With a cell phone everyone would see what you are doing ...

Our previous conversation was "closed".
So some answer to your CPC misconception ... which is off topic here.

a) 100 million of a bit more than a billion party members is a lot. It is around 10%.
b) in Germany not even 1 out of 80 is a member of a party. That is roughly 1%
c) in the US: parties have no real members
d) membership in the CPC is not "invite only" - you have to apply and do party work, like preparation of elections and counting of votes or other stuff, to be finally accepted

No idea where you get your information from.

I suggest to start reading the wikipedia articles ....

There was a player in EVE Online, who bulled his "guild mates" into helping him to get stuff he needed to build a super carrier. I think he got actually the first one of that type in game - not sure about that.

He sunk several 10k USD into it, in in-game currency to get what he wanted. As he was a general dickhead, when he made one of his first flights, perhaps even the first flight, he got "kicked from guild".

The whole universe was invited to kill him. I think the server crashed when 10k players where in the same system and nuked his nice new toy.

The two different terms you used kind of look like they apply to different things. "Privacy rapist" appears to refer to the person using the product, but "pervert glasses" appears to refer to the product itself. (Maybe you wanted to call the computer a privacy rapist, but I'm going to ass/u/me that you wanted the more mainstream usage of calling the perv who uses the computer a privacy rapist. Please complain if I got this wrong. I only bring up this pedantry, because I want to distinguish computers from their users.)

Computers can be used for lots of things. They can be used for copyright infringement, for example. But I think Slashdot would be in an uproar if we banned computers due to fact that some people use them to infringe copyrights.

But if someone wants to gargoyle up, such that their cameras are on their face instead of on their lapel or hidden in their clothing or hat, the cameras are objectionable because that user might be recording other people.

If we look at it in terms of the user's intent, instead of worrying about what the equipment is capable of doing, this looks like a pretty inconsistent policy.

That said, I'm not going all the way to saying this view is wrong. As a defender, a potential adversary's capabilities are what's important, and you can't trust anyone's intent. So if you're worried someone might record you, it might really make sense to ban all cameras, not just cameras operated by known pervs.

But why don't we have that attitude about equipment's capability to infringe copyright? Shouldn't we ban all computers, since someone might do the wrong thing with them? I guess it comes down to this: because we aren't the defenders in that situation; MPAA is. Seriously, they really did try to ban betamax due to fears that some people might use it wrong. And they bought a whole law (DMCA) to try to ban lots of uses of computers, which they thought might sometimes be precursors to copyright infringement. So maybe this is a rules-for-thee-but-not-for-me thing.

I'm seeing an attitude toward wearable cameras emerge, that policy should be oriented more toward the the innocent maidens than the drooling gargoyles recording the maidens for later fapping. Well, sure, WHEN I PUT IT LIKE THAT! But what if we describe the gargoyle more fairly? Someone at an in-person office meeting, where maybe they wanna see peoples' names with their faces like they did on Zoom. Or someone recording some cops beating a handcuffed suspect. Someone playing games like Pokemon Go. Someone following a course on a map. Or...

What I'm getting at, is that perv glasses might be useful for more than just perving. Maybe they're really great at perving too, but I can think of plenty of harmless applications for them, and I'm not even very visionary or creative.

I don't like that we're looking down on some tech, rather than its abusive users. I'm not particularly attached to wearable cameras and wouldn't ever likely be in the market for Meta's products (any of Meta products, ever) anyway, so it's easy for me to just shrug and let the fascists have their way on this particular issue.

But I sure as fuck don't want to see this toxic attitude continue to spread to other tech. Because if we allow that, then MPAA is going to ban all computers unless they're running MPAA-certified AI lawyers, always spying on us like the pervs that they are. And even that is just the tip of the iceberg on the smackdowns this attitude will unleash.

Wearable cameras aren't evil.

Now put it on a pole and call it Flock, then it's evi-- no wait, that's a problem with the camera's user too, isn't it?

This is for fun, not "production." If someone hacks up something and got to play with pretty lights for 10 minutes before getting bored and building something else, that's great. And if they learned any engineering, that's a bonus. It's ok to stack your legos however the fuck you want to. I don't fucking care if a kid in 1982 did the "wrong" thing on his TI-99/4A or VIC-20. Been there, done that, got a 40-something year long career out of it despite my youthful unorthodox amateur whims.

Use python on quasi-embedded systems all you want to. Whatever figuratively gets you off your ass, is a good thing.

An interpreted language on a microcontroller requires too much suspension of disbelief,
It is not interpreted. Learn to read.

Because:
a) the language does not matter
b) it is an easy to teach and easy to learn language

It's the wrong thing in production
No it is not. As it is COLMPILED! Are you stupid or what?

Your micro controller does not care if it runs compiled C, ADA or Python.

The point is that I only found Bluetti diesel generators and nothing with batteries at all.

Why would I?

If it would make point to google "bluetti battery power station" - you already had done it, and provided some links to the fire.

Hint: I googled it long ago ... and there was not a single hit.

I assume you mix up the company name.

Last time, I looked the "don't mind a reunion" was 45 %.

China will get its ass handed to it if it ever tries with vast majorities of its forces being wrecked long before ever reaching Taiwan.
That is an extremely uninformed attitude. China is tech leader in nearly every military category. And the farking strait between mainland and Taiwan is short

Luckily for mainland China, an invasion is out of the question, so no one has to fear anything.

Again: that are myths.
Or as we call in our days: fake news.

Yes, because you quoted me there.
And gave a stupid answer which had nothing to do with your quote.

Temperature "overload" - is not what the term "overload" in a grid means.

Overload means the voltage spiked. Not temperature.

Get a clue. No idea why you jumped into this discussion if you even do not remember what the topic was I talked about with my previous parent.

"politically considered"
And when and where was that term used :P

Year, something like this, I would wear, too.
According to the weather app, it was 17C in the morning, with the note: "feels like 15C".
I had a long sleaved - relatively thick - long sleaved cotton shirt over my t-shirt, and: it was uncomfortably cold.
However, I had only slept 4h during the night.

Safety does not need to be absolute to be present.

It is just your idiotic definition of your perceived idea of "safety". A safety belt is a safety belt. Nevertheless your car can be hit by a fuel truck, spilled all over and catch fire.

for instance not misusing NULL, but do you trust them, or, do you write code to check them?
Nope, if a language is null safe, like Dart, I do not check for null.

That would be idiotic.

The compiler would optimize away the null check, as it perfectly well knows: it can not be null.

And as soon as you change the code at a different place and introduce a null error: the compiler perfectly well knows that at the specific point a null can pop up, and a null check is needed (again).

Stupid question: are you actively setting variables to null, to help the garbage collector ... ???

I can take a C program, lint it with multiple linters, compile it with multiple compiles, a smart check to do when its critical code, and be sure the code is safe.
Nope, you will never be sure. As "unsafe" is not a flaw of the language or coding, it is a feature of the language.

int* ptr = 0xFFeF;
*ptr = 0; // or any other value

There is no farking way to know if that is safe or not: unless YOU know it. Hint: in Apple ][ it is either: ROM and what ever you write never happens, or it is the "language card", and you might destroy the Integer Basic interpreter or the Pascal P-Code interpreter, or what ever you have loaded there.

Or: You actually place a value there, that you really want to have there. No compiler or linter can know anything about that.

And that above: can in Rust only be placed inside of an unsafe block. In C you can do it anywhere, and no one - and especially no linter - can know if the code is correct and does what intended, or not.