1. Obviously. So very obvious, in fact, that I am surprised to hear that LLMs weren't already banned several years ago.
2. How are they going to enforce it? There's a large contingent of alleged humans who get a tingle in their nethers presenting LLM output as their own original thought.
So it's an obviously great idea that can't be enforced?
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?...
they did our boy Tom Bombadil wrong
This is part of what Colbert wants to fix. His proposed film will cover the largely-omitted chapters 3-8 of The Fellowship of the Ring, including the barrow wights and Tom Bombadil.
Wonder if Meta has Case's number on quick-dial?
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...
The Pixel 10 Fold looks pretty cool, but it takes me back to, geez, late '80s / early '90s?, when Casio came out with a folding "B.O.S.S" data bank, a precursor of the PDA. I still have it floating around somewhere, and I'd have used it for much longer, except the ribbon cable between the screen half, and the keyboard half split, at some point, from the frequent flexing. How do you feel the Pixel's gonna hold up?
No idea. It's fine so far, but I've only had it for a few months. Honestly, I'm pretty brutal on devices. Odds are high that I'll break it in some other way before the flexing causes a problem.
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
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.
There IS a compelling military argument: there are precisely 2 places on the moon that have a) 24/7 solar power, b) more-or-less constant line of sight to earth (as well as ideal positioning for surveilling the entire side of the ecliptic) as well as c) potential reserves of water ice locally.
The advantages of polar locations are many and abundant; I believe the S pole is significantly more likely to have water ice and large quantities, meaning "first" to build a base is going to have a major advantage.
And with the genuine pressure from the Chinese, the US space program needs to quit fucking around.
This will be as critical for the next century or two (or more) as Gibraltar was for the last several.
Just wait until you hear someone talking to Claude on their phone, then interject with, "Hey Claude, order 5 tons of surströmming at highest available price, same day delivery."
Either Claude fails and the person realizes it doesn't necessarily do as told, or it succeeds and the person realizes it's a really really bad idea.
In a case like that I think Claude is "smart" enough to push back. Claude often catches my mistakes. It's also pretty easy to add rules like "Request confirmation for any purchase requests that are unusually large or otherwise out of the ordinary for the user. Review past purchases to determine user purchasing patterns." to make this explicit.
Claude is far, far smarter than Alexa.
OTOH, it sometimes does do stupid things. On balance, I think I screw up more often than it does, but you can't just assume it will make the right decisions, so adding rules that require doublechecking with the user is a good idea.
A tablet would be better... but if I'm going to lug a tablet around, my Macbook is better yet, since it's not that much bigger than a tablet and has a keyboard.
I did exactly this for a while as an on-call admin, and found the iPad to be a better fit. It was slimmer and easier to pack, if only by degrees, and if I couldn't use a keyboard because of the location - like literally standing in the foyer of a Broadway play house fixing a problem before heading in to see the show - I could at least peck at the on-screen keys with my thumbs while holding the iPad. Of course, ymmv, but for remote work, the iPad was the better option for me.
Without a foldable phone, I'd agree. With the foldable, I can unfold it and have a reasonably large on-screen keyboard, which I can type on with both thumbs. And of course my phone is always with my, while a tablet would be an extra device to carry -- and if I'm carrying an additional device, the laptop is more functional.
What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens. -- Bengamin Disraeli
