Lol, cogent conservative responses here get modded to oblivion.
Frothing leftist flamer "Insightful"

Slashdot is so ideologically captured.

Did you think the benefit of being the 'only surviving industrial infrastructure' faded what, a week after ww2? /huh?

"We used to have super high taxes for the wealthy and corporations."

Did we?

Because what I see is a high marginal tax rate really only in the postwar years. ... And anyone who begins their economic model in the late 40s is a moron or a liar.

Remember anything important that happened, say, midcentury?
Something that may have left the US fabulously wealthy, particularly relative to all the other industrialized countries who were shattered & left in ruins by the same event?

Anyone who points to that time and stupidly says "durr, we should do it THAT way" conveniently disregards the (hopefully unique) economic environment resulting from multiple, cataclysmic, economy shattering wars and the luxuries available to those left standing thereafter.

Concerned that the reason we keep doing open source is because we believe in access.
The false tradeoff there, is believing that access and exploitation are necessary corollaries. And I don't think they are.
It's a tough balance, and open source licenses have clearly failed us here.
But I'm not sure where to go with it. Shared source might be better, like the Mongo license, or something like it. The Kimi2 license had the right idea.
On the other hand, when you leave the open source path, you pay by losing access.

At the same time, "but I don't like this law" isn't going to protect you from punishment if you break it.

Fight unethical laws with every fiber but you're going to be far more effective if you Chesterton's Fence than if you just stomp your feet and whine.

If we consider that at the same time Reddit is going to be having user-validation issues, it feels like this is a match made in heaven (for the rest of us).

Congress absolutely controls the militias (as far as the federal militia is concerned, STATE unorganized militias are covered by their own various constitutional rules), yes, that's exactly as written in the Constitution. Nobody is arguing that?

What's your point?

This is about gun control, and the 2nd amendment.
The Supremes have routinely found that the 2nd amendment ISN'T interpreted the way leftists/progressives believe it "should be". Not even close.

USSC has repeatedly stated that this is a right held by the PEOPLE, and that the militia comment is is justificatory but not obligatory.

I expect that even if you could somehow magically get congress to disband the unorganized militia the US Supreme Court *still* wouldn't re-interpret the 2nd Amendment your imaginary way.

Unless you get more dipshit Brown-Jacksons, lol. She doesn't really care much about that silly Constitution anyway. You WOULD have to get her to STOP TALKING first.

""The right to keep and bear arms" by such a (state) militia SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

Except, that's not what it says, is it?
I am pretty sure the exact words are "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Fully agree re l4/l5. I don't have anything against a mid-route station, there are some compelling arguments.

That they hand-waved "orbital refueling" as if it's no more complicated than topping off your car otw to the WI Dells bothered me; I am fairly certain - even to this day, for a moon landing that was supposed to be 2 launches away - they STILL don't know how many loads of fuel need to be in orbit, how they get it there, how they store it there.

This was from 2 years ago, and I applaud his bravery https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Bots and other bad actors thrive in free (as in beer) environments, for reasons that should be obvious. If we want to do anything meaningful about them, sites will need a nominal but real fee to use.

It's not what anyone wanted, but "free" was always inevitably going to lead to the Internet becoming a dump. The free ride is over.

In a sense, this is pure Gramsci: take anything literally or colloquially sacred, and shit on it. Not actually - this would spur resistance and a sense of martyrdom. Better to shit on it by undercutting it, replacing it, tainting it, corrupting it and who better to serve that mission than a "victim" of the current leader of the right? LotR franchise already set this up by their rather extensive wrecking of The Hobbit, of course.

produces higher quality sperm

That's really important for the sperm destined for the septic system, sure...

So you're asserting the applicability of amendments is constrained by time/technology?
So...freedom of speech doesn't apply to the internet?
Freedom of assembly doesn't apply if it's posted on facebook?
Freedom of religion doesn't apply to amplified preaching?

What a radical concept?

Of course, with equivalent mental gymnastics one could point out that when the 2nd amendment was written, muzzle loading arms were the state of the art...and militia members were allowed to keep these state of the art weapons at home. They were even allowed to put cannons on their private vehicles and build warships themselves, by that same token US citizens today should be able to own the most lethal weapons technologically available, right?

If going to prohibit guns being owned by people who shoot other people ... I think you'd be called racist because it would be black people that are most likely to shoot others, according to FBI statistics? And trans people are pretty damned dangerous too.

If he's 17-45, male, and is or has declared intention to be a US citizen, he's a member of the unorganized militia, smart-pants.

Sort of sexist of you to insist that women can't carry guns in 2026, but you be you.

Per US code:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/us...
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areâ"
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

That article - setting aside the usual specious bullshit of the Brennan center - is about PRIVATE militias vs STATE militias, and about them being regulated. And yes, obviously the state has a significant interest in the limiting of private armies within its boundaries.

"The right to keep and bear arms" by such a (state) militia SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
This certainly means that militia members should be able to keep (ie own) and bear (ie wield) arms, yes?

Therefore, all US men 17-45 who are or who are in the process of becoming citizens should be able to keep and bear arms without restriction.*

It's sort of a weird take for you to be so blatantly sexist in 2026 but you be you.

*https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia areâ"
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. ...that's all men 17-45.