Invasion of privacy can be a good teaching moment.

Don’t wait until they’ve embarrassed themselves: take them through their browser history before they’ve even thought about porn. Show them router logs before they include pornhub entries. Show them their tracking history while they were far away from you, out with grandma. Explain that you don’t look at these things, but that this sort of information is available. That if they use their school’s wifi it’s available to their teachers. If they use their friend’s wifi, it’s available to their friend’s dad.

Do it while the information isn’t embarrassing, and they will learn to protect themselves, rather than be upset about your “invasion”.

Access to the Internet is not something that the parents are actually capable of restricting. As soon as one kid in the has a phone, their entire peer group is exposed.

The question isn’t about restriction. It’s about who will be teaching these kids about the Internet. The first kid learns from their parents; every other kid learns (mostly) from other kids.

If your kid is the last in their class to have a phone, everything they know about the Internet they will have learned from their peers. They sure as hell aren’t going to tell you they already know about all the things you’ve been trying to hide from them.

Shit.

The mouth of the average EU legislator is a “loophole that needs closing”.

I feel you didn’t address my point.

No matter the size of the court, on 5-year terms, the president will be replacing 20% of the court each year. At the end of his first, 4-year presidential term, he’s replaced 80% of the court.

Every presidential election I can remember has involved some sort of challenge in the courts, and many of those challenges have been elevated to SCOTUS. With your 5-year plan, every SCOTUS decision relating to presidential elections will be made by a court consisting of 80% to 100% of appointees made by the incumbent president.

Why would we want this situation to exist?

This is pretty close to my thinking as well: just keep adding members on a set schedule; don’t fill vacated seats. (I’d add one seat at the end of the first and third year of the presidential term, to keep this process as far away from the presidential and midterm elections as possible.)

The only major difference is that I would not use emergency sessions to reconstitute the court! I would strongly isolate the court from politicization.

The foundation of my plan would be to establish a formal “line of succession” to SCOTUS. We have 13 circuit courts of appeal, each with a chief judge. Those chief judges, in order of seniority, are the first in the line of succession. Next, every other appeals court judge, in order of seniority.

Every one of these judges has been through a Senate confirmation. They are pre-approved. If every SCOTUS justice dies from a Hantavirus outbreak, the next court has already been selected, without needing to expose the court to the political process.

This line of succession offers some other possibilities as well. When it comes time to appoint a new justice, the president can name anyone they want, and the Senate can confirm. But, we can say that the first 26 (2 * number of circuit courts) in the line of succession are pre-confirmed and don’t require an additional confirmation to be named to the bench. The Senate can fairly consider the president’s preferred, younger nominee, or the president can ram one of these 26 senior candidates down the Senate’s throat. The president has a veto-proof pool of candidates that the Senate can’t play games with.

The line of succession also offers the possibility of temporary elevations for specific purposes. Suppose most/all of the justices are conflicted and forced to recuse themselves from a particular case. The line of succession allows us to elevate temporary replacement justices for this case. This would allow an ad hoc supreme court to hear cases involving, say, SCOTUS ethics.

With 9 justices, that’s a new justice appointed every ~7 months. Are you sure Trump should be putting 7 people on a 9-seat court right before that court will be hearing issues related to the next presidential election?

Don’t assign a set number of seats. Whenever a justice dies, their seat dies with them.

Add one justice every two years, at the end of the first and third year of the presidential term. Every president gets to add exactly two justices per term. This timing pushes the decision as far away from an election as possible.

To further depoliticize the process, I would formally establish a “line of succession” for the court. This line would start with the chief judges of each of the 13 circuit appeals courts, then continue with every other judge in the appeals courts, in order of seniority.

Everyone in the line of succession has been previously confirmed by the Senate to their appellate court seats. To limit the games the Senate can play, I would not require an additional Senate confirmation if the candidate is one of the first 26 in the line of succession. The president can unilaterally elevate any of those 26 to SCOTUS (but, these are the oldest candidates available. They are at the pinnacle of their careers; they can be expected to serve terms measured in months, not decades. The president is not going to want to name one of these geriatrics.)

If a new justice hasn’t been added by the 18th/30th month of the president’s term, the next in the line of succession is permanently elevated to SCOTUS. This deadline keeps the appointment process at least 6 months away from an election.

The “line of succession” also suggests a way for the court to be apolitically reconstituted in case of a disaster. If the court falls below 5 members, the next in the line is automatically elevated.

Further, it provides a means for a case to be heard even if all sitting justices are conflicted and compelled to recuse themselves. If fewer than 5 members of the court are eligible to hear a particular case, the next in the line of succession is temporarily elevated for that case. In a case where SCOTUS ethics rules are under scrutiny, the case may be heard entirely by temporary members.

