It is not possible to filibusterer this. Republicans are specifically using techniques to avoid having to deal with the filibuster under Senate rules. The whole thing is DOA if they do.

There is so much more context behind that. The two are not at all comparable.

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.”

You’re completely ignoring what happens in the first paragraph of NATO Article 5. The Security Council only comes into play if they get off their ass. The Security Council rarely gets off its ass, because too many countries that hate each other have veto power. NATO will continue operations for the defense of its members regardless.

None of that is true of the Budapest Memorandum. They bring it up with the Security Council, and that’s it.

Are you going to keep digging this hole?

Nope, not at all comparable. The US does not puppet master the UN Security Council. It can bring the matter up, and it has. Russia has veto power on the same council. Nobody expects anything to come of that, but the requirements were met.

Not at all. You clearly haven’t read what’s actually in there.

Clinton didn’t think Congress would ratify strong guarantees. Ukraine itself wasn’t in a position to ask for much more, because it didn’t have the economy to afford to maintain nuclear weapons. The result is an agreement that aggression against Ukraine would be brought up with the UN security council, and that’s about it.

In providing military aid, the US has exceeded what was promised.

I did. The United States followed everything it says. It just doesn’t say to do very much.

What did the US promise to Ukraine?

Specifically these issues: https://github.com/jellyfin/jellyfin/issues/5415

The big one is that video/audio playing endpoints can be used without authentication. However, you have to guess a UUID. If Jellyfin is using UUIDv4 (fully random), then this shouldn’t be an issue; the search space is too big. However, many of the other types of UUIDs could hypothetically be enumerated through brute force. I’m not sure what Jellyfin uses for UUIDs.

Nah, setting non-standard ports is sound advice in security circles.

People misunderstand the “no security through obscurity” phrase. If you build security as a chain, where the chain is only as good as the weakest link, then it’s bad. But if you build security in layers, like a castle, then it can only help. It’s OK for a layer to be weak when there are other layers behind it.

Even better, non-standard ports will make 99% of threats go away. They automate scans that are just looking for anything they can break. If they don’t see the open ports, they move on. Won’t stop a determined attacker, of course, but that’s what other layers are for.

As long as there’s real security otherwise (TLS, good passwords, etc), it’s fine.

If anyone says “that’s a false sense of security”, ignore them. They’ve replaced thinking with a cliche.

Since 1970, productivity has increased by 86%. That suggests the output of a 40 hour work week in 1970 could be done in under 22 hours with the same inflation-adjusted wage. That’s not even considering the productivity increases caused by industrialization in the century before 1970 (though the 40 hour work week in the US wasn’t set until 1938).

Admittedly, this is a bit of a naive way of looking at the numbers, but it gives ballpark ideas of how far we might be able to go.

Note that real (inflation-adjusted) pay has only increased 32% in the same time period. This, BTW, is a much more robust argument than saying real pay has flatlined since 1970. Real wages are, in fact, up during that time period, but it’s possible the numbers will shift again over time and return to being flat or down. The pay-productivity gap, however, has only been widening with time and isn’t going to be fixed without drastic changes in policy.

Because they are cowards.