> This article was amended on 16 January 2026 because a megawatt is a unit of power, not energy as an earlier version suggested.

Or I'm pointing to the existence of arguments that fall outside of your paradigm of reasoning through direct economic self interest.

I'd guess the flip flopping you're feeling here comes from trying to shoehorn my argument into your paradigm, and it not fitting. The resulting logical contradiction does not imply an error in my argument, but rather the inapplicability of the paradigm you're attempting to use.

No, because this is exactly what "one entity/one vote" directly limits. Each entity is still limited to a single vote.

I think if an outsider overtly bought a parcel, created hundreds or thousands of Delaware entities, titled that parcel over to all of them jointly, and tried to register them all to vote, we'd end up with a test case that the court might strike down. But I'd think someone exploiting it at scale, or a politically connected insider for whom the voting registrar looked the other way might get away with it.

Ah, no, but at least this puts our difference in stark relief. One can rationally appeal to government (as a democratic institution with a goal of furthering lofty ideals, like society and the economy in general) without necessarily appealing to government (as a selfish entity) desire to collect more tax receipts. If you must, think of it as appealing to individuals who may or may not support the government, and the government optimizing for that support rather than optimizing for mere tax dollars (which it can always print more of).

The comment you originally responded to does not presume market efficiency. In fact it carries the opposite assumption - if markets were efficient then the loss of economic value from weather forecasting would be immediately apparent and we wouldn't need to discuss larger-concept models with the goal of overcoming inefficiencies.

That original comment posits an idea of "economic value" that is independent from what can be captured by whomever is contributing to it, which is what you seemed to be rejecting.

I'm tired of this trend of people using a violation of the law, especially administrative style infractions, as a justification for arbitrary horribleness.

In the given example, the human process obviously failed, right?

(I agree that Adafruit's statement itself is worded pretty terribly!)

While I'm a gun owner, I'm not a gun enthusiast, so I don't really have plans to do anything firearm related. I hope these laws don't become prevalent, because a good way to get me interested in something to tell me that the tools capable of doing it are prohibited, and I'd much rather work on more constructive things.

Ultimately I think a lot of these communities (by which I mean 3d printing itself) need to run far far away from centrally hosted jank like Github et al, which is the only real nexus California has when trying to police technical speech like slicers. Just take the hit, move to self-hosted servers on onion sites, and have automation that copies out the relevant products to the centralized watering holes to attract noobs.