greyface-

If one is capable of managing one's finances (and paying the card off in full every month), credit cards are a useful tool. They're a problem if one can't manage one's finances.

Wikipedians refer to such ingroup members as The Unblockables. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Unblockables

There have been a number of Bitcoin physical bearer instruments. Take a look at Opendime/Satscard, for example.

> straightforwardly regressive

Fiscally? Sure. In terms of liberty? Absolutely not. We are talking about public access to law, which is foundational to a free society.

Federal courts are not strictly limited by tax revenue in the same way that state courts are, and I am more sympathetic to this line of argument on the state level. Finding replacement revenue is a legitimate concern, but a secondary one due to the federal government's deficit spending privilege.

I don't see what that has to do with whether census participation is voluntary or mandatory.

You're hallucinating the second part. The comment you replied to doesn't advocate for the use of Chrome.

Yes, and in DNS messages as class 3.

Census participation is not voluntary. Failure to provide complete or accurate data is, in theory, punishable by a fine. Last census, I intentionally provided incomplete data on the web form, which resulted in a person with a clipboard and some stern questions showing up at my door.

One side says this design is necessary to sustain growth. The other says it's unfair because the gains from the growth are unevenly distributed. Neither is wrong.

OFAC has authority to regulate commercial services under the Commerce Clause. Not all services are commercial in nature. There is no economic exchange inherent in running a certificate authority. If LE charged money for certificates, that would be a different matter. LE's differentiating factor from the previous era of CAs is that they are non-commercial.

And if you missed the original run, you can buy a reprint from Adam's current company: https://store.blockstream.com/products/rsa-t-shirt

This is true, of course, and I understand why some companies don't want to take the risk. But I would hope that Let's Encrypt would take the opposite stance. They were born out of the EFF and have EFF & ACLU board members! These orgs live for this type of legal fight.

OFAC regulates commerce, not speech. Let's Encrypt is not doing "business", they're operating a free informational service. Lots of organizations interpret any information exchange as subject to OFAC regulation, and you and Let's Encrypt have good company in this interpretation, but I think it's unnecessarily ceding ground.

Collective bargaining is nerfed. Other structures remain viable and legal.

If all assessment is proctored in-person, it's easily enforceable.

This is why we should bring back private prosecution.

Lots of iOS apps have the option, but ignore it and send you push ads anyway. Apple may require it to be present during app review, but they don't seem to enforce that it's used correctly.

Pay cash, and don't buy a house before you can afford one.

Mozilla's response to "Request for Mozilla Position on an Emerging Web Specification", June 2020:

> For raw device access as envisioned in a number of APIs (Web USB, Web Bluetooth, Web NFC, and Web MIDI), the risks of exposing those APIs to users cannot be reasonably conveyed. This is pretty much an intractable flaw of allowing raw, non-semantic access to devices regardless of the protocol used to do so.

> The specific issue is: it's not intuitive that allowing malicious-site.com to access your Bluetooth keyboard might give that site access to your stored passwords, give them the ability to hijack your DNS settings, or allow them to encrypt your hard drive and hold it ransom. And if it's not immediately obvious how those things are possible, that only serves to demonstrate how completely non-intuitive the risks are and how intractable trying to explain them in a permission prompt would be.

https://github.com/mozilla/standards-positions/issues/95#iss...

I'm as anti-TSA as the next guy, but I don't think they confiscate Flipper Zeros.

FCC NPRM: https://www.fcc.gov/document/fcc-seeks-comment-enhanced-know...

> Crypto will go to zero, and when it does,

This assertion is becoming harder and harder to take seriously as time goes on. Bitcoin was released in 2009; it's been seventeen years. Pushing it to zero would require a massive, global, coordinated, effective campaign to completely eliminate its use. It's not clear that this is even possible, let alone incentive compatible for governments.

A moderator added it to the second-chance pool: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26998309

ACLU of IL v. Alvarez (2012): "The act of making an audio or audiovisual recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording."

Washington State just exempted Flock data from its public records law. https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary?billnumber=6002&year=2025...

It's an option if you can articulate an injury under the bill. I suspect non-commercial "operating system providers" arguing infringement of speech would be best positioned to be plaintiffs. This is not legal advice.

So, who's gearing up to sue the FTC for a declaratory judgment that this is unconstitutional?

There is an increasingly popular idea that all libertarianism, including civil libertianism, is inherently partisan and specifically right-wing. I think it has done a lot of damage to these organizations' ability to effectively fight this and other issues. I've shifted a lot of my support for ACLU/EFF towards IJ in recent years.

For the purpose of charging someone with a crime under 18 U.S.C. Chapter 113, yes.