FriendlyDespot t1_j9xcpel wrote

> I'm not sure how exactly Signal and these other messaging apps implement their encryption, but they could easily claim end to end encryption while offering governments a "back door" to decrypt and read everyone's messages.

You should have stopped at "I'm not sure how exactly Signal and these other messaging apps implement their encryption," because you go on to say something that's completely wrong. Signal can't decrypt anyone's messages. The devices that are talking to each other across Signal's infrastructure use local public and private keys that Signal as a company doesn't possess.

The most that Signal could do is make the Signal software take the cleartext messages after decryption and send them somewhere, but the Signal applications are open and auditable, and something like that would be discovered, and would mean the death of the company.


FriendlyDespot t1_j5x8bme wrote

The risk would be substantially lower than any number of other risks that are accepted daily for the ISS mission. With the maneuvers required to match an orbit, any failure would put the intercepting vehicle somewhere other than where the ISS is.

Consider that the scenario you're describing is a risk that's faced every single time a crew or supply mission is launched to the station.


FriendlyDespot t1_iydw0pk wrote

> I'm just pointing out that they "can"--in all forms and interpretations of the word.

And I'm pointing out you're wrong about that. They can't in a legal context, as in it's unlawful, and that's the only context that we're talking about here. Christ, this is like talking to an edgy teenager who thinks that their nihilism about the consequences of legal action somehow makes illegal things legal.


FriendlyDespot t1_iydjx5u wrote

Please stop. I said "they can't", as in it's illegal. Obviously anyone can physically do whatever they want. That's pointless pedantry.

You said that employers can just pretend that they're firing for other reasons, but they can't. You're talking about settling a lawsuit where the employer is accused of terminating employees as retaliation under false pretense, so you're implicitly acknowledging that employers cannot simply offer an at-will argument to get around anti-retaliation laws.


FriendlyDespot t1_iydh6gc wrote

You can't "just" pay a settlement. There's the NLRB and other potential civil suits to deal with, and both parties have to accept it. And even if they do settle, that sort of proves the point that it's unlawful to terminate employees ostensibly for "at-will" reasons when it's actually retaliation for organising.


FriendlyDespot t1_iwvh773 wrote

> I am not sure but a PON-Splitter is almost certainly more expensive than say blowing in 12 fibers over 300m instead of 2.

Like I said, in suburbs and exurbs you're not just hanging 12 strands in point-to-point deployments, you're hanging 144s or 288s down long roads. If a driver takes out a pole in bad weather at night, then with a PON deployment your fiber guys have to splice maybe 2-4 pairs, while with a point-to-point deployment they're sitting there all night in shitty weather splicing up to 288 strands and taking a whole lot longer to get customers back online.

A splitter for PON is the same as a splitter for anything else, and they're super cheap commodity items. Pig-tailed cassettes are less than $1 per split in bulk.


FriendlyDespot t1_iwva6fk wrote

> There is no practical reason not to do P2P FTTH anymore.

Plenty of practical reasons not to do it point-to-point, even more financial reasons. If you're going house to house in a suburban neighbourhood then you don't want to be slinging multiple 144/288 strand cables down longer stretches of poles, and the only way to really avoid that with active installations is to instead have a ton of smaller access switches in a ton of curb cabinets, which you really don't want to do.

PON is perfectly fine for suburbs and exurbs. Point-to-point FTTH is only really suited for urban deployments with higher density access nodes, or in places with buried or otherwise protected paths that aren't vulnerable and exposed to the elements.


FriendlyDespot t1_iszawaw wrote

Presumably because the United States is BMW's second-biggest market, with 40% more sales than in Germany, and so they won't want to get caught up in another trade conflict. BMW is also the largest vehicle exporter by value in the United States, and paying tariffs to import assembled batteries from elsewhere, and then paying tariffs again when exporting the vehicle doesn't make a lot of sense for them.

And, of course, South Carolina workers are more acquiescent, and the state government much less interested in labour rights than other jurisdictions. BMW also gets obscene tax benefits from the state, because South Carolinians love nothing more than giving corporate handouts.