It is upsetting that you get downvoted. I think people in the US are thinking that a war is impossible or something, and looking for a stereotypical response.
Instead, for an eastern and central European countries, a war is the real threat. The chance to lose a war with Russia backed by China is very real.
And the reason it is real is the loss of protection from the US. It is no longer guaranteed that the US will participate once Russia invades, and that makes the invasion itself almost inevitable.
Participation of the US is important only because it has a massive stockpile of WMD. It is obvious for everyone that US is not prepared for a modern war on the ground against a real power.
Prosperity and economic growth doesn't really matter when you are threatened with losing the massive war with causalities calculated in millions.
You first want to secure and guarantee peace for the future, and then you think about economy, competition and so forth.
And massively increasing weapons production is the way to avoid the big war.
Ot actually doesn't change their recommendation. There will be less, market share among people really worried about the American government. Others would be happy to pay for a better cloud run locally mostly under local laws.
It is funny that in terms of values they are not a leader but a follower of Russia. The origin and protector of all their conservative values - including fake Christianity, view on power and gender, race, minorities government structure and so on and so forth.
90% of that are destroyed far away from targets and the other 10% do cause some damage, but it is usually far from being devastating as the drone is far from being very precise.
A single F35 which could penetrate air defense and go into the country would be a real problem. If Russia has 10 of them, I think it would significantly alter the current equation of power as it may allow for air superiority.
> A single F35 which could penetrate air defense and go into the country would be a real problem.
The difference here is an F-35 + precision weaponry + intelligence to locate high value targets.
It's always going to be cheaper / easier to use shorter-range munitions, which means the launch platform has to be higher / closer.
But without strategic intelligence (what high value targets exist, and what are they supporting?) and targeting intelligence (where are they right now, and where will they be?) neither of the other two capabilities are valuable.
Logistics and command inevitably trend towards centralization, because it's inefficient and expensive to decentralize everything (and at some point the tyranny of compounding logistics makes it impossible).
Where there is centralization, there's a high value target, and that's a job for the F-35 and exquisite standoff weapons.
Should forces be a mix of high-low? Of course! That's something the US realized in the 80s and is why we have the F-16! (still flying, being built, and exported!)
So where is the air superiority over Iran? This only proves Palmer Luckey right. Future of warfare has changed drastically and all countries are taking notes from this War.
At this point, the people who would be worried about this ought to know that temporary addresses are a thing, and that they prevent workstation N from having a single fixed IP for its outbound connections that it could be identified with.
> any website can now not only log that the traffic originated from org A, but specifically from org A, workstation N.
GeoIP databases and Cookies exist. So I'm not sure how your threat profile has increased here.
> I wonder, is privacy implication is not important enough for people to worry about this?
The most you can do over what is already possible is attempt an inventory or unit count of my office; however, you'd have to get every computer in my office to go to the same website that you control. Then you'd have to control for upgrades and other machine movements. I don't think this enables anything in particular.
I have a degree in design - it's one of those frustrating fields where laypeople really do believe they are experts. Mostly because... they can "see" it. It's easy to propose a change to a design. "Just move it to the right. Or left. Or make it green".
The end product is SUPPOSED to be simple to digest and understand, but the process behind that artifact is enigmatic. It may have taken months to determine the proper layout structure for a government website, but a certain end user can still say "Well... I would rather have the navbar on the right side."
Some of it is probably vocabulary as well. Software has jargon - design has jargon, but laypeople know how to say "bigger, smaller, right, left, red, blue". Frustrating, and part of why I left the field.
reply