arquebus_x

If I’m not mistaken, a “militia” was understood to be an ad hoc, non-standing armed group, supplied by the resources of its members. The amendment was added so that if a militia were ever needed (again), it could be formed, because the pool of potential militia members had their own firearms. Laws limiting citizen access to firearms would hobble any new militia.

Given that armies at the time were only recently becoming “standing” (permanent) armies, and the U.S. didn’t really have one, their best option for making war was militias. They were acutely aware that the revolution began that way, and only later developed an actual (organized, separately supplied, long-term) army.

But very quickly, the U.S. developed permanent armed forces and never had to rely on militias again. At that point the 2nd amendment really should have been obsolete.

Or free Black people.

They weren’t quite the sharpest tacks in the box.

It doesn’t help that the sentence makes no sense. The second clause requires that the first be the subject of the sentence, but then the third clause starts with a new subject, and lastly there’s that weird “German” comma after “Arms.”

There’s more than one way to interpret the meaning, but strictly speaking the only syntactically accurate rendering comes out roughly as:

[The right to] a well regulated Militia shall not be infringed, as it’s necessary to the security of a free State (security meaning the right of the people to keep and bear arms).

…which is also meaningless.

It’s a stupid amendment for lots of reasons, but the big one is that it’s just shitty English.

I’ve been an Apple fanboy for years, too, and I still am. The alternatives aren’t exactly better. And anyone who is surprised that Apple is dragging its heels and trying to do the bare minimum to comply, well, get back to me when you’re no longer twelve. Companies aren’t your friends, even when they look like they are. Hell, Google’s sudden about-face regarding Right to Repair is 100% intended to fuck over Apple. It’s not about the consumer, it’s about the money. Always, with every company, every time.

Developers want alternate app stores because they want to make/keep more money. There’s no other reason. Every other reason given just comes back to more money. Is that a more valid argument simply because they’re smaller?

I’m in favor of Apple opening up iOS to alternate stores. I think it’s going to be a privacy and security nightmare, but the horse is pretty much already out of the barn and the barn is burning, so… whatever. But I’m not so naive to think Apple’s going to fully embrace the ideal concept of alternate stores unless somehow it’s a way to beat Google’s or Samsung’s face in, and take their money.

I’m sure there are some “data harvesting” reasons, but honestly, the simplest is likely the truest:

Most people aren’t computer-savvy, and having an app is much easier for most users than going to a website (either directly or through a bookmark that they probably won’t ever be able to find again).

One must remember, always and forever: most people aren’t us/you. Just because something is easy for you to do doesn’t mean it’s easy for everyone else.

Is it dumb for me that T-Mobile has an app that just goes to a webview that I could get through my phone browser? Yes. Is it dumb for my parents? Absolutely ten thousand percent no.

The value (in terms of money made/saved/protected) that a company gets from having an app instead of a website only is probably ranked in this order:

1 - ease of use for the majority of customers, reducing tech and customer support calls, angry customers, lost goodwill, bad reputation
2-99 - same as #1
100 - data harvesting

Do you mean early human development biologically, or early human development overall (including culturally)? Because if the latter, humans using fire to cook meat was probably significantly less important than humans using fire for heat and light.

Jesus Christ that NYT article has so many weasel words in it. “Seen as”, “appear to be,” blah blah blah. I hate the NYT.

If you’re young and it was done, it was for specific reasons (not all of which are valid).

But if you’re older, say around 40+, it was done because that’s what was done.

Duct. Duck is a brand name

Yes. But also mostly no.

Wikipedia:

“Duck tape” is recorded in the Oxford English Dictionary as having been in use since 1899 and “duct tape” (described as “perhaps an alteration of earlier duck tape”) since 1965

and:

In 1971, Jack Kahl bought the Anderson firm and renamed it Manco. In 1975, Kahl rebranded the duct tape made by his company. Because the previously used generic term “duck tape” had fallen out of use, he was able to trademark the brand “Duck Tape” and market his product complete with a yellow cartoon duck logo. Manco chose the term “Duck”, the tape’s original name, as “a play on the fact that people often refer to duct tape as ‘duck tape’”, and as a marketing differentiation to stand out against other sellers of duct tape.

People should really do the bare minimum double-check before showing their whole ass.

As others have noted, “duct tape” is the last thing you want to use on ducts. Better to actually call it “duck tape,” as it was for the first 65 years of its existence.

Here are my personal favorites:

AI War / AI War 2 - Pablo Vega
Dragon Quest series - Koichi Sugiyama
Final Fantasy VII - Nobuo Uematsu
Final Fantasy XI - Nobuo Uematsu and others
The Last of Us - Gustavo Santaolalla
Medal of Honor - Michael Giacchino
Offworld Trading Company - Christopher Tin
Stellaris - Andreas Waldetoft (I didn’t notice that this game was just an idle clicker for a long time because the music was so damn good)
Tidalis - Pablo Vega (especially the piano versions)
A Valley Without Wind - Pablo Vega

I’m treating the blackout like a strike, and I don’t cross picket lines, and neither should anyone else. No scabs. No one should be agreeing to moderate a sub that has lost all of its moderators to forcible removal.