Probably both - however I think it’s not unreasonable to assume that organizations as mentioned in the article at least have the Chinese government’s blessing, if they’re not directly controlled by it. So even if the fentanyl itself is not coming from outside the states, the precursors from which it can be made with little effort are.

That and I guess some gangs make it somewhere else and then import it, but that’s another story.

Also technically, I think there’s legal fentanyl being produced in the states, but that’s usually not what’s meant in the discussion.

Asking for a friend

The team also procured secondary ingredients used to process the essential precursors, as well as basic equipment – giving it everything needed to produce fentanyl.

The core precursors Reuters bought would have yielded enough fentanyl powder to make at least 3 million tablets, with a potential street value of $3 million – a conservative estimate based on prices cited by U.S. law enforcement agencies in published reports over the past six months.

The total cost of the chemicals and equipment Reuters purchased, paid mainly in Bitcoin: $3,607.18.

Turning these precursors into fentanyl would have required just modest lab skills and a basic grasp of chemistry. One Mexican fentanyl cook who dropped out of school at age 12 told Reuters he learned the trade as an apprentice at an illegal lab.

“It’s like making chicken soup,” said the cook, an independent producer based in the cartel stronghold of Sinaloa state. “It’s mega-easy making that drug.”

Actually one block in the article

A web browser? There goes my career as a drug lord

My point was that it’s irrelevant if the whole company knows git. We’re a Microsoft shop and a lot of people don’t even use computers at our company (or only sparingly as they work in manufacturing). And we also have a subset of people who work with git (me kind of included).

And no our janitor can’t use AD. Even though our whole company “uses” Microsoft Windows

The answer to this 100% irrelevant question is no

Ah, ACLs, had the pleasure of working with these again last weeks.

It gets really curious when even the Arch wiki doesn’t really know what’s going on (talking about mask and effective permissions):

The factual accuracy of this article or section is disputed.

Reason: The original note about the --mask option (which was taken from setfacl(1)) was determined as inaccurate, but the new note does not seem correct either. See the talk page for details.

From trying, I can confirm that the info presented further down is wrong.

Once you read what it actually does and why it’s the way it is, it makes more sense - not that I remember it now - but at least there was a coherent design decision behind it

You’re not supposed to “sudo everything” though. It’s mostly for changing the system configuration (editing config files in /etc/, running your system package manager etc.). It shouldn’t be a “oh, I got a permission error, better sudo the same command again olol”