I hope things like hardware made by/for openwrt remain available, but it sounds like they will cease to be?

It seems like professional equipment will not be affected:

While the FCC’s Covered List makes it sound like the US is banning all “routers produced in a foreign country,” it’s defined a bit more narrowly than that. It’s specifically banning “consumer-grade routers” as defined in NIST Internal Report 8425A, which refers to ones “intended for residential use and can be installed by the customer.”

but consumer routers are a really significant security junction which historically has always been somewhat neglected.

You’re right, but simply shifting the production from overseas to US doesn’t inherently make the routers more secure. The article mentions the lack of software updates for discontinued products as a big threat that has been exploited in the past.

I only read a few sentences before the paywall stopped me,

Fortunately, there is no paywall for me. Here is the article on archive.org.

but sounds like they’ll whitelist any foreign manufacturers that are legitimate.

No, the article mentions only one exception:

Now, router makers need to A) secure a “conditional approval” that lets them keep getting new products cleared for US entry while they work to convince the government that they’ll open up manufacturing in the US, or B) make the decision to skip selling future products in the US, like dronemaker DJI already did.

It only applies to router models that aren’t approved by FCC yet. I.e., you will be able allowed to buy those (current and future) models who already have an FCC approval.

If I open the link to the post in my browser and then click onto their profile, the page shows the LW logo, menu and footer, but its body stays empty.

In that case, the xkcd comic likely holds true:

Only if the kid is on the sudoers.list.

TIL, the DST in Canada is valid inbetween different dates than in EU.

Why not replace them with new batteries?

In modern EVs, batteries are structural elements too which cannot be replaced (but the ‘peripheral’ non-structural batteries can).

a replaced car of another car

Unless the ‘another’ car being replaced isn’t irreparably broken and just doesn’t suffice our MOT requirements, it’s probably ending in a 3rd world country and will remain in use there (probably instead a cheap light EV).

Unless their car is scrapped, this only results in another car being on the road.

2. What if there’s a blackout in the whole city and you can’t charge your car?

They couldn’t refuel their ice car either or how do they think the fuel is made to flow “uphill” from the tank in the ground into their car.

Yes, the title of the scheme is confusing.

It’s not Linux, thus not even “Christian”

I just noticed, that the scheme also includes e.g. “Atheism” and “pagan”, which aren’t Christian denominations either.

It seems so, as the project (Emissary) is using the GNU Affero GPL.

https://github.com/EmissarySocial/emissary

Chromium yes, but JS?

x86CSS is a working CSS-only x86 CPU/emulator/computer. Yes, the Cascading Style Sheets CSS. No JavaScript required.

Please elaborate.

Edit: Problem solved for me. Should I leave this post up for any future people who ask this? Or should I delete it so future other people don’t try to answer a solved question?

You may preface or append “[solved]” to the post title.

Maybe their admin went to North Korea to search for Wintermute.

Under U.S. law, to prove that an AI output infringes a copyright, a plaintiff must show the copyrighted work was “actually copied”, meaning that the AI generates output which is “substantially similar” to their work, and that the AI had access to their work.[4]

Wikipedia – AI and copyright

I’ve found a similar formulation in a official German document before posting my above comment. Essentially, it doesn’t matter if you’ve “stolen” copied somebody else’s code yourself and used it in your work or did so by using an AI.

If the AI generated code is recognisably close to the code the AI has been trained with, the copyright belongs to the creator of that code.