Liz

Imaginary numbers: proof that mathematicians don’t understand branding.

Looks like they go for around $3000. That’s out of my price range.

Seeing as how 40% of the security issues that have been found over the years wouldn’t exist in a memory-safe language, I would say a re-write is extremely worth it.

“The SBAT value is not applied to dual-boot systems that boot both Windows and Linux and should not affect these systems,” the bulletin read. “You might find that older Linux distribution ISOs will not boot. If this occurs, work with your Linux vendor to get an update.”

Excuse me, those are the opposite of each other.

If repairability and upgradability are you big priorities, the framework 13 is the best choice, by far. Your won’t need repairman Dave, you’ll be able to do it yourself. But, it’s more of a generalist machine and it sounds like you really want to be able to play around with the GPU. The Framework 16 can come with a GPU, but it would be out of your price range.

Dude, don’t. This took 2 seconds to find. There’s more that I’m aware of just from memory too. Also, the white guys thing.

Individual counter examples do not negate trend lines and you know it. I’ll try to come back later when I’m on my computer and link a few government reports that clearly demonstrate the mass shooter phenomenon as we know it properly started in the 90s. I don’t have the documents on my phone and I don’t remember the titles so I can’t Google them.

I don’t consider fixing systemic issues in society to be a cop-out. I genuinely want to do all of those changes and more. There’s plenty of people who would consider suggesting gun law reform a cop-out, since it’s equally as unlikely to pass. Biden just suggested we bring back the assault weapons ban for the 70th time in his presidency (that’s the actual number), so you can judge how well that’s going.

Oh, no, it’s not that I don’t believe you. Just sounds like there’s different opinions within the military on the usefulness of burst fire.

The M1a Springfield uses a totally different manual of arms than the M4/M16, especially when you fix the magazine.

If we’re trying to square the 2nd amendment with reducing mass shootings (a very small but spectacular number of gun deaths) everything you listed would improve the situation slightly and there’s little reason why we shouldn’t have them. I’d throw in a storage requirement requiring guns and ammo be kept behind a lock. But mass shootings are much more of a social phenomenon than anything else. We’ve had access to capable guns for a very long time and mass shootings only became a thing in the 90s. That is, it’s not inherit to humanity, it’s cultural. (This should be further evidenced by the fact that they’re all done by white guys.)

Now, that sounds like a cop-out, but it’s not. It’s saying that we know we can have a society with guns and without mass shootings because we used to have exactly that. Well, what did we have then that we don’t have now? Lower inequality, higher union representation, more accessible housing, less media saturation, higher minimum wage, fewer monopolies, etc. I would suggest reading Angry White Men by Michael Kimmel to get an idea of the kind of person and situation that produces mass shootings. There’s a racial component to it that won’t (and shouldn’t) change, but so much about our economic and social situation can change to get rid of mass shootings. Heck, even just Medicare for All would have a big impact, since it would make counseling free and accessible. Plus, all these social changes would have an even bigger impact in the other major areas of gun deaths, murders and suicides.

Aight, I’ve been told different from other folks who have deployed.

Anyway, this conversation is way off the rails. The point being that, if you consider the original intent of the 2nd amendment to be the only thing protecting a citizen’s access to firearms, it would be much more correct to say the standard issue rifle would be the most protected firearm than any other.

Nobody actually uses burst fire. Does the Spear have burst fire? I haven’t looked too closely because I seriously doubt they’re ever actually going to make it the standard issue rifle.

The US military would one million percent prefer the population be trained and familiar on the standard issue rifle than on any other platform. (Arguments of the quality training put aside)

What? No it wouldn’t? They hand grunts 30 round magazines for a reason. They used to give them 20 round magazines for the same rifle. Minimizing administrative tasks is good for your soldier.

Which arguably makes the AR-15 one of the most protected guns, if we’re using the wording of the second amendment as the only justification for firearms rights.

I wouldn’t, but that’s because I think retaining the title after leaving office is ridiculous.

Yeah but you need a hard ID that the guy has a gun. The second worst thing to letting a former president get shot is killing a random person at a rally because you thought they might have a gun.

It’s not actually about winning against the military. The civics justification for having guns is to make harassment campaigns more accessible when necessary. (Any sustained resistance resistance campaign would have to have outside supply lines.) No modern rebel group has taken on an established military on equal footing. The goal is to make oppressing the population extremely annoying, not to actually be in control yourself. In order to actually run a government you need a different set of skills than to run a resistance campaign, but a resistance campaign might become necessary until we can restore the government to a just one.

There’s other justifications for individual ownership of firearms, but that’s the one most similar to what you’re thinking of.

I love guns, but… Bro… Don’t do that.

Too bad about him, his passion for old electronics made me interested when I don’t have any particular interest of my own.

Technically no, but it’ll never happen.

The way the parties nominate candidates for president is an absolute mess, but the nominations aren’t official until the parties hold a closed convention with delegates who vote for candidates to be the nominee. Back in the day these delegates used to actually be the people who decided who got nominated. These days they’re more like a ceremonial role, with a lot of them (I think) being required to vote in line with the way people voted in their state’s primary.

Anyway, I’d have to look it up to be 100% sure, but I’m pretty sure enough delegates have some kind of autonomy that it’s possible they could nominate someone other than Biden. Who they would end up agreeing on…? Heck if I know.

Any kind of money is an arbitrary store of wealth.

You might also have discalcula, which is a real but somewhat uncommon thing where you’re absolutely shit at math. I have no idea how to get tested for it though.

Please propose a law or regulation structure for significantly reducing or eliminating advertisements. I’m serious. I fucking hate ads. I just don’t have a reasonable or effective way to get rid of them.

Edit: Hey actually I just thought of one! If the consumer is paying for the product, it can’t come with ads, including things like product placement or ad reads!