I would argue it is an important distinction, though.

The original statement implies that there is a problem in how California classifies what constitutes a risk.

That comment claims that it’s manufacturers being lazy.

If it’s manufacturers being lazy, then the issue is the regulation is too relaxed, allowing them to just bypass the regulation by slapping pointless stickers on things (like websites try to do with cookie banners)

If the actual requirements to not need the sticker are so stringent that everything with the label actually does need it, then there’s a problem with the level of danger listed and the regulation is too onerous.

Alpine already doesn’t use systemd

Ukraine already had security promises from the US, UK, France, and China.

It didn’t help them in 2014, and now the US is trying to help Russia again.

I doubt Ukraine will accept any security promise short of being an official member of NATO

He’s on video congratulating people like Charles Schwab making 2.5 billion dollars from his constantly changing tariffs, so…

Probably that. Occam’s razor and all

Oh, damn. He’s going against Trump’s statements here, so Trump is certainly asking someone to google how he can fire the VP.

Could lead for some funny interactions soon

They already have one: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

Offering another empty promise is unlikely to cause them to make concessions again

There’s no chance in hell Vance knows what that phrase means

If an attacker gets access to your system, they will be able to ensure you can’t get rid of their access

It will persist across operating system installs

However, this requires them to get access first