As someone who has fought war…

You’re not right. You’re not even wrong.

Get back to me after you’ve at least done PLDC or BNOC.

The criticism I’ve heard came from flag officers making statements like “It can’t run, can’t climb, and can’t fight”…

No, they fixed the problems first :P

For example, my nuclear launch failsafe, is an example of a human failsafe, that works 100% of the time, unless both humans agree to the launch.

And yes, human supervision can, and should be, the final fail safe for any critical system.

And yes, human failsafes work, when properly designed, and implemented. That’s what “fail safe” means. ie, a PBR reactor is “fail safe” by design, as if anything happens, the pebble pile collapses, and criticality cannot be maintained, without a human intervening. No human, no criticality.

And there were very few, if any human fail safes in the Chernobyl incident, which is a huge reason it failed. And the reactor was not designed to fail safe. Modern reactors are designed to fail safe. Which means they cannot maintain criticality without human intervention.

Something tells me you’re not very up on engineering principles, because fail safes, including human ones, are used all the time. Like bridges that raise and lower, for example. The bridge CAN NOT rise unless someone is there, holding the button. And it will start a safe descent if the human releases the button. It fails in a safe manner, without human intervention.

No, not at all. You are missing the point, I think. Human failsafes do work. They are even easier to make and more effective if you remove capitalism from the equation, though.

So, you have done a trial of one, fir a few hrs, with no testing.

Other human failsafe have been repeatedly tested, thousands of times over, over decades.

Hell, the simple Deadman switch is a human failsafe: hold this latch, otherwise machine stops…

Well, it hasn’t failed yet…

What trouble?

Human failsafes have been invented. Every nuclear silo has one: two, independent people, with unique keys, have to both agree to launch. Otherwise, it fails safe, and no launch. Even with valid launch orders.

With PBR reactors, nobody is in danger if it breaks down, either. The pebble bed collapses, and fission stops.

I def disagree about ansible… Because it’s impossible to write a “proper script” without making a whole lot of repetitive things, that ansible handles.

It is slow though, and agent-based configuration management, imo, is better for mandating configurations. ie, puppet, for example.

I agree with the rest, though :)

Most IT infra exists solely to justify work that is pointless work.

One if the worst IT sectors is ad tech. The entire industry rationally should not exist.

Riseup.net.

No. But, lately it’s not white on christmas.

Invading that small neighbor would have been very easy, if not for an (initially) united front protecting against it, hence my point: No small nation can stand alone against a super power.

Banning VPN apps from any marketplace would literally shut down the economy. VPNs are for more than accessing porn.

There’s crazy guys, too… (Sorry if that was your point)

Or from guys who have dated crazy in the past, and now know to avoid it…

further, paradoxically, denying access to porn puts women in more danger.

That’s… Part of the goal. Women “need to know their place” and all, per the GOP.

I guarantee this will be used (or at least attempted) to silence political speech critical of local governments.

Its real target is less pron, and more “So, you think you’re maybe gay? Here’s what you can do…” or “If your family hates queer people, and you’re queer, here’s help for you:…” information.

Anything to keep “teh gays” from “converting kids to trans”.