It is more like self imposed sanction against US made products. There are now tons of open source operating systems and applications that can replace Microsoft products, which are basically some old programs. The replacements cost vastly less to use and support.
No monthly fees and most software is available on opensource
windows -> linux mint OR reactOS OR OpenSUSE OR NIXos ( their choice) and many more
excel -> many of them as well as google spread sheet for free
Word -> Gazillion editors on open source; some much much better; and there is free google editor to boot
PowerPoint-> again Gazillion opensource replacements
Paint-> is a joke. Open source stuff is 10 times better
I don't want to advertise these products but you have access to search engines; look it up..
What is it that you think is so special? The only reason people are using the stuff is momentum carried from the past and PC being sold preloaded with windows.
"I'd crawl over an acre of 'Visual This++' and 'Integrated Development That' to get to gcc, Emacs, and gdb. Thank you." -- Vance Petree, Virginia Power
That is true but I mean individuals can use that stuff for free. The micosoft 365 has a zillion copies. Most of the stuff that companies use is applications they developed that they load on azure are probably java or C++ based applications about a decade or two old.
Not at all viable for daily use. Better you said ZorinOS (Linux distro with a very Windows feel; used it myself for a few months during my transition from Windows over 10 years ago).
Yup, whatever came to my mind I posted but you are right , Linux distro is a great choice and more recent ones Fedora, Ubuntu, Bazzite and Arch.. mint may have issues with some graphic cards apparently.. I couldn't update my post to add these.. sorry
Not to mention that with WINE you can install Microsoft Office - I could be wrong, but I think OS and Infra are the focus, Microsoft Office is orienting and tolerable. Its bloated but people know it. Besides office, everything important really is a web app now.
Microsoft is now charging monthly fees.. It is not about tolerance, it is like countries are paying rent to USA for something that their own people can provide at far lesser cost and there would be less bullying too and more independence to top it off. Once there is a momentum worldwide to transition away from Microsoft or American centric suppliers, the there would be more diversity too and more interoperating tools.
I do not know in this case, but I led migration and prior cost benefits analysis beforehand of very large Windows 3.11 to 95 to 2000; at the time there was nothing else that was considered useful and there still pain and massive cost. Later on we had to consider Linux as alternative; it just wasn’t close ; the stability (yep), easy of use etc was just not feasible. Now that Linux is good and easy to configure to basically be exactly like Windows and now that most custom applications of large corporates are web based and specific ones can be ran via Citrix for a few people who need it, I am guessing it finally is cheaper now. And 90% of users won’t even notice the difference; I remember when I was planning my first 3.11 to 95 migration that people were by far most stressed about users unable to open applications as they remember not the name or the icon but 2nd row, 3rd down is Word. Start, 5 up, 1 right, 3 down is internet. Etc. So as long as that’s the same, you are fine. It’s how most our clients still work so we take care never to move functionalities; only add, no delete.
> 2nd row, 3rd down is Word. Start, 5 up, 1 right, 3 down is internet.
That's crazy. There's no way that's the case today though as learning about basic computers+office (which implicitly includes how to run apps) is pretty standard in schools, and is a requirement for relevant positions. And the alternatives have a mostly similar UI, so the only differences people really need to deal with is ribbon vs traditional toolbar and a few other minor items, which can be covered in a couple of meetings for the more dense employees.
You'd be surprised. There are still quite a few 40-60 year olds working who never actually learned computers to begin with, and are still working by rote. On the other end of the scale are the 20~ year olds who never learned learned computers so much as they learned a tablet and a phone, and that trend doesn't seem to be turning.[1]
I had computer lessons in school, but I don't think those are universal any more, and that part of the curriculum has just been swallowed up by other lessons always using a tablet or Chromebook, meaning the kids never learn the foundation (to the extent there ever was one. It's not like I learned about common UI elements or anything back then. I figured those out by being interested in computers), but just learn what they have to by osmosis. This obviously varies depending on country and curriculum.
There are still quite a few 40-60 year olds working who never actually learned computers to begin with [...]
Yeah but whatever the situation, if they're already working with an office suite in a work situation then retraining as needed should be an expectation and fairly straight forward.
> I don't think those are universal any more
In the Caribbean where I am, learning basic computer use and office is a requirement in high school, along with English and Math. It'd be strange and irresponsible if there are - reasonably functional - countries that don't ensure students get certain skills to be able to function in a modern workplace.
> It'd be strange and irresponsible if there are - reasonably functional - countries that don't ensure students get certain skills to be able to function in a modern workplace.
A non-zero percent of students come out of school not being able to read or write. A double-digit percentage of Americans are seemingly only being able to read at a level just barely above the absolute bare minimum level that could actually count as being able to read.[1][2] I know Americans are special, but I'd be surprised if the rest of the world is drastically different in this case (it's probably better, but my lived experience tells me many, many people are really bad at reading, and actually getting them to engage or try to extract information beyond the exact words that are on the page, is a really heavy task for them they have real trouble with). Going by the averages of the 2024 results of the PIAAC survey,[3] many places are better, but I doubt they've managed to eliminate that large bottom part which is close to illiterate.
If we already have trouble teaching kids to read, then there should be no surprise we're having even more trouble teaching them to use computers.
Well, to keep this discussion in scope, the illiterate have limited job options, particularly near zero for jobs that require computer literacy. That automatically handles the issue in contention for this context: if someone can't get a job involving computers then retraining isn't even relevant in their case.
Many, many people who are on that level of literacy are in fact working with computers. Ask anyone in L1 tech support what kinds of tickets they get. Many involve people not reading the text directly in front of them.
That sounds highly problematic. Probably why there are so many tech support horror stories. Still, if they can fake it enough to keep that job, then they can fake it enough to adapt to tooling changes. Or wash out and get replaced by another who hopefully understands the tool that their job depends on them using to properly do said job. But again also if the pay is low enough the employer probably doesn't care much about performance anyway.
Obviously migration costs have given Microsoft the ability to collect rent on ancient software. But the younger population has stopped using a lot of these applications as well. There was sufficient motive to stop paying rent for old software and now there are more reasons that are piling up; one is self sufficiency then there is revolution in coding software as well as changing of what is a desirable office. Add Ai into this soup and what an office needs these days is not the same as decades ago.
There's a strong case to be made that a lot of enterprise licensing is a roach motel model. Easy to get into and seemingly convenient, especially the case for support. Avoiding that trap will reap benefits.
Yeah. Trump has been ripping out US infrastructure globally. Trumps administration and vance(GOP finance chair) elon(doge) thiel(owns vance) need to be removed ASAP.
Of course you would want to procure products that work for all of your employees. The idea that you could just cut off certain elements of a foreign government was really shortsighted.
The US government already exerts extensive control over ASML's business. The Netherlands can't leverage it in any kind of strategic way because a large part of the technology itself is American and it's very hard to untangle. It's the true definition of a "multi national" company.
Do they exert any physical control (i.e. parts are made and shipped from North America), or is it just "Intellectual Property" and legal agreements that can be ignored?
This is an honest question, I'm trying my best to word it to not sound like a troll.
Yes the EUV/DUV light source itself is researched, developed, and manufactured in California.
ASML was permitted to acquire Cymer in 2013 during the Obama administration under a strict technology sharing and export control agreement with the US government.
The R&D, technology, manufacturing, and all other operations had to remain in the US.
There is a lot of noise for public consumption but the reality is that the US control the Netherland and most European countries, and in fact while this noise has become louder in recent years so has the dependency of Europe on the US...
I still don't get why EU governments and agencies don't standardize around an already existing industry proven OS the EU already has domestically, which is SUSE, and need to each go reinventing the wheel their own way, which leads to higher costs and more fragmentation across the EU.
I heard the reason was that NL doesn't know if SUSE will be sold off again and might end up in the hands of some US PE, but here's the thing, you're the government, you can just block the sale of companies related to sovereign national security like those making operating systems. You can just do things when you want to. You literally have that power. Exercise it for once FFS.
The year the ICC was established, Congress passed a law providing enduring authorization for a full scale military invasion of the Netherlands should the ICC imprison any US service member, government employee, or those of allied nations (including Israel).[1] It even prevents any level of the US government (local, state, or federal) from working to assist the ICC. Americans do not want to be beholden to a foreign court.
I'm probably wrong but I could have sworn there was an article that came out when Trump was elected something happened with data on microsoft accounts/server huh. I guess it's ungoogable right now. Might have just been hosted by US gov. Must have been funding related.
Anyway I don't support ICC grabbing power it does not have over other countries who do not sign on.
If the ICC wanted to be consistent they should target Hamas leaders, Iranian leaders, ect
You'd be happy to know that ICC has also indicted three Hamas leaders (Yahya Sinwar, Mohammed Deif, Ismail Haniyeh). Granted all three were withdrawn because their deaths were confirmed, but you're presenting it as if ICC only indicted Israeli leaders, which is not the case.
> The US can't even win a war in the middle east without NATO
That is false. The US could win a war in the middle east without NATO.
The US has consistently chosen not to attempt to do so, but there is every reason to think they could. It is good that the US mostly tries to work with NATO on the middle east (and bad that Trump has not).
The US has also consistently chosen to send minimal ground forces, and when they do send them they are very careful to protect the lives of their soldiers at the expense of winning.
However there remains every reason to think the US could make different decisions and win wars in the middle east alone.
The other poster said "to distract from some other issue".
There are various people who point out that winning as most define it was never the objective in the first place, and the US doesn't care.
