NoImmatureAdHom

This is a defeatist attitude.

Run grapheneos!

Hilarious

This is a really stupid situation. We shouldn't be obstructed from flying without ID as long as we pass the regular security checks, and those security checks shouldn't be unreasonable.

What can we do to get there? Is anybody organizing?

I want to open my wallet. Where can I donate?

You have the right to travel without ID in the U.S. The TSA may demand it, and may tell you it's legally required, but that doesn't make that true.

"In fact, the TSA does not require, and the law does not authorize the TSA to require, that would-be travelers show any identity documents. According to longstanding practice, people who do not show any identity documents travel by air every day – typically after being required to complete and sign the current version of TSA Form 415 and answer questions about what information is contained in the file about them obtained by the TSA from data broker Accurint…."

https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/05/19/tsa-tries-again-to-im...

https://papersplease.org/wp/2024/03/18/buses-trains-and-us-d...

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

It's the backups. The backups aren't encrypted such that only the end-user has the key.

The backups are either unencrypted by default or have keys held by Meta / your backup provider. I think this means three-letter agencies can see your chats, just with a slight delay.

Another comment above mentions that you can recover conversation histories with just your phone number--if that's true then yup. The E2EE is all smoke and mirrors.

Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure there's some legal mechanism for punishing you for setting a boobytrap.

You'd also have to rely on this unnamed other to force that particular finger, rather than the others...

> Every time I pick up my kindle I shed a small tear when I see the screen damage I caused changing the battery.

Don't shed a tear! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kintsugi

Repairs are beautiful.

Perhaps a lawyer can chime in here.

My impression is deliberately doing this would be illegal. It would have to be convincingly deniable somehow.

Is there a way to do that?

You say "No", then it turns out you're a HAMAS supporter --> deported.

It's not totally a "decision" on the part of the Americans to use a lot of wood in construction. It's just that America has tons of space, including space useful for growing Douglas Fir and Southern Yellow Pine, which then can be turned in to 2x4s and other construction lumber.

Most of Europe long ago exhausted easily accessible natural forest resources, and where it's not densely populated tends to prefer using land to do other stuff (like grow food). Hence, stone and concrete and similar materials in European construction.

I think we should stop calling it "sideloading". I don't think the history of the term matters. By using that term, you imply that running the code you want on the hardware you own is somehow a secondary or second-class activity.

Call it "installing" or "jumping the garden wall".

Wonderful, thank you. It seems like a rich and rewarding childhood.

Do you mind if I ask which country this took place in?

Out of curiosity, how much money are we talking about?

Biden's new Title IX rules became law on August 1, 2024 so they weren't "might". Thankfully, we only had a few months under this particular imposition on our basic rights and push never came to shove. We agree that Orange Man does some Bad Things. I would bet history will look more kindly on him than society does now, though.

> the intentions of it are to widen the hiring pools to consider more people.

I think this is a charitable take. To "consider" more people. But: 1) considering people takes resources, and if there's an optimal amount of "considering" to do and you force the pool one way or another...you're forcing people out as well as in. There's no way to "consider" more people efficiently. It's a nice lie that many people told themselves and others.

2) More importantly, and because of 1), this is not generally how it worked imho. We got quotas and mandates, people were put to the "bottom of the pile" (i.e., their applications not looked at). It was clear-cut illegal discrimination at large corporations and in academia, and there's plenty of direct first-hand evidence of that (including here on HN). I saw it myself many times (admittedly in academia, which as you rightly point out is a white-hot ball of crazy in this regard).

3) I'm not going to do it, but I think it wouldn't be hard to find evidence of high-level people who were inflicting DEI explicitly saying it wasn't about "widening the hiring pools to consider more people", but rather directly about removing white people from power and replacing them with black, brown, gay, female, or ideally some combo people. Nothing to do with "considering", just a power grab under an alternative metric for fairness they called "equity".

As for court losses: https://reason.com/2023/09/07/affirmative-action-loses-in-co... Affirmative action is over, is the biggest one

https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/ames-v-ohio-depa... is another big one

More minor but: Executive Order 14151 "Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing" was blocked but now is un-blocked and enforceable nationwide: https://apnews.com/article/dei-trump-administration-appeals-...

EO 14173 "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity" had an injuction, but that injunction was stayed https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/marylan...

It appears to me that these programs pretty much have been axed across the board.

I appreciate you engaging.

1) https://speechfirst.org/case/title-ix/ is the third ddg result for title ix compelled speech. Basically, the feds under Biden were going to compel use of people's preferred pronouns. Ideally it would have failed in court.

