There was a separate law passed in 1792 that defined what weapons should be available for people in a militia, but I can't find any evidence that the second amendment ever did that. It was based around similar laws in other states and in England, none of which specified such things, so it would be very surprising if they had considered doing so.

Even if we assume that the intent was to protect the right to bear all future military-grade weapons, it was still intended for forming militias for the defense of the country, not for storing high-power weapons at every individual's house for their personal use where kids can pick them up and shoot each other.

Weapons of that time would not have been easy for a kid to discharge multiple times. They would not have been easy for someone to discharge a hundred times in anger and mass-murder people. And so on. And that's the point I was trying to make. These weapons are materially different from anything they could have conceived of at the time.

It's often cheaper to move the power to where it's needed than to move the workers to where the power is generated.

True. I used to work for one of those. They were always trying to figure out how to offload maintenance and construction onto subcontractors. And just sit around, read meters and collect bills. It turns out that the meter-reading (which they had also sub'ed out) is easy to do. And the market took note of that and cut their ROI to the bone. They were de-listed from the stock market and went private as a subsidiary of an investment fund. Which is principally held by the construction companies doing their heavy lifting. And making big bucks doing so.

It turns out that capital markets are pretty good at spotting situations where the marginal cost of a product is low or zero. And then cutting the fair PE ratio to match. Except for where it will take a few years to figure the market and products out (AI for example). And then the salesmen drop that segment like a no longer hot potato and spin up a new scam.

It turns out that there is always money to be made as a reward for continuting real efforts. It's just not the sexiest part of the economy.

... where there is a spare nuke just sitting around, unused.

The Sam Altman types, and the Thiel/Musk types especially, want technofeudalism with them on top. For some of them the "good of society" factors in but it is always after this.

Denmark, or rather the clique in charge in Denmark, was a big "chat control" proponent.

This is "think of the children" all over again. The goal is to get acceptance for policing who can talk to who and what they're allowed to talk about. It's not subtle at all.

Leaving the groomers aside, there are probably more than a few people here involved in building digital products for kids. And one of the most important features of those products is leveraging peer pressure to create demand among its community of users (kids).

When it comes to gun rights, I'm personally in favor of a strict originalist interpretation of the second amendment based on how someone in that time would interpret it, just like the right end of the Supreme Court claims to believe in.

You have the right to own and bear as many muskets and flintlock pistols as you want, so long as they are for use as part of a militia to defend the country.

Wait, what? You think the right to bear arms grants you the right to a fully automatic assault rifle of the sort that wasn't even invented until almost two hundred years after the signing of the Constitution? Sorry, but no. You want to buy a firearm so you can threaten your ex? Also no. You want to open carry your pistol so everyone knows not to mess with you? Still no.

The second amendment doesn't say what you think it does. It never did. It says that because a well-trained militia is essential to the safety and security of the country, the right of the people (as a whole) to bear arms (of some kind) shall not be infringed. A logical reading of those words does not prohibit taking away guns from specific people (e.g. those with a history of violent crime). Nor does it preclude restricting specific types of weapons to people who have been more thoroughly vetted (e.g. high-power semi-automatic or automatic rifles).

Strictly speaking, you could allow people who have never been convicted of a crime the use of only non-lethal weapons, and so long as learning on those weapons would qualify you to be able to use more powerful weapons if we ever get attacked, such a highly restrictive legal environment would still at least arguably meet the rather low bar for what must be allowed by the second amendment.

So no, gun laws do not inherently violate the second amendment. To violate the second amendment, they would have to make it substantially more difficult for an average person to obtain or use a typical firearm. Until a law crosses that threshold, it likely isn't a violation of 2a.

By contrast, executive orders that exceed authority specifically granted by Congress and exceed the constitutional authority of the executive branch to interpret and execute existing laws are per se unconstitutional. And those are highly scrutinized regardless of which party is in the oval office. The Republican presidents just have a tendency to wipe their a**es with the constitution a lot more often than the Democrat presidents, so their orders get overturned more often.

It will be here. The sunlight is just on back order.

FTFY.

Good luck going after the authors of content rather than the carriers when whole organizations of ransom-ware organizations can hide behind the skirt of Mommy Putin. I'm not against actions against Venezuelan speedboats. But if Trump wants to demonstrate his resolve, sink a few of Russia's shadow oil fleet as payback for shitposting.

Either way, the point remains that you would typically expect that if 3% of people are the sorts of people tempted to commit crimes and you have 100 people, then 3 of them are tempted to commit crimes, and if you have 200 people, then 6 of them are tempted to commit crimes. Larger governments, assuming all else is equal, should have proportionally more criminals. Therefore, having more people convicted of corruption does not prove that the government is more corrupt, but rather, proves that the government is bigger, which is just stating the obvious.

the DOM? There's only one?

This is what we lost when native Java support went away. Not everything is a simple tree.

... I can believe AI being good at. After all, seeking power resources are in AIs self interest.

And aging U.S. equipment is a lot better maintained and newer than what's left of Russia's aging equipment.

Per capita? Assuming equal levels of corruption per capita, you would expect California to have three times as many charges per year as Illinois, twice as many as New York, and four times as many as New Jersey.

Never mind. I already know the answer. Per capita, California is one of the least corrupt states in the country, ranking at number 34 out of 50 (source).

Using corruption conviction rate per capita, Arizona is #9 in corruption, behind only Louisiana, Montana, South Dakota, Kentucky, West Virginia, Virginia, Maryland, and Alabama.

Fun fact: Of the ten most corrupt states, six are red states, two purple, two blue. Of the ten least corrupt, three are red states, three purple, four blue. Statistically, you would expect 3.4 blue, 1.8 purple, 4.8 red. Interpret that as you will.