litchralee

Yes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandatory_referendums_in_Switzerland

Switzerland is also a rarity where there isn't quite a separate head of state (eg UK Monarch, German President) but also the head of government role is done by a council of seven, where the majority decision is what happens. So the legislative body writes the law and the council of seven is tasked with executive power to carry out the law.

The modern Swiss constitution (1848) took inspiration from the American constitution (1789), but rather than a consolidated head of state/government like the American President, they wanted to hew even closer to the long-standing ideals of democracy amongst the Cantons, to also avoid concentrating too much power to individuals. Thus, even though the Swiss Federal Council rotates the title of president every year in turn, it confers zero extra powers.

Like with all things, it's a matter of degree. Democracy and socialism are not inherently incompatible, but can be mixed together at different ratios. For example, a democratic socialist society could follow in the Swiss model of direct democracy, meaning everyone has a say in the policy decisions. Such policy decisions include the law but also how to utilize the means of production, which the state owns entirely.

Whereas another democratic socialist society could realize their democracy through a representative model, where citizens elect a local representative that goes to the capital and votes in a state committee on how to amend the law or utilize the means of production, which the state owns entirely. Here, political power is wielded by a committee but the complete socialist ownership is intact.

Yet another democratic socialist society could be much softer on the state ownership of all the means of production. The state might own the utilities, roads, schools, and all land, but may permit certain collectives to privately own businesses that generate value and to distribute those earnings equally amongst themselves. This could be considered a transitional step, since it allows for a controlled amount of capitalist-style development to occur, while avoiding huge concentrations of private capital. But it could also be a step backwards if the state already fully-owned the means of production but then voted to release some of it to small co-ops.

While words have to mean something to be useful at all, I wouldn't spend too much time trying to fit all possibilities into neat categories. Ultimately, socioeconomics are fluid.

We are all currently traveling through time, though at a forward rate of 1 second per second (within your stationary frame of reference, since time dilation is a thing). But I take that you mean "time travel" as in advancing into the future at a faster rate, or going into the past.

In both cases, we do currently have the means of hermetically-sealed transportation. This is how, I believe, moon samples were collected in the mid 20th Century, since there was a possibility that alien life would be contagious to humans or that humans would destroy any samples of alien life. I think Tom Scott or someone did a video on the topic.

So while the biological risk would complicate time travel and visiting other humans, that alone doesn't make time travel "impossible" because we could just have the travelers stay in their TARDIS or whatever. Like how people signed wills in 2020 atop automobile hoods.

There are plenty of other reasons why time travel is impossible though.

I've not used it, but have heard decent things about Kagi, a paid search engine. Supposedly, it finds things like how old Yahoo or old Google worked, without AI (but is optionally available?), and no ads.

I would think the major barrier to entry is the business model: ad revenue goes to those that can deliver results. Google AdSense has dominated that realm for years, so it would take a major upfront investment to challenge them on that. Not much different than how it's hard to compete with established airlines to a particular airport that they already serve. Economies of scale tend towards consolidation.

In California, a U turn is considered a left turn that keeps going. As a result, a U turn is legal anywhere that a left turn is legal, except when signs are posted otherwise. So in a left-turn pocket/lane, it is both reasonable and expected that people will make left turns, some of which will continue into a full 180 degree turn. People who do U turns are doing what is allowed, and they have every right to do so. If this seems like a problem, then talk to your transportation department to restrict U turns.

I'm not aware of any aspect of a U turn procedure that would be any different than than a standard 90 degree turn: use turn signals, look for oncoming traffic, look for pedestrians, turn slowly as required by the radius, roll out of the turn with careful acceleration.

American English speaker here. While I would understand what "to auction away" means, I'm not aware of anyone here in California that would say it like that. Usually, I would say "to auction off", which follows in a long series of other "X off" verbs, like "to bake off" or "to shake off", all of which usually involve some sort of adversary or competition.

Note that we do use the verb "to give away" but that would mean a gift without compensation, which is definitely not an auction.

Civil forfeiture and DEA is a separate problem unto itself, and you've always hit on the key points: DEA operates within the country, whereas customs is at port of entries. DEA's corruption and geographic reach mean they have caused far more problems than any customs agent, in pursuit of a 1990s zeal that "drugs are bad" and expanding that into a parallel law enforcement system, despite already having a federal law enforcement department: the FBI. Civil forfeiture should be abolished as unconstitutional, violating due process, equal protection, and property law.

So yes, once you're in the country, there is a risk to carry around large sums of cash. But that's hardly connected to the customs declaration requirement, and certainly cannot be connected to the declaration requirement on the way out.

When entering or exiting the USA, the rule is that cash or financial instruments need to be declared above $10,000, but you can bring as much as you want. So bringing a literal suit case of Swiss francs worth $5 million USD is perfectly fine, provided you tell the customs agent.