After WWII England (and to a lesser extent France) decided they didn't want to pay to be the world super power anymore. The US took over that roll, but to appease those who don't like that the US is willing to appear as a fumbling idiot despite meeting their objectives.
There are probably other reads, those are just the 3 I can think of right now.
You're probably right. The wars have served their purpose, i.e. distract voters from domestic issues. Who in power cares if they win or lose if they're still in power?
The US has lost every war after World War II, it is also lost in Central and South America when it comes to long-range infrastructure, having a rail system stuck in the 1950s is not gonna go anywhere, not leading the charge in Central and South America and getting that Pan American highway or Pan American railroad built from one end to the other?, and where is that highway or railway leading all the way to Nome, Alaska? The billions, trillions of dollars wasted, and US Steel which is now, owned by the Japanese.
By the way, if it wasn’t for the Russia’s ill fated war, the Chinese would have high-speed rail built out all the way to Europe, and would be making plans to build out all the way to South Africa, the Chinese have even taken the lessons of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and are gonna have Thorium up and running sometime in the early 2030s.
When it comes to Mercantile and Infrastructure China is one step ahead.
The US's objectives have rarely including a traditional win, so that isn't a useful think to ask about.
I don't know where your US rail system comparison comes from, but the US rail system is not stuck in the 1950s, the US rail system is the best in the world and has innovated. You might be thinking about passenger rail, but that is small subset of rail and not useful for most US needs.
Pan American highway or Pan American - these are feel good ideas of questionable benefit. They would sound good on paper, but they would not be useful for much: flying is faster (and probably cheaper) for things that need speed, while the nearby ocean is much cheaper for things that don't need speed.
The Europeans have some amount of leverage over the Americans, much smaller than the Americans have over them. But they use 100% of it to keep the Americans involved in the Ukraine War rather than to defend their own institutions / economies.
The tricky thing these days is trying to figure out whether messages like this are coming from Russian or MAGA bots ;) In any case, good work comrade! Here's your potato / Trumpcoin. Now back into your troll cave.
No problem. After the next election in the Netherlands, Microsoft only needs to promise to build a local headquarters there and the future government will roll back to Windows at twice the previous cost, which is exactly what happened in Munich.
Several International Criminal Court (ICC) judges have been unable to access their bank accounts or receive routine salary payments and financial transfers due to financial blockages triggered by United States sanctions. In the country where they live
Concrete examples to verify such claims please? Also in civilized countries such things are decided by the justice system, not the government (which to the surprise of many simple minded people - like a certain US president and his fanbase - is independent from the government).
The concrete example would be Canada "debanking" the truckers who protested in Ottawa for exercising their GOD given right to free speech. Another concrete example would be Germany having banks close accounts for the AFD and AFD related people.
The obvious answer here is "the one that you hate." Or, the Christian god of Abraham.
The preamble is not subtle: "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."
Now, legally/philosophically speaking, the Canadian concept of free-speech is laughably weak, as is all Canadian rights. Specifically, section one clearly states that rights are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Effectively, if the government decides that you're "not reasonable," you have no rights.
The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God, where the idea is that the government is to uphold the existing divine rights afforded to all human beings, as opposed to the British system of which Canada (and the rest of the common-wealth is based off of) is a part of, where the government _grants_ the rights.
Another example of this is the British crown, in which authority is given by God. Many of the older cities derive their local authority in the same way. If I recall correctly, I believe that the city of London is so old that they actually mixed it up, and derive theirs from "time immemorial."
> The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God
No, the legal system is not; there are non-legal documents which claim both of those things, but being subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” is very much how the US elgal system treats them. There is even, in federal Constitutional case law, an established, gradated system of tests (rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny) depending on which right is at issue and for whom it is being limited as to whether there is sufficient justification.
The same people who will tell you it's wrong to debank truckers for blocking highways will also complain that we don't debank climate protestors who block highways.
All men, being created by GOD, have certain inalienable rights, like free speech. Whether a country infringes upon those rights or not is a different story. Germany has a history in authoritarianism that seems to persist.
Are you saying the US government been implementing sanctions to make right wing activists not be able to receive bank transfers? That sounds like friendly fire and backwards, are you sure you understood the "source" correctly?
They were blocking highways with their trucks, and the same people who criticise this still want to debank climate protestors who block highways with their bodies.
I’m trying to remember the last time an international criminal court judge came to my community and brandished a firearm while shouting slurs at me. It has to have been at least a few weeks now.
You mean right-wing terrorists? The ones that forcibly invaded the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021 and attacked police officers in an effort to distrupt democracy?
Currently in the US, it's not criminal if it's done at the bidding of Trump, or if Trump approves of the violence.
The federal government is still stymieing the investigation of the ICE/DHS killings of Minneapolis citizens, violating their own policies requiring investigation.
There's no more federal rule of law until there's a full change in power, and that requires installing a functional DOJ and a new Supreme Court that is more interested in the law than in furthering partisan politics.
I've never seen Wero before. Is it similar to Zelle in the US?
Edit: it looks like Wero requires Google/Apple device attestation [1]. So this is basically a non-starter in terms of "sovereignty" from the US government. Anybody on the wrong side of US sanctions still can't use this since they get their iOS/Google Android devices shut off too.
Cryptocurrencies in general are a good alternative. They're strictly unsanctionable and, depending on the currency selected, also untraceable, so secondary sanctions would be extremely difficult to apply with any kind of granularity. National-scale sanctions, evidently, would still be quite feasible.
Alas, that kind of anonymity runs counter to the very soul of the European bureaucratic ethos. They absolutely want to know in detail where every single cent goes, plus the power to block transactions at will, so they're looking into some magic solution that allows them full purview and full control while perfectly denying the US and its spy apparatus the possibility to also see into it, an impossible combination of requirements.
And I say all that as a fan of the EU. It's one of their many blind spots they need to overcome if they ever want to become a technological superpower.
Some new cryptocurrencies designed for interbank communication can do 20k transactions per second now, and can scale above that. It's just a matter of choosing the appropriate stack for the task.
I think the currently fastest is Hedera (HBAR), at 2 minutes per transaction or so, and that it's also the most decentralized, without that mechanism other crypto currencies have that the more you own, the stronger your power over the network. There's still some power at the nodes level though, in that if they all coordinate they can shutdown the network for whatever reason. I also read it's designed such that those metrics improve as the network grows.
But I'm not a specialist, I'm just interested in the technology and play with it a little, so take what I wrote with a grain of salt.
Europe does have domestic payment infrastructure, that's in some ways more advanced than the US. That doesn't matter because US sanctions don't depend on control of the infrastructure itself. They have a recursive structure: if you don't enforce US sanctions, or you trade with a peer that doesn't, then you yourself become sanctioned. FATCA works the same way, as did the deployment of the global anti-money laundering system (a US invention, largely).
So someone could make a European bank for sanctioned individuals, and this would be allowed to exist but would never be able to transfer money to another bank except in cash?
My new vocabulary word for today: Hormesis is a two-phased dose-response relationship whereby low-dose exposures have a beneficial effect and high-dose amounts are either inhibitory to function or toxic.
> would explain why the liar-in-chief is so sweaty about the ICC.
In what world do you think Trump even remembers about the double tap on a fishing vessel more than a day ago? He has no worry about anything, he has escaped prosecution for everything he's ever done, and I doubt he believes he might face a tribunal at the Hague, if he even actually knows what the Hague, or a tribunal, or the ICC actually are.
Trump isn't sweaty about the ICC. There is next to 0% likelihood that an American president would be sent to the ICC to be tried or something. Anyone who thinks that might happen or thinks the ICC might have the power to compel such a scenario is quite delusional or just misunderstands how the world actually works.
Trump has a lot of domestic enemies, and not just in politics. Unless he goes all-in and refuses to leave office, it must concern him that some future US president might decide to Milošević him to the ICC - either as score-settling or to simply get him out of the way.
Personally I'd love to see Trump on trial at the ICC. Along with Putin and Netanyahu.
The many war crimes the US has committed are the main reason they don't want to participate or recognise the ICC. They don't like it when their people get punished for their war crimes and will threaten their alies with invasion to make sure nobody dares to try.
Murdering people on international waters is not even the latest war crime, IIRC the Hague Invasion Act was created because of the war crimes they were comitting in the Middle East 25 years ago.
The United States has never recognized the jurisprudence of ICC anyways. So to the United States these judges are just regular foreigners making decisions they don’t like. Sanctions are an appropriate tool for the United States to meddle in foreign affairs anyways.
Personally I don’t really have much faith in the ICC; its premise is flawed since great powers will never be deferential to a foreign court system anyways.
And reducing exposure to US sanctions (for example by investing into alternatives to Windows or Visa/MasterCard) is an appropriate response for the affected countries.
Sure, but that's nothing new. Russia has always been investing into domestic alternatives, even going to great lengths to build their own CPU architecture and such. But they've been a sworn enemy of the West so that's nothing surprising, and neither is China doing the same. The EU so far was considered firmly in the sphere of influence of the US, which is why this development is interesting.
Right - but American sanctions have a big effect. What happens when that power goes away? Who is going to sanction Russia?
You can complain about well America is sanctioning countries I disagree with, but it also affects countries you would agree with. When we don't have sanctions power perhaps military force gets used more.
Regardless of what happens both the EU and America are still within each other's spheres. That's not going to change anytime soon. We've gone through much worse.
No, your premise is flawed. According to your logic, all international treaties and bodies shouldn't exist either because great powers can ignore them at will just like how they ignore the ICC. The US for instance can ignore the Geneva Conventions willy-nilly and not be punished for it since to the US government, its own laws (which allow for war crimes) will always supersede foreign treaties, does that mean the Geneva Conventions shouldn't exist?
