I was thinking this for a second, but is this really plausible? Normally when we talk about corporations we talk about how powerful they are and how they use different nations to locate headquarters and offices in order to mitigate legal and tax obligations. We regularly talk about how governments can't reign them in and how they act with impunity.

But now? "They HAVE to capitulate. They are just doing it to survive." Really? Do we really believe that? Or is it more likely that this is what they want and if they didn't, they'd be fighting tooth and nail to stop it? I'm with the second option honestly.

It's so all over the map, what does or doesn't count as toughness. That criteria rewrites itself in real time like the plot of a dream.

Avoiding or ignoring questions I would have thought is weakness. Letting covid sweep the country. Falling behind China and India with a weaker labor force. Being ready to surrender to Russia. Being unable to confront the truth that you lost an election.

Any number of mixed and matched definitions could include or exclude those from operative definitions of toughness/weakness without and make just as much sense. It's all just working backwards from tribalism.

Yea I previously used bitwarden, my issue with it is that bitwarden is hosted in the US(which was the only reason I switched to PP), so I'm thinking about renting a vps and hosting vaultwarden in it or something.

I take it as more of an observation and use it to be more mindful of what I buy, the services I use, etc. The reality is that we don’t know what happens behind the scenes with so much of this stuff, but we can still be conscious of it and use it as an opportunity to reduce clutter in our lives.

People don't accidentally get on a board. The whole idea is that you actively search for and interview and even recruit people who best embody the values of your project. Then you get nominated and often voted.