The "consequences" of a tattoo, on your own skin? No one gets a tattoo for someone else. Unless you are just anti-tattoo, I don't think anyone should give a fuck about the "consequences" of a tattoo.
The US produces a lot of chips, they just aren't the consumer market leader. The US also prototypes the revolutionary new processes, i.e. 65nm-> 20nm -> ...-> 5nm -> 3nm processes all started in the US. But once the process has been proofed, and it's time for volume they send it to Israel or Taiwan to be mass produced because it's cheaper and for no other reason.
While I'm glad that AIPAC is facing a lot of backlash, publicly, the problem is AIPAC as an org doesn't really matter. It can rebrand and become something like "The Middle East Peace PAC" and do literally the same thing, fund the same congressmen and ensure the same support for Israel from both parties.
Well yea because democrats are feckless losers who care about Israel and insider trading and nothing else. so surely you can see how bad it sounds identifying as one.
There are a lot of people still being paid. ICE for example. Much like everything involved with the US congress, the rules aren't real and can be changed on a whim.
60 vote "requirement" isn't real. It can be overturned with a simple majority. It exists to give an excuse to democrats to not do anything. The republicans have and will create an exception whenever it is convenient for them. But they are perfectly fine with furloughing the services part of the government. But worry not, ICE and DoD contracts will still be paid.
Of course media and liberals overlook the fact that the government being "shut down" is part of the kabuki theater. There is nothing stopping the government being funded at previous levels unless a consensus was agreed to for the current year. It only takes a simple majority to make that change. The Dems could have done that during Obama, and also in 2020. But they didn't because a shut-down leading to lots of employee attrition and smaller government benefits the capitalists.
So there is a line. You wouldn't vote for Literally Hitler. Good Job! How about Trump (D)? In the 90's a lot of democrats, including Dems you probably have voted for and supported online, loved Trump.
How about a President (R ) who thinks that allowing the US to use Drones to kill anyone in the world as long as the CIA has a good reason to kill them is also ok? What if that were President (D)? Any issue there?
Hmm, yes it's probably a "choice." Why didn't they just "choose" to live in New York City, go to NYU, and join the board of a Non-Profit? Are they stupid?
Trumps opponents are gormless democrats who are so out of touch that even when healthcare is the most important issue to 75+% of americans, they will proudly claim that "universal health care will never ever happen." Or that "Healthcare isn't their highest priority," as if 75% of Americans were yearning for bailing out the same banks that they all hate.
Were previous presidents shutting down mines? I mean they were talking about how somehow magically coal miners would become solar miners or something, but did they actually address any material conditions that allowed coal miners to exist in the first place?Apply any wealth redistribution to the companies and individual that own coal mines?
Any non-neoliberal policy that talked about anything except "re-training" as if that is the fundamental issue with these coal-miners?
Anything that suggests the coal miners weren't "cast aside to die" under previous presidents?
Well I haven't see the arguement for why Quantum resistent encryption would somehow be weaker to traditional cryptographic techniques. I understand that early "quantum encryption" alogrithms were flawed, and it'll probably be a long time before we get the DES of Quantum Encryption. But all that means is that we don't have vetted "strong" quantum encryption techniques yet, and should stick with traditional encryption since quantum encryption isn't worth it yet. If Quantum encryption becomes worthwhile, we shouldn't have "traditional encryption", because it will be obsolete.
If the first cylinder lock was easily bypassed compared to my old reliable wafer lock, then why should I use the cylinder lock at all? Now that cylinder locks are better then wafer locks why should I use a tumbler lock at all? There is no added security by using a wafer lock.
You can always encrypt the payload twice if you want. But really what are you arguing? That every time you encrypt something, you should encrypt it serially with all known encryption algorithms "just in case?" Hell why not do it again just to make sure?
A key component of encryption is efficiency. Most cryptographic processes are going to be occurring billions of times across billions of transactions and involving billions of systems. It's worthwhile for robust encryption algorithms to be efficient and avoid unnecessary calculations unless those calculations demonstrate some advantage. For example PBKDF2, where the multiple rounds of identical encryption convey a demonstrable increase in time to decrypt via brute-force mechanisms. If the standard is 4096 which it was in 2005, you coming along and saying, but why isn't it 4097? The CIA is using >4096, therefore that means that 4096 is insecure! Isn't really understanding why 4096 was chosen to begin with. Additionally no one is stopping you from using one million iterations with key1 and then doing another million rounds with key2.
The "consequences" of a tattoo, on your own skin? No one gets a tattoo for someone else. Unless you are just anti-tattoo, I don't think anyone should give a fuck about the "consequences" of a tattoo.