The ICC is a step in the right direction in the post-WW2 world, a shame though that repressive countries filled to the brim with war criminals cannot help but see it as an affront and such a threat to them.
> a shame though that repressive countries filled to the brim with war criminals cannot help but see it as an affront and such a threat to them.
I mean, they're right. International rules-based order is a threat to war criminals. The real shame is certain countries having the power to enforce rules-based order and not doing so (or failing to do so).
No. I’m not saying all international treaties and bodies shouldn’t exist. That’s a wild misinterpretation of what I said. I said that international treaties that establish a supranational court system should not exist. The emphasis is on court system. Conflicts between countries on anything including crimes should ideally be dealt with using diplomatic means, not a court trial. That’s why the United Nations Security Council works. It’s not a court.
That's an arbitrary statement to make ("I believe international treaties and bodies should exist, but make an exception for criminal courts"). I believe that criminal courts should matter even more than non-criminal courts such as the UNCLOS' court, mostly because even centuries ago, treaties related to war crimes have always been seen as a bigger priority for most empires and nations than other types of treaties have been. The ICC is our best way to enforce treaties like the Geneva Conventions.
The ICC is overwhelmingly popular with most countries and people, most people who oppose it are those from countries which harbor war criminals and try to make their opposition look like it stems from legal issues with international jurisdiction, and not the truth which is to protect their country's ability to commit war crimes unabated.
> The ICC is overwhelmingly popular with most countries and people, most people who oppose it are those from countries which harbor war criminals
We don’t have good enough contemporary global polling to confidently say that a majority personally supports the ICC.
The following countries are not party to the Rome Statute, which is what established the ICC:
United States, China, Russia, India, Israel, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.
I suspect you’re right that most people probably support the idea of the ICC but countries choose not to be part for a variety of reasons, other that “harboring war criminals”.
> international treaties that establish a supranational court system should not exist
ICJ and ECJ seem fine. I agree that the ICC is toothless (unless it’s investigating Africa for some reason). But if countries agree to its jurisdiction that’s basically glorified arbitration. The Philippine with Duterte show the benefits to a population to submitting to jurisdiction. I bet a lot of Americans being abused by ICE wish we had a check on our political leaders outside our own legal system.
Sure. You know what, I don't know enough about it to argue if it is. What I can say is it isn't toothless. International treaties can create robust judicial systems.
> That’s why the United Nations Security Council works.
Saying the security council works is... A perspective.
During the general assembly there were plenty of comments as to how it's not representative at all. There are 5 members with veto power (us, Russia, uk, France, china), why these? Because they won the WW2? The whole southern hemisphere doesn't hold veto power.
The security council works very well, if you're one of the 5 permanent members.
The principle of anarchy in IR still applies. Those treaties mean nothing as soon as any actor sees acting against them advanced their goals more than abiding by them.
International treaties and institutions are generally good to vertebrate and regulate the interactions between countries. But one must not forget they are make believe as they are unenforceable. So when you threaten to arrest and prosecute allies of the US outside the legal system of the US, you are declaring yourself an enemy of the US and treated as such.
"The US for instance can ignore the Geneva Conventions willy-nilly"
In many cases this is simply because we did not sign and ratify parts of the convention updates, thus we are not a signatory to those statutes. No way to truly punish those that aren't willing participants, except to make them unwilling participants.
I do indeed wonder why do they care about ICC considering they did not recognized it. One reason is that in fact that some of this "great powers" are much more "weaker" than they pretend, and that someone exposing something bad that they do will still have some effect on them.
Or (not sure if better or worse), they the "great powers" are stupid and they did not hear of the "Streisand effect".
Because they know full well that even the existence of the ICC is a threat to them, it allows people to point out that they have not subscribed to the fact that this court exists and that should have a power that they've been denied. If the court did not exist at all they could pretend to be like every other country.
Because 165 countries are signed on to the Rome Statute and are required to arrest war criminals (as deemed by ICC) like Netanyahu if they step foot in their country.
The idea of foreign entities holding American leaders to account when Americans are unable to do it themselves is a fundamental emotional taboo for many.
We did have the Nuremberg trials to prosecute Nazis after their empire collapsed. The ICC is a formalization of that principle on more solid legal footing
Obviously its power is limited when it comes to prosecuting people currently in power or people that have favorable standing with their current host country. It can only make the live of those people a little less pleasant by issuing arrest warrants that limit their ability to travel internationally. But governments do fall from time to time, and when that happens the ICC provides a solid mechanism for prosecuting them for war crimes and crimes against humanity, in a way that is fair and has rules that were solidly established before the crime was committed
Unfortunately no. The EU loves doing these kinds of sanctions itself and has spent decades withdrawing high value notes from circulation. There are thousands of people sanctioned by the EU:
An example of the EU doing similar sanctions would be Jacques Baud, a Swiss general sanctioned for "promoting conspiracy narratives and false claims about the war in Ukraine". The sanctions left him unable to buy anything including food. As he had a wife and family, the EU sanctioned them as well to prevent them helping him.
The same batch of sanctions also added an American citizen to the list, basically for running websites the EU doesn't like and considers fake news, and a French citizen, for "spreading conspiracy theories":
Cash doesn't help because there is no notice and most people don't keep enough cash on them to survive long enough, especially as there is no way to get unsanctioned - the entire process runs outside the judicial system and depends only on the whims of the Commission. The results are utterly brutal:
> Baud spoke in particular about how the sanction restricted his daily life. The measure caught him completely unprepared; from one day to the next, his credit cards, insurance policies, and bank accounts—including those in Switzerland, even though it did not adopt the sanction—were blocked. He could no longer make payments, and even shopping was impossible. "I survived, that's the only way to put it, thanks to my neighbors. They delivered food to me," Baud said.
Under the sanctions regime, the Geneva resident, who lives in Brussels, is entitled to support intended to cover his basic needs. According to him, the Belgian authorities granted his application at the beginning of February, but three months passed before the banks implemented it. Baud is also prohibited from leaving Belgium and therefore cannot travel to his home country.
The EU doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about sanctions. The ICC judges only lost access to some emails and other nice-to-haves, the US didn't stop them buying food or water.
Even crazier, they sanctioned a German journalist of turkish decent due to support of the palestianian cause / support of terrorist groups. [0] Even if you think he supports Hamas as a terrorist group (which is questionable), these sanctions are decided by executive committee, without a judge involved, and they make it impossible for the person to have banking, work, rent, or buy within the EU. It is essentially a social death sentence, worth than going to jail, and no due process whatsoever is involved.
Yeah they've done a bunch of Israel/Gaza related sanctions actually, in both directions. And there are way more sanctions like Baud's, for saying anything the EU thinks might be somehow advantageous to Russia. Only a few cases reach public attention. You can just scroll through the list and see.
> Daniella Weiss is the Director of the Nachala Movement (“Nachala”). Nachala has the aim of promoting Jewish settlements and illegal outposts in the West Bank.
> Nathalie Yamb is a social media influencer. Since the Sochi summit she attended in 2019, Nathalie Yamb has been an outspoken supporter of Russia, adopting Moscow’s language and targeting France and the West in particular, with a view to ousting them from the African continent. She has specific ties with AFRIC, an organisation linked to Russian private military companies.
She has links with an organization that has links. She "adopts Moscow's language".
> Through appearances at symbolic conflict sites, interviews with Russian television, publications on his X account (which has 18 100 followers) and contributions to Kremlin-funded outlets such as International Reporters, he amplifies Kremlin narratives that distort the realities of Russia’s war
> [Thomas Röper, a German war correspondant] legitimises Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory by serving as an election “observer”
Observing elections in Russia controlled territory might mean you can no longer buy food.
The ICC judge got sanctioned because he's trying to arrest a head of a US allied state. The EU does sanctions vastly harsher - outright deadly - against random nobodies, triggered by things as minor as posting opinions to X, or merely being related to someone who did. It's on a different level.
It would be appropriate to mention what exactly the ICC judges were punished for. If it didn't come with such a high karma risk, I would have mentioned it myself.
Hope that curious will find out on their own accord.
> would be appropriate to mention what exactly the ICC judges were punished for
I’m personally critical of the notion of the ICC, and I can’t come up with a legitimate reason we’d sanction them. America isn’t party to the Rome Statute. And the ICC has never even remotely threatened to do anything to any American.
It took me 5 years to get above 500 and be able to vote on comments. Then I've learned that over 1k you can tell how much karma a comment has and it was my silly dream ever since.
Speaking out about Hague and Nuremberg invitees is important, but it comes with risk of becoming like them or people arguing for them. (When fighting monsters one must be wary not to become a monster themselves.) It's just more hate that doesn't bring back to life executed children.
Nixpkgs is quite explicit about how to produce the distribution. You can rebuild the entire distro from source and backup the source code for every package.
As a normal NixOS user, I know how to do this. It would be quite some effort, but not especially difficult. Additionally, for a government they have the servers to set up a build farm.
Golden image deployments and netboot have been around for ages. If you want an unified system and control the infrastructure, it doesn't really matter which system you use.
I'm not sure why they chose nix. But it does make it easier to carry local patches than a lot of other systems. I hope they succeed.
The one that makes it trivial to carry over local patches is Gentoo. I carry a set of patches to every new computer and update them whenever neccesary. No overlay yet :P
I've never had a Nix user actually able to explain why they use it in a way that coherently makes sense because it's a cult. You buy into it before know anything about it.