Elaboration: For a very long time, in many states and parts of the federal government, there has been overt discrimination on the basis of race, sex, disability status, etc. in direct and obvious violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Things like skin-color quotas for hiring, preferences for vendors, etc. You're certainly familiar. They hired people who would, at the very least, not speak out against their regime's practices, and ideally who would help perpetuate them.

> Again, cancel culture, no matter how aggressive... It's not just twitter mobs. To get the large gov't grants necessary to be successful in science, for instance, it was ~mandatory for the past while to have a DEI angle on your application. Many forms actually had a section for it. So, in this case, the gov't isn't using its monopoly on violence exactly, but it's not cancel culture. (and of course there were many grants funded that weren't just a DEI angle, it was 100% DEI bullshit)

"A huge conspiracy to overtly break the law" is what DEI was and still sadly largely is.

> So you'd be fine with say, Kamala, running on a campaign of crushing dissent because the courts will say "lol no"? Is that what I'm reading?

No, I wouldn't be fine with it.

Do you imagine this is what Trump is doing? Or that Democrats don't do the same? Democrats ran a long and successful campaign to crush anti-woke dissent, for instance. Broke lots of laws (and still do!) in the process. Questioning woke orthodoxy could get you blackballed or fired in government, and they wielded power to make sure the same was true in many non-gov institutions. They were even on the path to first amendment restrictions to protect this crusade. Even compelled speech in Biden's last Title IX!

Anywho, to steelman I think you would need to explicitly make the leap from "flag burning" to "running a campaign of crushing dissent", because flag burning doesn't seem like even part of a campaign against crushing dissent. It seems like empty pandering to stupider supporters.

Third. Tell the story!!

Soon you won't be able to tell!

I think any person would have disagreements with what the courts find no matter the time period. I personally don't think things have gotten worse in this regard, and they may even have improved.

Generally the courts more reasonable than people think. You hear about the inflammatory rulings because that's what drives clicks.

https://reason.com/2025/06/05/is-the-supreme-court-really-th...

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-supreme-courts-part...

538 shows an increase in political polarization, but they're still unanimous on lots of things.

The natural, and easiest, way to make good friends is to spend a lot of time with people. Some of those people will become good friends with no effort at all.

Given nuclear families etc. in the West, this is kinda hard as an adult. Happens automatically as a child and college student, though. My advice to you is:

1) Get a housemate or several. Better yet, join an already shared house. Forget about your preconceptions about whether you "can" live with other people or not. You aren't special, people lived together for ever.

2) Explicitly decide to work through this "doesn't feel natural to me" thing. OK, fine, it's gonna feel kind of awkward at first. By the 5th friend-hunt it won't.

The president is a person and can make whatever proclamations he wants. Sometimes people will even do what he says! But the way the system works is:

- orange man makes dumb obviously unconstitutional proclamation about flag burning

- most likely nobody does anything about it, but if someone does there is a law suit

- the courts are like 'lol no'

- back to status quo ante

I too would like to believe that "another kind of company is possible", but this isn't a ringing endorsement...

Get thee to SimpleFIN https://www.simplefin.org/ecosystem.html

I think without sync with financial institutions it's going to be hard to grow a userbase.

But this is very cool software!

P.S.: I ctrl+f "encrypt" on your home page and no hits. It's banking / budget / money software, there should be a hit.

Where do I send my money to fight this?

https://keepandroidopen.org/ is about sending messages, which I have done and will continue to do. But I want to open my wallet.

Some motorcycles don't even have rear suspension. Canonical ones, in fact. Like hardtail Harleys.

This is a motorcycle. It's a cycle with a motor.

I love that the popularity of motorcycling is taking off with better batteries, motors, and control systems!

It's motorcycling though :-)

I think you still have the right to travel without ID. The TSA may demand it, and may tell you it's legally required, but that doesn't make that true. If you show up at the airport without an ID, you'll still be allowed to fly domestically. Of course, how easy that is probably depends on whether you frame it as a "woops!" or as a "fuck you guys!". They'll put you through extra "security" screening and try to confirm your ID other ways.

"In fact, the TSA does not require, and the law does not authorize the TSA to require, that would-be travelers show any identity documents. According to longstanding practice, people who do not show any identity documents travel by air every day – typically after being required to complete and sign the current version of TSA Form 415 and answer questions about what information is contained in the file about them obtained by the TSA from data broker Accurint…."

https://papersplease.org/wp/2020/05/19/tsa-tries-again-to-im...

https://papersplease.org/wp/2024/03/18/buses-trains-and-us-d...

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

I think you probably don't understand just how batshit crazy universities had gotten.