I don’t think the 100k thing is a legal limit. More likely it’s the platform keeping their costs down by only doing KYC on people that have decent amounts of money to invest. Either that or there’s something I’m just not aware of here, which I guess is more likely.
Basically, they’re mad that the platform has been set up (somewhat) in compliance with US law, which says you have to know who you’re dealing with when you’re making financial transactions, in order to avoid being a participant in various financial crimes, or being a way to funnel money to terrorist groups and organized crime.
This is a requirement on every company that handles the moving and exchanging of money, but the crypto world holds onto the obsessive belief that they are exempt fun this, basically just because they really want to be.
Trump, meanwhile, is basically saying “Just vote for me and I’ll make all those laws go away and you can have all the unregulated wildcat banking you want.”
There’s nothing wrong with this argument. They’re not literally saying the country is too big to fly a plane across, they’re countering the argument made by bad faith actors that America is too big for trains, by pointing out that planes don’t actually solve the problems people think they solve.
And they’re absolutely right. I live five minutes away from a regional airport, and I would kill for high speed rail connecting me to some of the major cities in my neighbouring provinces. Hell, just a train from my town to the nearest city would be a godsend. People in North America will come up with any excuse to dismiss the potential rail has to really connect up a lot of disparate areas of these countries, because the reality is they just don’t want to invest now in a solution that takes years to realise. If twenty years ago we’d all started building high speed rail the way China did, the difference today would be unimaginable.
Edit: I wrote a different response here, but there’s no point. You refuse to acknowledge basic facts that undercut your whole argument. You don’t understand this situation a fraction as well you think you do. I’m not going to sit here and argue with you about your fantasy version of reality.
Canuck more likely. In the UK it’s a national insurance number.
I think you’re looking at it the wrong way. The more likely conclusion to draw here is that the carbon tax is well liked enough that it can rise above Trudeau’s appalling favorability ratings. If people hated the tax itself as widely as you’re supposing, it would logically be even less popular than the leader it’s so indemnably associated with, no?
BTW, if you use Ublock, it’s time to switch to Firefox. Google have pushed a major change to all Chrome based browsers (that includes Edge, Opera, and pretty much every other browser that isn’t Firefox) that intentionally breaks Ublock Origin, Adblock Plus, and other adblockers. If you want to keep blocking ads (and you should) Firefox is your only remaining refuge.
Point four I’ve already answered; the need to liquidate stock amplifies any costs, with a potential to create a catastrophic snowball that could lead to a significant collapse in his fortune (nothing could ever make Musk “poor” by any sane standard, but he could become significantly poorer, which I’m sure to him would be the end of the world).
Point three is answered by him being overleveraged. He took on a lot of debt to buy Twitter, which makes taking on additional debt significantly harder. You’ve both tried to dispute this, while simultaneously confirming it. We’ll get to that with point one.
Point two is misleading. While Twitter does have its own accounts, those coffers are bare. Either Musk foots the bill out of his own pocket, or the company goes bankrupt. Either way, he’s still on the hook for about $800,000,000 a year in interest payments on the debt it took to buy it.
Which brings us to point one; you’ve tried to dispute this point by offering the evidence that confirms it. As your correctly state, Musk went into business with a murderers row of the kind of merciless loan sharks that you only do business with if the banks all laughed at you. As I mentioned previously the interest on the debts he took on to buy Twitter is $800 million a year. You don’t accept those kinds of financing terms if you have better options. The fact that he did is all the proof you need that his credit is shit. The banks know damn well how precarious his wealth is. And if further evidence was needed, consider this; why did he trigger a significant collapse in Tesla’s stock price last year selling off stock to service those debts if he had the option of simply borrowing against his assets as you claim?
Exactly. Right now Tesla are being priced like they’re the next Amazon, but this is largely on the belief that they’ll somehow end up licensing self driving software to every company in the world that deals in transit or transport. It’s a total fantasy. While Tesla does have some competitive advantages (such as owning the accepted standard for EV charging) they’re not worth anywhere close to what their stock price says. At this point they’re basically turning into a new South Seas Company.
Twitter’s revenue has cratered hard, and because its privately owned, every dollar Twitter loses is a dollar that Elon has to come up with.
Because his wealth is entirely in overinflated Tesla stock, and because he’s already massively overleveraged from buying Twitter, coming up with that money means selling Tesla stock, and because the Tesla stock price is based on dreams and unicorn farts any amount he sells tends to sink the price.
