Surveillance Used by a Drug Cartel

Thursday, July 3rd, 2025 11:06 am
[syndicated profile] bruce_schneier_feed

Posted by Bruce Schneier

Once you build a surveillance system, you can’t control who will use it:

A hacker working for the Sinaloa drug cartel was able to obtain an FBI official’s phone records and use Mexico City’s surveillance cameras to help track and kill the agency’s informants in 2018, according to a new US justice department report.

The incident was disclosed in a justice department inspector general’s audit of the FBI’s efforts to mitigate the effects of “ubiquitous technical surveillance,” a term used to describe the global proliferation of cameras and the thriving trade in vast stores of communications, travel, and location data.

[…]

The report said the hacker identified an FBI assistant legal attaché at the US embassy in Mexico City and was able to use the attaché’s phone number “to obtain calls made and received, as well as geolocation data.” The report said the hacker also “used Mexico City’s camera system to follow the [FBI official] through the city and identify people the [official] met with.”

FBI report.

Jason Snell: ‘About That A18 Pro MacBook Rumor’

Wednesday, July 2nd, 2025 03:40 pm
[syndicated profile] daringfireball_feed

Posted by John Gruber

Jason Snell, writing at Six Colors:

Well, would you look at that? The A18 Pro is 46% faster than the M1 in single-core tasks, and almost identical to the M1 on multi-core and graphics tasks. If you wanted to get rid of the M1 MacBook Air but have decided that even today, its performance characteristics make it perfectly suitable as a low-cost Mac laptop, building a new model on the A18 Pro would not be a bad move. It wouldn’t have Thunderbolt, only USB-C, but that’s not a dealbreaker on a cheap laptop. It might re-use parts from the M1 Air, including the display.

I like that Apple sells a laptop at $649, and I think Apple likes it, too. A new low-end model might steal some buyers from the $999 MacBook Air, but I’d wager it would reach a lot of customers who might otherwise not buy a full-priced Mac — the same ones buying M1 MacBook Airs at Walmart.

My first thought when I saw this rumor pop up was to dismiss it. But upon consideration, I think it makes sense. Especially if Apple considers the M1 MacBook Air at Walmart to be a success. And all signs point to “yes” on that — they started selling the M1 MacBook Air as a $700 Walmart exclusive in March 2024 and they continue to sell it this year at just $650.

So I think if this rumor pans out, a MacBook at this price point will become a standard part of the lineup, sold everywhere — including Apple Stores.

Stephen Hackett, at 512 Pixels:

The immediate downside to the A18 Pro is that it only supports USB 3 at 10 Gb/s, not Thunderbolt. This would make any Mac with an A18 at its heart only capable of USB-C. I think that’s fine on a low-end Mac, but it could cause confusion for some customers.

For people looking at MacBooks in this price range, talking about USB 3 vs. Thunderbolt brings to mind this classic Far Side cartoon.

Ubuntu Disables Spectre/Meltdown Protections

Wednesday, July 2nd, 2025 11:02 am
[syndicated profile] bruce_schneier_feed

Posted by Bruce Schneier

A whole class of speculative execution attacks against CPUs were published in 2018. They seemed pretty catastrophic at the time. But the fixes were as well. Speculative execution was a way to speed up CPUs, and removing those enhancements resulted in significant performance drops.

Now, people are rethinking the trade-off. Ubuntu has disabled some protections, resulting in 20% performance boost.

After discussion between Intel and Canonical’s security teams, we are in agreement that Spectre no longer needs to be mitigated for the GPU at the Compute Runtime level. At this point, Spectre has been mitigated in the kernel, and a clear warning from the Compute Runtime build serves as a notification for those running modified kernels without those patches. For these reasons, we feel that Spectre mitigations in Compute Runtime no longer offer enough security impact to justify the current performance tradeoff.

I agree with this trade-off. These attacks are hard to get working, and it’s not easy to exfiltrate useful data. There are way easier ways to attack systems.

News article.

