>In remarks to a hearing convened by Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Wynn-Williams alleged that Meta executives worked vigorously to “win favor” with leaders in Beijing to build an $18 billion business in China.
Has Hawley demonstrated similar interest about Elon's business dealings in China? Elon owes much of his net worth to the CCP's Shanghai factory.
What does that have to do with the topic at hand? Nearly every CEO at a company making physical products from 1990 onward owes much of their net worth to Chinese factories.
I think Musk got one of the biggest concessions ever without any precedent, something like 100% ownership where no other car plant ever got that before.
And Ukraine got the minsk agreements, the 1990 "assurances" of independence , concessions and contracts by countries without legal system and kinglike rulers are worthless. So he had a extraordinary piece of paper? So what..
>I don't think many people have actually contemplated what absence of law, defined as rules that apply to rich and powerful people too, is like.
Maybe not many people in the US have, but people in CCP China are plenty familiar. That is an example of "rule of the people" instead of "rule of law". Remember the melanmine milk scandal? Barely a slap on the wrist for Sanlu (the vendor). Or, did anything happen after the child molestation incident at a Beijing kindergarten?
Where do you get your news from? I cross-checked your comment with Wikipedia. In the Sanlu case, the executives were sent to jail, and they were ordered to destroy their stock because Sanlu was on the brink of bankruptcy. Life imprisonment and the death penalty don’t exactly sound like a slap on the wrist to me.
The school molestation cases began as rumors from two parents, but real abuse was found and the teachers were jailed. The CCP launched a nationwide kindergarten audit—seems like a fair response, especially with so much fake news online.
>Additionally, I'd assume (based on being the most obvious solution) that Trump et al fully realize Waltz was both responsible for this screwup and would like to fire him for it
What did Hegseth mean by "We're clean on OPSEC"? Who was assuming responsiblity for the security of their communications?
Yeah, Bill Clinton is a very effective speaker; wow. Or compare people like JFK or Bobby Kennedy - look up their speeches. Or Ronald Reagan, to be bipartisan. It's like the Dems have forgotten that leadership involves vision, charisma, inspiration, courage, ...
However, I was referring to the lack of a mechanism. Whatever the Dems say, almost nobody hears it. Name a major statement by a Democrat in the last week? In the last month?
Name a major Democrat. There is none. After 3 electoral cycles when party bureaucracy each time crowned the candidate instead of a candidate rising through the primaries the party has no leaders anymore - note the difference between a leader and a top bureaucrat, the Dems have no deficit of the latter.
Yeah, but that's just a tertiary strategy. Think of it this way: The Dems are so pathetic, their best option is to try to use the enemy's communication mechanism.
They simply need to solve their problem. That they have it is absurd and makes them look pathetic, cowed, and ineffectual victims - not something people vote for. What is more important to a political party than a means of public communication?
What makes a statement "major" is the amount of attention it is given. That is out of your control.
Democrats are making many statements. If they are not "major", it is perhaps because nobody cares about statements. They care about the exercise of power, and Democrats have none. Any statement they make is easily dismissed as bluster.
> What makes a statement "major" is the amount of attention it is given. That is out of your control.
The first sentence is true, the second absolutely false. Public, political communication is all about that second issue - look how effective the GOP is. They can make absolute nonsense into a norm; they can shut down any speech they don't want.
Even when it is directly connected - ie. the people will see much higher prices copy pasted everywhere due to the Trump’s import taxes while Trump will be giving to the billionaires the tax cut financed by the tariffs - and the people will still cheer up on Trump.
Because the policy is not the issue. Trump has never been consistent or carried through much on policy; he lies to everyone. It's the politics and ideology - extreme reactionary politics of destroying 'liberals' regardless of the cost.
Fedora and RHEL 8+ also don't restrict unprivileged user namespaces. They are required for flatpak and rootless podman, both widely used and promoted technologies in the Red Hat ecosystem.
Flatpack does not require user namespaces. bubblewrap, the tool Flatpack uses to secure things, can be installed set-uid and can then setup the sandbox without the user namespaces.
Chromium-based browsers also include own setuid tool to setup the sandbox if the user-namespaces are not available.
Even podman could have used something like that. But I guess RedHat assumes that the user namespaces are solid these days are do not bother…