On many operating systems you keep accumulating junk around your system which become ever harder to clean up. Many techy people re-install their system every few years to clean it up, many non-techy people simply watch their system become ever slower and filled with cruft until they end up buying a new device.
This is the main issue NixOS solves for me. I don't have systemd units or cronjobs or random config files spread across the system. I have one config file/directory, which contains everything.
You're overstating the problem to the point I have more doubts than before I read your argument.
My beef with nix is the arcane syntax to get anything done. Yes, it's documented. No, it doesn't help that it reads like one of those strict, convoluted standards written by a committee of experts.
it makes so much sense. a small team of experts maintaining a rock-solid base configuration providing the essentials, which can then be built on top of for agency/department or even personal specifics - all declarative, immutable, cachable, testable. I can't think of a better tool for the job.
As a downside, any change to software, version updates, keeping things secure now depends on the team is experts. Most are easy, some are hard (e.g. new software now requires a new Swift version - one person motivated enough to do that project has been pushing it for months), some are annoying (patch to libc means you're re-downloading your whole system).
As a positive thing, maybe at least nixos will get a serious security pipeline rather than the current best-effort community approach.
The NixOS foundation is Dutch, probably felt like a safe starting point (esp considering that the French has already gone that way).
Besides, technically, if you're chosing an OS in 2026, it sounds like a good plan to start with a system that has many reproducibility, correctness properties and separated packages designed in from the start.
Now, I'm not a NixOS user (altering mostly between win,fbsd,osX and some debians), maybe there's some horrible dragons lurking in using it in practice (do share in that case), but from reading about it sounds like a plan for a system used in a future where people don't need to curse too much about legacy decisions?
No, unfortunately NixOS will prove unworkable. It's a classic case of bureaucrats making decisions about things they don't understand based on random political factors like where the creators are based.
Nix has numerous properties that make it unsuitable for a normal desktop OS:
(1) It has no concept of libraries being backwards compatible, so if a 200kb core library changes in a backwards compatible way e.g. security hotfix, it will rebuild/redownload pretty much everything you have installed. This kills your ability to roll out security fixes quickly and ensures that updates are far more painful for end users than even on Windows.
(2) Nix advertises its main benefit as being that you can easily roll back bad updates, which is just false. It makes this false claim because Nix treats user state as being out of scope. Try upgrading Postgres across major versions with Nix and then rolling it back and see what happens, or really any program that stores stuff in $HOME and doesn't support rollback. It'll just die, make a mess, and Nix will wash its hands of the affair by saying it did the bit it wanted to do (change the binaries on your path) and the rest is just out of scope.
(3) It has no working concept of native plugins, related to point (1). If two plugins depend on slightly different versions of their host program, they'll just load incompatible libraries into the address space and things will crash.
(4) It cannot run binaries shipped for generic Linux without lots of fragile hacks like binary rewrites. But in the real world lots of important domain-specific programs are shipped as binaries, if they support Linux at all.
I'm not sure. It's a philosophical issue: Nix defines itself as an implementation of a core theoretical idea. If you change that idea too much it may not be Nix anymore.
It's probably worth just going back to the drawing board and asking what the goals of a desktop OS should really be. You'd end up with something radically different to Nix, IMO, sort of like how how NeXT/macOS manages software is quite radically different to UNIX.
I actually have a little exploration of a new software distribution idea going on right now, but it's not trying to do the same things as Nix. It starts by asking what a desktop OS inspired by the success of the web would look like.
I'm okay dropping the philosophy and just making something that truly does what Nix claims: atomic upgrades, fully-reproducible environments, etc. In fact, dropping the philosophy is exactly why I am making my own.
Your idea sounds interesting and (by your bio) right up your alley. I'd be interested to see the result.
I'm still working on it but the gist looks like this.
Two new programs: `url` and `run`. I am creating reference implementations but they're simple and there's a spec, so they could be reimplemented in your language of choice.
`url https://...` resolves the given URL into a disk cache in $HOME and then prints the path. `url` understands archives and can resolve inside them:
It implements the HTTP caching spec, and - as browsers can do with HTML - can extract cache override headers from the given program if it's a script with hashbang. It does a few other things, like set +x automatically if the program is intended to be executable, sets quarantine bits on macOS and so on:
$ open $(url https://downloads.mac-app.com/MacApp-1.2.zip/MacApp.app)
(scanned by gatekeeper and then run)
The disk cache is cleaned up automatically as disk space falls low or the cache exceeds the configured maximum.
Running programs this way is possible, but not ideal. This is where `run` enters the picture:
$ run cool-tool.org --help
or if you have the zsh integration set up, you can skip the `run` prefix and just treat URLs as program names:
$ cool-tool.org --help
`run` resolves this to https://cool-tool.org/run.zip/ which is a small metadata archive containing instructions for how to start the app. The instructions come in the form of a JavaScript that's run inside a restrictive sandbox. It is allowed to resolve URLs into the disk cache, to learn the current host OS and CPU architecture, and to yield an execution plan (basically the path to the binary/script to execute + possible transformed CLI arguments). So by publishing a small run.zip file to the root of cool-tool.org it becomes possible for users on any OS, including macOS and Windows, to start the program purely by domain name. The script can do hash locking and override cache headers for URLs if the file server isn't cooperative. The tools will keep the app up to date and optimize out cache checks to keep startup fast when the cache is fresh enough.
The run script has a few other options, like figuring out what system libraries are available and what their versions are, thus - if it wishes - it can choose to either download dependencies into the cache and use them (e.g. by setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH), or use the OS provided versions.
At the moment I'm also working on adding a form of sandboxing. The execution plans produced by run scripts can contain permission requests, similar in spirit to macOS entitlements. The permissions aren't tied to any specific sandboxing system or OS. The implementation of `run` may, at its leisure, use this information to sandbox the program before it executes it. The run script may also adapt the permissions requested based on things like what the host OS is, or even what the command line arguments are. For example:
The run script can look at the command line arguments for this invocation, then produce a permission set that only allows access to the in.mp4 and out.mp4 paths, but nothing else. Whether the implementation of run actually tightens things that much will depend on things like what the host OS is capable of, but the information to do so is there. For example on Linux it might use landlock, on macOS it might compare the declared permissions against the entitlements in the Mach-O and abort if there's a mismatch, and so on.
run.zip files don't have to be produced by the upstream author of the code. They can come from anywhere and resolve URLs from anywhere. So if you are worried about the upstream code being malicious, y...
The web made many mistakes. Only thing it got right is HTML and convenience.
JS is garbage, browsers bloated. The web is centralized forgetful and fragile. No thx.
I think it depends on what they want it for. I can imagine NixOS being perfect for user workstations for example, as an alternative to Windows workstations managed with Active Directory.
I imagine you have a lot more experience than I do packaging for NixOS and other distros given your product, but in the few cases that I've needed to run a binary, I just wrap it with a flake and it's done. I also stay on NixOS stable, so I avoid the sharp parts of "bleeding edge". In my experience as a desktop user, I've never had a failed rollback since using NixOS as my primary OS since around 2016. However, whenever I try to use it as a server OS, I often do hit the pain point you mentioned around statefulness. More specifically, the happy path is extremely happy, but once you need something off the happy path, you find yourself creating some really ugly glue to get it to interface with the happy path. The pattern I've settled on is using Podman quadlets for most services, but that isn't without pain either. Then you find that you've become a Unix sysadmin, managing different UIDs for rootless podman, different network domains, dealing with permissions issues, etc. I'm currently experimenting with microvm.nix to see if that will be cleaner, but no conclusions yet.
I think people are unfairly downvoting this comment, but I do want to drill into your point (1) a bit. You're right that you can't really do a delta patch in NixOS. But I feel like that is so so so important these days with active supply chain attacks. I don't want a 200kb change to a core library that is "claimed" to be backward compatible to be able to make its way into my codebase. In an ideal world sure, there would be some way to prove that the update doesn't break anything and isn't malicious, and that is certainly possible for some limited subset (provers like Rocq, OS functionality like BSD Pledge, etc), but for now this is mostly based on trust.
What does my codebase mean, though? A normal desktop OS doesn't require app devs to issue updates for any change to any library and it would be extremely insecure to do so. The OS is better maintained than the apps.
Redownloading everything doesn't protect against supply chain attacks. Those can still happen, no problem.
Reflecting on it, I guess my OS config has turned into a codebase. I have a single Nix closure that includes all my OS config, all the services running on it, and all the small utilities that need to be compiled from source (either because they are something I wrote, or something that isn't packaged in Nixpgs). I'm not sure whether this is considered best practice or not. To your point though, I would be unaware if an upstream maintainer released a security patch for something that I'm compiling from source, because I am pinned to a specific Git commit. On the other hand, I can just point an LLM at my Nix source, and ask it to scan it for security issues periodically. I do this from time to time with one of the smart models, but it might be an interesting experiment to set up a daily scan with an inexpensive or even a local model.
1: Sounds like something that could be improved rather than being something inherent, could be part culture though since slightly incompatible C/C++ libraries isn't an uncommon thing so unless there's proper testing channels the user-diskspace/time is a tradeoff (not perfect, but reasonable)
2: Doesn't really sound like a problem for most desktop stuff unless there's some components you use that depend on non-upgradable data. Users have their browser, word files, excel files, pdf files and so on.
3: Sounds annoying, but also like a fixable feature. How much common user software have native plugins ?
4: Binaries for Linux is a bit of a mess in general, I think someone in jest wrote that now that Wine has improved, win32 binaries is the preferable binary distribution format for Linux.
