I think OP’s point was that it would do more than 2-3x the workload, thus them stating “blow it out of the water” and specifying “performance-per-watt”.
The CWP is designed for robustness, on top of delivery. Those aqueducts you're pointing to that feed into the municipal portion of the Inland Empire are frequently empty because the IE has it's own (mostly) self-sufficient water store (the San Bernardino Mountains). They exist in case there is a point in which those regions need water fed in. You can literally just drive down to them at pretty much any time through the year and see that they're dry.
Additionally, if you're focused on the 6% (out of 11% total) water allocation that goes towards supporting the infrastructure of 22million people over the 50% that goes into non-optimal agriculture (almonds, for instance) in-between the two...then you're missing the forest for the trees, my friend.
As shown in that same article, they also responded:
>>>
"Companies – wherever they're based – are not allowed to sell unsafe toys to children in the UK. And society has long protected youngsters from things like alcohol, smoking and gambling. The digital world should be no different," she said.
"The UK is setting new standards for online safety. Age checks and risk assessments are cornerstones of our laws, and we'll take robust enforcement action against firms that fall short."
<<<
Quite frankly she seems completely out of touch with her own argument. The UK can certainly legislate away tobacco sales, for instance; they can't go after tobacco producers in a foreign state. 4Chan operates in the US and is a US company. They have no jurisdiction over it, even if their citizenry can access it; it's on them to block that access if they don't like it. Unless they're also implying that the US government should be allowed to go after UK companies that don't follow it's free speech regulations because American citizens can access them.
> Unless they're also implying that the US government should be allowed to go after UK companies that don't follow it's free speech regulations because American citizens can access them.
Precedent in the US is that courts do in fact have jurisdiction over a foreign website's owner if the owner "purposefully availed itself of the U.S. forum or purposefully directed its activities toward it", a test which is less demanding than it sounds. [1]
And US has taken advantage of this to go after foreign websites such as Megaupload, BTC-e, Liberty Reserve, etc.
Therefore, if there were a US law requiring companies to follow free speech rules, it could potentially be enforced against foreign website owners. But no such law currently exists. The First Amendment itself only applies to the US government (and to companies working on behalf of the US government). There is also the SPEECH Act, which, among other provisions, creates a cause of action where if someone sues a US person in a foreign court over their speech, they can sue back in US court. But only for declaratory judgement, not damages or an injunction. The goal is mainly just to prevent US courts from enforcing judgements from the foreign court in such cases.
> Not even China and North Korea whine about or send fake “fines” to offshore entities. They just block their sites and move on with life.
On the contrary, both of those are very active in going after people who operate websites they don't like from overseas, and/or their family members (who are often easier to get at). They just don't publish legal notices around it.
[sigh] and this is the first (mandated) step in that process. The UK don’t expect 4chan to pay the fine, which means, once the period to pay has expired, they’ll just be blocked instead.
Speaking as a UK citizen: you're exactly right. If the UK wants to prevent 4chan from being imported into the UK then it needs to block it at the border as it would for physical goods.
The fact that's technically hard to do (at least without going full-on CCP) doesn't change the situation. Attempting to fine a foreign entity for doing something that breaks no laws in the foreign entity's jurisdiction is just risible.
Oddly that's Zuck doing that. And weirdly, the law would only apply to app stores. I think that's a separate movement from what the UK is doing though. That US law is designed to hamstring Meta's competition not restrict political speech but it can be abused the same way I think.
There is no "US law" there are 45+ pending or passed pieces of state legislation, along with the federal Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA) that's yet to be passed.
The PACs that push the one specific law you're talking about also push laws in other states, and federally, that are very, very different and draconian.
If only it were isolated to the UK. I know a website that does not hold content itself but rather links to other sites. Basically exactly what google does.
And yet, me sitting in Germany suddenly saw a nice banned notice when trying to access the site claiming this is because of "a high court verdict yadayadaya".
Why on earth do I now find ways around a UK court order to unblock a website when I am nowhere near their country? They should at least try and keep things within their jurisdiction.
It's very much a rock-and-a-hard-place situation. "It's an import", so they have to respond to it like they'd respond to imports...
But unlike physical imports, there's a sense that blocking these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't.
> there's a sense that blocking these imports is an affront to base philosophical freedom in a way that prohibiting physical imports isn't.
It would serve UK legislators well to explore that tingling sense some more before they consider any further efforts in this direction, but that's just my two pence.
Right, but it shows their mindset. They're not letting China comparisons stop them from doing anything. It's not about the technology. In their mind, it's about the purpose and the legitimacy of any censorship.
> The UK is setting new standards for online safety.
Keyword: "The UK".
> cornerstones of our laws
Keyword: "our laws".
> and we'll take robust enforcement action
Enforcement action can only take place within the jurisdiction (with a notable exception of the US which doesn't give a single fuck about someone else's law).
Their goal is to create a presedent so they can start applying it to platforms they don't like. Its happening all over Europe not just the UK and the plan is clear. They want to repress discourse that is not officially sanctioned.
They can try to set whatever precedent they like. But US courts won't accept the argument, so it'll just stay a fee that accumulates on some paper ledger.
And then the children of the admin are traveling somewhere and get yoinked as leverage by the UK/EU/Brazil/Whoever and all of the legal arguments in the world won't do you any good. There is only one law that matters in the real world as much as so many westerners want to put their head in the sand about it.
