GooseFinger

You can't trust Amazon reviews either though.

* Sellers frequently farm good reviews by including cards in their packages that state "give us a 5 star review and get a full/partial refund!"

• Sellers update their listings with good reviews with different pictures, descriptions, etc. which effectively creates a different listing while carrying over a large review count.

* Amazon doesn't allow reviews after 30 days (?) from purchase, so items poor durability will not have that reflected in their reviews

It's a damn shame, but between this broken review system and their incredibly low quality items and quality control, they're not worth the money or headache to use. Especially since most of their products are no name Chinese garbage that are exclusively available on Amazon. They're basically Wish, Tubi, or Alibaba.

Edit: Amazon must've updated their review policy since I've last used them, 2+ years ago. They explicitly ban monetary rewards for good reviews, and I don't see a mention of review deadlines either. The only references I found about their review deadlines is a few Reddit posts from a year ago. So my bad!

If nothing's changed though, they still sell hot garbage.

Eh, I don't know Apple's intentions but this specific design change isn't that complicated. The lightning port still uses the USB protocol so the firmware will be the same or very similar. The supporting electronics also wouldn't change much, but at most they'd omit/add a few small passives and slightly reroute that part of the circuit to make things fit together. They'd also have to lock down a large production run of USB ports, but any manufacturer would accommodate a customer as large as Apple. They'd need to test fit it with the new phone chassis but that's relatively simple as well. Regulatory certification would also be smooth sailing for a change this simple, since most of what's changing is simply the form factor.

I figure it would take two years before customers would see this design change from the moment engineering was assigned it.

I'm an electrical engineer who works in production if that matters.

Why? Nuclear power is the most complex and expensive option of any clean energy source from what I know.

More games should use real skyboxes like this. Makes me wonder why they don't.

Ahhh yes, but you see, on page 176 §12.4.11 of the EULA it clearly states that by using our products you've given us your consent to rip you off.

The Banach - Tarski Theorm is up there. Basically, a solid ball can be broken down into infinitely many points and rotated in such a way that that a copy of the original ball is produced. Duplication is mathematically sound! But physically impossible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

During my senior year of college, I made a burner Google account for my girlfriend and I to use with apartment/property websites. We needed a place to live after graduation, but neither of us wanted to use our personal email addresses to make accounts because fuck 'em.

The last year of engineering school requires completing a design project, typically for real business owners. My senior design team and I had a weekly video chat with my clients where we gave progress updates on our project.

During my video call the week after I made this burner Google account, the first thing my clients say is "OP, what is wrong with your name? It says something very strange." I had no idea what they meant by this, so I shrugged it off and the meeting continued.

Later that week while I was driving home from class, what they meant finally dawned on me. I forgot to log out of my burner account before joining the video call, and the name I gave this account was "Joe Lickembottom." So instead of my real name shown under my face during this meeting, Joe Lickembottom was.

This may not sound that bad, but one client is a self-made Texas rancher sorta character, and the other is a retired Navy SEAL commander. These people meant business and were dead serious the whole time I worked with them.

But hey, they offered me a job after graduation so they must've not thought too much of it haha

Who is Billy? Who is Mary? What is a "boy ong?" Is the man's name Shazam? Why is she surprised/confused?

If the fingers didn't look good, I'd assume this was generated by AI. But nope! I need answers.

Not to distract from the content of this article, but why is journalism so poor now days? Almost every sentence/paragraph in this article says "she was a victim of childhood marriage," just worded in various ways. I appreciate the background info on the origin of these laws and the the discussion of how widespread this issue currently is, but this article could be reduced to 6 or so sentences without losing any information.

There's no evidence that suggests these photos were posted by Trump's campaign, and BBC didn't mention who posted them despite having talked to them.

I doubt it's just me, but when I read the headline, I assumed that Trump's campaign posted these photos. How else would it be news worthy? "Trump supporters post AI generated photos of Trump in an attempt to garnish support for Trump" is a normal Tuesday activity for these loons.