The problem with (1) is it's inherent to the design concept. Nix defines package identity to include the dependency closure. Fixing that would require introducing the concept of an interface export that blocks the recursion, and then having other packages depend on that. This is nothing radical and plenty of build tools do it e.g. Gradle has a concept of this, as does a private build system I built myself. But Nix doesn't have it, it's something that would have needed to be there from day one, and AFAIK there are no plans to add it.
Incompatibilities can of course happen, but so can improvements. Nix throws the baby out with the bathwater. You can rerun CI of upstream (open source) projects against a new set of component versions if you want, it doesn't imply anything about how the distribution mechanism should work.
For (2) the issue is non-downgradeable data, not non-upgradeable. Apps basically never support downgrades. Consider your web browser changing the format of its HTTP cache or credentials store, consider your word processor adding a new feature that the user incorporates into their documents and then it's suddenly downgraded. There isn't even any way to downgrade Chrome via its normal user interfaces!
For (3) crashes aren't just annoying, they're indicative of a fatal design flaw. Native plugins were a common feature on other operating systems (e.g. macOS is full of them) and have historically been a feature of KDE and GNOME. I don't know if there are new Linux-native apps of high complexity being written these days though. The dominance of Electron apps means plugins have largely moved server-side where the user's OS can't screw them up. Nonetheless you can't have a serious productivity-focused desktop OS if apps can't be composed at all. You can do maybe a ChromeOS competitor.
1: I think that's still a decision of the OS developers, you can have a purity-of-install to have functioning software (avoiding incompatible libraries), in the end though for all binaries it's just instructions with little knowledge moving around an instruction pointer, so is there anything fundamental that precludes an overlayed patch-stream where you have installed versions (nix world) but a runtime linker that silently replaces core libraries (that would cause extensive reloads, say OpenSSL) during link-time to have a functioning userland until the next release occurs?
2: I hear you, I still think it's a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things, worst case administrators should manage for full user backups in case of breakage (people bad backups habits are more likely to cause havoc for other reasons like hardware failure than the occasional downgrade of system data).
3: only thing that immediately comes to mind is Blender, but there it's Python scripts and intentionally not supporting C++ plugins (last I checked you're supposed to rebuild the entire thing if you want C++ additions).
4: OSS unixy systems has always had tilt to the former in the conflict between the security/sysadmin view (no local binary searching due to security, binaries upgrade everywhere) vs users (who wants to run programs and don't care too much about what glibc version it was compiled with, even taking that big binary with all libraries bundled).
I see Nix as more like Windows SxS instead of just shipping everything like with flatpak,docker,etc. But it always boils down to the same dependency on absolute filepaths for everything that's hard to escape (because you can "just recompile").
flatpak exists though, doesn't it work well enough?
Not just the foundation, the inventors of Nix and NixOS are Dutch too, it came out Utrecht University. Even the name is from dutch "niks" for "nothing", the snowflake came later and is basically a retcon.
As for practical use, sure there are some rough corners (this is true for every Linux distro), but I don't think there's any horrible showstoppers. In fact it's particularly well-suited for use by organizations (as opposed to private individual use) because it's great for making highly customized but reproducible setups.
I was so disappointed that Valve chose Arch as their base for SteamOS. SteamOS is excellent, and all the work they do has gone back upstream to make Arch and Linux gaming better, but I feel like it was a missed opportunity. I've always thought that NixOS (and immutable distros like Fedora Silberblue etc) are perfect for embedded or consumer appliances. I feel like a bit of help from a company that actually uses NixOS in a mass market product would really push it over the edge in terms of usability.
The idea of "change through trade" mostly worked great (see most former socialist European countries), but sometimes not at all (see Russia), and China is kind of in the middle of both extremes currently.
For this to work all participants need to play along, not throw a tantrum & actively trying to sabotage the system. In such cases, you need to cut out the faulty participant & continue without them.
> The more countries trade with each other and depend on each other, the better things are for peace
I previously thought the same, with Europe and Russia doing lots of trade e.g. Germany buying lots of gas from Russia, and many western companies being present in Russia. It seems obviously true.
But Russia still started a war anyway, so I guess it's not actually true.
I think it's true but only in equitable societies.
Putin or Trump are totally isolated from economical and political consequences so they have no problem severing ties. If there are genuine co-dependencies, including for the leaders, they it's much harder to break peace.
I imagine the ideological aspect is the deeper motivation but it only matters with the right circumstances.
Putin and Trump sits in the opposite side of the political spectrum, so as the country they lead, and yet they still managed to archive something similar.
It's not that hard to manage the country to a point where nothing in the country, even law, can hurt it's leader anymore. Sometime a bit of time and patient is all it takes.
I mean, we in europe did a a lot of trade with US too, and between other (then and still) EU countries, but the americans (and brits, and a few others) decided to attack Iraq for example ("Iraq has WMDs!"), and there were no sanctions and trade went on. And many other conflicts and bombings all around the world.
So it's not actually caring about the war and dead people (if we did, we'd do something about what israel is doing in gaza), but "us vs them", and russia is "them" while US was traditionally "us", until daddy Trump came along.
Someone probably told the EU politicians that russia will cave after a month or two of sanctions, there will be some kind of a "revolution" there, someone "pro EU" will be set there, and gas would be even cheaper.... A similar scenario was probably given to Trump for iran (just bomb the government, they'll cave, and you can set up a new pro-US leader there again).
You can never rule out irrational acts. Merkel was ignoring the writing on the wall for much too long, it was pretty obvious that russia was on the war path long before she was still happily inking contracts that financed russia's machinery. You can not get a country that is already waging irrational wars to change their way by trading with them. But I'm pretty sure that for instance Trump right now is restrained to some degree by the certain knowledge that the US economy is at the mercy of outsiders.
Yes, but we (in Europe) cannot afford all the digital infrastructure to be concentrated in one partner country. If you buy something from us and we buy something from you, that's trade. If we have to buy everything from you, that's a dependency, and we need to fix it asap
Trump, Putin and Xi all seem to fit the bill and act like they can only gain at the cost of others. Some are more nuanced about it than others but none wants to cooperate with anyone else.
We're getting there. There are fewer irrational actors and small man syndrome affected people in places of power every passing day (on average, I hope these las few years are jusg a bump on the road)
This was just another American cool-aid. The strategy was this: cultivate a hyper-consumerist, greedy and gluttonous population at home. Invite other countries to export and trade with the US. Build a dependency from which countries can't unwind themselves out of. Enslave the world and rule over them. Continue the aforementioned strategy while dispensing other cool-aids like "trade prevents war".
Yet, it seems like the enslaved nations still haven't gotten the memo.
The world we inhabit already sucks pal. You're just high up enough on the ladded that the suck hasn't hit your ankles yet. Don't worry -- it's coming! For us all!
> [...] its chief prosecutor lost access to Microsoft services, including email
> [...] the program was aimed at refreshing the technologies used by the Dutch government in such a way that it would no longer be in a situation where it could lose access to critical systems at the whim of a foreign country
How does switching desktop OS help you retain access to email and payment services, neither of which care about your OS?
It doesn't in and of itself, but there's no clear reason why the US government could not instruct Microsoft that sanctions include a prohibition on granting OS licenses which are likely to be used by sanctioned persons. They're trying to get ahead of things rather than do the bare minimum.
Some people might consider not having access to Windows 11 as a blessing in disguise when businesses are "forced" to move from Windows 10, now they can see there are other viable options.
It’s a blessing, Microsoft has always been mediocre throughout their entire history. It’s a shame that so many American and European vertical tech companies gave up in the late 1980s, and 1990s.
If you haven’t noticed, Microsoft has trouble competing when the playing field is even remotely level.
On the other hand, the US is still negotiating with lots of countries across the world, continuing to invest and be invested in, continuing to grow economically, and more.
Your personal point of view which primarily exists in a silo on the Internet does not match the viewpoints of most of the rest of the world, including folks in Europe.
So, yes again, America. That's how the world works.
Who cares? It shouldn't even have been close. The fact that enough of the country supports him that he could even get within 2.1% of the popular vote in 2016 is enough to show how morally rotten the whole nation is. The US empire deserves to collapse
There is a lot of inertia in the system, but US tech would be half the size without international customers. We've really slammed the door on our dick and the pain is going to be obvious.
I bizarrely (perhaps naively) believe that it will be good for the US in the long term. I think that we have coasted on our favored status for a long time and competition and consequences will help fix that.
As a US citizen and FOSS lover, I am absolutely pleased about this. Tearing down and tearing out US tech giants will only be good for computing in the long run.
European bureaucracy has a thing for weird technology - Scala, Flatpak, now NixOS. But still better than being dependent on proprietary software not made in Europe
Couldn't have come at a worst time for the US and best for the rest of us. With Omachy (or however you write it), building decent OSes is about to be much easier.
More than half of US tech industry revenue comes from outside the US. Tech industry CEOs kowtow to an administration that is destroying US soft power and trust in US technology. How smart was that decision? When and how does that decision get reconsidered?
So after reading your comment 17 minutes ago & doing a quick & dirty search to see if there were any tech companies having a particularly bad year in Europe, the net result is: not really, with the caveat that Europe often gets grouped in under EMEA (Europe, the Middle East, Africa) on financial reports.
Europe continues to remain one of America’s premier VIP Customers[1].
A lot of those Linux installations are going to be paying Microsoft licensing fees for at least a year or two after they've ripped out their last Windows machine.
The installed base of technology moves slowly. Check the consumer discretionary spending first. In tech that probably means Meta.
