A few references:

Generally, open source refers to a computer program in which the source code is available to the general public for usage, modification from its original design, and publication of their version (fork) back to the community.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost, preferably downloading via the Internet without charge.

https://opensource.org/osd

The term open source refers to something people can modify and share because its design is publicly accessible.

https://opensource.com/resources/what-open-source

having the source code freely available for possible modification and redistribution

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source

I haven’t read any open source licenses, so it’s possible you are correct in some technical sense, but that is not what people mean when they use the term open source.

Clearly the OP was using the common definition, or most of the post wouldn’t make any sense.

If the source isn’t publicly available, it’s not open source. It sounds like you’re suggesting that the software remain closed source until some later date where it then becomes open source.

Being trans is an electoral advantage?

War was the original purpose of the modern nation-state. It exists to this day because it is extremely effective at taking and holding territory, and the associated tax base. All of these other functions were bolted on to either mollify internal discontent, or to build the economy which fuels the war machine. Sure you can get a lot more nuanced than that, but the history of the rise of the modern nation-state over the older aristocratic feudal systems is one of military conquest.

that deep, dark internet, the Reddit culture, and these other dark places of the internet

Lmao

I think the point about due process is the key here

I was looking for something that would trigger on normally protected speech, and I don’t think that’s in there. The term “aiding and abetting” is a common legal standard, so I wouldn’t call it vague, but placing the onus on the individual whose passport has been revoked to show that the Secretary of State was wrong makes it ripe for abuse and harassment.

As usual the headlines are sensational and misleading, even if there is a real issue.

IANAL but where is the “thought police” part? I see a specific exception for the first amendment. Material support is defined, and doesn’t mention speech or advocacy.

I suppose if they declared that a bunch of liberal and/or Democrat non-profits were terrorist organizations, then this means they could also take one’s passport, but I’m pretty sure losing your passport would be a minor addition to the general disaster that would entail.

Cyberchef does this and so so much more https://github.com/gchq/CyberChef

Okay but the studies I’ve seen suggest that EV batteries typically last between 15 and 20 years.

EDIT: https://spectrum.ieee.org/ev-battery-life

How is that different from any other used car?

She literally said they were too ignorant of election law to be held accountable for signing and filing false documents.

That usually doesn’t fly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignorantia_juris_non_excusat

I’ll begin by confessing that I also tend to apply philosophies situationally, but I’d be curious how you’d respond to the criticism that such an approach sort of gives away the game that philosophical applications are all post hoc rationalizations for our existing, non-rational preferences. I’ve found that to be the strongest criticism of such an approach.

Trump doesn’t care if he’s smart or not. Trump traded dropping out of the race and endorsing himself in exchange for HHS. Purely a political transaction.

I bet Chicago could use Bernie in the next couple weeks. Maybe dust off the old civil disobedience.

Volunteer work is also a good option.

sheepishly raises hand

Get an EV. Get a garage charger. Put panels on your roof. The future is now!

No mortgage. No insurance. Should have got a cave.

It boggles the mind to argue that because the president is charged with faithfully executing the law there can’t be a law that limits a president’s authority to arbitrarily fire officials. All of these protected positions can be removed for cause. If these officials are not faithfully executing their duties in accordance with the law, that would be cause to remove them!

Good advice. I was actually thinking simply about being the center of the global economy and how that typically makes a nation a superpower. Technological espionage is a whole other issue.