This "journalism" is just rage bait, in my opinion.

These photos may very well be my new favorite thing on the internet.

Thinking about getting one printed for my wall in the study...

I thought this thing was a gag at first, but that's actually really clever. I wonder if dogs would hate it.

Depending on which modern definition of "militia" you choose, the National Guard either is one or isn't one.

But remember that the Bill of Rights serves to restrict the government from passing laws that infringe on certain rights - so it doesn't grant you and I rights, it instead prevents the government from impeding on some the Founding Fathers felt The People (white dudes) had. It'd be ass backwards to argue that the government allows us freedom of expression, for example. That's a natural right.

Building on that, stating that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard is a shortened way of saying "the government may not infringe on the People's right to have a government sanctioned and controlled branch of the federal Armed Forces." Anyone with a cursory understanding of the American Revolution will know that this is not at all what the Founding Fathers intended the 2A to do.

Go to the bathroom and hudge a big 'ol grumpy

Why? The circumstances between the two are very different.

I feel like a lot of people who hold this opinion are unaware of what actually happened with Rittenhouse. The media painted him as a careless kid who used a gun law loophole to take part in riots, where he committed a mass shooting in a state he didn't live in and got away with it.

What actually happened, is that he went to Kenosha (where his Dad lives, like 10 minutes from his Mom's house),to help protect his family friend's business, help peaceful people that got hurt during the riot/protests, and to clean messes left by disorderly people like graffiti. Later that night, he tried putting out a fire that rioters started near at a gas station, and they attacked him for doing that. Someone threatened to kill Rittenhouse, started chasing him, cornered him, grabbed his gun, and only then did Rittenhouse shoot him. He then immediately went for the police, but was chased down and attacked by more people, where one clubbed his head and another pulled a handgun on him. He shot and killed one, then shot another but backed off after he was clearly no longer a threat.

This was textbook self defense. We can discuss whether what he did was intelligent in regards to his own safety, or whether the laws he followed should be changed, but point is, a mob was literally running him down with clear outspoken intention to murder him, and Kyle only defended himself when running away was impossible.

And he wasn't charged with 1st degree murder, that's misinformation. A five second search clearly shows this. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. These charges have much lower bars than 1st degree murder, yet a jury (who judged him based on real facts, not bullshit media narratives) acquitted him of all of them.

Edit: He was charged with first degree accounts, the wiki doesn't state this. However, the jury considered lesser charges and still acquitted. Here's an NPR article that goes into more detail.

Most Americans, myself included, don't like giving up personal rights for "security."

To draw a parallel that I figure you'll agree with - far-right rhetoric is on the rise and I think we should do something about it. As much as I disagree with Nazi rhetoric, I absolutely don't think the "solution" to this problem is banning pro-Nazi speech by law. We could easily point to Germany and say "well they had a massive issue with pro-Nazi speech. They banned it, no more Nazi rhetoric! It's that easy!"

The root cause of far-right ideologies (or far-left for that matter) isn't that free speech exists, it's unhappy people radicalized by their living conditions and culture. Germans lived through a terrible economic depression after WWI, where a lot of people experienced homelessness and malnutrition. Fascism gave everyone a job and fewer people starved, plus they stood up militarily to countries that levied the economic sanctions which ruined their economy in the first place. From their point of view, fascism saved them. Fascism didn't happen because the government allowed pro-fascism speech to occur, fascism happened because the horrible economic and world-status of Germany pushed people too far.

Have you thought about what the root cause is behind school shootings and other senseless killings? A cursory understanding of American gun rights and laws, and how they've changed overtime, proves that the existence of certain weapons platforms is absolutely not the root cause. My grandparents could have literally mail ordered full-auto machine guns to their front door, yet school shootings literally never happened. If public access to guns = school shootings, they would've been 100 times more frequent when your grandparents were kids.

