Commenter wasn’t saying that the point of contention was the plane type. They were saying the point of contention is that these unnamed experts claim this type of plane is often used for weapons and military persons and didn’t claim any other use for what is likely the most common large air freighter in the skies.
I don’t think AWS was impacted. I think the article was just explaining that an outage to services like AWS would be disruptive
Still important, but the article is from 2018
Orientalism to the max holy fuck
They were strategic bombers, specifically exposed for inspection and surveillance because they were part of nuclear capabilities. Destroying any of them is such a massive escalation towards MAD that I am still trying to wrap my head around the whole situation.
Let’s not forget that Kuwait is a country that the British made-up for the sole purpose of exploiting the region’s oil fields.
I’ve only heard about the one attack on Ben Gurion. How many more have there been?
Would Zelensky rather the US bloviate while Russia continues to roll the UA? US silence does nothing to the military situation.
Bing. O.
China’s literal label for its vision is to build a “Community of Common Destiny for Mankind”.
China gives a fuck about humanity because, newsflash, they are humans.
You really have no access to reality, do you? In what world is Russia anywhere close to collapse? It’s a top global military spender and producer, it’s a huge arms exporter, it has increased its military production capacity, and it has destroyed the hodge podge of military equipment that the West dripped into Ukraine.
You think Putin believes Russia can conquer Europe? No wonder all of your analysis sounds cracked.
Because the idea of a European alliance is nonsense. NATO IS the European alliance. And NATO’s strategy for defending against Russia is a nuclear killchain with one critical position in Ukraine. What would a European alliance do? Not defend against Russia? Or defend against Russia in a different way? Would they do that while still in NATO or would they have to dismantle NATO first and then build this alliance?
It’s nonsense. You can’t just make a new transnational military that is capable of defending against Russia by just saying “European Alliance”.
The UN doesn’t have sufficient military to do such a thing. They would need make an alliance to be strong enough against Russia, or it would have to the be the US. This is what we have now, it’s called NATO, and the point is that NATO advanced on Russia. So sure, you can say the UN will enlist all the NATO countries to fight Russia, but only in defense, and no one in Europe would agree to that.
Still delusional. Russia has no interest in attacking Ukraine. Learn the history. Every single Russian intervention into Ukraine has been in response to Western meddling.
You want the Ukrainian people to be safe, get the West the fuck out of it
Was disappointed to find it was only rhetorical flak
This is delusional. It’s not a personal vendetta against the USA. Nuclear Europe fielding military in Ukraine is a red line for Russian national security. Until people understand the reality of security, you’re all going to be blathering idiots.
There are two positions on security - it’s either I am secure while you are not or it’s we’re both secure. Mutual security is the only way that peers can engage sustainably. Assymetrical security cannot be sustained by peers.
Ukraine being a non-militarized buffer between Europe and Russia is critical to Russian national security. Any arrangement where Ukraine is militarily aligned with the rest of Europe is an asymetrical security situation where Europe has security at the expense of Russia losing security.
It will never be sustainable.
Russia will either establish Ukraine as fully demilitarized with its constant oversight for the next several decades, as a result of the violation of trust that the US and EU committed, or Russia will occupy Ukraine. These are the only two options that establish mutual security and thus are the only sustainable options. Anything else is an escalation by Europe.
Wait till you learn about Hiroshima and Nagasaki
I am so tired of these sorts of shallow analyses from people that think their screw-ups are actually caused by EDAs or micro services or whatever. They’re even totally transparent about the fact that they did because they heard cool things but never say “so we sat down to learn about best practices, what the current state of the art is, and considered how our use cases matched the architecture”
They just say “we thought it would be cool so we just started doing it and it sucked - here’s why that’s an inherent problem of the architecture and not in any way related to our behavior”.
Yes. If you take a team of people who build n-tier and hexagonal MVC monolithic apps, and then tell them to build micro services, they’re going to build a bunch of n-tier or hexagonal MVC monolith candidates and eventually end up with a single service that does too much and ultimately becomes the monolith.
Yes. If you take a team that does 100% synchronous HTTP interfaces, SOAP or ReST, and then tell them to build microservices, they’re going to daisy chain those microservices via synchronous HTTP interfaces, and if you tell them to build an EDA they are going to build an EDA that attempt to replicate all of the aspects of their synchronous HTTP interfaces with busy polling loops.
So stop doing that and actually do the hard thing of learning fundamentally different architecture, techniques, technologies, trade offs, best practices, operational patterns, design patterns, and heuristics and principles for managing software. Learning is difficult and humbling. But it sure beats writing ignorant articles like this.
To me, this is a sign that the resistance is activating in the face of greater and greater certainty that the US is about to make critical grand chessboard moves. Iran is the key position right now. If the US moves against it, we all better hope the US is the paper tiger we think it is.