These enterprises might not be setup by Russia directly but they might be setup by Russian criminal organizations which have been very active in the US over the last 20 years. That nobody in the current administration seem to be concerned with criminal organizations outside of some small or remnant groups from Latin America is very telling all on its own. This administration has never named any Russian gangs in official statements, even while they now dominate in some parts of the US.
That's easily falsifiable. Trump's DOJ and Treasury have multiple press releases regarding prosecutions and sanctions against Vory v zakone, thieves-in-law. Just search on either phrase and you'll see them.
Additionally, calling Venezuelan and Mexican cartels like CJNG small or remnant is extremely inaccurate, to be charitable. They are among the largest, best equipped, and most dangerous organized criminals in the world. You don't have be pro-Trump to acknowledge this fact.
They ran out of illegal immigrants with prior criminal records almost immediately and their political strategy depends on the generation of new "others" to demonize. MAGA basically hates everyone, including themselves, so they will keep expanding their targets.
That is arguable. Regardless of everything else, currently Intel stock is up about 50% from recent averages. If investors were so hurt, they really should be selling right now, and there seems to be reason to do so because Intel's troubles have not gone away with this Nvidia stake that does not touch Intel's rotten underbelly.
The python hunters of Florida do all the heavy lifting for this joke.
If you're not aware, python hunting is a state funded industry with the stated goal of controlling the spread of the invasive species in the Everglades. It has done very little to slow the growth of the python population in Florida but has created a demand for new roads and service buildings. Most python hunters farm overflow areas near roads, canals and flood gates, avoiding nests.
No, that's not my experience or understanding at all. Complexity is a byproduct of building something without understanding how all the parts fit together and without having a clear vision for how it will be used. The pyramids were built as monolithic monuments to the glory of a ruler intended to last millennia. They had a clear vision for what the end product should be, how it was going to be monetized and where material and labor was going to sourced before they laid the foundation.
Engineers thrown piecemeal at the edges of a problem will generate complexity. Engineers thrown into a room with a vision for what needs to be built and time to work out an elegant solution will get you to the moon with a pocket calculator.
If an engineer designs something, it tends to be complex, regardless of whether or not the designer has “the big picture,” because they design the whole thing to fit their worldview. Engineers have a complex worldview.
If a UI designer designs it, the chances of it being simple (from a user PoV), is much greater.
Designing a simple UI, in my experience, is often “un-simple,” however. I remember writing a visual cropping algorithm, for a film scanner.
It was a pretty damn hairy library (it ended up being an entire subsystem).
Worked well, though, once I refined and debugged it.
The UI designer might be capable of designing a simple UI but probably has no idea how to design a simple infrastructure, dataflow, logistics, corporate operations infrastructure, finance structure...
You're thinking like a UI designer that's watched engineers without UI design experience try to design a UI. You're referencing a lack of expertise and experience, not some inherent trait in engineering.
I'm a big fan of barriers to entry and using effort as a filter for good work. This derma app could be so much better if it actually taught laypeople to identify the difference between carcinomas, melanomas and non-cancerous moles instead of just being a fixed loop quiz.
IMO it is better to keep the barriers to entry as low as possible for prototyping. Letting domain experts build what they have in mind themselves, on a shoestring, is a powerful ability.
Most such prototypes get tossed because of a flaw in the idea, not because they lacked professional software help. If something clicks the prototype can get rebuilt properly. Raising the barriers to entry means significantly fewer things get tried. My 2c.
> IMO it is better to keep the barriers to entry as low as possible for prototyping
Not in an industry where prototypes very often get thrown into production because decision makers don't know anything about the value of good tech, security, etc
It's perfectly fine for most MVPs to go into production. Most SaaS software is solved. Prototypes are outsourcing the hard parts around security. The hard part is making a sale and finding the right fit. Spending 4x the cost on a product that never makes a sale is bad economics. This app isn't remotely harmful, so do you care to make an argument for why it shouldn't exist?
Should decision makers be more informed? Yes, of course, but that's not an argument for gatekeeping. We shouldn't be gatekeeping software or the web. Not through licensure or some arbitrary meaning of "effort". That will do nothing but stifle job growth and I'd very much like to keep developers employed.
If the argument was for protecting Intel, then the US government should be placing huge orders with Intel for solutions that will fund R&D and allow the company to regain its position as a foundry. They should be tapping into the defense budget. DARPA should be involved. This was an opportunity for petty extortion and a step towards socialism.
A large bulk of CPU orders comes from Google, Amazon, and Microsoft. Want to say 50% of all AMD revenue is datacenters, and the Hyperscalers represent the largest chunk of that.
Huge order for... what? DoD's needs for chips are quite modest in quantity. Truth is that the US Gov doesn't need the volume which requires Intel to keep afloat.
Government involvement is the fastest way to corrupt the purpose of an organization, hollow out its soul and quickly get rid of all the competant people.
There's a reason that the DOGE findings made a laughing stock of government employees.
I agree. He should take control of Tesla, OpenAI, Palantir and Facebook next. Then privatize some of the leading quantum computing companies. Why do we even need venture capital if we can just build out an Office of Strategic Investment and control everything from the federal government. \s
It’s super debatable whether or not DARPA has done more for creating enterprise value in the US tech sector than sand hill.
At the least, without darpa the whole Bay Area machine would not exist today, so it’s at least necessary if not sufficient.
Not just darpa but nih, nsf, doe, onr, arl, nasa, and the national labs are definitively necessary causal dependencies on of every company and industry driving US national pride and all of the most valuable companies.
Even if the firm never takes a grant, their talent, supply chain, and component pipelines all depend on these grantor agencies thoughtfully allocating taxpayer capital at the national level.
Slippery-slope fallacy. The money to buy shares has to come from somewhere and the power of the purse is with House of reps. Someone like Trump can (and is-per this post) take stakes in random companies, but that's our democracy. You wouldn't say "bomb canada, france, england and norway" because the military bombed one country right? You make sure congress checks and balances that power.
If the government takes over those companies and they don't do well, it means lost jobs which means lost elections too. There's a risk calculus to be had.
The current policy of never intervening or taking ownership in companies.. unless they are "too big to fail and start failing" only benefits the companies.
No, that was sarcasm that employed a slippery slope argument. I was not seriously suggesting that the federal government will buy Facebook. I was suggesting that we should avoid a pattern of behavior (slippery slope) that might lead to the socialization of other companies. Giving Intel a grant to keep it from failing is very different from demanding 10% in exchange for funds to keep it from failing.
reply