Even if we poofed guns out of thin air, the people who would shoot children would still be around. This "solution" does nothing to treat them. It also does nothing to prevent others from becoming as jaded and sick in the head. The end result is still a bunch of radicalized, fucked up people who will lash out at society in other ways besides school shootings. Maybe when the start blowing up schools, stabbing kids, and running them over with huge F-150s, the DNC will start saying "Public access to fertilizer, pointy metal, and cars is the issue! No more fertilizer = no more school bombings! It's that simple!"

You: American exceptionalism; " nah, if it worked ; we woulda already done it!"

Me: I'd rather fix the root cause issue that pushes people to murder children, instead slapping a bandaid over what is 100% a social issue. Maybe we should take real effort to stop climate change. Maybe we should better fund our schools and make college free. Maybe we should increase minimum wage so anyone who holds a job, regardless of what it is, can support themselves and their family. Maybe we should make medical care free. Maybe we should restructure our prisons so they focus on rehabilitation instead of cruel punishment and slave labor. Maybe then, our society wouldn't breed people that murder children because they're so upset and jaded after growing up with zero prospects of having a happy and fulfilling future.

But our politicians would lose power and money if they fixed these issues, so they'll instead say that AR15s are what's murdering babies and if you don't support banning them, then you're pro baby murder. And people like you will gobble it up.

Tenant: "Hey landlord, my furnace isn't working anymore. Fix it please."

Landlord: Makes one phone call to a contractor and uses 10% of this month's rent to pay them

My landlord makes maybe two phone calls like that a year, and she will have "earned" $40,800 of my money. Somehow, people like her have convinced people like you that simply owning a home that and doing 1 hour of cumulative work once a year is worth 30% of an engineer's income.

Fuck off, leech.

Anyone else have a stroke trying to make sense of the title?

I understand where you're coming from, but a lot of violence that police encounter is spontaneous and unpredictable.

Say they pull someone over for speeding, but the driver has a warrant for their arrest or something like drugs in their car. The cop begins this encounter expecting to issue a ticket and nothing more, but the driver knows more is riding on the line than that. Violently attacking the cop to increase their chance of getting away might sound like a good option, otherwise they'll spend years in jail for the additional charges they're avoiding.

A lot of this behavior wouldn't exist if our prisons focused on rehabilitation instead of cruel punishment. A simple drug charge can ruin someone's finances and career, which almost everyone agrees is unjust. If they're already facing many years in jail for crimes a cop would arrest them for, what's risking some additional time in jail for a chance to avoid an arrest altogether?

Prison shouldn't be something that people want to avoid at all costs, and the conditions we live in shouldn't push people to commit crime to get by. Currently, our prisons are cruel and our living conditions are terrible, pushing people to steal, sell drugs, and avoid prison at all costs.

Edit: And just to clarify, I'm only highlighting that police encounter violence in situations where people wouldn't expect it. A simple speeding ticket can end with the cop getting stabbed or runned over. Our justice system motivates people to violently avoid arrest, and our living conditions push people to commit crime. So not only do our police need reform, but we need to fix the underlying issues that push people to commit crime and avoid prison to begin with. If that's done, then police encounters that begin non-violently would more frequently end that way too.

Just depends on the setting.

Small kids at home? Yeah that's dumb AF.

Living alone? Who cares where it is, but concealing/securing it would help prevent it from being stolen if your house is broken into.

The only sure thing is that insurance companies will try to make as much money off this as possible, especially if it becomes required by law to have.

And a face full of 00 buckshot is a pretty good tool to get the job done 🤷‍♂️

Looks like Kermit's cracked out cousin and some beat down teledruggies.

Practically all gun deaths are from suicides and organized crime.

It's amazing that people believe the DNC when they say that 10 round mag limits and pistol grip bans are the answer, when they could just shift gears and give us what everyone wants. Single payer healthcare, better schools and cheaper/free college, higher pay so people don't resort to crime to make ends meet...

But those problems are harder to solve, so let's wipe our ass with the Bill of Rights instead and convince people to cheer us on while we do it.

Improved education, prison reform that actually works, making jobs pay more money so people are strapped for cash all the time, making healthcare and education affordable, increased climate action so people can build towards a future they're excited about...

