What regulatory capture of the FTC does to MFer.

All this shit should be considered false advertising, at the very least.

Some companies self insure.

I would especially expect that of a company like Amazon that’s bigger than the insurers (and re-insurers) themselves.

Why would they not close the ticket as “WONTFIX” or something in that situation?

Presumably, from their perspective, Israel doesn’t count as a nation so it’s true on a technicality.

Sounds very accurate (and a fuckton more rational than anything US “leadership” has said in the last year), except for two parts:

the United States has concentrated the largest number of its forces, bases, and military capabilities around Iran

And

the imposition of the longest and most comprehensive sanctions in modern history

I could be wrong, but I’m not sure the US considers Iran to be as special as they imagine themselves to be. All those military bases are hardly aimed solely at them, and I would’ve thought the sanctions against Cuba were longer and more comprehensive.

Just some minor quibbles about the writer’s hyperbole.

Yeah, sorry, I wasn’t as precise as I could’ve been. I was really just trying to convey the motivations (i.e. that it was due to being mistaken for foreign as opposed to being targeted for using a VPN), not go into the details of exactly which aspect of the VPN (the entrance IP geolocation, the exit IP geolocation, or the company HQ location) would actually trigger the “foreign-ness.”

Due to the ongoing conflict in the Middle East, both affected regions have experienced physical impacts to infrastructure as a result of drone strikes. In the UAE, two of our facilities were directly struck, while in Bahrain, a drone strike in close proximity to one of our facilities caused physical impacts to our infrastructure. These strikes have caused structural damage, disrupted power delivery to our infrastructure, and in some cases required fire suppression activities that resulted in additional water damage.

Translation: servers got turned into charred scrap.

Those are the ones that would cause them to surveil you.

The issue isn’t necessarily “the government will target you for using a VPN;” the issue is “if your IP makes you look like you’re outside the US because that’s where your traffic exits the VPN, the laws against domestic spying won’t protect you properly because you’ll look like a foreigner.”

Frankly, the headline is heavily spinning it to be anti-VPN fearmongering.

guess I need to look at bit for “how to stuff a huge graphics card into a mini box”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8X2Y62JGDCo

(That’s only the latest in a whole series of videos of his on that topic.)

^{chirp chirp}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination

I wanted to upgrade my kids from Pi 4s to Pi 5s, but ended up just getting NUCs instead.

IIRC, Melbourne is one of the very few cities in the world that didn’t demolish its streetcar network in the 1950s, so there’s that.

Except neither is a genius and both are insane.

If by “complicates… basic PC ownership” they mean “infringes on your property rights as a computer owner,” then they’re finally catching on to what I’ve been saying for damn near a decade.

You should not accept having an abusive relationship with your operating system, and that’s what Windows has been since at least 8 (when they started infecting it with “telemetry”), if not earlier. Have some goddamn self-respect, people! Kick Microsoft to the curb!

Wikimedia Foundation is big enough (and more importantly, foundation-y enough) that it should spin up its own archive.

If I admitted to calling, I would be confirming that the phone number the guy’s office received a call from was linked to this Lemmy account.

As it is, who knows who might have called? The call (or ideally, the calls, plural) could’ve come from any number of people who read that message.

Somebody tell this guy about Mastodon.

The phone number for his executive assistant is 617-349-4280.

https://www.cambridgema.gov/Departments/citycouncil/members/jivansobrinhowheeler

Upon further reflection, I think my previous comment may have been a little too harsh on it.

But I still think that, to be truly “excellent,” it could’ve made its point without muddying/confusing the definition of enshittification.