Meta is doing quite well in Europe. Q2 2026 they were up nearly $4 billion in Europe (their definition is Europe, but the footnote adds that they specifically include Russia & Turkey in this figure as well), and Q1 2026 they were up $6.5 billion in Europe.
It was obvious from the start that Israel's killing of tens of thousands of Palestinians wasn't genocide. So why press charges against its political leaders? This move was purely politically motivated either by the DA (a Muslim) or the leadership of the ICC.
The U.S. is a hyperpower that does not want to be hindered by a politically influenced extra-judicial tribunal.
Trump obviously wants doesn't want his hands tied when he decides to bomb all the power plants in Tehran and Iran to force the country to its knees. The fact that this might be interpreted as a war crime has withheld him from ordering this up until now. Iran, however, is bombing civilian infrastructure almost on a daily basis yet I haven't seen any arrest warrants for its leaders being issued.
250 comments
[ 0.27 ms ] story [ 10.4 ms ] threadwindows -> linux mint OR reactOS OR OpenSUSE OR NIXos ( their choice) and many more
excel -> many of them as well as google spread sheet for free
Word -> Gazillion editors on open source; some much much better; and there is free google editor to boot
PowerPoint-> again Gazillion opensource replacements
Paint-> is a joke. Open source stuff is 10 times better
I don't want to advertise these products but you have access to search engines; look it up..
What is it that you think is so special? The only reason people are using the stuff is momentum carried from the past and PC being sold preloaded with windows.
In my opinion that is.
Not at all viable for daily use. Better you said ZorinOS (Linux distro with a very Windows feel; used it myself for a few months during my transition from Windows over 10 years ago).
That's crazy. There's no way that's the case today though as learning about basic computers+office (which implicitly includes how to run apps) is pretty standard in schools, and is a requirement for relevant positions. And the alternatives have a mostly similar UI, so the only differences people really need to deal with is ribbon vs traditional toolbar and a few other minor items, which can be covered in a couple of meetings for the more dense employees.
I had computer lessons in school, but I don't think those are universal any more, and that part of the curriculum has just been swallowed up by other lessons always using a tablet or Chromebook, meaning the kids never learn the foundation (to the extent there ever was one. It's not like I learned about common UI elements or anything back then. I figured those out by being interested in computers), but just learn what they have to by osmosis. This obviously varies depending on country and curriculum.
[1] https://futurism.com/the-byte/gen-z-kids-file-systems
Yeah but whatever the situation, if they're already working with an office suite in a work situation then retraining as needed should be an expectation and fairly straight forward.
> I don't think those are universal any more
In the Caribbean where I am, learning basic computer use and office is a requirement in high school, along with English and Math. It'd be strange and irresponsible if there are - reasonably functional - countries that don't ensure students get certain skills to be able to function in a modern workplace.
A non-zero percent of students come out of school not being able to read or write. A double-digit percentage of Americans are seemingly only being able to read at a level just barely above the absolute bare minimum level that could actually count as being able to read.[1][2] I know Americans are special, but I'd be surprised if the rest of the world is drastically different in this case (it's probably better, but my lived experience tells me many, many people are really bad at reading, and actually getting them to engage or try to extract information beyond the exact words that are on the page, is a really heavy task for them they have real trouble with). Going by the averages of the 2024 results of the PIAAC survey,[3] many places are better, but I doubt they've managed to eliminate that large bottom part which is close to illiterate.
If we already have trouble teaching kids to read, then there should be no surprise we're having even more trouble teaching them to use computers.
[1] https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/2023/national_results.asp
[2] https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/piaac/measure.asp?section=1&sub_...
[3] https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/do-adults-have-the-skil...
Oh wait, it is.
But it’s ok because Us President has made it clear the the USA doesn’t need anything Europe has. So, not a problem.
This is an honest question, I'm trying my best to word it to not sound like a troll.
ASML was permitted to acquire Cymer in 2013 during the Obama administration under a strict technology sharing and export control agreement with the US government.
The R&D, technology, manufacturing, and all other operations had to remain in the US.
https://www.asml.com/en/company/about-asml/cymer
I heard the reason was that NL doesn't know if SUSE will be sold off again and might end up in the hands of some US PE, but here's the thing, you're the government, you can just block the sale of companies related to sovereign national security like those making operating systems. You can just do things when you want to. You literally have that power. Exercise it for once FFS.
I think this has a lot to do with how the case against Putin was built and Trump used his influence to disrupt it.
[1]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr...
It's the ultimate expression of US corruption. There's not even a pretense of fighting for justice any more, just fighting justice.
Anyway I don't support ICC grabbing power it does not have over other countries who do not sign on.
If the ICC wanted to be consistent they should target Hamas leaders, Iranian leaders, ect
I am wondering if every war time leader should expect an ICC indictment.
NAZA
One can only hope. It may actually reduce the numbers of wars if our "leaders" knew they would have to justify their actions in court.
The US can't even win a war in the middle east without NATO
What is the US going to do when China starts making their own moves?
That is false. The US could win a war in the middle east without NATO.
The US has consistently chosen not to attempt to do so, but there is every reason to think they could. It is good that the US mostly tries to work with NATO on the middle east (and bad that Trump has not).
The US has also consistently chosen to send minimal ground forces, and when they do send them they are very careful to protect the lives of their soldiers at the expense of winning.
However there remains every reason to think the US could make different decisions and win wars in the middle east alone.
The US has been getting their shit rocked by people in sandals for the better part of 70 years.
The other poster said "to distract from some other issue".
There are various people who point out that winning as most define it was never the objective in the first place, and the US doesn't care.
After WWII England (and to a lesser extent France) decided they didn't want to pay to be the world super power anymore. The US took over that roll, but to appease those who don't like that the US is willing to appear as a fumbling idiot despite meeting their objectives.
There are probably other reads, those are just the 3 I can think of right now.
By the way, if it wasn’t for the Russia’s ill fated war, the Chinese would have high-speed rail built out all the way to Europe, and would be making plans to build out all the way to South Africa, the Chinese have even taken the lessons of Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and are gonna have Thorium up and running sometime in the early 2030s.
When it comes to Mercantile and Infrastructure China is one step ahead.
I don't know where your US rail system comparison comes from, but the US rail system is not stuck in the 1950s, the US rail system is the best in the world and has innovated. You might be thinking about passenger rail, but that is small subset of rail and not useful for most US needs.
Pan American highway or Pan American - these are feel good ideas of questionable benefit. They would sound good on paper, but they would not be useful for much: flying is faster (and probably cheaper) for things that need speed, while the nearby ocean is much cheaper for things that don't need speed.
The preamble is not subtle: "Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law."
Now, legally/philosophically speaking, the Canadian concept of free-speech is laughably weak, as is all Canadian rights. Specifically, section one clearly states that rights are subject to "reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society". Effectively, if the government decides that you're "not reasonable," you have no rights.
The American system is quite clear about their rights being absolute and derived from God, where the idea is that the government is to uphold the existing divine rights afforded to all human beings, as opposed to the British system of which Canada (and the rest of the common-wealth is based off of) is a part of, where the government _grants_ the rights.
Another example of this is the British crown, in which authority is given by God. Many of the older cities derive their local authority in the same way. If I recall correctly, I believe that the city of London is so old that they actually mixed it up, and derive theirs from "time immemorial."
No, the legal system is not; there are non-legal documents which claim both of those things, but being subject to “reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society” is very much how the US elgal system treats them. There is even, in federal Constitutional case law, an established, gradated system of tests (rational basis test, intermediate scrutiny, and strict scrutiny) depending on which right is at issue and for whom it is being limited as to whether there is sufficient justification.
The federal government is still stymieing the investigation of the ICE/DHS killings of Minneapolis citizens, violating their own policies requiring investigation.
There's no more federal rule of law until there's a full change in power, and that requires installing a functional DOJ and a new Supreme Court that is more interested in the law than in furthering partisan politics.
1: https://wero-wallet.eu/
2: https://www.werotracker.eu/
Edit: it looks like Wero requires Google/Apple device attestation [1]. So this is basically a non-starter in terms of "sovereignty" from the US government. Anybody on the wrong side of US sanctions still can't use this since they get their iOS/Google Android devices shut off too.
[1] https://support.wero-wallet.eu/hc/en-us/articles/25599098295...
i will keep it in mind! thank you
Alas, that kind of anonymity runs counter to the very soul of the European bureaucratic ethos. They absolutely want to know in detail where every single cent goes, plus the power to block transactions at will, so they're looking into some magic solution that allows them full purview and full control while perfectly denying the US and its spy apparatus the possibility to also see into it, an impossible combination of requirements.
And I say all that as a fan of the EU. It's one of their many blind spots they need to overcome if they ever want to become a technological superpower.
But I'm not a specialist, I'm just interested in the technology and play with it a little, so take what I wrote with a grain of salt.
i know of some mutual credit systems that can work, but also here, it requires the trust of a big enough amount of people to trigger network effects!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hormesis
Given how one sided they precessed crimes and "crimes" they didn't deserve better.
I'd like to see a day those judges will get prosecuted for their wrongdoings.
[0] https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/11/28/...
[1] https://www.mediaite.com/media/tv/cnns-elie-honig-points-out...
In what world do you think Trump even remembers about the double tap on a fishing vessel more than a day ago? He has no worry about anything, he has escaped prosecution for everything he's ever done, and I doubt he believes he might face a tribunal at the Hague, if he even actually knows what the Hague, or a tribunal, or the ICC actually are.
Personally I'd love to see Trump on trial at the ICC. Along with Putin and Netanyahu.
