I agree with everything except “misunderstand”. We’re completely on the same page.

They think that this is what “work” is, so their expectation is that this is what “workers” experience. They see no need or value in retirement. They don’t realize that they were already living as a retiree before they started campaigning.

I saw that documentary.

IF they are not being forced out by the company and/or the culture.

That’s the problem I’m trying to address: the workaholic culture among our representative bodies.

It’s not a matter of their capability of doing the job. The problem is that their job is to represent my interests. Their actions here clearly demonstrate that they do not share my interests.

If they want to work, they should work. But they should be working in a job that values their workaholic lifestyle, not in a job where they are compelled to represent values they do not personally share.

When I retire, I’m going to do what I want. I plan to volunteer a lot. I plan to continue laboring at tasks that I want to perform, for the people I want to perform them for. But the important part is that I plan to answer to nobody but myself. I will no longer adopt the interests of others as my own.

That is not selfish: I will not be putting myself in a situation where other people are dependent on me doing my job. I will not be a lawyer, expected to put my client’s interests ahead of my own. I will not be a laborer, expected to bust my ass continuously between clock punches. I will not be a politician, expected to work tirelessly for the benefit of my constituents. I will make myself happy by giving what I want and what I can, without needing to worry whether it is enough. Such worry is “work”, and I will no longer be a worker.

Simply by running after retirement age, these candidates demonstrate their sheer contempt for retirement. They demonstrate they value work for the sake of work.

I want to see retired people enjoying themselves, and showing others how to enjoy themselves, not promoting their sick, workaholic lifestyles.

There ya go: tie it to real world factors.

I had “social security retirement age” as my criteria. I want to retire some day. I want a candidate who represents my interests.

I do not want a candidate with the same work/life balance expectations as my dickhead boss.

It is true: I am highly dismissive of some kind of arbitrary cutoff based on age or term limits.

It isn’t their age that is the problem. The problem is the ideals they must hold to remain in office at that age: I want to retire some day.

I want a candidate who shares that value.

A candidate who keeps running for office long past retirement age is a candidate with a wildly unhealthy work/life balance. They demonstrate with their actions that they do not share our values.

We might not need a formal, legal requirement to prohibit a retirement-age candidate from taking office, but we should ask the electorate to consider their own expectations for retirement when choosing a candidate.

Workaholic candidates do not belong in office.

Let the old candidates argue that the retirement age needs to rise, while the young candidates argue that it needs to be lowered. Watch what happens when AARP voters start supporting candidates who actually want to retire, instead of these goddamn workaholic fossils.

The various generations are sick of hearing from older Democrats.

I want to retire some day. I want my representatives to share that value. If you’re going to be above the social security retirement age at the start of a term in a political office, you are not qualified to that office. I’ll support finishing out a term you have already started, but I am done voting for people who think it is important they work themselves into the fucking grave.

The designated subject for your personal protest is the richest person within 20 miles of you.

There’s another fun scenario…

After the midterms, Congress finally decides to do something about Trump. JD Vance exercises the 25th amendment on January 21st, 2027. Congress approves, and Trump sits out his last two years in office. Vance finishes Trump’s term in 2028, becoming wildly popular simply by reversing the worst issues attributed to Trump. He remains eligible for to run for two full terms, each as the incumbent. He doesn’t leave office until 2036.

Those refunds aren’t coming to consumers. That money came out of our pockets and went to the companies. The companies have already been made whole, by overcharging consumers for tariffs we didn’t need to pay. Now the government is going to cut them a check for the money we already paid them.

We could have saved time by just sending our income taxes directly to Elon and the rest of the problem class.

Android’s “Work Profile” feature provides you a sandbox, allowing you to isolate “work” apps from your regular phone apps. I’ve never used Samsung’s secure folder, but it looks like the two are similar.

“Shelter” (Available on F-Droid) provides an easy way to setup and manage your work profile.

With the work profile set up, you can lock the work profile behind a separate password. (Settings -> Security & Privacy -> More security & privacy. Disable “Use one lock” and set a password)

He’s term limited from being elected. But election is not the only way in which a person can become president.

There is no constitutional requirement that the Speaker of the House be a member of Congress. After the 2028 election, the incoming Congress can elect Trump as the new speaker on January 6th, making him third in line for the next presidential term. They can then certify the presidential election.

If the incoming president and VP are not inaugurated on January 20th for whatever reason, or they resign immediately after the inauguration, Speaker Trump becomes president again.

