I generally look at the political & social viewpoints of others to try and understand their viewpoint to some degree. Not for outrage. Even if I consider those viewpoints extreme or counter to my own.

That being said I don't browse X.

The suggestion from the author sounds like someone early in WWI suggesting the problem with the war effort was a lack of entrenchments to conduct infantry charges from

No, not at all.

It sounds more like somebody from WWI suggesting the entrenchments absolutely _needed_ to be staggered and zig-zagged so that artillery blast shock waves don't kill everbody.

Which was a solid observation.

Now the solid advice is to leave _nothing_ above ground and parked for very long - roll everything .. including radar .. in and out of bunkers to protect assests when wave upon wave of wooden cheap arse semi smart bombs come in on the back of Chinese / Russian / Indian / US satellite targeting.

Given the immense capabilities of the United States government, I don't think there is going to be a war inside the US. Or at least not one that lasts any amount of time.

This isn't really a given. Historically, whenever you have a civil war the existing state's military splits down the middle, with people generally unwilling to fire on friends, family, and neighbors. Former military officers usually form the core of the rebel military, taking their training, experience, and oftentimes equipment with them to fight for the other side.

The mistake here is thinking of the U.S. government as a monolith. Ultimately it's all just people, bound together by being paid for in dollars that are either raised as taxes or borrowed as treasuries. GP's post posits a world where the dollar is worthless; what's binding them together then?

There's a stealth Civil War II currently going on. The South had their fingers crossed when they surrendered.

I worked at a job where we had to maintain an app for Apple's platform. We would make some minor bugfix based on user feedback and submit the app. They would come back with a denial that was based on changes or features introduced years ago. We would go tweak that specific feature in some way, resubmit and it would pass.

I suspect the story is entirely made up, based on that detail alone.

>I suspect the story is entirely made up, based on that detail alone.

... why?

Google has a zillion employees and the story didn't even end altruistically on their side, what the fuck would the point of fictionalizing this encounter be? typing practice?

I get that it's kind of supposed to be an advanced jab at google "The world will end before you speak to a human", but cast the shade on the perpetrators rather than saying that the victimized side is lying.

HN just being curmudgeonly. Nothing you can do about it except disengage with the site. All social media is bound to have the same results.

Yeah, you drove through part of the Texas Triangle. Not really an area I would go to for sights

One look at where donations to "keep Wikipedia free!" wind up should explain all of that for you.

who on planet earth trusts a piece of software because Microsoft signed it?

There are different types of trust, but at the very least with such a signature you can trust that the piece of software is really from Veracrypt and not from a malicious third party.

For one: Most if not all virus scanners.

A signature is a signal, not an absolute. Although, to be fair, if Microsoft (or most other CAs) had done a better job, then that trust would have carried more weight than it does currently.

Trust isn't binary, it's a spectrum. A signature is a signal that should increase trustworthiness. Not the strongest signal, perhaps even a weak one, but it's not zero.

Microsoft signed the Crowdstrike updates. I don't think a CA signing a piece of malware is a realistic thing to be concerned about.

I've generally held that Camacho is actually a model political leader. Despite growing up in a society that apparently didn't value education, he managed to rise to the top. He made legitimate, albeit ineffective attempts to address issues the country's problems. When someone showed up who had better ideas he promptly delegated both authority and responsibility.