Murdering people on international waters is not even the latest war crime, IIRC the Hague Invasion Act was created because of the war crimes they were comitting in the Middle East 25 years ago.
Personally I don’t really have much faith in the ICC; its premise is flawed since great powers will never be deferential to a foreign court system anyways.
True, neither has China, India, or Russia.
You can complain about well America is sanctioning countries I disagree with, but it also affects countries you would agree with. When we don't have sanctions power perhaps military force gets used more.
Regardless of what happens both the EU and America are still within each other's spheres. That's not going to change anytime soon. We've gone through much worse.
The ICC is a step in the right direction in the post-WW2 world, a shame though that repressive countries filled to the brim with war criminals cannot help but see it as an affront and such a threat to them.
I mean, they're right. International rules-based order is a threat to war criminals. The real shame is certain countries having the power to enforce rules-based order and not doing so (or failing to do so).
The ICC is overwhelmingly popular with most countries and people, most people who oppose it are those from countries which harbor war criminals and try to make their opposition look like it stems from legal issues with international jurisdiction, and not the truth which is to protect their country's ability to commit war crimes unabated.
We don’t have good enough contemporary global polling to confidently say that a majority personally supports the ICC.
The following countries are not party to the Rome Statute, which is what established the ICC:
United States, China, Russia, India, Israel, Indonesia, Pakistan, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc.
I suspect you’re right that most people probably support the idea of the ICC but countries choose not to be part for a variety of reasons, other that “harboring war criminals”.
ICJ and ECJ seem fine. I agree that the ICC is toothless (unless it’s investigating Africa for some reason). But if countries agree to its jurisdiction that’s basically glorified arbitration. The Philippine with Duterte show the benefits to a population to submitting to jurisdiction. I bet a lot of Americans being abused by ICE wish we had a check on our political leaders outside our own legal system.
Sure. You know what, I don't know enough about it to argue if it is. What I can say is it isn't toothless. International treaties can create robust judicial systems.
The first "supranational" court system was created with the USA fully on-board: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremburg_trials
In fact, they liked it so much that they re-enacted it at home: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsequent_Nuremberg_trials
Saying the security council works is... A perspective.
During the general assembly there were plenty of comments as to how it's not representative at all. There are 5 members with veto power (us, Russia, uk, France, china), why these? Because they won the WW2? The whole southern hemisphere doesn't hold veto power.
The security council works very well, if you're one of the 5 permanent members.
International treaties and institutions are generally good to vertebrate and regulate the interactions between countries. But one must not forget they are make believe as they are unenforceable. So when you threaten to arrest and prosecute allies of the US outside the legal system of the US, you are declaring yourself an enemy of the US and treated as such.
In many cases this is simply because we did not sign and ratify parts of the convention updates, thus we are not a signatory to those statutes. No way to truly punish those that aren't willing participants, except to make them unwilling participants.
Or (not sure if better or worse), they the "great powers" are stupid and they did not hear of the "Streisand effect".
That's not nothing.
Obviously its power is limited when it comes to prosecuting people currently in power or people that have favorable standing with their current host country. It can only make the live of those people a little less pleasant by issuing arrest warrants that limit their ability to travel internationally. But governments do fall from time to time, and when that happens the ICC provides a solid mechanism for prosecuting them for war crimes and crimes against humanity, in a way that is fair and has rules that were solidly established before the crime was committed
I would like to request the US sanctions all members of the EU parliament asap.
https://data.europa.eu/apps/eusanctionstracker/individuals/
An example of the EU doing similar sanctions would be Jacques Baud, a Swiss general sanctioned for "promoting conspiracy narratives and false claims about the war in Ukraine". The sanctions left him unable to buy anything including food. As he had a wife and family, the EU sanctioned them as well to prevent them helping him.
The same batch of sanctions also added an American citizen to the list, basically for running websites the EU doesn't like and considers fake news, and a French citizen, for "spreading conspiracy theories":
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L...
Cash doesn't help because there is no notice and most people don't keep enough cash on them to survive long enough, especially as there is no way to get unsanctioned - the entire process runs outside the judicial system and depends only on the whims of the Commission. The results are utterly brutal:
> Baud spoke in particular about how the sanction restricted his daily life. The measure caught him completely unprepared; from one day to the next, his credit cards, insurance policies, and bank accounts—including those in Switzerland, even though it did not adopt the sanction—were blocked. He could no longer make payments, and even shopping was impossible. "I survived, that's the only way to put it, thanks to my neighbors. They delivered food to me," Baud said.
Under the sanctions regime, the Geneva resident, who lives in Brussels, is entitled to support intended to cover his basic needs. According to him, the Belgian authorities granted his application at the beginning of February, but three months passed before the banks implemented it. Baud is also prohibited from leaving Belgium and therefore cannot travel to his home country.
https://www.nzz.ch/schweiz/ich-ueberlebte-dank-meinen-nachba...
The EU doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining about sanctions. The ICC judges only lost access to some emails and other nice-to-haves, the US didn't stop them buying food or water.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H%C3%BCseyin_Do%C4%9Fru
e.g. https://data.europa.eu/apps/eusanctionstracker/subjects/1855...
> Daniella Weiss is the Director of the Nachala Movement (“Nachala”). Nachala has the aim of promoting Jewish settlements and illegal outposts in the West Bank.
or https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A...
> Nathalie Yamb is a social media influencer. Since the Sochi summit she attended in 2019, Nathalie Yamb has been an outspoken supporter of Russia, adopting Moscow’s language and targeting France and the West in particular, with a view to ousting them from the African continent. She has specific ties with AFRIC, an organisation linked to Russian private military companies.
She has links with an organization that has links. She "adopts Moscow's language".
or https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L...
> Through appearances at symbolic conflict sites, interviews with Russian television, publications on his X account (which has 18 100 followers) and contributions to Kremlin-funded outlets such as International Reporters, he amplifies Kremlin narratives that distort the realities of Russia’s war
or https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L_202...
> [Thomas Röper, a German war correspondant] legitimises Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory by serving as an election “observer”
Observing elections in Russia controlled territory might mean you can no longer buy food.
The ICC judge got sanctioned because he's trying to arrest a head of a US allied state. The EU does sanctions vastly harsher - outright deadly - against random nobodies, triggered by things as minor as posting opinions to X, or merely being related to someone who did. It's on a different level.
Hope that curious will find out on their own accord.
I’m personally critical of the notion of the ICC, and I can’t come up with a legitimate reason we’d sanction them. America isn’t party to the Rome Statute. And the ICC has never even remotely threatened to do anything to any American.
What worst case scenario are you envisioning that would somehow justify censoring yourself? The text of one of your comments will turn grey?
Speaking out about Hague and Nuremberg invitees is important, but it comes with risk of becoming like them or people arguing for them. (When fighting monsters one must be wary not to become a monster themselves.) It's just more hate that doesn't bring back to life executed children.
When people outsource everything this is what happens
Why did those not work out? Why do they think things will be different with NixOS?
As a normal NixOS user, I know how to do this. It would be quite some effort, but not especially difficult. Additionally, for a government they have the servers to set up a build farm.
I'm not sure why they chose nix. But it does make it easier to carry local patches than a lot of other systems. I hope they succeed.
This is the main issue NixOS solves for me. I don't have systemd units or cronjobs or random config files spread across the system. I have one config file/directory, which contains everything.
My beef with nix is the arcane syntax to get anything done. Yes, it's documented. No, it doesn't help that it reads like one of those strict, convoluted standards written by a committee of experts.
As a positive thing, maybe at least nixos will get a serious security pipeline rather than the current best-effort community approach.
Besides, technically, if you're chosing an OS in 2026, it sounds like a good plan to start with a system that has many reproducibility, correctness properties and separated packages designed in from the start.
Now, I'm not a NixOS user (altering mostly between win,fbsd,osX and some debians), maybe there's some horrible dragons lurking in using it in practice (do share in that case), but from reading about it sounds like a plan for a system used in a future where people don't need to curse too much about legacy decisions?
Nix has numerous properties that make it unsuitable for a normal desktop OS:
(1) It has no concept of libraries being backwards compatible, so if a 200kb core library changes in a backwards compatible way e.g. security hotfix, it will rebuild/redownload pretty much everything you have installed. This kills your ability to roll out security fixes quickly and ensures that updates are far more painful for end users than even on Windows.
(2) Nix advertises its main benefit as being that you can easily roll back bad updates, which is just false. It makes this false claim because Nix treats user state as being out of scope. Try upgrading Postgres across major versions with Nix and then rolling it back and see what happens, or really any program that stores stuff in $HOME and doesn't support rollback. It'll just die, make a mess, and Nix will wash its hands of the affair by saying it did the bit it wanted to do (change the binaries on your path) and the rest is just out of scope.
(3) It has no working concept of native plugins, related to point (1). If two plugins depend on slightly different versions of their host program, they'll just load incompatible libraries into the address space and things will crash.
(4) It cannot run binaries shipped for generic Linux without lots of fragile hacks like binary rewrites. But in the real world lots of important domain-specific programs are shipped as binaries, if they support Linux at all.
I'm no Nix user, but I want to build an alternative.
Do you think these problems could be fixed?
It's probably worth just going back to the drawing board and asking what the goals of a desktop OS should really be. You'd end up with something radically different to Nix, IMO, sort of like how how NeXT/macOS manages software is quite radically different to UNIX.
I actually have a little exploration of a new software distribution idea going on right now, but it's not trying to do the same things as Nix. It starts by asking what a desktop OS inspired by the success of the web would look like.
