I haven't made it to any lately, but I used to show up at science-fiction conventions a couple of times a year.
On several occasions I was, by the standard emerging nowadays, sexually assaulted!
As in, hugged without having been asked for explicit permission in advance. Like, it was spontaneous. (Is that a thing anymore?)
The perpetrators of this appalling behavior were often attractive young women*, who obviously believed they could get away with it.
I fact, I can recall only one time I was actually asked for permission for a hug, and that was weird. (I was hanging out with some women. A guy asked my permission for a hug. It was obvious enough that he was asking my permission to hug one of the women, but that made no sense. It didn't make sense to her, either; she figured if he's asking Eric's permission for a hug, he must want to hug Eric, and shamed him into following through on it.)
Clearly, if this can happen to me, it must be an epidemic. We need the Feral Government to protect us all!
Progressing to robosexual marriage happened that fast?
In the realm of utterly inconsequential trivia, our European betters (with their long history of successful cooperation and nonviolent conflict resolution) are Greecing the skids of the financial roller-coaster. Building the part of the track that goes up again will, as usual, be contracted out to the U.S. in a few years. Or to Russia, or China. Or maybe to the descendants of those Japanese robots.
Reason has a map of the distribution of libertarians, by state.
The Mercatus Center has a map of liberty, by state.
Not a real good correlation. California, to pick a random example, may have a lot of libertarians, but it's no place to practice liberty.
New Hampshire and North Dakota both look good on both maps, but there sure are a lot of states with wildly different ratings between the two.
Could be about revealed preferences, but I think it's more about the preferences of the non-libertarians who actually make the decisions. Your state may have a whopping 5% identified libertarians, but if the other 95% are hard-line Fascists you're pretty much SOL. If you have 2% libertarians and the other 98% tend to take a live-and-let-live attitude, you'll probably do OK.
Also, the more repressive the government (up to a point), the more people will get disgusted and identify with the libertarian faction. Maybe the presence of a libertarian movement is actually a warning sign?
There's this thing called a "ring buffer." No, it doesn't make you sound like a Dalek. It's a mechanism for buffering up fixed-size data items (such as, say, bytes) up to a set limit with very low overhead.
It's quite useful for such things as buffering data to and from serial ports. (Or virtual serial ports, or TCP connections*, or anything that acts like a chardev.)
You should maybe look into it.
* Though for TCP connections you'll want a variant that prevents data overflow, while serial ports might use the simple form and discard any excess received data in the event that flow control is unavailable or fails to throttle the sender. A counting semaphore is a handy and sufficient mechanism for the fancy flavor.
I'm totally out of touch with such things, but: is there such a thing as a family-type board game based on free markets?
By family-type, I mean like Monopoly.
By based on free markets, I mean almost exactly the opposite of Monopoly. I mean something that's competitive, but basically positive-sum, and requires cooperation more than competition. With, of course, the opportunity to go negative-sum and destroy your position while damaging those of your trading partners.
I'm sure some of the hard-core, niche-market, geek-game-night trading games are structured along these lines, but how about anything of a mass-market character, that can reasonably be played in an hour or so by a group of beginners and is fun?