NaibofTabr

joined 1 year ago
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 9 points 3 weeks ago

I bet they run these free accounts on their test infrastructure, not production. What they get from it is real-world user testing of changes to their infrastructure, similar to how Microsoft uses its Windows Home versions for testing new updates.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 6 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

This video is so disturbing, every time. Every detonation is an implied threat, a political message, a promise of violence, a show of power. Every detonation is an environmental catastrophe, a long-term cost that we're still paying, both in the collection and refining of the nuclear material and in the detonation. Every detonation is an economic burden, human time and effort spent making a tool that only makes destruction. The US effectively bankrupted the USSR with this competition.

The systemic cost of the whole thing is just mind-boggling. There's really only one silver lining that I see. Humanity had access to a terrifying new weapon, the power to wipe itself out really. And we didn't do it. At the time of highest ignorance, when very few people in the entire world really understood how bad it could be, and when political tensions were high, we did a lot of posturing but we didn't actually do the worst we could have.

It could have been so much worse, and we (collectively) chose not to make it that way. I do find some comfort in that.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 31 points 3 weeks ago (4 children)

It's nearly impossible to mobilize a large force quickly, or covertly. There would be plenty of warning, especially if the US is involved because there's an ocean in the way in either direction.

If Western nations decide to attack Russia, I doubt the conflict will stay limited to Russia.

  • North Korea will probably support Russia militarily very quickly. They're already supplying weapons, they have a close relationship, and they're reasonably secure against counterattack because China would react very badly if NK were attacked directly.
  • Iran will join with Russia, but uncertain whether Iran will actually deploy its military in Europe (probably not), or take the opportunity to pursue their own goals in the middle east while the west is distracted.
  • China will probably play neutral for awhile, but continue to trade with Russia and sell them military equipment. China is circumspect, they won't jump into a conflict for ideological reasons, though they'll certainly quote ideological reasons in their propaganda. They will join the conflict when it benefits them and doesn't present extreme risk. Most likely they will pursue their own goals in the south China sea (Taiwan, Malaysia, the Philippines) while the US is busy elsewhere.

An attack from the West on Russia will balloon into a global conflict. It will be bad for everyone, even if it stays limited to conventional warfare.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 2 points 3 weeks ago

But see, then the manufacturer can't charge you a monthly rent to use the product you already bought.

Absolutely it's great if local connectivity is an option, there just isn't really an incentive for manufacturers to prioritize that.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub -3 points 3 weeks ago

Some people seem to have built their identity around the "Israel bad" opinion, and otherwise struggle with nuance.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 1 points 3 weeks ago

And I’m sure Israel is very happy to keep it that way.

It also seems like the people in charge of the split groups are happy to keep it that way. I'm sure there's a substantial amount of foreign influence, but it looks like neither PNA or PLO have had elections since 2006. PNA under Hamas clearly has some religious/military motivations that they play out with authoritarian style, but it seems that the current leadership of the PLO has inherited Arafat's financial empire:

According to a 1993 report by the British National Criminal Intelligence Service, the PLO was "the richest of all terrorist organizations", with $8–$10 billion in assets and an annual income of $1.5–$2 billion from "donations, extortion, payoffs, illegal arms dealing, drug trafficking, money laundering, fraud, etc." Estimates of the Palestine Liberation Organization's alleged hidden assets vary wildly and only Arafat had the whole picture. A former PLO finance minister said it was $3 billion to $5 billion.

So why would they be interested in sharing/dividing control of that? Israel is probably fanning the flames of the internal divisions, but I bet the self-interest of the leaders of the various groups carries more weight.

[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 3 points 3 weeks ago

I'd like to recommend two books:

view more: ‹ prev next ›