Your idea sounds interesting and (by your bio) right up your alley. I'd be interested to see the result.
Two new programs: `url` and `run`. I am creating reference implementations but they're simple and there's a spec, so they could be reimplemented in your language of choice.
`url https://...` resolves the given URL into a disk cache in $HOME and then prints the path. `url` understands archives and can resolve inside them:
It implements the HTTP caching spec, and - as browsers can do with HTML - can extract cache override headers from the given program if it's a script with hashbang. It does a few other things, like set +x automatically if the program is intended to be executable, sets quarantine bits on macOS and so on: The disk cache is cleaned up automatically as disk space falls low or the cache exceeds the configured maximum.Running programs this way is possible, but not ideal. This is where `run` enters the picture:
or if you have the zsh integration set up, you can skip the `run` prefix and just treat URLs as program names: `run` resolves this to https://cool-tool.org/run.zip/ which is a small metadata archive containing instructions for how to start the app. The instructions come in the form of a JavaScript that's run inside a restrictive sandbox. It is allowed to resolve URLs into the disk cache, to learn the current host OS and CPU architecture, and to yield an execution plan (basically the path to the binary/script to execute + possible transformed CLI arguments). So by publishing a small run.zip file to the root of cool-tool.org it becomes possible for users on any OS, including macOS and Windows, to start the program purely by domain name. The script can do hash locking and override cache headers for URLs if the file server isn't cooperative. The tools will keep the app up to date and optimize out cache checks to keep startup fast when the cache is fresh enough.The run script has a few other options, like figuring out what system libraries are available and what their versions are, thus - if it wishes - it can choose to either download dependencies into the cache and use them (e.g. by setting LD_LIBRARY_PATH), or use the OS provided versions.
At the moment I'm also working on adding a form of sandboxing. The execution plans produced by run scripts can contain permission requests, similar in spirit to macOS entitlements. The permissions aren't tied to any specific sandboxing system or OS. The implementation of `run` may, at its leisure, use this information to sandbox the program before it executes it. The run script may also adapt the permissions requested based on things like what the host OS is, or even what the command line arguments are. For example:
The run script can look at the command line arguments for this invocation, then produce a permission set that only allows access to the in.mp4 and out.mp4 paths, but nothing else. Whether the implementation of run actually tightens things that much will depend on things like what the host OS is capable of, but the information to do so is there. For example on Linux it might use landlock, on macOS it might compare the declared permissions against the entitlements in the Mach-O and abort if there's a mismatch, and so on.run.zip files don't have to be produced by the upstream author of the code. They can come from anywhere and resolve URLs from anywhere. So if you are worried about the upstream code being malicious, y...
I imagine you have a lot more experience than I do packaging for NixOS and other distros given your product, but in the few cases that I've needed to run a binary, I just wrap it with a flake and it's done. I also stay on NixOS stable, so I avoid the sharp parts of "bleeding edge". In my experience as a desktop user, I've never had a failed rollback since using NixOS as my primary OS since around 2016. However, whenever I try to use it as a server OS, I often do hit the pain point you mentioned around statefulness. More specifically, the happy path is extremely happy, but once you need something off the happy path, you find yourself creating some really ugly glue to get it to interface with the happy path. The pattern I've settled on is using Podman quadlets for most services, but that isn't without pain either. Then you find that you've become a Unix sysadmin, managing different UIDs for rootless podman, different network domains, dealing with permissions issues, etc. I'm currently experimenting with microvm.nix to see if that will be cleaner, but no conclusions yet.
Redownloading everything doesn't protect against supply chain attacks. Those can still happen, no problem.
2: Doesn't really sound like a problem for most desktop stuff unless there's some components you use that depend on non-upgradable data. Users have their browser, word files, excel files, pdf files and so on.
3: Sounds annoying, but also like a fixable feature. How much common user software have native plugins ?
4: Binaries for Linux is a bit of a mess in general, I think someone in jest wrote that now that Wine has improved, win32 binaries is the preferable binary distribution format for Linux.
Incompatibilities can of course happen, but so can improvements. Nix throws the baby out with the bathwater. You can rerun CI of upstream (open source) projects against a new set of component versions if you want, it doesn't imply anything about how the distribution mechanism should work.
For (2) the issue is non-downgradeable data, not non-upgradeable. Apps basically never support downgrades. Consider your web browser changing the format of its HTTP cache or credentials store, consider your word processor adding a new feature that the user incorporates into their documents and then it's suddenly downgraded. There isn't even any way to downgrade Chrome via its normal user interfaces!
For (3) crashes aren't just annoying, they're indicative of a fatal design flaw. Native plugins were a common feature on other operating systems (e.g. macOS is full of them) and have historically been a feature of KDE and GNOME. I don't know if there are new Linux-native apps of high complexity being written these days though. The dominance of Electron apps means plugins have largely moved server-side where the user's OS can't screw them up. Nonetheless you can't have a serious productivity-focused desktop OS if apps can't be composed at all. You can do maybe a ChromeOS competitor.
2: I hear you, I still think it's a minor inconvenience in the grand scheme of things, worst case administrators should manage for full user backups in case of breakage (people bad backups habits are more likely to cause havoc for other reasons like hardware failure than the occasional downgrade of system data).
3: only thing that immediately comes to mind is Blender, but there it's Python scripts and intentionally not supporting C++ plugins (last I checked you're supposed to rebuild the entire thing if you want C++ additions).
4: OSS unixy systems has always had tilt to the former in the conflict between the security/sysadmin view (no local binary searching due to security, binaries upgrade everywhere) vs users (who wants to run programs and don't care too much about what glibc version it was compiled with, even taking that big binary with all libraries bundled).
I see Nix as more like Windows SxS instead of just shipping everything like with flatpak,docker,etc. But it always boils down to the same dependency on absolute filepaths for everything that's hard to escape (because you can "just recompile").
flatpak exists though, doesn't it work well enough?
As for practical use, sure there are some rough corners (this is true for every Linux distro), but I don't think there's any horrible showstoppers. In fact it's particularly well-suited for use by organizations (as opposed to private individual use) because it's great for making highly customized but reproducible setups.
The zero-sum mindset that's de rigueur at the moment needs to die soon or the world that we'll inhabit is gonna suck.
Though, it's nice to see in this particular case that a near monopoly player gets unseated and creates room for innovation.
I previously thought the same, with Europe and Russia doing lots of trade e.g. Germany buying lots of gas from Russia, and many western companies being present in Russia. It seems obviously true.
But Russia still started a war anyway, so I guess it's not actually true.
Putin or Trump are totally isolated from economical and political consequences so they have no problem severing ties. If there are genuine co-dependencies, including for the leaders, they it's much harder to break peace.
I imagine the ideological aspect is the deeper motivation but it only matters with the right circumstances.
Putin and Trump sits in the opposite side of the political spectrum, so as the country they lead, and yet they still managed to archive something similar.
It's not that hard to manage the country to a point where nothing in the country, even law, can hurt it's leader anymore. Sometime a bit of time and patient is all it takes.
So it's not actually caring about the war and dead people (if we did, we'd do something about what israel is doing in gaza), but "us vs them", and russia is "them" while US was traditionally "us", until daddy Trump came along.
Someone probably told the EU politicians that russia will cave after a month or two of sanctions, there will be some kind of a "revolution" there, someone "pro EU" will be set there, and gas would be even cheaper.... A similar scenario was probably given to Trump for iran (just bomb the government, they'll cave, and you can set up a new pro-US leader there again).
Yet, it seems like the enslaved nations still haven't gotten the memo.
> [...] the program was aimed at refreshing the technologies used by the Dutch government in such a way that it would no longer be in a situation where it could lose access to critical systems at the whim of a foreign country
How does switching desktop OS help you retain access to email and payment services, neither of which care about your OS?
If you haven’t noticed, Microsoft has trouble competing when the playing field is even remotely level.
All your negotiation power across the world, gone, because of one Orange person.
And not because he secretly took power, because you elected him, twice.
Your personal point of view which primarily exists in a silo on the Internet does not match the viewpoints of most of the rest of the world, including folks in Europe.
So, yes again, America. That's how the world works.
I guess you're in the 22%
The electoral college is deeply undemocratic.
Strong argument the States are neither democratic, nor republic; they're a plutocracy. Exacerbated by Citizens United.
The American dream personified.
Couldn't have come at a worst time for the US and best for the rest of us. With Omachy (or however you write it), building decent OSes is about to be much easier.
Europe continues to remain one of America’s premier VIP Customers[1].
[1] https://www.theregister.com/offbeat/2006/04/13/bofh-dear-val...
The installed base of technology moves slowly. Check the consumer discretionary spending first. In tech that probably means Meta.
https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001326801/abad205... (page 13)
The U.S. is a hyperpower that does not want to be hindered by a politically influenced extra-judicial tribunal.
Trump obviously wants doesn't want his hands tied when he decides to bomb all the power plants in Tehran and Iran to force the country to its knees. The fact that this might be interpreted as a war crime has withheld him from ordering this up until now. Iran, however, is bombing civilian infrastructure almost on a daily basis yet I haven't seen any arrest warrants for its leaders being issued.
Linux Foundation is HQ'd in SF. Linus lives in the US.
NixOS needs Linux. There are many US devs and corps that contribute. How can this be a clear-cut divorce? Is NL going to fork, ala Red Flag Linux?
What about WhatsApp? IG? (I don't use them, but everyone else around me does).
Man, this is all bonkers, the damage is done even if the next election goes a saner way.