> Another aspect is that salaries are very even across much of the industry, as it is often negotiated by unions
Can you specify what country you're drawing these facts from? Europe does not have standard employment law, and I definitely haven't experienced salaries being set by unions or being common across the industry.
It is literally impossible to securely talk to a different party over an insecure channel unless you have a shared key beforehand or use a trusted third-party. And since the physical medium is always inherently insecure, you will always need to trust a third party like a CA to have secure communications over the internet. This is not a limitation of some protocol, it's a fundamental law of nature/mathematics (though maybe we could imagine some secure physical transport based on entanglement effects in some future world?).
So no, IPSec couldn't have fixed the MITM issue without requiring a CA or some equivalent.
> It so happens that the UK population would have started to decrease naturally I believe around 2024 without immigration
I think it would've been much earlier than that. Cumulative net migration since 2000 is around 8.5 million people. So the UK's current population would be radically lower today without immigration.
It’s so simple it hurts.
Stop the ruling class hoarding all the wealth.
Top tax bracket used to be 94%.
Have a VERY steep wealth tax, an inheritance tax and whatever else is needed. The fact individuals exist with many hundreds of millions of dollars while so many in the same society are struggling so bad is a disgrace.
It's not like a water-cooled computer that just uses water for heat transport. In a datacenter, I believe it's generally just evaporated off and lost to the atmosphere. This allows you to dump the energy into the vapor's latent heat.
So yeah, it's treated fresh water that is then lost. (It's not great, but I think the electricity waste is more compelling.)
I do disagree somewhat with point 4. I think this is frequently overstated:
Building and operating automated factories is just as wage-dependent as anything else (just the coefficients are a bit smaller). You still need engineers, construction crews, supervisors, repair crews, etc. (and those could all be doing something more profitable as well).
You can see this very clearly in the EU, where there is a pretty smooth wage-gradient, and even the super highly automated automotive manufacturing has moved down that gradient towards Slovenia, Slovakia, Hungary, despite language/culture barriers.
> Bringing back a big chunk of manufacturing is sustainable; bringing back jobs is not.
I think a decent sized manufacturing industry is a realistic goal long term. But longer term US global supremacy in it is not even a realistic goal to begin with, because not only are you gonna fight against the wage gradient now, you are also gonna face the fact that the US is only ~5% global population, and manufacturing will naturally drift towards the very biggest markets for its goods, which the US probably won't be in half a century or so, simply because of demographics and economical growth in China/India generally.
> getting into these discussions has a high risk of becoming an HR issue as tempers flare and conversations become vitriolic.
Here we can forget that IRL face to face people are much less likely to be offensive to each other. If they get to literal name calling and aggression, sure, that’s an HR issue, HR gets paid to sort this out, doesn’t it? I don’t see how politics is different from any other topic on which people can have strong opinions.
> There's also the issue that the company founders and leadership have political opinions of their own that might inform company policy and any political opinion to the contrary may be perceived as pushback from a "troublemaker".
That is why “no politics” is somewhat dishonest. In my view, either blanket forbid all off-topic talks, or don’t censor by topic and handle fights if they arise. There can also be softer guidelines about how to behave at work without an actual ban of any topic.
Shellcode is usually weirdly formed native machine code, typically written in a "return-oriented programming" style, that can be inserted with a buffer overflow and somehow jumped to. But usually not bytecode.
Perhaps he wants to jump through hoops to avoid function pointers, even when doing that in C++ for optional functions like is done in the VFS requires gymnastics:
That is the closest I can get it to implementing an optional function (as you would want to do in the VFS) via a C++ class member function instead of a function pointer. It is not only insane, but also masochistic in comparison to how it would be done via function pointers:
If people on hn, knowing how things work, are skiddisch, what normal people will do? even less.