this post was submitted on 11 May 2026
356 points (99.2% liked)

Technology

84583 readers
5464 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

I think this describes a lot of critical infrastructure. It’s the “profit” mindedness of governments and corporations to choose to consolidate infrastructure in places that might be risky but cost less. It’s like removing tornado warning systems because they cost a lot to maintain, staff, and operate. So a few people being killed and property being destroyed is “worth it” because it’s cheaper in the long run. So running cables in vulnerable areas is “worth it” because it was cost effective to do so and accept the minor risk assessment that political instability might someday affect them. Same with global energy. It was cost effective and profitable to run so many ships through Hormuz and put a substantial amount of refining capacity in a potentially unstable area. Now we pay the price thanks to an idiot president.