In the US, “liberal” and “conservative” come from different interpretations of the constitution. A “liberal” is somebody who interprets it liberally, that is, that the people who wrote it couldn’t account for every possibility, so interpretations of it should take into account the “spirit” of the work and try to interpret what they wanted when they wrote it. A “conservative” interprets it conservatively, that is, that they only concern themselves with the “letter” of what it says, and that the law is limited to EXACTLY what the document says based on the language at the time it was written.

Without taking obvious sides on this argument in this post, this is part of where the argument over the 2nd amendment comes from - The exact wording of the amendment isn’t up for debate - it’s written down right over there and anybody can read it. But what the two sides differ on is:

1. What that wording actually means.
2. Whether or not that wording is still relevant.
3. Whether or not that section should be repealed by amendment.

The literal exact wording is: “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.”

But what does that actually mean?

To a conservative, it is interpreted using the original meanings of the words with no room for error. The words are sacrosanct and not up for revision or reinterpretation. “well regulated” in 1700s vocabulary means “well equipped and maintained”, and a militia was a group of citizens that organized themselves outside of military control. “to keep” means to own “and bear” means to have something in their possession at any time in any situation. So taken together, translated to modern language using the original meanings of the words, it means “A country’s security and freedom depend upon citizens coming together with proper equipment, maintenance, and training, so people shall always have the right to own and carry weapons.”

But to a liberal, there’s room for interpretation and modification. In modern parlance, “well regulated” means “subject to rules and regulations”. A “militia” is a volunteer military organization. Taken together, they mean “A military organization with stringent rules.” So if the sentence starts with “A well regulated militia…”, then does the sentence only apply to those in the military? Combined with the next clause, it goes “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the free state…”. At the time of the writing, militias were the primary system of civilian security. But now we have military and civilian police for security, so do we still need civilian firearm ownership / public carry? If not, then is this clause even necessary anymore? Should an amendment eliminate it?

Again, I’m not taking a side in this post. That’s not my goal here. Of course I have my own opinion, but to maintain neutrality, I’m not going to share it on this thread. I’m just trying to illustrate how the terms “conservative” and “liberal” grew out of different interpretations and thoughts regarding the US constitution.

In one age, called the third age by some, a windbag rose in the west. This windbag was not the first, nor would he be the last. There are no first or last windbags in the wheel of bullshit, but he was A windbag.

Open source hardware is a thing. See: raspberry pi, pine64, etc.

In hardware, open source means the schematics are available and the device is built with commonly available components; eg: no proprietary chips, standard discrete components, pcb schematics and plans available.

I love how this was somehow both the next line of the song AND snarkily correcting their spelling.

I recently saw a 94 corolla with like 2400 miles on it while car shopping online. I guess it just got bought, parked, and forgotten about. It was in spectacular condition.

It was also $26,000.

The pcb footprint isn’t the same. Changing the port isn’t as simple as just soldering this one instead of that one. The pins are in a different order. Changing the port requires redesigning the PCB that the port attaches to. In a larger device, maybe you could create some kind of internal adapter that can solder to the lightning footprint but provide a usb-c port, but there’s just not enough room in a modern phone.

Plus, even though the USB portion of the circuitry may be the same, the port does more than just provide a usb interface. There’s also headphone functionality and other things on there that have to be adapted too, or the phone will have less functionality than it did and people with bitch that apple broke their headphones when they changed the port over.

Well that was a hell of a ride.

Okay. Explain something to me. I’ve tried to use piped, but it’s just so dogshit slow. Unusably so.

What am I doing wrong?

Well, it’s multiple things.

1. People are paid for their time on the council, and by law the pay is AT MINIMUM 25% more that whatever you were already making, but could be considerably more depending on the pool of eligible citizens. Remember, the pay is the GREATER of 125% of whatever you were already making in your private job, or 200% of the average pay for the eligibility pool. So if you’re making $40,000 per year and get called to council, you’re gonna get paid a minimum of $50,000 for your term, but if the average pay for your eligibility pool is $40,000, then you’re gonna be paid $80,000 for your term. It’s structured so that there’s always a strong financial incentive to serve.

2. People don’t vote because they feel their vote doesn’t matter. When you’re part of a pool of 10 million people, one vote is more or less negligible. But, when asked to serve, you’re now one of only a handful of votes. Maybe one of 5. Maybe one of 11. But your vote absolutely matters in a way that nobody could dismiss.

And tbh, if somebody declines, it’s really not that big a deal. Eligibility pools would be big enough that a nontrivial number of people could decline the position and we’d still have plenty of eligible citizens. Worst case scenario is come kind of coordinated general strike against serving on councils, but to be fair, if the population is pissed off enough to enact a general strike in a meaningful way like that, they would have enacted a Branch No-Confidence movement long ago.

