airbreather

FOSTA-SESTA is at the heart of it, as I understand. I don't want to elaborate much more because I don't know nearly enough about the situation, but adding this search term helped make it make a little bit of sense to me.

Edit: not that I'm lumping these different ideas together, but that the prudish folks could theoretically use this legal framework to throw allegations that Visa/MasterCard would rather not have to defend against.

FYI a more pertinent link for these situations: https://dontasktoask.com/

This comes up with some suggestions along those lines as part of its results: https://canirunthisllm.com/

I've bought a few of these before (no affiliation) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CCL7TJ48

Edit: this is a link to 1.5V rechargeable batteries, which I commented before OP's edit acknowledging them.

Another older blog post saying the same: https://sandimetz.com/blog/2016/1/20/the-wrong-abstraction

Combining the suggestions from 1 and 3 is where things fall apart for me. If the statute does not specify what objective standards must be met in order for someone to be eligible to vote, then the ruling party gets to decide on their own.

Maybe the next updates to the standardized test just "accidentally" favor the ruling party.

Some questions to challenge your proposal:

1. What test, specifically, do we implement to tell whether or not someone "know[s] the most basic of facts"?
2. How do we make sure that this test is kept up-to-date as information changes?
3. Who administers this test?
4. When is the test administered?

No matter how I try to answer these questions in a way that's consistent with reality, all my ideas dead-end at outcomes that suck and only get worse over time.

Feels like there ought to be a term... it's kind of a mix between "vicious circle", "feedback loop", and "echo chamber".

James, while John had had "had", had had "had had;" "had had" had had a greater effect on the teacher.

https://xkcd.com/1589