If states cannot regulate commodities markets, New York is pretty fucked since it leverages the fact that various exchanges are located in the state to its advantage.

This. I am amazed at the number of posts I see that are along the lines of "Broadcom are really going to regret how they've mismanaged this" because they have flat out SAID that this is their plan, to drive away everyone but the most valuable customers and extract the maximum amount of revenue possible. This is and has always been a short term play, and anyone with a brain saw it coming even before Hock Tan flat out said it.

The only place they're still playing remotely nice is the EU because the regulators there actually have teeth and will take a bite out of their ass for the tactics they are using, which are blatantly unlawful even in the US (but the regulators even under Biden didn't seem to give a fuck about).

I'm pretty sure the 1000%+ price increases on renewal have more to do with this than Darth Cheeto.

"Seem primarily financial in nature" is saying "money can cure any harm they suffer as a result of a stay not being granted." I tend to disagree with the court on this one because the current state of their industry means if you fall behind (which the reputational harm of "The DoD says we are a threat to national security" makes a real possibility) you're almost certainly going to be left behind. The hypothetical "we would have won the AI race and been a ten trillion dollar company" or whatever is a hypothetical the court will not entertain at the damages stage.

By "everyone" I assume you're referring to "conspiracy theorists?" Humans were there because the only thing that can actually secure an area are boots on the ground. The C-130s were there to bring the MH-6s. This is pretty simple, and in order to complicate it you have to really want it to be something else.

This is just plain not true. Microsoft has about 1/4 of the global cloud computing market and, if nothing else, the number of things that just use Entra for auth is insane. I'm not suggesting this is a good thing, I'm just saying your claim that Microsoft is some kind of edge case in "internet service" is ridiculous.

It is rare that I see something you post that I agree with, but words cannot express just how much I agree with the above. The GP really is a miserable fuck.

They could have created an endowment and then would not have had to worry when the money dried up, because the earnings on the principal would have funded them through the end of time. But, like most non-profits that end up with a bunch of money, they just used the opportunity for mission creep.

Excuse you? The right to keep and bear arms ensures that the government does not have to equip the militia, the citizenry owns their own equipment. Many states required law that the citizenry own said equipment, the specifics of what the militiaman should be equipped with being enumerated in law.

The (federal) Militia Act of 1792 states "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

But, sure, my premise is extremely flawed.

Aaak. I think it was. That'll teach me to work off of decade old memories...

Well, it probably won't teach me.

Coll story, but what does it have to do with whether or not a militia is "well regulated" or not? It really doesn't matter who was swanning around Michigan chasing Mormons, the only thing that does matter is whether or not they were well trained and equipped while doing so. That's what "well regulated" means. A "militia" can be a bunch of randos with a zip gun between the five of them led by a guy who lasted a week in basic before being sent home. A "well regulated militia" is an effective, disciplined, military force.

You've done nothing to refute either of the two points I made above, what am I pretending it means that it does not?

I am certainly not advocating for armed resistance against the government, nor am I suggesting that things would go well for anyone who tried, but "you can't win" is just... ignorant of history. The Viet Cong and Al-Qaeda both "won" against the US military, though the costs were astronomical for both them and the civilians caught in the middle.

Your assertion that "you can't win if you fight the government, therefore the only legal use of arms is hunting" is also nonsensical. There are more lawful uses of arms than that. Self defense springs to mind. Sporting purposes that don't involve killing something (e.g. target shooting) is another. Physical security of a building a third.

Take a hard look at definitions 3 and 4 in your own link to see why you're confidently incorrect. A militia is "well regulated" in the same manner as a clock.

See Federalist 29:

Certainly the militia is also "regulated" as per your definition, and the constitution provides for that (Art I, Sec 8) and no one is disputing such. But the term "well regulated militia" means something else, and that is "well trained and equipped." And the right of the people to keep and bear arms, which shall not be infringed, is in support of the goal of having a well regulated militia, and not subordinate to it.

It certainly did not. A well regulated militia would be one that was well trained and equipped, and your untrained farmers with minimal equipment led by former private Smith does not meet that definition. Nonetheless, the right to keep and bear arms itself is reserved to the people--the perceived need for a well regulated militia is the impetus for said right, not the beneficiary of it.

Horseshit. The Continental Congress was interested in and had Belton present his repeating flintlock to them. The Puckle gun had been around for more than half a century. The idea that "they didn't envision" that arms would evolve over time is just not supported by history.