That fact that you think “idealistic version of early US” is a compliment is very telling.

Your proposal is just an idealistic version of early US. You claim that corruption is fundamentally impossible, but assume that magically “the monarchs aren’t allowed to own property” without regard to enforcement. You claim to have an alternative to democracy but still propose majority voting on replacing rulers and constitutions. You simply assume that monarchs will keep each other in check and not devolve into the conspiring, warmongering tyrants that history is full of.

Power can always be abused to get more power and go against all your original ideals. The only way to definitely prevent corruption is to ensure power is never concentrated in the hands of few.

I think they mean uPnP

How does that increase the risk compared to something like JBOD or overlayfs? In both cases you will lose data if a drive fails. Keep in mind that this is btrfs raid0, not regular raid. If anything that decreases the chance of corruption because the metadata is redundantly stored on both drives.

No mention of systemd? This is unacceptable.

A disk failure will cause you to lose data, yes. But that’s also the case in all the other solutions discussed here. Backups should be handled separately and are not part of the original question.

Have you considered simply setting btrfs to RAID 0?

The fight for privacy and digital freedom is inherently political.

Michael kidnapped a pizza delivery boy because he didn’t want to pay full prize. This fits right in.

Remember how the Titan sub used a game controller and everyone called them out? I think I’d still feel safer.

Even if you computer is not exposed to the internet: are you certain that every other device on the network is safe (even on public wifi)? Would you immediately raise the alarm if you saw a second printer in the list with the same name, or something like “Print to file”? I think I personally could fall for that under the right circumstances.

Why the password.trim()? Silently removing parts of the password can lead to dangerous bugs and tells me the developer didn’t peoperly consider how to sanitize input.

I remember once my password for a particular organization had a space at the end. I could log in to all LDAP-connected applications, except for one that would insist my password was wrong. A trim() or similar was likely the culprit.

Is this a threat?

This doesn’t advocate for any substantial improvement of data protections. It’s merely a convenience argument to legitimize banning Chinese cars for economic reasons. American car manufacturers will continue to harvest and sell all your data, just with less competition.

Of course, this isn’t a surprise coming from the CFR, the lobbying organization for US imperialism.

Not my idea of a good date, but to each their own

“Safe” being defined in a user-hostile manier, i.e. with unmodified Google components and not rooted.

“Google-controlled” would be a better word.

“I dropped my fair share of hard Rs back then”

With this approach you would lose the subvolume structure and deduplication if I’m not mistaken.

Obviously acquiring publicly available data is legal

Under the EU GDPR it is often not legal. Controllers need a legal basis, which only exists if there is an appropriate relationship between the controller and the data subject.

No, you got downvoted because you were insulting and incorrect.