Well, various kinds of internal (to one country or to one supply chain) standards would emerge just because you need some standard. Farther removed from conflict is good, but USA became half the world GDP before WWI. In the time which is perceived like something between now and the cinematographic wild west.

Bases - yes, and in the late XIX century US was already playing the colonial game, which certainly helped its economy.

Standards - not sure really about your example, sizes - maybe (but a lot of ISO things are from British and French local standards), but 45deg is, as you might notice, not a random angle. Some things are naturally optimal.

The funniest historical parallel is that USA’s own power was collected by being to Europe what China is now. That overseas area of cheap hands.

Some positions where you put “thorn” are supposed to be filled with “eth”.

They are still talking in that “intellectual property domination” and “intelligent jobs” tone. A lot of the supposedly new and liberal globalization was about global segregation.

And even many people on Lemmy don’t get that the western militaries’ PR is the same - small forces, technical superiority, organization and logistics are supposed to be equal to Russian or maybe Turkish standing armies of hundreds thousands of people with mass training and mass-produced cheap weaponry.

That’s why they can’t even decide on trying to shoot down jets violating their air space, protected by such superior and organized forces.

i swear they think all people except themselves are NPCs

That’s the famed western thinking in general. I’ve only seen one western movie where ridicule at that even reminisces the real perception by non-westerners, it’s “Romancing the stone”.

Marc Twain described that for Americans, that was in a time when USA was simultaneously a weird overseas industrializing village and half the world GDP. So then it could be explained by such a contrast. Now - I don’t know.

They can, it’s an article out of the air.

I’m not talking about technical things, just that IRL on regulated frequencies one can do something because people using it for bullshit are legally prosecuted. Depends on wavelength, of course.

But OK, now I think I get what you are talking about.

For those who ran their own mail servers it already did, via the +something notation.

Unfortunately the industry and the Internet in general went the other way.

EDIT: Oh, you mean temporary address. Easy. You have tracker nodes and receipt nodes. You publish on all tracker nodes you know your receipt node (by temporary address) every time you generate a temporary address. So those mailing you find it on trackers and post there. On that receipt node your temporary address is associated with some secret, allowing you to retrieve your incoming mail. The easiest way is that the temporary address is a pubkey and to confirm ownership you just need to sign a request for mail, or maybe it’ll be encrypted with it and no good for anyone else. Or both.

In Tox you have a code on the end of the Tox address. One can do similar, but have different codes for different levels of acceptance. Default - ignore. Some other code - add to the list of callers without notification. Some other - with notification. Some other - for SMS, but not calls, or the other way around. And so on.

The problem with things being memorable exists, yes. Computers can make calls, meaning that there’s no solution. A good secret required to call someone can’t be memorable.

They still use energy, no? To relay signals on another frequency. That should come from somewhere, and also the more different signals, the more noise. And without their input frequency being regulated, there must be lots of noise.

The literal one involved executions.

There must be some additional steps. Otherwise those satellites would be overloaded by hooligans.

That’s a bit unfair. It’s a very good DBMS.

Except now they are using such things in roles they are unfit for, from the beginning.

And it’s not such a good DBMS for that to weigh more than everything else.

We fight wars to live in peace, we grow sheep to eat lamb chops, and we keep trust to gain reputation to then spend it. That quote about stones.

Still very good to see someone as famous as Bernstein say this.

But yes, it’s weird, TLS allows whatever the software on two sides of the negotiation allow and support. GOST, something Chinese, something you’ve made yourself. Anything.

Except if there’s somehow a vulnerability in TLS hidden in the open, but, eh, that’s a bit too conspiracy-minded for a post not discussing TLS itself.

Some people are still looking for yetis and aliens and mountain lake dragons.

* Puts red blue glasses on *

- Which kind of EU?

Many of the economic advisors accompanying the SCAP administration had experience with the New Deal and were highly suspicious of monopolies and restrictive business practices

Your country was very different then.

In the Middle Ages people believed in creatures nobody had ever seen. And the legal systems and the concepts of knowledge were not very good.

And still the latter evolved to become better long before people started recording sounds to wax cylinders and shooting photos.

It’s a bubble all right. Except it bursting will be the result as expected. What we should do is try to first deflate it carefully, and then try to prevent it from just going boom.

Bubbles are not some unexpected crisis, they are basically a system created by people with a lot of power to suck the power others possess to themselves, to have even more power.

One can even call the British empire becoming less official and other colonial ventures drying up as a sequence of bubbles. Notably the European monarchs were not at a loss from it all.

The dotcom bubble sucked this way a lot of money in unclear directions (hedge funds are a thing, to launder such events), then somehow Facebook and Google and Amazon happen, all not very sophisticated things, but with a lot of convenient financing and publicity.

By the way, it’s interesting that early concepts of NLS and Xanadu as things similar to the Web all didn’t have the ditches requiring a bridge with tolls, speaking metaphorically, that the Web requires, and these big companies occurred as bridges over these ditches exactly. Like - when you have two-sided links, you don’t need them. Not only many small places link to one popular place, but also the one popular place links to many small places. This, of course, also requires the system to be message-oriented, not connection-oriented. Otherwise why wouldn’t the big place censor out reverse links. Like Usenet.

This would, of course, require globally identifiable objects and versioning, with a tree of versions, so that there could be plenty of versions of the same webpage. (I’ve always felt Torvalds is sincere when he says Git is his main contribution to humanity as a programmer.)

And links would have to be version-dependent. And links would have to be not part of objects, but associated objects themselves. This way you can have object directories, or fan-in objects (objects A, B and C combine into the object D, or maybe D follows from A, B, and C as a logical statement), or fan-out objects (there’s object A, for which there are comments or subscripts B, C and D at some corresponding marks in the A structured text). Or, well, normal links referring to two objects (the exact location, again, of what part of a document is a link is contained in the link object).

This is a bit similar to voting systems, where ranked choice and ability to give a negative vote can change a lot. And this also encourages wide participation.

I just have that feeling that we as a humanity are led on a path of prepared bubbles enriching very specific people creating them and firmly knowing when and how they burst. When these people collect enough power, they might start changing the world in a direction we won’t like at all.

OK, dreaming again.

That people who can, do. Sometimes that means forcing others. Sometimes that means breaking good things for others. And sometimes locally that’s the lesser evil.

Anyway, I’ve described, why a truly competent well-meaning imagined government would possibly be doing this, and what would be one alternative for it without backdoors. An EU-wide intranet. Probably with outside communications whitelisted and analyzed similarly to the GFW of China.

It’s hypothetical, in reality, of course, we all should be judging to the best of our knowledge, not on imagination. Which means resisting such legislation.