we_avoid_temptation

My point was, and remains, that if you're gonna comment on this dude's cool thing he made, maybe try not to be a pedantic asshat when the aforementioned dude who created the cool thing essentially calls it Loctite instead of thread locker.

It sticks to his phone via a 3rd party magsafe adapter, presumably like the one I have on my phone to mount a popsocket and shit

Magsafe is the marketing term for a specific layout and design of magnets for a specific purpose that is crucial to the function of the cool AF thing OP made, which you didn't bother mentioning at all...

What? Mostly Why though. IDGAF about Where nor How in this specific case, I'm just so confused.

The soda machine is still $1. This both supports the operation and lures the unaware.

No worries. I wasn't super clear originally and it's confusing as hell tbh. I just want people to be able to access things they find helpful

I am aware of the difference. The terminology is confusing and I was kinda stoned while typing that.

He specifically said "any detectable amount of total THC" though, which means the difference is moot. Total THC is THCA in this context.

EDIT:

So there is no miscommunication, yeah federal law allows a max of 0.3% D9 THC at the pre-harvest test (I forget the exact specifics, it's been a while). Newsom said CBD that contains any detectable percentage of total THC is banned in the state of California by executive order with no oversight. The scientific facts of the latter are not the same as the former and Newsom is an idiot for thinking they are.

Newsom announced new emergency regulations on Friday that would outlaw hemp products with any “detectable amount of total THC.” Hemp products that don’t have THC would be further limited to five servings per package, and sales would be restricted to adults 21 and older.

So:

A. He banned all hemp flower and most hemp-derived products in CA in one fell swoop because he doesn't understand how the relation of THC:CBD works in the plant or the entourage effect or the fact that federally it's a total of 0.3% maximum, which ain't getting anybody high.

B. He limited packaging for what reason, exactly? It doesn't get you high. Even if it did, why?

C. An age limit, that I can agree with. It should probably be 18 for this like it is most everywhere else in the US, but if you want people to be able to die for their country and can't have a CBD gummy, go ahead Newsom.

Age, testing, and labeling requirements are great. Unscientific regulations by executive order that will make people's lives worse are not.

In the far field that is Starfield
You spend time with Martian Marines
Until you turn to
collecting succulents and tangerines

As much as watching everything literally burn would be exceptionally cathartic, it wouldn't be useful. If you ask me, these CEOs and rich bastards can work X hours a week scrubbing toilets or otherwise contributing to society.

If you refuse to contribute to society cause you were rich and think you're hot shit, then jail. Something like the minimum security prison in Norway where the point is rehabilitation. If you've committed war crimes or premeditated murder or otherwise genuinely can't be offered even that much freedom, then real prison, but still a decent real prison.

Putin and his ilk are a different matter. What was good enough for Mussolini would be just as good for them.

This tech isn't new, exactly, though it's probably significantly more sophisticated now. I used to work at a company that used similar monitoring a decade ago. Theirs was (allegedly) triggered only by the motion of the vehicle, I believe DriveCam was the brand name. It sucked back then, I'd imagine it sucks worse now.

My guess with the reality of the situation is Amazon or their insurance company required installation of the cameras and a low-to-mid level manager somewhere noticed that singing was triggering them, so the manager told people to stop and eventually you end up with this news story. Amazon gets at worst plausible deniability and shitty things continue.

Whatever else he may have said, Marx's version was much better. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a much better way to run society as a whole.