When he gets hit by the 6000 SUX and liquefies was a great shot.

My family bought in to cable television very early on, and we had HBO as part of the service. My parents forbid me from watching it alone, but of course that just upped the intrigue and I would sneak viewings when they weren’t around.

The first mistake was The Thing. I had no idea what the movie was about, and so the first part of the film seemed unremarkable; they’re at an arctic base, there’s the shootout, all relatively tame. Then the dog scene. Holy crap that one is burned into my memory forever. I was utterly terrified but glued to the screen. That gave me screaming nightmares for a bit but I could never admit what the issue was, since I wasn’t supposed to have watched it!

The second a few years later was Aliens. Wasn’t nearly as bad of an experience but the scene with the people glued to the walls in the tunnel was a bit much. I recovered from that one much quicker than The Thing.

“WORTHLESS!!”

Your first paragraph reminded me of a short story: There Will Come Soft Rains.

It is a matter of scale and tactics.

For scale, the US Army has ~4700 tanks according to the internets. Assuming they have a matching number of crews and can put them all into service, that’s 94 tanks per state. That sounds like quite a bit until you consider the coverage of a state. If we take NY as an example, that’s 0.0017 tanks / square mile. The military will be pinning down only small areas at a time with armor.

For tactics, no reasonable person expects to take on a tank with a pistol. The deterrence of an armed populace is in the scale and ubiquity of resistance. There are ~3M personnel in the US military from cooks and secretaries to special forces. They are outnumbered by firearms-owning civilians 76 to 1. The odds are bad. The military has force multipliers (tanks, bombers, drones), but deploying them effectively against the civilian population is not easy. Who are the combatants? If no one is standing outside waving a rifle, where do you drop the bomb, or fire the cannon? You could level an entire neighborhood and hope to destroy some of them. Will the non-rebellious populace remain on your side if you do this? An effective resistance will wait until the tank or plane is stopped to refuel and resupply, and then destroys the operators.

There is also the question of logistics. When operating abroad, part of the formula for success of the US military is their unbreakable supply lines. They bring everything from fuel to food to tools and don’t need to rely on local supplies. But all those things are sourced and shipped from the US… When the fight is on home soil, these supplies cannot be guaranteed. Sabotage of roads, bridges, pipelines, and railroads could significantly hinder the operating capacity of the military.

When speaking as any one person remaining armed as opposition to government tyranny, it is not as “Rambo,” but as a thorn on the vine. Collectively there are many thorns and any attempt by the government to crush the vine will result in a lot of pain. You make the option as unattractive as possible.

They did call her the “Queen of Mean.” She was an unrepentant asshole in her own time.

I daily a 1996 Jeep Cherokee. Manual transmission, manual windows, manual door locks. The basic radio was broken before I got it. It does have computer engine control with OBD2, but even that is simple in comparison.

When something breaks or maintenance is needed, it’s a straightforward fix with typical tools. I’ve come to appreciate the simplicity.

I think what they’re speaking to is how such a change may alter the course of a presidential campaign. As it stands, there’s this notion that a candidate has to try and have broad appeal; they need to spread their campaign out a bit in order to “capture” the electoral votes of a state.

Sans the electoral college, I see presidential campaigns becoming even more polarized and exclusionary. The Democrat campaign will become the “big city loop.” Continually visit Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, NYC, and Miami. Maybe they slide in a few secondary metros if it’s convenient. The candidate won’t have to worry about any non-urban messaging, and if they’re particularly incendiary could even preach “dumping those hicks in the sticks.”

Conversely, the Republican campaign (not even considering the existing insanity) becomes “everywhere else.” They can push the message of “big city Democrats want to destroy you” even more convincingly.

Such an outcome strengthens the “not my president” sentiment (on either side), and just further aggravates partisanship. I’m not saying eliminating the electoral college is a change that could never be made, but I definitely think this is a bad time. It will feel like exclusion and alienation and in politics perception is reality.

For the obvious follow-on question “when is a good time,” I don’t have a pat answer and I can’t even speculate if that will be in 4, or 12, or even 20 years. But it needs to be a time when there’s far less immediate friction between the two leading parties, or it’s just going to be another wedge opening the divide.

I have several Tampermonkey scripts to keep Youtube useable:

Additionally uBlock, and a plugin to alter the number of results per row (so I don’t wind up with gigantic tiles/icons on a large monitor).

It’s a complete disaster without these. :/

I recently finished my degree, and exam-heavy courses were the bane of my existence. I could sit down with the homework, work out every problem completely with everything documented, and then sit to an exam and suddenly it’s “what’s a fluid? What’s energy? Is this a pencil?”

The worst example was a course with three exams worth 30% of the grade, attendance 5% and homework 5%. I had to take the course twice; 100% on HW each time, but barely scraped by with a 70.4% after exams on the second attempt. Courses like that took years off my life in stress. :(