[syndicated profile] sali_hughes_feed

Posted by Sali Hughes

Rarely will you be photographed as much, and be faced with the outcome for so many years. These products will give you coverage and comfort

I bristle at the expression “bridal makeup”, because it encourages the slightly weird idea that women’s faces should look very different on their wedding days. Brides these days might be wearing black or red, hair up, hair down, hi-top trainers or Dr Martens boots. Similarly, bride-appropriate makeup is however one feels most attractive, comfortable, confident and oneself.

But what I will concede is that the big day often calls for a new foundation. Rarely will you be photographed as much, over so many hours, and be faced with the outcome for so many years, so it’s worth wearing something a little higher-coverage and longer-lasting than for a day at the office.

Continue reading...

[Sponsor] Phoenix.new

Tuesday, July 1st, 2025 04:44 pm
[syndicated profile] daringfireball_feed

Posted by Daring Fireball Department of Commerce

Resurrect your side projects with Phoenix.new, the new AI app-builder from Fly.io. Just describe your idea, and Phoenix.new quickly generates a working real-time Phoenix app: clustering, pubsub, and presence included. Ideal for multiplayer games, collaborative tools, or quick weekend experiments. Built by Fly.io, deploy wherever you want.

[syndicated profile] daringfireball_feed

Posted by John Gruber

Special guest David Smith returns to the show for a developer’s perspective look at WWDC 2025.

Sponsored by:

  • TRMNL: A hackable e-ink display. Save $15 with code GRUBER.
  • Squarespace: Save 10% off your first purchase of a website or domain using code talkshow.
[syndicated profile] thefatnutritionist_feed

Posted by Michelle

In 2018, I discovered I had a craving for INTENSITY. This was very curious and strange to me, though again, looking back to my childhood, there were signs. I was a somewhat cautious kid, but I also had some small-time adrenaline junkie energy. I loved roller coasters, I had dreams of racing go karts, I loved going fast on my bike, jumping high on a trampoline, or diving into swimming holes.

I spent most of 2018 just considering my options, without doing anything in particular. I thought about a trampoline gym, go kart racing, bowling, aerial silks or acrobatics, taking drum lessons…there were so many possibilities of things I could do to experience excitement and intensity. I took a trip to a local amusement park, but was not able to fit on the most interesting rides. I rode what I could (honestly, it was just a single ride, far too tame for my tastes) and walked around the rest of the day, feeling sad and disappointed. Instead of blaming myself or feeling intense shame about my body, I took it as a sign of what I wanted and craved. And I clearly wanted to do something exciting. I thought about what could give me that experience outside of an amusement park.

A few months later, a couple of (rad fat) friends invited me swimming at an indoor pool (as is rad fat tradition), and I went. I waded and floated around for a bit, then ended up climbing up the ladder and diving from a diving platform roughly a million times, in line with a bunch of hyperactive little kids. That night, I went home and slept like a baby.

Diving reminded me that I could still physically do the things I used to love as a kid, even now as a fat, nearly 40-year old adult. I started to think about what else I used to do as a kid, and that’s when it occurred to me: I used to love skating. I was even kind of good at it. But that was Oregon in the 80s, and it was roller skating. I now live in Toronto, in the 21st century, where there is very little roller skating, but an absolute glut of ice skating. I’d always watched figure skating on TV. I decided then and there to buy a pair of ice skates, since it was December, and to attempt ice skating.

I got the skates and went to a little outdoor ice rink that was completely empty, on a weekday morning, and tentatively stepped onto the ice, gripping a nearby fence for dear life. I stood up. I did a little penguin march, still holding the fence. I did not fall (yet.) My blades slid forward about one inch on the ice. It was the greatest feeling I’d ever felt, and I knew I was home.

I started taking skating lessons, and started skating five times a week, purely for fun. It was just like being on a roller coaster, maybe better. It’s now six and-a-half years later, and I’m a decently good skater. A baby-beginner figure skater, but a figure skater nonetheless. I do little spins and tiny hops on two feet. More importantly, I have something that gets me outdoors on cold winter mornings and reminds me that there is more to life than just anxiety or work or the news. I get to have communion with the little animal inside of me that wants to have fun, at least a little bit, every day.

I’m usually the only fat person present, and I don’t care. I’ve had people make fun of me for that, and I don’t care. I have joy, and I am free.

