In the war plan under discussion IIRC all the nuclear bursts were air bursts, so minimal fallout, not enough to kill anybody even right after the strike.
Or all the bursts in the territory earmarked for invasion were air bursts while some of NATO's air bases outside the invasion area get hit with ground bursts (to maximize destruction of the runways).
Akamai, CloudFront, whatever Googles service is, a bunch of other ones I can't think of compete in the same market. Cloudflare obviously is good at what they do but there decently are many fine CDN/DDOs prevention companies.
If we are considering the social implications of Cloudflare being pressured to deplatform anybody who disrespects intellectual property, then why should we simultaneously assume that the other handful of companies offering a comparable service wouldn't be similarly pressured?
The courts can absolutely get Cloudflare to comply with orders. The only reason this doesn't happen is that the people asking for the blocking come with a list of IPs.
You’re eSplaining my own argument back to me. Cloudflare’s whinging is they shouldn’t be required to block entire swaths of IP ranges because they have legitimate customer traffic there; their opponents (rightly) state that because of how Cloudflare and the internet works, the only real way to stop these piracy streams are wholesale service blocks, because of how easily specific IP or domain blocks can be bypassed.
The centralization of power is the problem, and as I say near the end:
> …I can’t quite figure out a way past that under the current piecemeal system of the internet and the financial incentives for consolidation and centralization.
The Egyptian peasant lives today much the same as his ancestors did. It's a remarkable degree of continuity! And some works were removed contrary to law quite recently like the head of Nefertiti.
Interesting points, but can you explain how they apply here? It's interesting and, afaik, true that modern Egyptians's lives today are more similar to their ancient ancestors' than you might expect (moreso than in many other nations). But how should we think about the relevance of this fact to debates about looted artifacts? Does the fact that they still work fields irrigated by the Nile suffice to give them a claim to repatriate artifacts taken generation ago? (Perhaps there are more similarities than this. I don't mean to be flippant on this point, I just am not an expert on all the similarities.) Or is it significant that they have generally abandoned the ancient Egyptian religion in favor of Islam, have a President rather than a Pharaoh, own televisions and smartphones, are now generally safe from crocodiles, have controlled the Nile's annual flooding (whose volatility was a dominant source of danger and drama in ancient life), etc.?
Regarding the Bust of Nefertiti, I guess it's debatable whether 100 years ago qualifies as "quite recently," but I suppose it does seem like yesterday when one is thinking about ancient Egypt! In any case, the analysis certainly may differ depending on the artifact. If the the date of the looting makes a difference I think that only supports the general thrust of my argument.
Shutdowns used to not exist because Congress would authorize the President to spend at existing levels (but not the army, for reasons). This changed in the 1970s.
>Before 1917, the U.S. had no debt ceiling. Congress either authorized specific loans or allowed the Treasury to issue certain debt instruments and individual debt issues for specific purposes. Sometimes Congress gave the Treasury discretion over what type of debt instrument would be issued.[25] The United States first instituted a statutory debt limit with the Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917. This legislation set limits on the aggregate amount of debt that could be accumulated through individual categories of debt (such as bonds and bills). In 1939, Congress instituted the first limit on total accumulated debt over all kinds of instruments.[26][27]
>In 1953, the U.S. Treasury risked reaching the debt ceiling of $275 billion. Though President Eisenhower requested that Congress increase it on July 30, 1953, the Senate refused to act on it. As a result, the president asked federal agencies to reduce how much they spent, plus the Treasury Department used its cash balances with banks to stay under the debt ceiling. And, starting in November 1953, Treasury monetized close to $1 billion of gold left over in its vaults, which helped keep it from exceeding the $275 billion limit. During spring and summer 1954, the Senate and the executive branch negotiated on a debt ceiling increase, and a $6 billion one was passed on August 28, 1954.[28]
"Funding gaps have led to shutdowns since 1980, when Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a legal opinion requiring it. This opinion was not consistently adhered to through the 1980s, but since 1990 all funding gaps lasting longer than a few hours have led to a shutdown. As of October 2025, 11 funding gaps have led to federal employees being furloughed."
That an AG just came up with this in the 1980s based on an interpretation of an 1884 law (Antideficiency Act) is fascinating, thanks for sharing this. I always assumed this was an explicit own-goal by Congress like the debt ceiling, but it seems like it’s an unintended side effect.
Debt ceiling is different than a shutdown. Debt ceiling negotiations are about raising the debt limit to pay for spending Congress has already appropriated. The debt ceiling failure mode is "the US defaults on its debt."
Shutdowns happen when Congress hasn't appropriated new money by passing a budget. The shutdown failure mode is "there isn't enough money to pay for existing programs."
It gives an error, because you haven't specified the remote.
I don't know what behaviour you find intuitive here?
> how do you fix it if you messed up/which is preferred when both exist?
git pull is YOLO mode, so I never do it, but I would just reset the branches where I want them to be? You get a summary with the old and new commit hashes, so resetting is really easy.
Board independence is largely a silly idea, people aren't even on the same page as to what the board is supposed to be independent of, and in this case it's not even clear which board you mean - the current one? The previous one? In what way are they less independent than any other board?
> people aren't even on the same page as to what the board is supposed to be independent of
In the U.S. they absolutely are. The SEC defines independent directors [1]. If the majority of a (Delaware corporation's) Board isn't independent, it opens up the company and even individual Board members to heightened scrutiny by the courts [2].
You link to a skadden doc, not an SEC rule, and in that doc the first words are:
"Independence is neither a fixed condition nor a universal status for all purposes. " and goes on to talk about how complicated it is to even define and how it depends on who is defining it.
Your document makes my exact point, not yours. You are out of your depth.
> Independence is neither a fixed condition nor a universal status for all purposes
This is true of all law. That doesn’t mean “people aren't even on the same page as to what” it means.
> Your document makes my exact point, not yours. You are out of your depth
It doesn't and probably not. How many boards have you been on? Public companies? Non-profit? Have you litigated a shareholder lawsuit under Delaware law?
Sam Altman got fired from YC for lying, and from OpenAI for lying, then replaced the board. Now he wants to do a transaction that takes the most valuable company in the world from the nonprofit and rewards its financial backers. It's very reasonable to be deeply skeptical of this transactions legitimacy.
