> Trump has already imposed 50% tariffs, causing major economic losses. NATO has already threatened to impose 100% tariffs on us if we keep buying russian oil. And these are mere tariffs, not actual sanctions.
Maybe we're looking at vastly different numbers, but most analysts are expecting little to no impact from the 50% tariffs. The US only makes up 12% of our exports, and they've already cut down the scope so that only around 36% of those are even affected. Since we mostly export commodities, even those 36% can just be sold elsewhere.
The NATO claims are irrelevant: NATO is not a trade alliance and the US struggles to get it to comply even with its intended military goals. You can safely place the odds of the other NATO countries agreeing to their own tariffs at approximately 0%.
> Sovereignty must be backed up by military and economic power. We have neither. It's complete fantasy.
Not sure where you get this idea? We have both military and economic power. Just because we're not as large as the US or China doesn't mean we have nothing.
Also, I don't see why you think there's a possibility of this escalating to war. Trump already had to back down with large exceptions to his 50% tariffs due to the domestic political impact it would have, and war is extremely unpopular with the Americans these days, which is why they only fund Ukraine and Israel instead of actually sending soldiers to fight.
> Brazil is essentially the world's soy farm and we import like 70% of our fertilizer.
You might want to check the sources from which we import those fertilizers, largest of which are Russia and China. While some do come from more US aligned sources, including the US itself, most of the names on that list have no problems ignoring US sanctions if it comes to that.
> They're going to sacrifice everything to protect these judges and display their non-existent "sovereignty", like a defiant child trying to stand up to its parent.
Our sovereignty is very much real and existent :)
> Brazil is pretty much done for if this continues.
Interestingly, just yesterday I found out 4 already exists, but it's inverse of what you're thinking: top up excess battery capacity overnight, when grid prices are low, and then resell during the day when purchase prices are high.
I think the economic problem is that while there /may/ be overproduction during the day, the day is the only time other than early-mid evening when there is significant demand.
You would effectively be targeting the early-mid evening demand, assuming there was overproduction during the day, and with the current cost of batteries, their installation, and their replacement, I can't see the numbers working out.
I would love for battery prices to come down enough to make something like this possible though.
IIRC you have to show harm to take anything to court. I recall cases on federal regulation that failed to move forward because a state AG failed to prove harm.
It makes sense when you think about it, otherwise courts would be flooded with lawsuits "because I don't like it".
Congress will do the usual: accept Boeing's money and overlook the issue on one hand, and pretend to the public that they're doing otherwise on the other.
Unfortunately, Americans and the peoples of many democratic countries have given up on verifying if their elected officials are actually doing what they say they are, so taking a ~~bribe~~ campaign contribution and lying about it is a medium-high gain and low risk activity.
As a bonus, you can then use those contributions to market yourself and your lies to the same voters even harder!
I was on the NUC search a while ago and I'm not sure you can. Although the AMD motherboards may not support ECC, I haven't heard of any that actually don't. Best bet is probably to buy a recent, barebones AMD NUC, and buy the ECC RAM yourself. Sometimes they'll advertise ECC support as well.
So that they can increase their own pay and benefits. Nonprofits still have to pay their staff and the amount of money some pay theirs can be rather... inflated.
It could work, as it's pretty rare for IP addresses to be used directly and not through DNS, but that also defeats the purpose of the mechanism: it doesn't add anything of value if everyone is using DNS. Even malware writers will purchase several domain names (several for redundancy from government take downs) so that they can rotate command servers easily.
I think you're confusing their goal. It's not that they have a problem with people working remotely on tourist visas, it's that they want them to do it for longer as it brings economic benefit to the country.
If they disliked the idea they wouldn't be creating new visas for the purpose, since that only makes it more prevalent and normalized.
I guess in a pedantic manner, but then they were always documented, since their country of origin knew who they are.
In terms of immigration, undocumented typically means you don't currently have a valid visa or residency permit. In that case no, they would still be undocumented, since the ITIN doesn't grant them either.
Undocumented immigrants can get an ITIN, and many do use them to pay taxes. The IRS really doesn't care where you got your money from, so long as they get their cut.
Where undocumented immigrants won't be able to file their taxes is if they used a counterfeit SSN to be employed, but even in those cases they pay anyways through standard withholding. Most Americans don't know you can adjust withholding, nevermind undocumented immigrants.
Undocumented immigrants can get an ITIN, and many do. A lot of the time the ITIN will be used where it's allowed (opening bank accounts) and a counterfeit social security card where it's not (applying for employment).
I can't answer definitively, but I was looking for SFP cards recently and the older cards don't really support ASPM. The cards themselves aren't power hogs, but they keep the CPU from going into lower states during idle.
The cheapest one I found that others related had ASPM actually working was the Intel X710, and those are much more expensive than the ConnectX-3.
For those searching for it, they've rebranded to Empower. I've been using them for years and they've done an excellent job.
Only downside is that there is a slight nagware aspect (only when you're inside the app though) and they do cold calls to get you on an investment plan. Then again, it's free and they have to make money somehow...
For CG-NAT you don't actually get any inbound ports, so dynamic DNS won't help you.
That being said, I know some ISPs over here that will block standard ports inbound beyond SMTP when you're not behind CG-NAT. I can imagine that leading to some who are just starting giving up when they've followed all the instructions to get HTTP on port 80 working and it still doesn't work without explanation.
Yes, but then it's all or nothing. In advanced mode you can have a global configuration to block all third party scripts and frames, and then allow scripts from specific domains (or neutralize the global deny for that domain, so that block lists still work). Particularly useful when you just want to move forward and Google's captcha is blocked, but don't want to allow all the other 50 scripts on the site.
Maybe we're looking at vastly different numbers, but most analysts are expecting little to no impact from the 50% tariffs. The US only makes up 12% of our exports, and they've already cut down the scope so that only around 36% of those are even affected. Since we mostly export commodities, even those 36% can just be sold elsewhere.
The NATO claims are irrelevant: NATO is not a trade alliance and the US struggles to get it to comply even with its intended military goals. You can safely place the odds of the other NATO countries agreeing to their own tariffs at approximately 0%.
> Sovereignty must be backed up by military and economic power. We have neither. It's complete fantasy.
Not sure where you get this idea? We have both military and economic power. Just because we're not as large as the US or China doesn't mean we have nothing.
Also, I don't see why you think there's a possibility of this escalating to war. Trump already had to back down with large exceptions to his 50% tariffs due to the domestic political impact it would have, and war is extremely unpopular with the Americans these days, which is why they only fund Ukraine and Israel instead of actually sending soldiers to fight.