While I can't really advise going to the USA right now, it's not like they will confiscate cash above $10,000. The particular phrase used in most places is "freedom of capital", meaning that money can flow into or out of the country without significant impediment. The entire USA financial sector relies upon freedom of capital, whether that's electronically or -- if need be -- with bundles of cash.

Declaring cash helps prevent money laundering, since people intending to secretly move money would not want to declare to customs. The threshold is intentionally set so that normal people going on holiday with cash or travelers checks (yes, I'm aware it's 2026) won't be burdened by the rule.

Obligatory XKCD: https://xkcd.com/3138/

Please let such a thing never exist!

I think the market for each is quite a bit different. Prop guns, whether functioning or not, are often regulated in law as "replica firearms" because while they may (or not) be functional, the issue is that they are intentionally similar to the real thing. Hence, some jurisdictions have limits on who can sell replica firearms and who can buy them.

One rank below firearms and replica firearms, air/pellet guns and BB guns propel small balls or shuttlecocks (?) made of metal using compressed air or spring power. These could still be harmful to people, but aren't usually fatal, which makes them effective for pest control or target practice, in lieu of live firearms. Accordingly, these are often regulated like how knives are: don't just hand a pellet gun to a child without supervision, and don't assault people. Otherwise, do as thou whilst.

Meanwhile, airsoft guns propels small plastic balls using springs, compressed air, or electro-pneumatic pressure. By sheer virtue of having less density, a plastic airsoft projectile carries less energy than a BB pellet, and certainly a lot less than a live-fire bullet. Also, whereas firearms can attain supersonic velocities, the speed of sound puts a firm cap on what a plastic, ball-shaped projectile can achieve, when not using chemical-based propulsion (ie gunpowder).

Only 8 US States regulate airsoft guns, and even those that do are not restricting them as heavily as firearms (except New Jersey?). The common requirement is that an airsoft gun should have an orange tip. That means a majority of Americans are potential customers for airsoft, and that means an environment will form that host matches, competitions, and so on. Big market means lots of producers, so lots of variety, high quality, and lower prices for all.

Whereas, what's the market for replica firearms? Show business? Gun enthusiasts?

Even when something is fairly inexpensive and readily available, the nature of the thing may preclude it from being well-noticed in public, even if it's not being intentionally obscured at all. Things that move are an especially good example, because most people don't really pay significant attention to passing traffic or stuff moving approximately 3-5x faster than their own walking pace, with the exceptions of when they themselves are in motion too (eg seeing another train while riding a train), or if the object is coming straight at them.

An example suited for fellow Americans: seeing the same color and model of your car, parked in public, is very easy to spot, because that's how you're accustomed to seeing your own car: stationary. Whereas seeing your own car in motion (while you're stationary) is slightly harder because: 1) it's whizzing by for only a few seconds, and 2) you're not used to seeing your own car drive away from you. Confirmation bias then means that you rarely see that same model of car in motion.

Drones have the same perceptional bias, but compounded by the fact that humans aren't in the habit of scanning the skies overhead for drones. And even if they do, identifying a hovering drone means to spot a small dot that's hanging dozens of meters in the air, or being within earshot (inverse-square law limits this distance). And if the drone is moving, then spotting it is even more difficult, although it does have a moving audible footprint now.

Finally, there's the operator, which in almost all circumstances is stationary. Yet, for similar reasons, why should anyone notice if someone is standing in a forest, looking at a screen with a set of controls? If nobody is around, is a drone operator even there? As a fairly solitary activity, it's no surprise that few have ever seen a drone actually being operated, much the same that loads of people know of Pokemon cards and yet few have actually seen the TCG played out on a tabletop (this fediverse audience excepted).

TL;DR: the general public only perceives things that are easily perceivable. When did you last see your car moving?

The short answer is that it depends. Some countries have treaties where civil court judgements (ie money compensation) from overseas are honored domestically, meaning the domestic court would not have to relitigate the facts but would just be to re-issue the local equivalent of an order to pay up.

Seeing as this is a lawsuit in the UK, Valve does not appear to have a dedicated business location in the UK or EU, and that Valve has not already stopped offering services, I would guess that they don't intend to skip town. The appeals process in British courts is similar to how it is in the USA, so there would be room for any award to be adjusted downward, before being forced to pay it.

Also, to not pay a lawful judgement in one jurisdiction would cause potential issues in other jurisdictions, such as the massive EU market next door. This is precisely because Valve doesn't operate a subsidiary but is doing business under their USA corporation. So the EU authorities would be within their rights to curtail the same corporation that skipped on a lawsuit in the UK, even when the UK isn't part of the EU anymore.

Note: some lawsuit judgements are explicitly disallowed from being "repatriated", such as lawsuits regarding free speech in the USA. Under the SPEECH Act, an overseas judgement for speech that would have been legal if said in the USA. Thus, that judgement cannot be collected on USA territory or against USA bank accounts. It would have to be collected against the person when they're traveling, or from their non-USA bank accounts.