The founding fathers knew English pretty well. If that had been their intent, the Second would have read:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the [members of said Militia] to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Since it does NOT say that, and says that Citizens have the right to keep and bear arms, that is what they meant.

To address some of the other ideas you included - several countries require their armed forces, and equivalent to National Guard, to indeed keep their weapons at their homes.

And at the time the Amendment was written, private citizens owned cannons, and even entire small warships. There was no talk of limiting it to small arms (muskets) - because the idea of that seemed ludicrous at the time.

Please do some research - I am disappointed at the lack of perspective of someone with such a low UID. Sad!

No, it actually is illegal. Congressional approval is given through legislation. Legislation == written laws. No approval == no law allowing it == illegal.

Well, from what I've done so far with trading stocks and options (have NOT gotten into futures) here is my best guess for what happened.

The fake crop reports fed to the brothers called for an absolutely abysmal outlook for oranges - the crop was going to be devastated.

So, they took their money and their margins (I have a brokerage account with a margin - an amount the brokerage will lend me to make trades with. If the stocks, options, or futures you bought with margin do badly enough, the brokerage sends you a margin call - you need to add money to keep the losing bets going. If you can't or won't add more money, they force-sell what they need to in order to balance out the books. I have margin, but have avoided using it) and bought up every futures contract the could - using cash, margin (and since they had chairs on the brokerage's board, they may have had an insane amount - or almost limitless amount - of margin) and whatever other resource they had. Since they "knew" those futures were going to be worth a ton once the report was made public.

Some saw what the brothers were doing and started buying too - driving the prices up further.

Eddie and Dan waited until the frenzy had driven up prices to crazy levels and then sold all the futures they had bought up *the day before* - also with whatever amount of leverage they had. Very short term options on the futures would let them control a huge amount of "shares" for surprisingly little money, so what they had to work with went a long way. They just waited until prices reached, say, 10x what they started the day with, then sold all they had at, say, 9x. Unloading it all in a heartbeat for a huge profit.

The real report comes out, and it is the opposite of the fake one - there will be a huge bumper crop of oranges - and futures are now really worth next to nothing.

Futures prices plunge, as everyone who followed the brothers tries to unload the overpriced futures at once. They cannot sell off enough, for enough, fast enough, and get the dreaded margin call - with the results shown in the movie.

I'm sure there was originally a lot of explanation of what was actually going on and why, but all of it was cut to make the movie more enjoyable - if more mysterious.

It's a byproduct of extracting natural gas, which Qatar also supplies in large quantities. Instead of just the feedstock, they decided to refine the helium themselves and sell the end product (for more profits). Seems pretty reasonable overall, but I agree - not obvious.

"How many times does review actually catch bugs?"

Mostly it depends on 2 things:

1) How well the reviewers know the codebase and what it is trying to accomplish, in detail.

2) The amount of stuff that is being reviewed( document, code, system design, use cases, etc.) at one time.
      Can you review 10 lines of code and find all the bugs? Very likely.
      Can you review 1,000,000 lines of code at once and find the bugs? Not a chance.
      Can you review 1,000 lines of code and find the bugs? Maybe.

      We try to keep reviews to 100-200 lines of code. Not always practical, given other constraints (time, budget, availability, relative priorities, etc.), but in small chunks like that, it's pretty effective.

You had me at pastel gradients.

That is just what an undercover alien lizard assassin would say. Stay right there "mjwx" - a tactical team is inbound to collect you now.

Lifetime of the sensor. The sensor can be embedded in any number of tires (mine are swapped back and forth from summer to winter tires twice a year).

Remember, they have a lifespan though - about 10 years, give or take. Then you need a new set of sensors as the batteries are not (apparently) replaceable.

So basically the explosion at the heart of a supernova produces light and neutrinos together. But the light itself is retarded while within the star, giving the neutrinos a several hour head start. "really cool" indeed [I see what you did there].

One thing to keep in mind is that once light escapes the star, both the light wavefront and the neutrino wavefront propagate at lightspeed. So the head start will be independent of the distance to the exploding supernova.

I hope the guys in Antarctica are on the "pager system" I read about here earlier.

Joking but not too far off. I think the prize goes to the days after "Liberation Day" in the US; when the cascade of world wide tariffs by the US on every country (and an uninhabited island or two) in the world was announced. Days later, there was an announcement that the tariffs would be paused. And a quick retraction a couple of hours later.

Stock prices jumped. Then came back down as the word about the hoax spread. The following Monday, Trump put out a tweet that it was a "great time to buy stocks!". Four hours later, the official announcement that tariffs would be paused went out. The stock market jumped. A lot.

My thinking is:
1) This was a setup
2) The hoax was a planned test to gauge the speed and extent of the market's reaction to the announcement. The speed of the retraction was unusually quick.
3) Trump's tweet to set up plausible deniability for those in on it - "The president said it was a good time to buy stocks. I believed him"
4) The 4 hour time window to give the insiders plenty of time to set up lots of short term options on the stocks that jumped the highest during 2)
5) The real announcement allowed those in the know to make a killing on short term, highly leveraged, options.
6) No one really seems to have caught on, but I expect some investigations will start in '29.
7) No, I didn't figure it out until a week or so after.

I think this wins the prize as the greatest impact of fiction ( the hoax announcement) on the stock market in one day.

"People used to say it was crazy that a web browser downloaded code from random websites and executed it."

I still say that's crazy. Especially the practice of *linking* to external libraries and packages. If my website needs some functions from a library or framework I'm at least going to be downloading the version that works for me and host it myself.

Linking to someone else's packages, that can change out from under you without you even knowing about it, seems the height of lunacy.

US private corrections facility company enters the chat...

Wait a minute. That reply was concise, helpful, and informative - without a hint of snark, disdain, or personal attacks of any kind. WHAT HAVE YOU DONE WITH THE REAL DRINKYPOO??

Not really insane. If the AI can handle conversations with customers that are being done by a person before, and the person can handle 10/hour on average (6 minutes per conversation), then $20/hour for the AI is a bargain (assuming the same time spent on each call).

Also assuming the AI is way better than a chat bot.

Cheaper than the persons wages, and a lot less than the total cost of the employee (which is typically a multiple of their wages).

I think it's likely a bit of both. With AIs on the scene, companies are really looking at their processes - how they do everything. And figuring out if there is a way they can do it more efficiently.

That SHOULD be done all along, but usually isn't - when it ain't broke they don't fix it. So some companies are making AI work for them; while others are figuring out that they can streamline or eliminate processes and gain efficiency the old fashion way.

Both will let some people go, but for different 'reasons'.