The definition of “reasonable reaction” is broader now than it was at the dawn of the French Revolution.

This is deeply troubling me.

Worse, they’ve grown up on a steady diet of media telling them that “if you say the wrong thing” to a girl, “she’s going to accuse you of something,”

There’s a big problem with the premise of this argument.

The article accepts this “steady diet of media” as fact, but implies that it only affects “guys”.

If there is, indeed, a “steady diet of media” saying this to a guy, then that same “steady diet of media” is saying the same thing to a girl: “If a guy says something wrong, it is reasonable and/or expected for a girl to accuse him of something”. Girls are hearing the exact same message that guys are hearing.

If that “steady diet” actually exists, then the guy’s concerns of accusations are valid, and he should be praised for ensuring he doesn’t “say the wrong thing”.

Suppose Microsoft adds this capability to Windows, and you edit the registry to disable it. How is that any different?

By allowing the end user to change it instead of locking it down, they are not making a good faith effort to comply, and they lose their liability protection. To maintain their immunity, at the very least they will need to prohibit Californians from disabling the feature.

Canonical is prohibited from adding comparable terms.

I can see the argument for something like iOS.

How is iOS any different from Windows here?

Let’s say you own a computer store in California, you sell Windows laptops, and you setup your preinstalled Windows image with the registry edit made, because customers don’t like the silly age prompt. How are you not the OS Provider?

Again, to maintain their immunity under this law, they would have to prohibit me from doing this in their licensing agreement. My violation is what protects Microsoft. I would, indeed, be the OS provider in that scenario.

But in the scenario you describe, I’m not the end user.

Neither Canonical nor I can include the same restrictive terms in our OS offerings. We can simply inform our users that the OS is not California compliant. Our users become their own OS Providers as soon as they decide to use them in California.

And a user of Ubuntu only has access to the functions that Canonical has provided.

That is not at all accurate.

Administrator access to Windows is not at all comparable to root access on Linux. Windows “root” access is held solely by Microsoft, and granted only to Microsoft employees and contractors. They are the only ones with the capability of changing Microsoft’s binary blobs.

Canonical doesn’t restrict root access. Everyone who installs Ubuntu has root access by default.

Suppose Canonical adds this capability to Ubuntu. Suppose I take an Ubuntu install, and remove this capability. Who is the provider of the resulting OS, Canonical, or me? Obviously, I am responsible for the changes; I am obviously the OS Provider in this scenario.

What I am saying is that I was the OS provider before I made the changes.

Let’s remember that the law distinguishes between the OS and Applications running on that OS. They require that the signalling apparatus be included in the OS. Technologically, the distinction between OS and Application is somewhat arbitrary. For commercial OSes, it’s pretty simple: The OS is what Microsoft declares to be part of “Windows” is the OS; everything else is an application.

Suppose Microsoft refuses to include this signaling apparatus. The end user cannot modify Windows, so does not become liable as the “OS Provider”. The user can bolt on the functionality as an application, but cannot make it part of the OS. Microsoft is the one facing the fines under this law.

For FOSS software, the end user’s root access gives them the ability to add this signaling capability to the OS running on their machines, even if Canonical refuses to distribute a compliant OS. The user’s ability to make their own OS compliant with California law makes them the party liable for non-compliance.

The windows user uses the OS. The windows user does not control the OS. They only have access to the functions that Microsoft has provided. The Attorney General of California won’t be able to argue that the sysadmin is the OS Provider of a Windows installation. The OS Provider of Windows is Microsoft.

The Attorney General of California would easily be able to argue that the OS Provider of a particular Linux instance is the sysadmin of that instance.

If your code is installed on a general purpose computing device that is provided to a child, you can be fined.

If you provide code to the general public without requesting an age signal from the receiver’s OS, you can be fined.

The attorney general of California might consider the JavaScript in your web page to be “content”. They might consider it to be an “application”. There is no clear distinction. If you request an age signal before providing content, you can be fined. If you fail to request an age signal before providing an application, you can be fined.

The more I read about this law, the less I think it will actually go into effect. It’s going to face a whole series of injunctions. The lawyers are going to bill thousands of hours, but the whole thing is going to be scrapped.

The law doesn’t require anything of users, it requires something of OS providers.

For a FOSS OS, any user with root access would be considered an “OS Provider” under the definitions provided in this law. With FOSS, there is no real distinction between “user” and “developer”.