 

[syndicated profile] bruce_schneier_feed

Posted by Bruce Schneier

American democracy runs on trust, and that trust is cracking.

Nearly half of Americans, both Democrats and Republicans, question whether elections are conducted fairly. Some voters accept election results only when their side wins. The problem isn’t just political polarization—it’s a creeping erosion of trust in the machinery of democracy itself.

Commentators blame ideological tribalism, misinformation campaigns and partisan echo chambers for this crisis of trust. But these explanations miss a critical piece of the puzzle: a growing unease with the digital infrastructure that now underpins nearly every aspect of how Americans vote.

The digital transformation of American elections has been swift and sweeping. Just two decades ago, most people voted using mechanical levers or punch cards. Today, over 95% of ballots are counted electronically. Digital systems have replaced poll books, taken over voter identity verification processes and are integrated into registration, counting, auditing and voting systems.

This technological leap has made voting more accessible and efficient, and sometimes more secure. But these new systems are also more complex. And that complexity plays into the hands of those looking to undermine democracy.

In recent years, authoritarian regimes have refined a chillingly effective strategy to chip away at Americans’ faith in democracy by relentlessly sowing doubt about the tools U.S. states use to conduct elections. It’s a sustained campaign to fracture civic faith and make Americans believe that democracy is rigged, especially when their side loses.

This is not cyberwar in the traditional sense. There’s no evidence that anyone has managed to break into voting machines and alter votes. But cyberattacks on election systems don’t need to succeed to have an effect. Even a single failed intrusion, magnified by sensational headlines and political echo chambers, is enough to shake public trust. By feeding into existing anxiety about the complexity and opacity of digital systems, adversaries create fertile ground for disinformation and conspiracy theories.

Testing cyber fears

To test this dynamic, we launched a study to uncover precisely how cyberattacks corroded trust in the vote during the 2024 U.S. presidential race. We surveyed more than 3,000 voters before and after election day, testing them using a series of fictional but highly realistic breaking news reports depicting cyberattacks against critical infrastructure. We randomly assigned participants to watch different types of news reports: some depicting cyberattacks on election systems, others on unrelated infrastructure such as the power grid, and a third, neutral control group.

The results, which are under peer review, were both striking and sobering. Mere exposure to reports of cyberattacks undermined trust in the electoral process—regardless of partisanship. Voters who supported the losing candidate experienced the greatest drop in trust, with two-thirds of Democratic voters showing heightened skepticism toward the election results.

But winners too showed diminished confidence. Even though most Republican voters, buoyed by their victory, accepted the overall security of the election, the majority of those who viewed news reports about cyberattacks remained suspicious.

The attacks didn’t even have to be related to the election. Even cyberattacks against critical infrastructure such as utilities had spillover effects. Voters seemed to extrapolate: “If the power grid can be hacked, why should I believe that voting machines are secure?”

Strikingly, voters who used digital machines to cast their ballots were the most rattled. For this group of people, belief in the accuracy of the vote count fell by nearly twice as much as that of voters who cast their ballots by mail and who didn’t use any technology. Their firsthand experience with the sorts of systems being portrayed as vulnerable personalized the threat.

It’s not hard to see why. When you’ve just used a touchscreen to vote, and then you see a news report about a digital system being breached, the leap in logic isn’t far.

Our data suggests that in a digital society, perceptions of trust—and distrust—are fluid, contagious and easily activated. The cyber domain isn’t just about networks and code. It’s also about emotions: fear, vulnerability and uncertainty.

Firewall of trust

Does this mean we should scrap electronic voting machines? Not necessarily.

Every election system, digital or analog, has flaws. And in many respects, today’s high-tech systems have solved the problems of the past with voter-verifiable paper ballots. Modern voting machines reduce human error, increase accessibility and speed up the vote count. No one misses the hanging chads of 2000.

But technology, no matter how advanced, cannot instill legitimacy on its own. It must be paired with something harder to code: public trust. In an environment where foreign adversaries amplify every flaw, cyberattacks can trigger spirals of suspicion. It is no longer enough for elections to be secure – voters must also perceive them to be secure.

