I meant that in the sense that a typical SaaS company has no reason to be formally thinking about risk adjusted returns and therefore has no need of a CRO. If anyone cares product can do a guesstimate or something. Most companies shouldn't have a CRO.
If you’re a B2B SaaS with no CRO, good luck with vendor assessments. B2C you can skip it before reaching a critical mass where regulatory pressures will mandate it.
If it were to get closer to war (i.e., Spannungsfall, let alone the Verteidigungsfall) a set of laws would unlock that allow control of various areas of life and the economy anyway.
Germany participated in the NATO military campaign/occupation of Afghanistan, including ground forces, naval activities and special operations units. Its seems a total of 150,000 German soldiers (and police officers?) were deployed overall (not at the same time of course); of them, 62 were killed and 249 wounded:
Struggling to see the relevance, but, thank you for teaching me this:
The U.S. Army is the permanent, professional standing land force (Regular Army, Reserves, National Guard),
while the Army of the United States (AUS) was a temporary, authorized component used primarily during major wars to rapidly expand forces through draftees and volunteers.
There’s multiple corporations. When you have state level central planning there’s no adversarial check or feedback mechanism. Nothing challenges it to see if it’s actually doing a good job.
Of course this is also a strong argument for antitrust. In some markets today there is basically one corporation or a few that seem more interlocked than competing. That starts to be indistinguishable from Soviet bureaus.
Nuclear reactors make awful targets in a conflict, not sure having many around is generally a good idea if conflict is a risk and there are alternatives.
Exactly right. Who wants to live any where near a nuclear reactor in a conflict between countries or general war. Despite a country not having nuclear weapons, targeting the nuclear reactors of other countries, is almost as good.
It's very clear now that infrastructure of all kinds are increasingly fair game. Nuclear reactors, data centers, water processing plants, hospitals... Both sad and ridiculous, but that's the level of insanity reached.
That's a big if, though. Solar and batteries require globalisation, based on fossil fuels.
I feel like nuclear reactors are a better choice.
> in a conflict, not sure having many around is generally a good idea
On the other hand, blowing nuclear reactors could be considered a big escalation. We see with Iran and Ukraine that it's not exactly the first thing one wants to target.
My point was that photovoltaic is "an alternative" to nuclear reactors, but an alternative that relies on globalisation. Nuclear reactors... much less.
For many nations that is really not the primary reason to choose infrastructure. And even if that is your goal. Then building a 500MW reactor you can drop in the ground is likely a pretty decent solution.
I think that is too little credit to previous humans: people objecting to slavery were around four hundred and more years ago. Similarly, concerns about environmental destruction are also old.
reply