31–40 of 54 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terrorism is an interesting word choice in this context.
It clearly counts as terrorism if it's intentional damage to key international infrastructure by a non-state actor for political purposes. (while the Houthis control much of Yemen, they are not its internationally recognized government)
Most of the immediate harm will be absorbed by the Gulf states and India, Globes said.
This is in the Middle East and may or may not be related to the war in Gaza.
I'm like the worst possible person to do this because I tend to not follow The News and I expect someone to get very upset with me for it. But I will say the world needs peace in the Middle East more than I understood. There is -- or was -- critical infrastructure running through there and this is potentially a big deal globally.
And that does not mean I am advocating some kind of intervention from other countries. Please don't put words in my mouth in that regard. I'm just saying the ongoing issues there are apparently now becoming a global problem in ways that likely most people would not have predicted.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Biden is not really the U.S. President at the moment. He is a wooden puppet that signs and says anything that his handlers put in front of him - and that too with extreme difficulty. The U.S. presidency is currently held by a small, powerful governing cabal that consists of folks like Jacob Jeremiah Sullivan along with warmongers like Victoria Nuland. (and her husband - Robert Kagan acting behind the scenes)
This right here is why there is a divide the size of the Grand Canyon in America. Some will see it as obvious satire, some are 100% convinced this is the truth. When did we reach the point that the same text can be read as fact or satire with such strong conviction that the dress being blue and black (no, it's white and gold!) would seem like compromise?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not a chance, the changes wrought by the industrial revolution would not be undone so easily. Removing the internet from society would not change what people already know how to do and what is possible to do; other methods of exchanging that knowledge (schools/books/etc) would be rapidly re-emphasized. It might even cause a reversal of the compency crisis as people wouldn't have the rest of the internet to distract t…
> Even if you could split THE internet into many national/regional networks, that would still be sufficient for most industrial and economic needs. This is not the specific case, but I think that if Europe lost access to US internet services its economy would collapse.
Not saying that the loss worldwide free communication wouldn't be painful, but I think it would be as painful for both the providers and the consumers of services.
Seeing no effect in SEA, are there any reports/dashboards that visualize the state of the global internet connectivity?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Terrorism is an interesting word choice in this context.
It clearly counts as terrorism if it's intentional damage to key international infrastructure by a non-state actor for political purposes. (while the Houthis control much of Yemen, they are not its internationally recognized government)
Not that I'm cool with the cable cuts, but "rogue state" would be more fair imo.