This doesn't matter. Not while the US is the reserve currency, and not for a few other reasons either. It's a fake GOP campaign point and nothing more.
It is entertaining to me that the GOP is actually the party working hardest to end the US$ status as the reserve currency. I don't know if they just like self-fullfilling prophecies or if they really have no grasp of network effects. Probably both.
The G7 no longer has the highest share of the global GDP, and its percentage is dropping fast.
BRICS are now trading directly with each other through their own bank, with their own version of SWIFT, etc. They can have access to the largest share of the world GDP while ignoring sanctions and not having to use US dollars or euros.
> The G7 no longer has the highest share of the global GDP,
They still have more than half of the entire G20 though.
> They can have access to the largest share of the world GDP while ignoring sanctions and not having to use US dollars or euros.
This gives those countries more freedom and reduces the US ability to put pressure on those countries, but it's not an indication that the US is going to stop being the reserve currency anytime soon.
Simple solution: Only let contracts where verifiably senior company technical employees are to accompany equipment in war and peace, and to have all technical data in their possession, verified unencrypted.
After they're all dead, the president signs an executive order confiscating all on-site data and equipment, and authorizing military to repair. This would also be spelled out in the contract.
Admiral Rickover's solution for the U.S. Navy submarine program was to write into the contract having company executives on the boat for its first dive.
All that means is that you buy stuff from people who cannot properly assess risk and everyone dies from stupid, predictable, known issues, like with OceanGate.
What ACTUALLY fixed the submarine program was SUBSAFE, a quality assurance program that mostly generates paperwork and instructs you to check things over and over.
My understanding was that SUBSAFE was put in place first, but executives insisted on just pencil-whipping the requirements --- until the requirement that they went down on the first dive was put in place --- at that point things were taken a bit more seriously.
As the article is overtly political, I'll make a political response and cut to the chase:
Trump is the most for-sale candidate and president in history. He solicited $1B in campaign contribution directly from a meeting with oil execs, in return for signing any Executive Orders they cared to submit.
As for Vance, he was brought to Silicon Valley and re-tooled, Manchurian-like, then sent back to Washington.
I think the only compelling use case that applies to every IoT user is selling their data; the user as product.
In that sense, every connected device is just another implementation of the exact same thing: a surveiling data collector. What the user thinks of as the device's main purpose is a mere implementation detail.
I had peanut butter toast on sourdough yesterday. The Man knew nothing about it. Bwa ha ha ha!
Your overpayment today funds your children's and grandchildren's more effective overpayments.
It's your legacy.