> you really need to have a specific reason to choose something outside of bash/zsh/fish
The reason in question is that not that long ago, people said "you really need to have a specific reason to choose something outside of bash", and people choosing to go off the beaten path lead to zsh and fish becoming powerful and way more popular/well-supported than they were before.
A lot of my friends are professors or lecturers at universities with "motivationally-diverse" undergraduate populations; LLM-based cheating has become so common that they often reward higher marks to poorly-written papers, just by virtue of them not having been written by *GPT et al.
> The Riemann hypothesis is noteworthy for its appearance on the list of Hilbert problems, Smale's list, the list of Millennium Prize Problems, and even the Weil conjectures, in its geometric guise. Although it has been attacked by major mathematicians of our day, many experts believe that it will still be part of unsolved problems lists for many centuries. Hilbert himself declared: "If I were to awaken after having slept for a thousand years, my first question would be: Has the Riemann hypothesis been proved?"
I am generally open to this idea, but this particular way of defining what bundles are allowed or not seems incredibly weak. Take Adobe's Creative Cloud. There is almost no one in the world who uses all of the tools in it. There are dozens of alternatives made by other companies that only cover a single component software. Adobe is the market leader with virtually all of the component pieces of software. Why is the US not targeting Adobe with antitrust for bundling together tools for typesetters, marketers, video editors, animators, etc, etc?
The Republic of Gilead is named for the biblical name "Gilead" for a region in Jordan[0]; the shot is presumably named for the Balm of Gilead[1], also named for biblical Gilead.
At some point the test stopped being fizz buzz and started being "reproduce Brent's cycle detection algorithm from memory or from first principles if you have forgotten what it is", which isn't testing your ability to program in any meaningful way.
The alleged rescheduling to Schedule III has yet to pass muster with the White House Office of Management and Budget, so it remains vaporware until then and the scheduling will likely not be changed for months after that.
The thing that makes them "caustic or acidic" is that they are acidic (~3pH), by virtue of having dissolved carbon dioxide (ie carbonic acid) + acidic preservatives in them. You are putting them into your stomach (with your gastric acid, ~2pH). If you spilled your stomach contents on the concrete shipping dock repeatedly, it would weaken the concrete much faster. Now, I don't drink soda and they are objectively bad for your teeth, but the fact that they eat away at concrete does not seem like the right reason to avoid them.
OP's "cannot be used for bezos yacht" problem is about discriminatory licenses. If you don't care that eg Amazon can use your software, there is nothing at odds with what OP sees as a problem (discrimiatory licenses that violate points 5 or 6 of the OSD[0]).
Yeah, not sure where the other figure came from. There is literally a project to build unmanned craft to visit Proxima Centauri sometime in the next 50 years or so: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_Starshot
The 3 things mentioned so far are governed by very different regulatory regimes:
- Using a camera drone to spot game will fall under the purview of both Federal and state level Fish and Game/Wildlife departments, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Department_of_Fish_... AFAIK this is not federally illegal, so there should be plenty of places where you can do this in the US.
- Drone (I assume you mean some quadcopter UAV) with a gun falls under FAA guidelines. You can't intentionally destroy them in flight or attach weapons to them for the same reason that you can't do that with planes: they are aircraft and the FAA doesn't want to deal with you shooting down aircraft. Since the FAA is federal, you can't do this anywhere in the US.
- Robot with a gun falls under ATF guidelines, specifically ATF letters that indicate certain classes of electronic trigger are effectively a machine gun and fall under the purview of the NFA. Same as point 2, the ATF rules will apply federally. If you have the relevant licensing, which I think would fall under a Class 2 SOT FFL, you can hook a firearm up to a robot since you are legally allowed by the ATF to manufacture machine guns. Most (?) of the Youtubers who have given guns to those offbrand Spots are doing it legally under the supervision of a Class 2 SOT.
- The autonomous robot with a gun would fall under the third point, as I am unaware of any rulings about specifically autonomous stuff, though someone could potentially make the argument that past rulings on booby traps could apply.
None of this directly answers the OP question about whether the 2nd amendment applies, but broadly federal regulation has moved past "shall not be infringed", so what the relevant federal agencies actually de facto allow is more to the point.
If you purchase a firearm from an FFL anywhere in the United States, you are required to fill out an ATF form 4473 and do a NICS background check. There isn't a giant database of all firearms in the US indexed by owner and serial number, but those 4473s do exist and are handed over to the Federal government pretty regularly by FFLs.
> licensing
In most places (eg those with "Constitutional Carry"), the only license you need is to not be a prohibited person (not mentally ill, a felon, no violent misdemeanors involving stalking or domestic violence) and old enough to purchase a gun in the relevant state. But if we just go by raw population, most people in the US would need to go through a more substantial process.