The administration left it alone for days saying they'll let private business sort it out. (Default investigation notwithstanding.)
When a bunch of news media started reporting the group was Russian and then insinuate it was a state sponsored attack, DarkSide said something along the lines of, "We didn't realize this would start geopolitical conflict. We will be careful to vet clients more carefully in the future."
For me, the effect is less (or possibly just less noticable) after a few weeks. But some coffee or tea gets me going pretty quickly and the effects wear off.
I've always been a slow morning person, so 30-60 minutes to start feeling normal is on par for me, so it doesn't really affect my timetable, but you may have a different schedule in mind.
My morning bowel movements when I take magnesium l-threonate are amazing, however, which used to slow me down even more on a typical morning.
The key is to hunt for commercial-grade appliances. In some cases, they can be found and offer similar form factors to consumer devices, and in others you may be out of luck.
Commercial kitchen appliances, washers/dryers, and flat panel displays can be sourced to your expectations. Just prepare to spend 1.5-3x as much right out of the gate.
I can't reasonably assert that one should or shouldn't.
I just answered parent's apparently rhetorical question, "Who gets hurt if I wear a mask?" Their assumption is, "Nobody," but the truth aligns more closely to, "Maybe somebody."
This isn't a calculus I've thought through in depth, but the answer is almost certainly not "nobody."
Edit: Please keep in mind this comment is made during a particularly divisive time in world history, so my answer reflects that context. I'm not being so pedantic as to suggest, "well every action may hurt somebody." Rather, the effects of the choice is uniquely amplified due to our current social strife.
The CDC has no authority regarding the masking of either vaccinated or unvaccinated people. Its guidelines may influence state response, but they do not supercede or even augment them. Yet they have been treated as supreme authority by many, as you well point out.
I understand the importance of unified messaging, please don't get me wrong. But the media has acted as the mouthpiece of the state for years, and this is yet another example of that.
Why might this be harmful? Can you conceive of why such marriage between the state and the press may not be in the best interest of the people?
Who gets hurt if social structure is affected by the apparent identity of masking? There are plenty of instances of catastrophic social division due to physical differences.
I think your choice should be your own, and based on health and other reasons. But it's pretty myopic to ignore the history of superficial social striations.
You're being downvoted, but it's abundantly clear that at least some view masking as a moral or intellectual signal, and this "othering" is certain to have some impact, either personally or socially.
Furthermore, just as many warned in the early days of the lockdowns that extended lockdown may induce unhealthy behavior—which is evidenced in significantly higher suicide, mental illness, drug abuse, and so on—there are certain to be some undesirable side-effects of vaccinated mask wearing. What those would amount to is not known, but certainly deserves to be explored and expressed.
Why it has been left to the fringe skeptics to dive into these n-th order consequences—some real; some imagined—in the presence of the greatest minds of our times is, quite frankly, deeply disturbing.
It seems the world has transformed everyone into reactionaries, while it should be patently obvious that we should all strive to be rational in these complicated times.
This speaks very poorly for what we've built over millennia, and leaves the lessons of history to floresce in the corners while everyone goes to war with their chosen side.
Plaintext transport doesn't matter if at least one part of the payload chain is cryptographically protected/verified.
If you have a machine that's air-gapped and its only IO is strictly humans (read: keyboard/screen, not USB or other electronic means) then your weak point is the human, so center your security around that. You can look at security of lottery machines to get a good idea how that's handled.
But if you're updating the machine with updates, then it doesn't really fit that criteria, soooo....
I fear that you're being downvoted for pointing out the even bigger threat of our national media's exceedingly more dangerous acts of propaganda, presumably because readers either don't recognize it or are wilfully blind to it because it reflects their own biases.
The SolarWinds hack was a devastating attack on our sovereignty.
McDonald's used to fry their fries in a 93% tallow oil blend until they stopped in 1990 because of hysteria over cholesterol in beef fat.
Guess nobody considered the patties were still chock full of (much more) beef fat, but oh well. (Properly deep fried fries retain only a few grams of oil vs upwards of about 500% more in a single, lean McDonald's patty.)
I don't think this is a "gotcha". I asked for a threshold, accepting that there are varying costs and benefits.
I think that your justification is lacking, however. As though there are no positive externalities for suburban living (there are), or even negative externalities for the other items (there are).
I'm not sure I trust your assessment when you identify only negative externalities to suburban living, frankly.
- suburban areas largely "subsidize" the cost of education, which far exceeds the cost of roads and utility infrastructure subsidized by the cities. The quality of schools in suburban areas is also largely higher than in cities.
- suburban areas have anywhere from 1/7 - 1/3 the crime rates of cities—even accounting for socioeconomic factors—which reduces personal and social harm. There is also vastly faster emergency response in suburban areas which save lives and stop culprits.
- mood disorders (anxiety, depression, etc) are about 40% more common in city dwellers then suburbanites, and that's strongly linked to the differing environments.
If the cost and quality of education, reduction of crime, and mental health aren't benefits to society as a whole, I don't know what is.
Please understand, I do not suggest that city living is "bad". I do, however, suggest that diversity of living environments is good, for the individual and for society as a whole.
When you stop subsidizing suburbs, will you also stop subsidizing the flyover states? How about the impoverished? Medicare for unhealthy people? Education? Fire departments?
Like, what is your "I don't care for subsidies" threshold?
These here city folk don't much care for our kind.
Nevermind the shirk for the value of diversity—both geographically and functionally—they've optimized the life out of life and gosh darn it, so can you.
Sure, subsidize things they like—green tech, social reeducation, space travel, even their subscription streaming movie platforms—but those backwards folks out in the boondocks really gotta go.
All 125 million of em.
I'll be honest, I've lived all over the country in some of the most diverse, varied places. And despite the trope of the knuckle dragging country folk, I've never met a more bigoted bunch than city dwellers.