NAT in general where if you need/want peer-to-peer (P2P) you're suddenly in the realm of STUN/TURN/ICE infrastructure. Depending on your ISP, there's also CG-NAT, in which case (double) hole punching is basically impossible.
If you're 'just' a user, then that may have been dealt with the for you by whatever app/service you're using (e.g., video game companies), but if you're the one having to push out the good/service, it's an entire layer of complexity that has to be dealt with.
> The extraction process is the same for all eight types of oilseeds subject to this rule (soybean, cottonseed, canola, corn germ, sunflower, safflower, peanuts, and flax). In each case, the seeds are crushed and mixed with the solvent. The oil then dissolves in the solvent. Following this step, the solution is separated from the seeds and heated to evaporate the solvent. The evaporated solvents are then condensed and reused in the process. […] This standard restricts plant-wide hexane emissions from each affected facility rather than requiring individual controls at each emission point.
> People step up very quickly once they have to face a difficult situation.
You have to have people that can step up: at least in the US, I do not see evidence of that. Not in the White House, not at the SEC, not in Treasury and Commerce.
The most recent cataclysmic event (GFC/2008) at least had smart people around: Bernanke happened to be in charge and he was once of the foremost experts in the Great Depression. Paulson also had notable experience before Treasury. Who do we have now?
> I remember Winston having a private conversation about political beliefs, and then being literally tortured into submission.
I remember Winston being forced to accept that 2+2=5 and believing it.
> In the end the Party would announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the mind, and if the mind itself is controllable—what then?
> And I remember Anthropic refusing a government order (albeit a stupid government order), and then being labeled a "supply chain risk." You can twist reality however you'd like though.
I remember when American companies could do domestic business, or not, with whomever they wished without having to worry about being punished by the government for their choices.
If a government orders a pacifist to pick up a gun, is that allowed? If a government orders a pacifist to manufacture a gun, is that allowed? (There's a spectrum of 'complicity'.)
> I remember when American companies could do domestic business, or not, with whomever they wished without having to worry about being punished by the government for their choices.
No you don't, because that time as never existed.
> If a government orders a pacifist to pick up a gun, is that allowed? If a government orders a pacifist to manufacture a gun, is that allowed? (There's a spectrum of 'complicity'.)
Yes. It's called the draft. It's called wartime manufacturing decrees. These all existed at the time of Orwell, and he never alluded to them being thoughtcrimes. Compelling people to act against their beliefs is common and distinct from throughtcrime. And if you cannot see that, then I don't even know how to talk to you. Government has always controlled your outer life. Orwell introduced thoughtcrime as the next step in totalitarianism, as the erasure of inner life.
edit: I asked Opus to analyze this thread, and I agree with it.
> That said, Orwell would probably also note that the people arguing against you aren't entirely wrong to be alarmed — they're just reaching for the wrong literary reference and overstating the analogy. Government retaliation against companies for political speech is concerning on its own terms without needing to be dressed up as dystopian fiction. The 1984 framing actually weakens the critique by making it easy to dismiss as hyperbolic.
> He'd probably tell everyone in the thread to say what they mean in plain language and stop hiding behind his book.
> In the abstract, it could be argued that corporates influencing or attempting to influence the policy defined by the citizenry’s democratically elected representatives subverts the will of the people.
So we should make lobbying by corporations illegal? Because is not lobbying "influencing or attempting to influence" policy?
Further Anthropic was not trying to 'influence or attempt to influence policy': they simply had restrictions on what their service(s) could be used for, which was written into a contract that the (current) administration agreed to. The government was free to have whatever policy it wanted.
If the government didn't like the conditions of the contract then the government could try to get Anthropic to agree to change the terms, or cancel the contract all together.
As one comment put it: Can the government force a company that runs a nuclear power plant force that company to make a nuclear weapon?
If Anthropic wants non-weapon/military use of their service, and publicly states that and puts that into the terms of service, can they be forced to? Can the government force a Quaker to pick up a gun?
Or can the government force a Quaker to manufacture a gun? Force a sale of steel that the Quaker manufactures to a weapons maker? (There's a whole spectrum of 'complicity' here.)
> So we should make lobbying by corporations illegal?
Absolutely
> they simply had restrictions on what their service(s) could be used for
Do they have such restrictions on private parties? Also, is this common in industry generally? If I manufacture screws would it be a typical practice for me to contractually require that a buyer not use my screws in weapons, for example?
> Can the government force a company that runs a nuclear power plant force that company to make a nuclear weapon?
No, it seems like you are missing my point. I think there is an argument that the seller should be blind to who the buyer is and what they are going to do with the product they are buying.
If we don’t do that, we open up an exploit where an adversary doesn’t need to get direct control of the government, they can just pressure a small number of private companies who would deliver what the elected government wants.
Also do keep in mind that I’m playing devil’s advocate here, I don’t think democracy has functioned properly in America for quite a long time now, and it may be a delusion that it even can function with how things are set up today.
> Once you've bought the panel, unlike oil, that's it. The panel doesn't remember its national origin.
Until there's a geopolitical event occurs and your supply chain gets cut off so any expansion, warranty, or replacement units cannot arrive, so you're stuck at the your current level of deployment (which may or may not be sufficient for your needs).
That is a problem. The only way it could be worse is if your technology required a constant supply of input from a foreign country...
From a geopolitical standpoint running a country on locally produced renewable power is obviously the least risky approach, even if you get cut off from further expansion of your renewable production.
That's nowhere near the level of dependency that fossil fuels bring.
Barring significant damage, you can maintain approximately your current level of power generation for years at a time without more than routine maintenance.
Fossil fuel power requires constant input of, well, fossil fuels.
So while what you're saying is true, it would be a ludicrous stretch to say that it brings solar panels within a few orders of magnitude of fossil fuels in terms of dependency on foreign powers.
So you're saying that instead of the risk of an energy system that can't grow in capacity, we should stay with the current one that risks shrinking to zero at the drop of a geopolitical hat?
That's certainly an issue, but much, much less critical than gas.
Are people really suggesting the opposite: that the renewables transition should not occur, and the EU should continue to burn gas from more and more desperate sources, until it can be onshored?
This is normal business. Suppliers change due to all kinds of reasons. If you are planning any major build and you haven't also planned contingency cases, including alternate suppliers, then you are not qualified to be in charge of such a build.
And it's not like you cannot find good alternatives outside of China. They may be more expensive, but they exist (and are high quality - Germany).
Solar panels are piss-cheap to make. They are literally just glass with a transistor on them (huge oversimplification)
All of the materials used are readily available and manufacturing is not incredibly difficult. Inverters and control circuitry is way more of a risk than the panels themselves but there are stockpiles and sources that are good for many places
It has always been in private ownership, never having been owned by a publicly traded company:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Atlantic#Ownership_and_edi...
Currently majority ownership is with Laurene Powell Jobs (widow of Steve Jobs).
reply