Meh, already had COVID back in late January, early February, before it was the cool thing to do.
Wuflu = Worstflu, but after about 2 weeks of feeling like hot garbage, and about another 2 weeks of fatigue when exercising, I'm back in one piece.
Careful with this plan, as it's likely to get cold in DC. You might have to wake up every few hours to run the van to keep it warm inside so you avoid hypothermia. Either that or pack a heavy sleeping bag and an air mattress or pad to keep you off the floor of the van.
Also, double up on your predicted # of socks and underwear. Nothing will make you feel colder and more miserable than wet socks..
Full on secession/war seems highly unlikely.
Escalating resistance-focused sectarian violence, similar to The Troubles in Ireland or the German occupation of France in WWII, seems like the most likely case. Wouldn't surprise me to see supply routes and travel routes into and out of the major coastal cities blockaded or destroyed by paramilitary forces. Disruptions to infrastructure and communications as well, especially with the prevalence and availability of software defined radios.
Accessing it directly through the thermostat? Unlikely. Using the thermostat as an entry point into the local network, from which it would be possible to determine all the devices connected to said network, and once access to the network was obtained, potentially direct various cyber attack vectors in the direction of the devices? Certainly possible.
There's a REASON voting machines are should be incapable of being connected to the internet. And this kind of crap is exactly it.
TL;DR of what the guy is talking about is:
In court, you can't typically sue on the premise that something might cause you harm. Something has to have happened. That kinda makes sense if you think about it. You don't sue a store for having a wet floor, you sue them because you slip on it and get hurt.
However, there's also something called the doctrine of laches, which is I believe usually only in civil litigation. Basically, it's a legal defense that says that because of the delay in pursuing the claim, it prevents the defendant from putting on a defense, for reasons like evidence disappearing, witnesses being lost, etc or because the delay harmed the defendant.
So essentially, we're stuck between 'you can't sue because you haven't actually been wronged yet' and 'you can't sue because you waited until you were wronged to bring the suit'. It's a legal catch-22 that pops up frequently in political cases, for instance 2012 Republican primaries in VA. 4 candidates failed to submit signatures on time by Dec. 22nd, they filed on Dec. 27th. The court basically said that the delay harmed the elections board by turning its orderly schedule for printing and mailing ballots into a shitshow.
WiFi Jammer of course, just for teh lulz.