strideashort

The reason is more than apparent.

So long freedom, it’s been nice living in STASI free society for a while. Too bad power attracts the people who will make sure they keep it in their hands.

Well, the amendment is definitely ambiguous hence all these discussions. And everyone interprets it to their liking.

Do I think the government needs internal counterforce? Absolutely and there are plenty of countries today to see why.

Do I think it’s great that every nutjob has a gun? Well no, I don’t.

I am not saying that the amendment is great, but I don’t believe the absolute right to bear arms was intended. That said, it could very well be that the authors did not see it coming that _anyone_ could have a gun, because that was most probably not the case back then. And perhaps here today’s liberal thinking hits the historic context.

Last but not least, one interpretation of “regulated” is this. I am not saying it is what was intended, but lots of people argue that:

"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight."

Also, the absolute right is the _precursor_ anyway, it is given such that militia can be formed, and the way the militia is organized is not a condition to the right. But admittedly, it is not clear to contemporary reader what they meant.

No it’s not.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

A single man is no threat to the state, so your example is wrong.

A militia could be.

To be able to form militia to resist the government, individuals have absolute right to be armed.

The mechanics is really pretty simple.

And yes, I believe that extends to all arms, as is written, otherwise the intent - to be able to form militia which can overpower the government - can not be fulfilled.

That is the constitution.

I am not saying I agree with it, but at the same time, without absolute right to bear arms, the government _will_ demilitarize the people.

You are simply reading the sentence wrong. Well regulated militia is not condition.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It’s about the right.

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed, _because_ a well regulated Militia, is necessary to the security of a free State.

The point is to prevent the state from monopolizing violence, simple as.

Which part of “shall not be infringed” is hard to parse, exactly?

The question is not if you agree with it or not, the question is, if the constitution matters at all.

If your position is that constitution should be overridden by contemporary narratives as government sees fit, I guess that is a valid position, but then accept that your position is one which advocates for government totalitarianism without constitutional constraints.

It’s quite simple.

Nico choreography.

Interesting, other choreographies don’t use belts to indicate levels. Like “I am 2nd dan salsa dancer”

A Person of any gender, sex, color etc etc can harass or hurt another person.

There is no difference between female-only and white-only inclusion criteria.

Musk would probably have dome same or worse than Altman.

Doesn’t mean what Altman is doing is right.

That really depends on disability.

A single screen with no distractions really helps me focus. That said, dark terminal bg (which i like) kinda sucks for astigmatism (but that’s not unique to TUIs).

Today it is.

A few years down the road it might not be.

In late 90s we would have laughed if somebody proposed this was going to be a thing, let alone that linux community will just go with it. Heck, I would not have believed systemd was going to happen.

And yet, here we are.

When DoorDash or whatever courier comes to a restaurant, they pick up “order number”. That order number is in essence just private IP. Courier translates it to address=public ip.

It follows that the restaurant writes the address on every delivery. Do they ID each recipient?

Yes, which is user’s responsibility!

not at all, 4chan only sends packets to their isp!

What if I send http request over snail mail? And they send me back printed http/html response?

Is it “different” then?

Being serious here.

Do you need to accept ToS to vibe code anthropic plugin?

Code is one thing. Using API key is entirely different thing.

well i guess the next github will be based out of China on Alibaba cloud

but plan is linked to api key which the user provides…

Can anyone explain what’s going on here? Using API is illegal? that can’t possibly be since we now know API is not even copyrighted (which personally I disagree with bit whatever)… so what is going on here?

And by extension, the UK is free to implement His Majesty’s Greatest Firewall of the UK should they wish to control what is imported.

Not exactly.

It’s like fining Parisian bars to hand over alcohol to couriers without checking to whom couriers will deliver it.

Couriers = all involved network providers.

This is exactly what manipulators/value extractors want you to think.

Case in point: how many here have heard of Mick Ronson?

Few perhaps. However most have heard of David Bowie.

See, Ronson was silently creating value for Bowie. Didn’t even get credited although songs like Life On Mars are what they are thanks to his contribution.

Mick was creating value while everyone one else was getting rich.

Humans are not able to accept objective truth. A lot off so-called “truth” are in-group narratives.

If we tried to find the truth, we would not be able to agree on _methodology_ to accept what truth _is_.

In essence, we select our truth by carefully picking the methodology which leads us to it.

Some examples, from the top of my head:

- virology / germ theory

- climate change

- em drive

and there it is, as a true neuro-prevalent, labelling those who ware different as having a “mental disorder”

expected

Title is misleading

Among the 859 unvaccinated women, HPV16/18 prevalence was 6%, 5%, and 6%

and

However, about one-third of women still had HPV infection with non-vaccine high-risk HPV types, and new infections with these types were more frequent in vaccinated than in unvaccinated women.

so… real summary is “hpv vaccination correlates with lower infection for vaccine specific HPV strain, but does not impact / potentially worsens overall high-risk HPV infections”

so what exactly is solved here, supposedly?

not to mention, the study does not compare helth outcomes, which is the only meaningful measure.

As an autist myself, I find these kind of comments quite offensive. It’s much like saying homosexuality is a disorder.

Neurotypical does not imply “normal” it only means prevalent - completely different.

Yes, autism sucks _in the contemporary environment_ - we are perhaps better suited for neanderthal / hunter gatherer environment.

However, implying that I should be “cured” for having no interest in NT dynamics and suffer by many of NT byproducts (e.g. noise) puts you up there with Mengle in my book.