Probably both - however I think it’s not unreasonable to assume that organizations as mentioned in the article at least have the Chinese government’s blessing, if they’re not directly controlled by it. So even if the fentanyl itself is not coming from outside the states, the precursors from which it can be made with little effort are.

That and I guess some gangs make it somewhere else and then import it, but that’s another story.

Also technically, I think there’s legal fentanyl being produced in the states, but that’s usually not what’s meant in the discussion.

Asking for a friend

The team also procured secondary ingredients used to process the essential precursors, as well as basic equipment – giving it everything needed to produce fentanyl.

The core precursors Reuters bought would have yielded enough fentanyl powder to make at least 3 million tablets, with a potential street value of $3 million – a conservative estimate based on prices cited by U.S. law enforcement agencies in published reports over the past six months.

The total cost of the chemicals and equipment Reuters purchased, paid mainly in Bitcoin: $3,607.18.

Turning these precursors into fentanyl would have required just modest lab skills and a basic grasp of chemistry. One Mexican fentanyl cook who dropped out of school at age 12 told Reuters he learned the trade as an apprentice at an illegal lab.

“It’s like making chicken soup,” said the cook, an independent producer based in the cartel stronghold of Sinaloa state. “It’s mega-easy making that drug.”

Actually one block in the article

A web browser? There goes my career as a drug lord

Grey market chips usually include chips that failed quality assurance to prop up numbers.

50%?

HOLY FUCKING SHIT

These are absolutely disastrous numbers. This is worse than I would expect from illegally sources parts.

My point was that it’s irrelevant if the whole company knows git. We’re a Microsoft shop and a lot of people don’t even use computers at our company (or only sparingly as they work in manufacturing). And we also have a subset of people who work with git (me kind of included).

And no our janitor can’t use AD. Even though our whole company “uses” Microsoft Windows

Well, that’s kind of a bromide. By extension, everything is a security risk. Managing and minimizing risks is the hard part.

The answer to this 100% irrelevant question is no

Stupidity’s Carcinization

But then what? So you have a camera signing its files and we pretend that extraction of the secret key is impossible (which it probably isn’t). You load the file into your editing program because usually, the source files are processed further. You create a derivative of the signed file and there’s no connection to the old signature anymore, so this would only make sense if you provide the original file for verification purposes, which most people won’t do.

I guess it’s better than nothing but it will require more infrastructure to turn it into something usable, or of this was only used in important situations where manual checking isn’t an issue, like a newspaper posting a picture but keeping the original to verify the authenticity.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

I don’t want to imply GS did a responsible thing, but… if they assessed the situation two years ago and decided RoI is unlikely and as such didn’t invest - wouldn’t their current stance actually be reasonable?

No, you’re reading it wrong with emphasis on against, while she emphasized the us.

What she calls values aren’t stupid, they’re malicious, but usually targeted at groups she doesn’t like

“how would I know”

Mullvad doesn’t support port forwarding, so it’s not an option for the issue discussed here

I mean I think I know what you mean I also think “digitizing” doesn’t really describe it. Most media nowadays is digital to begin with. Even audio CDs store a digital format.

That’s why I wrote about “technology faith”, in contrast to the topic “science faith”, because while I think the dangerous idiot is wrong as always, the related issue (as technology is applied science) exists.

Regardless, her motive is just to discredit proper scientific methods and results she doesn’t like, while my point was about technology and its limitations that people don’t understand yet think will fix everything.

I always find this a little funny… Like I always hear complaints how the FDA is overbearing and stuff

It’s big corpos who’d love to continue using these additives that launch these claims via proxy into the public. Similar to how McDonald’s made sure people think the US is a country of frivolous lawsuits because they were ordered to cover a woman’s medical costs after a jury found them guilty. Purposeful misrepresentation of facts

First off, Candeath Omens can go fuck herself.

I do think however that there is a weird technology faith in that people believe technology will fix all issues long term or improve or all aspects of our lives. Like when people say AI will fix global warming / climate change… dude, it can’t even properly take orders at a McDonald’s, which is traditionally one of the least qualified jobs. And if you ask an AI how to stop it, it’ll just tell you what we already know, which people haven’t been doing for years. Because that’s what am AI does.

It’s mostly the people neither actually engineering the technology nor studying the actual issue that believe this. But it’s a huge driver in the discussion.