They did not because they were in the honeymoon with the US. They were buying weapons and expensive American services in exchange for security. This era is over.
Today building social network or a cloud provider is a trivial exercise. If the financial incentive is there (aka ban of US services), they will pop out like mushrooms.
I believe the onus would be on countries outside of the US to block 4chan no different than China having to block a site in their great firewall for making a picture of Xi looking like Winnie the Pooh.
I disagree. It's no different from selling to a foreign buyer by sending the product in the mail. You're not doing business in their country, and it's the buyer's responsibility to adhere to their local laws about imports, not yours.
The Online Safety Act 2023[1][2][3] (OSA) (c. 50) is an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to regulate online content. It was passed on 26 October 2023 and gives the relevant secretary of state the power to designate, suppress, and record a wide range of online content that they deem illegal or harmful to children.[4][5]
And honestly this is more than they really should even have to do. I think it does go above their obligation. They're doing Offcom a favor here, they don't even have to figure out how to block it themselves.
UTC-3 seems like a weird limit. UTC-2 and UTC-3 are basically just ocean. So the only real places that qualify are Buenos Aires and Coastal Brazil.
Also, not sure what the point of requiring that even is. There are plenty of candidates that would be willing to work those time ranges on the periphery. It's no different than getting an evening/graveyard shift at a domestic company, after all.
Yes, but not at the cost of the construction of an Aircraft Carrier. This is why the military uses "operational costs" (fuel, munitions, activated duty pay, equipment losses, etc) to factor the cost, not the total amount of every dollar ever spent to build+sustain a military force.
It's the js that does it, because so many webpages are terribly optimized to integrate aggressive ad waterfalls into them. Or have persistent SPA framework's doing continually scope checks.
That being said, there's no reason the Safari context shouldn't be able to suspend the JS and simply resume when the context is brought back to the foregrown. It's already sandboxed, just stop scheduling JS execution for that sandbox.
Sorr of related. On my laptop running linux, Firerox with youtube will get progressively slower if you keep sleeping and waking up the laptop. It is as though the JS is struggling to keep up with adjusting to the suspend and wake cycle. This never happened on Windows/macos systems so it could just be a linux thing.
You're just adding a step that doesn't fix the primary issue (you can already manually save any page you want without adding it your reading list). Someone should be able to go to their translate app, then their photo galley, and back to Safari without it needing to refresh the context.
This is the part that blows my mind. People seem to think the US is incapable of and does no manufacturing. It is the second largest manufacturer[1], and has a capacity about 65% of what China does. Which is 350% of the next largest manufacturing country.
What they stopped manufacturing was menial and low-end product; because it's not price-effective to have 100 Americans sit on an assembly line and solder SMT components for $7-18/hr. Instead, those potential workers pivoted into service jobs and office work.
There are synergies to having the high end stuff and the low end stuff in the same place. The story of IBM developing System 360 mentions the benefit from the ladies who wound the wire core memory and the guys who designed the computer on the same campus in New York. We gave that up when we outsourced the “menial” stuff abroad.
The point is that high end and low end manufacturing are intimately related. You can’t outsource your low end manufacturing without your high end eventually collapsing.
The U.S. still manufactures high end products in some fields. But in many areas we have lost the high end as well as the low end. E.g. we can’t compete with the Chinese in electric cars.
China at this point is hard in automation, beyond anything the US has. China is well past the peak of sweatshops.
As someone in the manufacturing space in the US, the biggest issue we have in the US is that manufacturing continues to die. Any manufacturing we have left is the old guard dying off. It comes from a range of issues from companies refusing to invest in younger employees, to the cost of real estate (both buy or rent) for commercial properties being absurd..
Incorrect. To reiterate, the closest near competitor below it does ~30% what the US does; and it only goes down from there. And, compared to China, they are doing 65% of their manufacturing capacity at 25% of their population. The US is doing fine.
The fact that China is diversified beyond low end manufacturing just shows that they have incentive + economic impetus to expand that field; and hardly disproves what I stated or shows any trend of US manufacturing "dying off".
This can only be correct in spreadsheets. In the material reality China outproduces the US by orders of magnitude. For example, China produces ten times more steel, 3 times more cars and in shipbuilding China manufactures literarily thousands of times more ships than the US.
Bingo US produces about ~1/2 of PRC by VALUE ADD not gross output.
And it's not all high value goods. US produces magnitude(s) less than PRC in nearly all industrial sectors, i.e somewhere between single digit times less to 100s less. Some of it might not matter, like trinkets, some of it does, like 500x more shipbuilding by tonnage. Of the magnitude less that US produces, some legit high value like aviation, some are spreadsheet value, i.e. US car worth 3x than a comparable Chinese car. For shipbuilding, PRC produces like 50m DWT per year, aka MORE than US total WW2 shipbuilding, all 4 years, and generate about 150b revenue. US produces 0.3m tons (round up), and generate about 40b.
A ton of US ship, even navy isn't worth except 50x premium over a PRC ton except in spread sheets. That 50x premium is rent/capture, it's what prevents US from actually industrializing vs spreadsheet industrializing. TLDR except in a some high value sectors, US is getting absolutely mogged even per capita in gross output.
Of course Compaq was Houston rather than DFW. The case design for the first portable was scribbled on the back of a paper placemat at the House of Pies diner on Westheimer.
They still could have had Donna working at TI, which has a presence there.
reply