That’s why public education surrounding elections is now as vital to election security as firewalls and encrypted networks. It’s vital that voters understand how elections are run, how they’re protected and how failures are caught and corrected. Election officials, civil society groups and researchers can teach how audits work, host open-source verification demonstrations and ensure that high-tech electoral processes are comprehensible to voters.

We believe this is an essential investment in democratic resilience. But it needs to be proactive, not reactive. By the time the doubt takes hold, it’s already too late.

Just as crucially, we are convinced that it’s time to rethink the very nature of cyber threats. People often imagine them in military terms. But that framework misses the true power of these threats. The danger of cyberattacks is not only that they can destroy infrastructure or steal classified secrets, but that they chip away at societal cohesion, sow anxiety and fray citizens’ confidence in democratic institutions. These attacks erode the very idea of truth itself by making people doubt that anything can be trusted.

If trust is the target, then we believe that elected officials should start to treat trust as a national asset: something to be built, renewed and defended. Because in the end, elections aren’t just about votes being counted—they’re about people believing that those votes count.

And in that belief lies the true firewall of democracy.

This essay was written with Ryan Shandler and Anthony J. DeMattee, and originally appeared in The Conversation.

Upcoming Sponsorship Openings at Daring Fireball

Saturday, June 28th, 2025 09:02 pm
[syndicated profile] daringfireball_feed

Posted by John Gruber

Weekly sponsorships have been the top source of revenue for Daring Fireball ever since I started selling them back in 2007. They’ve succeeded, I think, because they make everyone happy. They generate good money. There’s only one sponsor per week and the sponsors are always relevant to at least some sizable portion of the DF audience, so you, the reader, are never annoyed and hopefully often intrigued by them. And, from the sponsors’ perspective, they work. My favorite thing about them is how many sponsors return for subsequent weeks after seeing the results.

At the moment, I’ve only got four openings left through the end of September:

  • June 30–July 6 (next week)
  • August 18–24
  • August 25–31
  • September 1–7

I don’t know why next week remains unsold, but that’s just how it works out sometimes. If you’ve got a product or service (or, perhaps, a just-opened blockbuster car-racing movie) you think would be of interest to DF’s audience of people obsessed with high quality and good design, get in touch.

WorkOS

Saturday, June 28th, 2025 09:01 pm
[syndicated profile] daringfireball_feed

Posted by John Gruber

My thanks to WorkOS for once again sponsoring Daring Fireball. Modern authentication should be seamless and secure. WorkOS makes it easy to integrate features like MFA, SSO, and RBAC.

Whether you’re replacing passwords, stopping fraud, or adding enterprise auth, WorkOS can help you build frictionless auth that scales.

Future-proof your authentication stack with the identity layer trusted by OpenAI, Cursor, Perplexity, and Vercel. Upgrade your auth today.

[syndicated profile] daringfireball_feed

Posted by John Gruber

Apple Developer:

By default, apps on the App Store are provided Store Services Tier 2, the complete suite of all capabilities designed to maximize visibility, engagement, growth, and operational efficiency. Developers with apps on the App Store in the EU that communicate and promote offers for digital goods and services can choose to move their apps to only use Store Services Tier 1 and pay a reduced store services fee.

What follows is a long chart, making clear which features are excluded from Tier 1.

Like I wrote in my larger piece on Apple’s new DMA compliance plans, I don’t think Tier 1 is intended to be a feasible choice for any mainstream apps or games. The whole thing is just a way to assert that 8 percent of the commission developers pay is justified by various features of the App Store itself.

[syndicated profile] daringfireball_feed

Posted by John Gruber

Let’s start with Apple’s own announcement at Apple Developer News:

The European Commission has required Apple to make a series of additional changes under the Digital Markets Act:

Communication and Promotion of Offers

  • Today, we’re introducing updated terms that let developers with apps in the European Union storefronts of the App Store communicate and promote offers for purchase of digital goods or services available at a destination of their choice. The destination can be a website, alternative app marketplace, or another app, and can be accessed outside the app or within the app via a web view or native experience.
  • App Store apps that communicate and promote offers for digital goods or services will be subject to new business terms for those transactions — an initial acquisition fee, store services fee, and for apps on the StoreKit External Purchase Link Entitlement (EU) Addendum, the Core Technology Commission (CTC). The CTC reflects value Apple provides developers through ongoing investments in the tools, technologies, and services that enable them to build and share innovative apps with users. [...]