Funnily enough, I had this exact scenario assigned as a project in my political science class in college.

What I came up with is a lottery-based council government. The system is designed with none of the “gentleman’s agreements” that the US systems seems to be based on, and assumes that if it’s possible to abuse the system, then the system WILL BE abused. So it’s designed to minimize the ability for the system to be abused.

You want to get rid of career politicians? Make it so they don’t even have the option of running for office in the first place.

Councils

The way my system worked is that all governmental tasks are performed by a council created for a specific purpose. Every council is made up of an odd number of members, with a minimum of 5. Councils can be created to manage a geographical area, such as a state, county, or city, or for a topical purpose, for example, medical oversight. Each council has the ability to create lower councils that report to it, but only within the purview of the parent council. For example, a State Council can create a Municipal Council for a city within the state.

Sitting at the top of the entire structure is the Prime Council, which always consists of exactly 11 members. Decisions of the Prime Council are final except in the case of a supermajority overrule as detailed below.

Lower councils are subject to the decisions of higher councils with one exception - a parent council’s ruling can be overturned and vacated if a supermajority* of child councils that existed at the time of the ruling vote to overturn it. For example, if a State Council outlaws gambling, but 75% of Municipal Councils vote to vacate the ruling, it is overturned. But, for example, if a Municipal Council votes to allow prostitution, the state or national council can overturn that ruling on its own. Again, however, this overturning can be overridden by a supermajority of child councils. However, the chain ends there. A parent council CANNOT vacate a supermajority vote passed by the collected child councils. Child councils must have a reason for existing can cannot be created simply to stack a supermajority vote.

A singular case can only be tackled by ONE council at a time and cannot be interfered with during the proceedings by any other council at any other level. For example, if a Municipal Traffic Council is considering a motion to raise a speed limit on a road, no other council (Municipal, State, or even the Prime Council) can interfere in that case or tell the lower council how to rule on it. However, once the case is complete and the ruling announced, THEN a higher council may take up the issue and/or vacate the lower council’s ruling.

Decisions of lower councils can be appealed, but a parent council has no obligation to take up the issue and can simply deny the appeal.

Courts

Courts, as we understand them, do not exist in this system, per se. Civil and criminal cases are handled in the same way; there is no separation between the case types. Likewise, there is no differentiation between the natures of the decisions that can be handed down. Every court case is presided over by a council created especially for the purpose of hearing this single case. All the other rules surrounding how councils work detailed the Councils section still apply.

The Lottery

Council members are selected by lottery from all eligible citizens. Each lottery is specific to the seat being filled. To be considered eligible for a given lottery, a citizen:

1. Must be a member of the geographical area that the seat’s council represents. For example, if the seat is on a Municipal Planning Council, the citizen must live within the city.

2. Must meet the qualifications defined by the higher council when this council was created. In this case, perhaps, qualification requires that the citizen hold a bachelor of science degree in any subject.

3. Must NOT have previously served on this same council.

4. Must NOT have been declared unfit for service by a medical professional.

All citizens of legal age are automatically in the lottery pool by default, and the lottery operates on on opt-out basis.

If a citizen is chosen for a council, they have the option of declining the position. In which case, another eligible citizen is selected.

Additionally, a citizen can elect to be removed from the lottery pool for any or no reason for one year at a time. This election can be renewed indefinitely, but it must be renewed UNLESS a medical professional declares that they are unfit for service. An unfit-for-service declaration can be made for a specific amount of time or on a permanent basis.

Antagonistic Resignation

Any council member can resign their position on a council at any time before their term is over. In addition, a council member may enact the right of “Antagonistic Resignation” whereby they remove both themself and ONE other member of the council. There is no veto or override process allowed. To clarify, any council member can remove any other member from the same council by also removing themself at the same time. The replacement council member(s) will be chosen via the lottery.

Antagonistic Recusement

A council member MAY NOT vote on or interfere with the vote on any issue the results of which they may directly benefit from. That is to say that if a council member could personally benefit from a decision on a matter, they are REQUIRED to recuse themself from the case and may not interfere with the case in any way, including but not limited to public discussion or press releases related to the matter.

A council member with a conflicting interest in a single case must either resign from the council or recuse themself from the case. As with Antagonistic Resignation, the recusing council member chooses ONE other council member that must also recuse themself from the case to preserve the odd number of council seats. Again, there is no veto or override process allowed. However, unlike Antagonistic Resignation, the recusing council member MUST choose one other member for recusement - they do not get the option to decline. If the number of active seats on the council would drop below five for this single issue, interim seats will be created and filled by lottery for this specific case only, after which the additional seats will be removed from the council and the interim council members’ terms will be considered complete.

