> The Militia Act of 1903 divided what had been the militia into what it termed the "organized" militia, created from portions of the former state guards to become state National Guard units
yes, the present national guard is very much a government entity, and held to the same training standards as federal armed forces. they regularily hold joint training.
the people at large however are not prevented from forming a militia or a posse, or volunteering to be deputized by a local police force.
the common element is that they are responding to a domestic threat originated from government activities.
the original conception of american government insists that the government exist at the consent of the governed, in service of the governed, and this consent is revoked when that government fails to colour inside the lines when interpreting the constitution of the USA
Yes, but these state militia units would not be capable of offering much resistance to any federal forces (I was a trooper in the CT Governor’s Horse Guard. My company did have some guns, and we got a little bit of firearms training, but nothing compared to the National Guard or Army).
The definition of "militias" tends to depend on your political affiliation and the interpretation of that word is often a strong argument determined by how you felt about the 2nd amendment.
The framers certainly didn't think of militias either as the professional standing force that is the national guard nor could they probably even conceive of these little gun enthusiast wannabe paramilitary groups (or maybe if they wondered what if Don Quixote was an enormous asshole and also a small group instead of just a man)
But you get a group of people together, arm them, and give them the goal of being ready to use those arms for one purpose or another... that's a militia. It's a pretty broad term lots of folks want to shove into a pretty narrow definition.
Do they really need a standard or should they make sites liable for allowing children on?
There is no standard ID check protocol at liquor stores. If you're old they can just look at ya, some just look at your ID, others scan the ID. The govt didn't need to provide a standard. Just don't sell to kids. Figure it out! It's not on the govt to figure it out for you!
There might be more competition in Europe than you think, because there are fewer companies that dominate the whole continent.
Also Europe houses the company that builds the worlds most complex machines, which depends on innovations made by hunderds of other companies. I worked at one of those companies.
"Things are going to be so much better when we needlessly make them shittier."
WTF Americans. We will do anything to just be chill with this crap. I don't know about you, but in school when I was lazy and waited for the last minute and did my work purely out of pressure I did not, in fact, do better work, and got worse outcomes (a worse grade than I normally got).
What happened was you learned what you just said, and it changed you for the better for the rest of your life. Going through the experience was a 1% negative in trade for a 99% positive.
Why Truncate quotes to to make it sound like I was responding to something other than what I did? The post are right on top of eachother.
It might be good for Europe/the world, but it is not 'America first' or good for America.
Why would we want to inflict MORE competition on ourselves? We can easily create competition within our own country if that is a desirable outcome. To beat my analogy to death if a class is graded on a curve, I'm not recruiting the smartest people I know into it just because 'that will make me try/work harder'.
When are we going to start suing these assholes? Why isn't anybody leveraging the legal system? You're all searching for technical solutions to a legal problem and fighting with one hand behind your back.
I sometimes think that my 40" is too much because the extra space just ends up hosting distracting junk like Slack.
I also have a mild take that large screens make screen real estate cheap so less thought goes into user interface design. There's plenty of room just stick the widget anywhere!
It'd be pretty interesting to compare how much the amount of information one can cram onto their ~27" screen has changed between 2005 and 2025, with the comparison points between between a Mac running OS X 10.6 and a Mac running macOS 26, which I think is a particularly salient and apples-to-apples comparison since Apple was selling 30" 2560x1600 displays back then, which are close cousins to modern 27" 2560x1440 displays.
My gut feeling is that the difference would be around 30-40%. Information density of the UI of OS X 10.6 and contemporary software was much higher than today's tabletized "bouncy castle" style UI.
It would be interesting but I don't think that information density necessarily makes a good interface.
As a personal pet peeve example, developers love to cram a search bar (or browser tabs) into the top of the window. It's more dense but it's also harder to use and drag the window.
True. More accurately, it's a combination of high density, judicial allocation of whitespace, and layouts that have been thought through. The 2000s versions of OS X were better in those regards too, though.
The stupid fast tempo of our industry grinds my gears.
When I worked defense we moved slowly and methodically. It almost felt too slow. Now in the private sector I move like triple the speed but we often need to go back and redo and refactor things. I think it averages out to a similar rate of progress but in defense at least I had my sanity.
reply