Update to Business Terms for Apps in the European Union

  • By January 1, 2026, Apple plans to move to a single business model in the EU for all developers. Under this single business model, Apple will transition from the Core Technology Fee (CTF) to the CTC on digital goods or services. The CTC will apply to digital goods or services sold by apps distributed from the App Store, Web Distribution, and/or alternative marketplaces.
  • Apps currently under the Alternative Terms Addendum for Apps in the EU continue to be subject only to the CTF until the transition to the CTC is fully implemented next year. At that time, qualifying transactions will be subject to the CTC, and the CTF will no longer apply. Additional details regarding this transition will be provided at a later date.

Amongst other policy and API changes, Apple also announced a new, seemingly simplified, experience on iOS/iPadOS for installing apps and alternative app marketplaces in the EU.

As for the other policy changes, here’s Jason Snell’s summary, which I think captures the gist as well as possible:

Tiered App Store fees. For today’s full-service App Store, developers will now pay 13% on sales, reduced to 10% for Small Business Program members. Or developers can opt into “Tier One”, which comes with a 5% fee but does not support a raft of App Store features we’ve come to expect, like automatic app updates, App Store promotions, placement in search suggestions, ratings and reviews on product listings (!), and more.

Core Technology Commission. Apple is going to move all developers over to a new tax called the Core Technology Commission, in which developers who opt to sell apps outside the App Store will pay 5% of sales made through in-app promotions. The €0.50-per-install Core Technology Fee will be dropped as of January 1.

Free linking. Developers can promote offers broadly, are no longer limited to a single static URL without tracking parameters, and can freely design the interfaces for those links and promotions.

New business terms. Developers have to pay a 2% fee for digital goods and services purchased by new users for the first six months after a user first downloads an app; members of the Small Business Program don’t have to pay this fee.

And here’s Chance Miller’s summary at 9to5Mac, which includes the following statement from Apple (which statement was provided to me, as well):

“The European Commission is requiring Apple to make a series of additional changes to the App Store. We disagree with this outcome and plan to appeal.”

The new fee structure is undeniably convoluted, and I think downright confusing. Seemingly no one can figure out exactly what commissions apps that use alternative payments or distribution are going to pay. It’s a natural consequence that an overly complicated law (the DMA) has resulted in an ever-more-complicated set of guidelines and policies (from Apple): byzantine compliance with a byzantine law.

Because it’s so complicated and hard to understand, it’s difficult even to summarize with a headline describing what’s new. Even if you understand it enough to just want to express anger at Apple for spiteful compliance and greed, it’s hard to sum up why you’re angry in a succinct headline or tweet.


The bottom line, as I understand it, is the following (but I could be wrong about some of this1 — if I am, let me know, and I’ll try to correct it):

  • Developers who just do the simplest thing possible — distribute through the App Store and process all payments using Apple’s IAP — will continue to pay the same commissions, 30% by default, or 15% for Small Business Program developers and recurring subscriptions after the first year. Of course this is what Apple would prefer developers do.

  • Big developers, distributing through the App Store but processing their own payments, will still owe Apple a commission of around 20% on non-IAP purchases: 13% for “store services”, 5% for the new Core Technology Commission (replacing the €0.50 per-download Core Technology Fee), and 2% for “initial acquisition”. Small Developer Program members and recurring subscriptions after the first year pay 15% — no “initial acquisition fee” and a reduced “store services” fee of 10%. But everyone’s on the hook for the 5% CTC.

  • Apps distributed through the App Store can pay a reduced rate of 5% for “store services” (down from 13%) by opting into a reduced “Tier 1”. Rather than this “Tier 1” being an appealing choice for any developers, I think the point of it is for Apple to assert that those App Store features justify 8 percent of Apple’s commission on purchases: automatic software updates, reviews and ratings, surfacing through search for anything other than an exact name match, and a whole lot more.