Protection and Compensation

Serving on a council is a full-time job and may require taking a sabbatical from work. While an individual citizen has the ability to decline a council seat, NO other entity, individual, or organization may punish or otherwise act against a citizen for choosing to accept the responsibility of service. Therefore, it is considered unconstitutional for any entity to retaliate against a citizen for accepting a council seat, punishable by a fine of not less than 50% of that entity’s yearly income. It is understood that this is a harsh penalty, and the severity and calamitous nature of it is intentional and intended to avoid even the outward appearance of impropriety or retaliation. If a citizen CHOOSES of their own accord to decline a council seat out of a sense of duty to an organization, that’s allowed, but it is absolutely not acceptable for an organization to demand, tell, ask, or even imply that a seat should be declined.

It is required by law that an employee (and this shall be construed loosely, to include any person who is in any way a member of an organization) of an organization be reinstated at the end of their council service to their same position, pay, benefits, and tenure as though no sabbatical had been taken at all. This is inclusive of any required “re-onboarding” time.

Council members shall be paid the greater of 125% of their reported yearly income or 200% of the average salary of the relevant lottery eligibility pool. This shall be to incentivize citizens to fulfill their duty and serve on a council.

Councilar No-Confidence

At any time, the citizens may petition a geographical council (Prime, State, County, Municipal, etc) for a status of Councilar No-Confidence. This petition shall require the signatures of 55% of the individual citizens of the geographical area represented. Upon submission of a completed petition, the council will be dissolved, and a new council will be chosen by lottery according to all the requirements for the council being replaced. This action is automatic and cannot be vetoed or overruled.

Branch No-Confidence (The Nuclear Option)

If instead, the No-Confidence petition contains the signatures of 75% of the individual citizens of the geographical area represented, the council and ALL LOWER COUNCILS created by it, directly or indirectly, are dissolved and replaced as above. This is akin to pruning a branch from a tree - every branch and leaf connected to the branch is also removed. Note that this applies to EVERY level of the system, so a No-Confidence petition signed by 75% of the citizens of the entire country and submitted to the Prime Council results in the entire system being wiped away and reset.

It went a lot deeper than that, but I’ve already typed a LOT and think this mostly gets the gist of it.

Human can smell them too. They have a sickeningly sweet smell, like rancid raspberries.

As a self-hoster thats also a ham…

Fucking ow.

Nah, don’t need to actually have one. Just need to request one.

“Hey man, haven’t heard from you in a while. You alright?”

“Yeah, everything’s great man. Just sitting here drinking a Bud light lime.”

“Bud light lime? For real?”

“Yeah, man. Definitely a bud light lime kind of day.”

“You need me to call the cops?”

“Sure thing man. Thanks for checking in.”

Hell, it doesn’t even need to be in production anymore.

rpilocator.com.

Haven’t had trouble finding one in quite some time.

Never need one until you do.

Both my wife and my friends know this one.

If you ever see me drinking a Bud Light Lime, talking about Bud Light Lime, or requesting a Bud Light Lime, that means I’m likely being held against my will. Come back with the police.

A raspberry pi4, Home Assistant software, a zigbee dongle, and any zigbee-compatible smart bulb.

By default, the traffic never leaves your local network, and all your smart-crap still works if the internet goes out. At one point, it had a learning curve like a brick wall, but over the last year or two, they’ve done a spectacular job of improving the user experience. it’s still not perfect, but it’s far better than the commercial alternatives and won’t harvest your entire life for metadata it can sell.

Hydrogen is an element that, when left for long enough in sufficient quantities, begins to wonder where it came from.

And what about the zigbee hub, assuming you didn’t know enough to use homeassistant or some such?

Or a wifi bulb?

Point is, consumer smart electronics don’t have the same attention to security paid to them.

Fwiw, I’m not anti-smart device. I run HA and have all kinds of smart crap, so clearly I accept at least part of the risk.

But saying “it’s just a light bulb” is disingenuous as best.

It’s also not about what data they hold, but what data they have access to.

To you, it’s a light bulb, but internally, it’s a network-connected microcontroller, meaning it’s also connected to everything else in your network.

It theoretically could scan and exploit any number of security holes in other devices, including but not limited to phones and desktops.

Even if the manufacturer is ethical with it, other nefarious actors can use it as an attack point to try to gain deeper access. Some of these devices run a full Linux install internally, and if you know how, you can even get a shell session open on them.