The Constitution gives you some rights but maybe not this one (to not be searched without warrant at a border). The problem is not The Constitution but the legislative branch that didn't make laws to ban it.

>>what some wealthy farmers from 250 years ago thought, rather than asking what laws make sense today

It's not the job of judges to invent laws or ponder what laws make sense. That would be legislative branch.

> The US has famously failed to update its legal framework via the legislative branch, so It’s upto the judicial branch which seeks to be about interpreting…

There, shoftim refers to judges who interpret and apply the law, requiring deep literacy in the Torah to ensure righteous judgment without favoritism or bribery. Shotrim are the enforcers of the court (sheriffs, etc.).

I don't know where people get the idea that the role of a judge is not to interpret the law. This is literally the only thing SCOTUS does.

This does not appear to be true. “Judicial” is etymologically unrelated to “Judaic” fyi.

In particular just because it "makes sense" to extend 4th amendment reading doesn't justify judges just going for it. That would be legislating from the bench.

Take for example laws which depended on Roe V. Wade being a Constitutional right no longer existing, and laws created after that right was repealed, because said right didn't make sense to the current Justices (despite being established law for nearly 50 years.) Did the wording of the Constitution change over those intervening years? No. Justices who agreed that Roe was a right died or retired, and were replaced by justices who disagreed, and the Constitution means whatever a majority of Justices say it does. Or the Supreme Court deciding that the 2nd Amendment's definition of "militia" included every American citizen, thus creating a right to personal firearm ownership where none existed before.

Or more accurately, the Constitution means whatever a majority of Justices decide that the hypothetical ghosts of the Founding Fathers, if summoned into a pentagram, would themselves decide. It just happens to be the case that the original intent of the Founding Fathers always correlates to the political bias of the majority. Crazy how that works.

And of course the Supreme Court's power of judicial review itself was never granted by the Constitution. They just made it up because it made sense to them.

If the constitution doesn't take away a right from you specifically, then you have that right.

The constitution doesn’t take away your right to build or own a nuclear weapon.

    > but also be a very good hedge in case of big downturn

>>No Euro, no vote in EU, no ECJ, no payments into each others budget.

This version of EU integration is more popular than EU itself in significant part of EU right now.

That we'd still have to comply with EU rules if we wanted to trade with them, but we wouldn't have any vote in those rules

The whole political course of Ukraine in the last ~20 years is mostly about teaming up with EU and NATO, isn't it?

Not, on the NATO front at least, the part between NATO bending to Russian demands not to extend Membership Action Plans to Ukraine and Georgia in 2008 (followed immediately by the Russian invasion of Georgia)—when Ukraine abandoned pursuit of NATO membership—and the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2014, only after which did it resume pursuit of NATO membership.

The resumption is sometimes tied to the Revolution of Dignity preceding the Russian invasion, and even occasionally claimed to be a reason for the invasion, but the decision to abandon the neutrality position was well after and a response to the invasion rather than the other way around.

Your competitor is happy and continues to pay for the subscription. Sam and Dario just resold your code.

For what it's worth LLMs still suck at reproducing my little secret algorithm/implementation while being able to solve way harder problems. I have a good guess why that's the case.

I wish every day brought so much sanity from politicians.

I get that mathematicians and other academics have their social structure and mechanism to create social hierarchies but those aren't very important to interest of general population that funds them.

If the process of making sense of the results, finding structure that humans can understand and writing explanations that allows for wider understanding is valuable it will still be valuable and there will be need for people able to provide it. If it makes higher mathematics accessible to more people then it's even better. I am hope they will not manage to sacrifice that for the sake of their little society in society.

It also teaches you to forget about the past and focus on the present. It teaches you long term plans usually don't work and relying on them is a bad idea and it's better to focus on execution here and now (this is what Soviet school got wrong although probably only officially, the players knew it all along - analogies to 5 years plans were just too tempting for book authors).

At human level it also teaches you to design strategy to exploit your opponents - play openings they hate, simplify vs players who like complicated positions, complicate vs players who like simple ones.

There is a lot of interesting things you learn about thought process and decision making as your level improve. It might not be the best game for that but it's pretty good considered how simple it is.

Chess is a great game for removing all those external factors. It's just thinking

Not everything has to be an absolute competition-or-not. For the same reason you can enjoy a casual game of chess with a friend, you can enjoy a casual game of some RTS. Helps that there are a lot of open source RTS communities that each have their own skills-emphasis.