  • One consequence of the €0.50 per-download Core Technology Fee (CTF) being replaced by a 5% Core Technology Commission (CTC) is that there will no longer be a penalty for small developers who have a free-to-download app that hits over one million EU downloads. That was a legitimate problem with the CTF — an app with 5 million EU downloads would owe Apple €2 million for the CTF, but might be generating far less than that (or even nothing at all) in revenue. But another consequence of switching to the CTC from the CTF is that super-popular apps from super-big companies that don’t sell digital goods from their apps will continue to pay nothing at all. E.g. unless Meta starts selling digital goods from within their apps, they’ll continue to pay nothing at all to Apple for zillion-download apps like Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp. That was a shortcoming with the App Store’s model that the CTF was designed to correct.

  • All of this additional complication is, I believe, just for apps distributed through the App Store. Feel free to blame Apple as much as you want for spiteful compliance (especially when it comes to payments made on the web, from links in apps), but part of this is on the European Commission for demanding not only that Apple allow apps to be distributed outside the App Store (which is somewhat reasonable), but also for requiring Apple to allow outside payments for apps distributed through the App Store. Apps and games distributed through alternative EU app marketplaces or web downloads are only on the hook for the 5% CTC (by the end of the year, when it replaces the CTF). But there is no free lunch — iOS apps and games distributed outside the App Store that require a purchase, or offer digital content for sale, must pay the 5% CTC.

There are a lot of people who think what Apple is “supposed” to do is collect no commission or fees at all on anything other than IAP from apps and games that are distributed through the App Store. That Apple should collect no commission or fees from apps distributed outside the App Store, nor any commission or fees from apps in the App Store that offer their own payment processing — and, thus, that Apple should set their own IAP commission accordingly, as something akin to Stripe or PayPal, in the single-digit percentage range. That’s obviously not in Apple’s interest. But it’s also not what the European Commission has suggested the DMA demands.


  1. One thing I might be wrong about is that these new terms could be read to suggest that developers who stick with the App Store and Apple’s IAP now pay just 20 percent commission under the new EU terms. That’d be really weird, insofar as it would mean that developers in the EU get an 80/20 split for App Store distribution + IAP, but apps everywhere else in the world still get 70/30 for the same thing. That doesn’t make sense unless there’s another shoe to drop, and Apple is going to reduce IAP to 80/20 worldwide soon. (Which would be a great move on Apple’s part — something that would actually earn them back some developer goodwill.) ↩︎

Apple’s Other ‘F1 The Movie’ In-App Promotions

Saturday, June 28th, 2025 12:25 am
[syndicated profile] daringfireball_feed

Posted by John Gruber

Joe Rossignol:

The company has promoted its Brad Pitt racing film with advertisements across at least six iPhone apps leading up to today’s wide release, including the App Store, Apple Wallet, Apple Sports, Apple Podcasts, iTunes Store, and of course the Apple TV app.

Most of those apps have ads in them all the time. It’s certainly fine for Apple to use those ad spots to promote their own movie. Even with Apple Sports, which most of the time has no ads at all, I think it’s fine for Apple to occasionally drop a promotion in there for something of their own. And F1 The Movie is a sports movie. The Apple Wallet push notification isn’t just a little different, it’s a lot different.

I will also note one other sort-of promotion. I play the mini crossword every morning in Apple News. Today’s 1-down clue was “F1 The Movie star Brad ____”. I think that’s a clever on-brand tie-in. Fun, not obnoxious. But with the smell of that Wallet push-notification fart still hanging in the air, not as much fun as it otherwise would have been.

[syndicated profile] daringfireball_feed

Posted by John Gruber

Beth Mole, reporting for Ars Technica:

The vaccine panel hand-selected by health secretary and anti-vaccine advocate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to drop federal recommendations for seasonal flu shots that contain the ethyl-mercury containing preservative thimerosal. The panel did so after hearing a misleading and cherry-picked presentation from an anti-vaccine activist.

There is extensive data from the last quarter century proving that the antiseptic preservative is safe, with no harms identified beyond slight soreness at the injection site, but none of that data was presented during today’s meeting.