This means that for Elon to cover $400,000, that could easily lose him tens of millions in net worth. And there’s no telling when the Tesla stock price will just collapse entirely as investors finally start valuing it like a car manufacturer, and not like kind of predestined savior of the human race (for context, Tesla in its entirety is currently valued at $800bn. Ford is currently valued at $40bn. And Ford sell a LOT more cars than Tesla).
Imagine creating a moment this iconic.
I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with the idea of using a GUI, especially for a non-professional who mostly just wants to get into self-hosting. Not everyone has to learn all the ins and outs of every piece of software they run. My sister is one of the least technical people in the world, and she has her own Jellyfin server. It’s not a bad thing that this stuff has become more accessible, and we should encourage that accessibility.
If, however, you intend to use these tools in a professional environment, then you definitely need to understand what’s happening under the hood and at least be comfortable working in the command line when necessary. I work with Docker professionally, and Dockge is my go to interface, but I can happily maintain any of my systems with nothing but an SSH connection when required. What I love about Dockge is that it makes this parallel approach possible. The reason I moved my organization away from Portainer is precisely because a lot of more advanced command line interactions would outright break the Portainer setup if attempted, whereas Dockge had no such problems.
The thing is, those poor design decisions have nothing to do with those features, i claim that every feature could be implemented without “holding the compose files hostage”.
Yes, this is exactly my point. I think I’ve laid out very clearly how Portainer’s shortcomings are far more than just “It’s not for your use case.”
Portainer is designed, from the ground up to trap you in an ecosystem. The choices they made aren’t because it’s necessary to do those things that way in order to be a usable Docker GUI. It’s solely because they do not want you to be able to easily move away from their platform once you’re on it.
The cop then pulled the emergency stop on the MRI, which if you don’t know, basically breaks the machine. MRI machines are incredibly expensive to repair.
Not the point. If you want to interact with the compose files directly through the command line they’re all squirelled away in a deep nest of folders, and Portainer throws a hissy fit when you touch them. Dockge has no such issues, it’s quite happy for you to switch back and forth between command line and GUI interaction as you see fit.
It’s both intensely frustrating whenever it comes up as an issue directly, and speaks to a problem with Portainer’s underlying philosophy.
Dockge was built as a tool to help you; it understands that it’s role is to be useful, and to get the fuck out of the way when its not being useful.
Portainer was built as a product. It wants to take over your entire environment and make you completely dependent on it. It never wants you to interact with your stacks through any other means and it gets very upset if you do.
I used Portainer for years, both in my homelab and in production environments. Trust me, I’ve tried to work around its shortcomings, but there’s no good solution to a program like Portainer other than not using it.
Please don’t use Portainer.
If you want a GUI, Dockge is fantastic. It plays nice with your existing setup, it does a much better job of actually helping out when you’ve screwed up your compose file, it converts run commands to compose files for you, and it gets the fuck out of the way when you decide to ignore it and use the command line anyway, because it respects your choices and understands that it’s here to help your workflow, not to direct your workflow.
Edit to add: A great partner for Dockge is Dozzle, which gives you a nice unified view for logs and performance data for your stacks.
I also want to note that both Dockge and Dozzle are primarily designed for homelab environments and home users. If we’re talking professional, large scale usage, especially docker swarms and the like, you really need to get comfortable with the CLI. If you absolutely must have a GUI in an environment like that, Portainer is your only option, but it’s still not one I can recommend.
I think you’re seriously underestimating the strength, size and funding of the Israeli military, combined with the significant presence the US has in the area. They’re likely to be quite capable of holding off a full scale assault by an Iranian lead coalition until more forces can be deployed.
Isreal is a very paranoid, highly militarized state. There is no attack that will be “faster than they can react.” They’re basically on a war footing all the time, and especially now with the recent ratcheting up of tensions.
Iran has very few strategic or tactical advantages in this situation.
Netanyahu desperately wants to drag the US into a war on Israel’s behalf. It would shore up his crumbling position at home and complete reframe the narrative in the West away from the genocide in Gaza, recasting Isreal as an embattled ally once more.
Why?
Because Isreal has the US in their corner. It’s really that simple.
The problem being that they’re also fully in favour of allowing businesses to do whatever the fuck they want. Even an ideologically “pure” libertarian would support your right to gay marriage while also supporting the right of your landlord to kick you out onto the street for being gay. They’ll support legalization of all drugs, but also support your workplace being allowed to fire you for posting about weed on your social media.
Paying lip service to socially progressive ideas is meaningless if you also want to institute a neofeudalist society where every freedom is only really afforded to the wealthy.