I just read an argument that he can run for VP. The problem is a difference in language between the 12th and the 25th amendments.

The 25th says nobody can be elected to president more than twice. It does not say that a person is ineligible to be president, only that they can’t be elected to the office.

A two-term former president is not prohibited from being named the Speaker of the House, or to any other office in the line of succession. That two term former President cum Speaker is not constitutionally ineligible from becoming president again. If all offices in the line ahead of him are vacant, he is eligible to retake the office.

The 12th amendment says: “But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.”

It doesn’t say anything about being “elected”.

As he would be theoretically eligible to become president via the line of succession, he is not actually ineligible to be president again. Therefore, he is not ineligible to run for VP, with a running mate who runs on a platform of “I’ll resign on day one”.

Economic.

Where it takes a young couple 80 hours of paid labor per week just to maintain a lower-middle class lifestyle, kids become an unaffordable luxury in a traditional family. When 40 hours of paid labor can comfortably support a family, that couple starts having kids.

UBI corrects the problem in multiple ways. It meets the basic needs of the family, so that their own income is immediately gainful.

UBI removes “starvation” as a motivation for labor. A drowning man will drag his wife, kids, and even his rescuers underwater with him, just for one more breath of air in his lungs. The desperate laborer will accept whatever pittance he is offered for his time, because that pittance is better than foregoing medical coverage, or the roof over his head, or enough food. In accepting that pittance, this desperate worker establishes the market value of labor, and drags down the compensation of everyone around him. A UBI relieves the majority of his desperation, and frees him to walk away from exploitative employers. That skinflint employer is forced to either offer a reasonable wage, or go out of business.

A UBI is a “Citizenship Dividend” - a payment for the use of Democratically-derived political powers. It is payment for the individual’s (compulsory) investment in his or her government, allowing that government to provide services to and collect taxes and fees from non-person, corporate entities on our behalf.

Technically, “Election” is not the only way to become president. He is eligible for other roles in the line of succession. Speaker of the House can be anyone that the House chooses, not necessarily a member of the House.

We’re a “Night of the Long Knives” away from the kind of bullshit that would put him back in the White House.

As an intellectual exercise, I rather enjoy flat-earth theories. “Knowing” that the earth is round, without having actually proven it for ourselves, is dogmatism, not science.

Constantly challenging even our most basic assumptions is how science advances.

He needs someone to take the baton and bash him over the head with it.

It kinda looks like someone did…

To get a pi ratio, you need one measurement to be made with the diameter of the wheel, and another made with the circumference of the same wheel. You can certainly use ropes, but one of those ropes needs to be a multiple of the diameter, and the other a multiple of the circumference.

You might be measuring short lengths with a particular unit, say, a “stick”. To get consistent longer measurements, you might measure 100 turns of rope around a spool one “stick” in diameter. The length of that rope might be called a “string”.

The architects of a building might pound two rods into the ground, one “string” apart, and tell the masons to construct a wall between those rods. The architect wants a wall; the architect doesn’t particularly care how long the bricks are. The masons don’t particularly care how long the wall is going to be, just where they need to start and stop. The brickyard workers don’t care how long a string is, they just need a consistent measurement for their molds.

Nobody involved particularly cares about pi, and yet the resulting building will have pi ratios all over the place.

Nailed it. The Republicans tried to throw the election in 2016, and the DNC was all like “Hold my beer, let me show you how it’s done”.

There is no indication that they can actually acquire the clear text of an E2EE communicatiom. without one of the ends being complicit in the process. There is no evidence of the fraud you refer to.

That doesn’t mean they are telling the truth, merely that they haven’t been proven to have lied. They could release their source code tomorrow. That code could prove you are correct and they are liars. That code could prove that they are correct, and you were wrong.

We don’t have to resort to unfounded claims to justify criticism here. Proving their claims to be unverifiable is more damning than failing to prove they are committing fraud.

Only if that light escapes through a window. Otherwise, it is heat.

Technically true.

However, doing so would be perpetrating a fraud. If they denied the capability you’re talking about in response to a warrant or subpoena, someone would be in contempt.

I don’t know if any corpo actually cares about such things, but I know that if you or I were to do this, we’d quickly find ourselves broke and possibly in prison.

It would be away from the stove. The normal flames are blue. Moving toward the stove would blueshift them to violet; away would redshift them to green.

That means there’s a software switch that dumps a plaintext copy of a supposedly encrypted message when flipped.

Kinda, sorta, but no, not really. What’s happening is that the recipient is decrypting the message. When you report the message, you include a cleartext copy with your report.

The “switch” you are talking about is in the same app that is doing the decryption. For the bad actor to toggle that “switch”, they would have to control the app.