The significance of the vote is unclear for now. The vast majority of seasonal influenza vaccines currently used in the US — about 96 percent of flu shots in 2024–2025 — do not contain thimerosal. The preservative is only included in multi-dose vials of seasonal flu vaccines, where it prevents the growth of bacteria and fungi potentially introduced as doses are withdrawn.

However, thimerosal is more common elsewhere in the world for various multi-dose vaccine vials, which are cheaper than the single-dose vials more commonly used in the US. If other countries follow the US’s lead and abandon thimerosal, it could increase the cost of vaccines in other countries and, in turn, lead to fewer vaccinations.

Having an ignorant conspiracy nut lead the Department of Health and Human Services is angering and worrisome, to say the least. But it’s also incredibly frustrating, because Donald Trump himself isn’t an anti-vaxxer. In fact, one of the few great achievements of the first Trump Administration was Operation Warp Speed, a highly successful effort spearheaded by the US federal government to “facilitate and accelerate the development, manufacturing, and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics.” Early in the pandemic experts were concerned it would take years before a Covid vaccine might be available. Instead, multiple effective vaccines were widely available — and administered free of charge — in the first half of 2021, only a year after the pandemic broke. It was a remarkable success and any other president who spearheaded Operation Warp Speed would have rightfully taken tremendous credit for it.

But instead, while plotting his return to office, Trump smelled opportunity with the anti-vax contingent of the out-and-proud Stupid-Americans, and now here we are, with a genuine know-nothing lunatic like RFK Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services. God help us if another pandemic hits in the next few years.

[syndicated profile] daringfireball_feed

Posted by John Gruber

Banger of a post by “tarltontarlton” on Reddit:

That same process is happening now with stupid people. They’re transcending their individual limitations, finding each other and becoming out-and-proud Stupid-Americans. [...]

How individual stupid Americans are becoming the collective, self-aware group of Stupid-Americans is a great idea for a lot of very fancy journalism I’m sure. It’s probably got something to do with the internet, where stupid people can find and repeat stupid things to each other over and over and over again.

I believe it has a lot to do with the Internet, which has functioned as a terribly efficient sorting machine. It used to be that there were conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans. Both political parties were, effectively, shades of purple. Now we’ve sorted ourselves, and the result is the palpable increase in polarization. Low-IQ stupidity might still be spread across both sides of the political aisle, but willful ignorance — the dogmatic cultish belief that loudmouths’ opinions are on equal ground with facts and evidence presented by informed experts — is the entire basis of the MAGA movement. A regular stupid person might say, “Well, I don’t know anything about vaccines, so I better listen to my doctor, who is highly educated and well-informed on the subject.” An out-and-proud Stupid-American says “I don’t know anything about vaccines either, so I’m going to listen to a kook who admits that a worm ate part of his brain, because I can’t understand the science but I can understand conspiracy theories.”

If written language survives the next six weeks, we’ll be writing about Donald Trump for a thousand years. But whatever else there is to say, the most important thing about Donald Trump, the thing that is obvious from watching him speak for just 14 seconds, is that he is profoundly stupid. Whatever it is that he might be talking about or doing at any given moment, it’s clear that while he has a reptilian instinct for reading and stoking conflict, he has no real idea what’s going on and he doesn’t really care to. Stupid is what he is and where he comes from. It is his mind and his soul. Catholic was what JFK was. Gay was what Harvey Milk was. Stupid is who Donald Trump is.

And that’s what they love most, the Stupid-American voters.

Remember that sentence you heard at the beginning of all this in 2016? “He’s just saying what everybody is thinking.”

But see, not everybody was thinking that Hillary Clinton was an alien, that global warming was a Chinese hoax and that what America needed most of all was a plywood wall stretching from Texas to California. Only the stupid people were. And suddenly, in an instant, the most powerful man on earth was thinking just like them. With his clueless smirk and unstoppable rise, he turned people whose stupidity made them feel like nobody into people who felt like everybody.

That’s why he’ll never lose them. Because it was never about what he did or didn’t do. All that stuff is very confusing and the Stupid-American community isn’t interested in the details. They love him for who he is, which is one of them, and because he shows them every day that Stupid-Americans can reach the social mountaintop.

(Via Kottke.)