execute the malicious code. Just having the file on your machine opens the door for all kinds of attacks (especially if you’re using a headless setup: you wouldn’t necessarily know you have the .lnk file in the system unless you’re manually unpacking your downloads yourself). All it needs is for another piece of infected code to run and look for that file, and it can open the door for more traditional malicious code.


    Edit: just as a for-instance - If I was a black hat and wanted to spread some malicious code, I could include this .lnk file in a torrent (innocuous enough to slip by unnoticed by most people/unscrupulous pirates), and then maybe place a line of code in a jellyfin plugin or script that looks for that file and executes it if it’s found. Because the attack isn’t buried in the plugin or script itself (most people wouldn’t think much of a line of code that’s simply pointing to temp file already on your system), it could theoretically go unnoticed for long enough to catch a few hundred or thousand machines.


  • Were complaining because unlike US subsidies that any company can qualify for

    That’s just not true; the US subsidizes domestic production in a ton of industries (corn, oil, ect). Maybe you’re referring to specifically environmental subsidies, but I think there’s room to grow to tailor them more to encourage domestic production. Developing the infrastructure for things like batteries and solar panels will take time, but domestic ev manufacturing is already established and could be further subsidized directly, if the US chose to. Placing a 100% tariff on Chinese goods means that domestic/western manufacturing can continue comfortably marketing their EV’s to the upper-middle to luxury vehicle segment of the market without worrying about competing with cheaper Chinese vehicles. If instead they subsidized production themselves, they could potentially better compete with China’s cheaper cars and provide more affordable options to consumers who can’t afford to spend $50,000 on a car, and who would otherwise purchase a cheaper $30,000 ICEV vehicle because that’s all they can afford.

    We only have 3 domestic companies that manufacture vehicles in the US, GM, Ford, and Tesla, while these tariffs protect the entire market including all the foreign manufactures that sell vehicles here like Hyundai, VW, BMW, Toyota, and Stellantis.

    Ok, well then subsidize those as well? Why are we saying European manufacturers are incapable of subsidizing their own production, too? China chose to aggressively transition to electrified production, I think that’s absolutely a good thing; the western world should be following suit. Not to mention that grid electrification would be protective against, say, if their oil or gas supplier cut them off and they had to scramble to find another supplier or risk their people freezing and economies panicking.

    Why exactly are you complaining if, as you say, the current demand is for EVs and the replacement vehicle demand is for EVs? If this is true then that means people are buying EVs even though China isn’t selling any here. Seems like there’s no issue here.

    Because they are prohibitively expensive for most Americans, still. China is producing far cheaper vehicles, which would otherwise broaden the market for EV’s in the US if we allowed them to be sold without our 100% tariff.

    That certainly is an option that is much more environmentally friendly that buying a car built in China. Why exactly are you trying to use this as a crudgel here if your goal is to reduce pollution? That makes zero sense.

    My goal is to reduce carbon emissions, and a part of that long-term goal is to replace ICEV production with more sustainable EVs. For what new vehicles are needed, we should be prioritizing more sustainable EV’s instead of ICEV’s, as well as further electrifying our grid and supporting local transport options. It isn’t one or the other, I was simply pointing out that there’s a transportation market regardless of if you’re talking about PEVs for micromobility or EVs for traditional interstate travel.

    The US and the rest of the western world has seemingly decided that protecting their existing ICEV infrastructure and fighting China’s increasing market dominance is more important than speeding their own transition to renewables and electrifying their infrastructure. I think it’s ass-backwards to tariff the one producer who is doing the most to accelerate transition to clean energy infrastructure if your goal is to get to net zero as quickly as possible (as it should be).


  • Then why are we complaining about china subsidizing their EV production and undercutting the market?

    Oh, right, we’re concerned with putting our auto manufacturers out of business, while also filling the market demand for new EVs.

    Better to provide subsidies for EV’s and tariff China’s production, that way our auto manufacturers benefit from the subsidies without having to increase supply or lower their prices!

    The US has a certain level of basic vehicle replacement, and the replacement demand is mostly in EV’s. Or if you’re worried about reducing personal car use, maybe buy a cheap electric bike or personal transportation vehicle from china instead!