Gun control was a hellavalot more relaxed 50 years ago yet mass shootings were basically unheard of. So why is this just now a problem?

The tiny subset of people who dropped from high school, never got their GED, and want to take community college seriously could just... get their GED first? Compared to the time and cost of completing a 2 year degree, obtaining a GED is very small barrier to entry.

You're not articulating very well what your issue is.

Not to mention the "solution" people commonly throw around that Americans should skip out on college altogether since student loan interest and tuition is so absurdly high. "Just go to trade school!"

Sure, let's see how well our country fairs in 20 years when we have an extreme shortage of doctors, engineers, researchers, lawyers, teachers, architects, nurses, chemists, pilots, psychologists, economists, social workers, etc.

The people who benefit from the unsastainably high tuition rates we have today will be dead by the time these consequences realize. We shouldn't sacrifice our way of life so a few greedy inhumans can gorge themselves on more money than they could ever spend.

Civil disobedience by not paying these loans back is far from enough. I say we make heads roll.

Do you see new, unique colors, or are you more sensitive to what's already there?

I understand where you're coming from. Obviously, non-violent means of enacting change like voting in reform should be the first choice to get things done.

What options exist when nonviolent means are exhausted though? Your argument is essentially:

"The government has the means to oppress the shit out of us. If it happens to us, there's no point in fighting back so just roll with it and let it happen. I feel it's better to have others force a way of life on me that I fundamentally disagree with, than it is to risk my life fighting for what I believe in so myself, my children, and foreseeable future generations can live their lives free of oppression."

With that, I hope you understand why I and many other disagree with your view.

He wasn't charged with 1st degree murder, that's nonsense. He was charged with two counts of homicide, one count of attempted homicide, and two counts of reckless endangerment. Here's the wiki.

I watched almost the entire trial live, and it was clear as day that his actions were textbook self defense. The prosecution had essentially no evidence - at one point they argued that Kyle had a desire to shoot people because he plays Call of Duty. I'm not making that up.

Everyone I've talked to about this incident who believes he should've gone to jail were unaware of what actually happened. The media lied about what happened and smeared his character leading up to the trial, so I'm not surprised that people think he's a murderer. I am extremely disappointed though that the media blatantly lies this way in order to push a narrative or agenda, and people who consume it do little to no research to check it's accuracy.

Edit: Clarity below

I mean, "mass shooting" used to colloquially mean a random act against the public. I feel like people still think it means that when they see stats like this, but practically all the shootings in this stat are from gang violence and organized crime. A drive-by is a mass shooting.

Not to downplay the severity of it, but I hope people aren't thinking that there have been ~45 Kroger type shootings this year already. Solutions that address crime like this are different than addressing sick, politically motivated domestic terrorists. Not to say we don't need a lot of both, though.

I wouldn't trust what the ATF has said yet. They fabricated evidence that people at Waco were selling machine guns and explosives to justify their standoff and raid there, turns out all of that was a lie.

They have all the incentive to take control of this story now so public opinion takes their side. Not unsurprisingly, they did the same thing after Waco and Ruby Ridge.

Even if everything the ATF said here is proven completely true, I agree - fuck the ATF, there was no reason to surround this person's house and start shooting. We should all expect much more out of our government than this. Disband these thugs.

I interpreted Donjuanme's comment as sarcastic, where "no way a background check would've stopped this" implied that they thought a background check wasn't performed, but if it would've been, this murder wouldn't have happened.

Not everyone who commits a violent crime with a gun has a previous record of doing that, or other indicators that would fail a background check for that matter. Not a lot of anti-gunners seem to remember that though, which is partly why I interpreted the comment that way.

It's really hard to say without being personally involved. Two years is a very comfortable amount of time to implement that specific change. The biggest hurdle is passing regulatory testing early enough to begin manufacturing in time to build a large enough stockpile before release. If they really pushed it and threw enough people at it, manufacturing could begin as little as 6 months after starting. But that's a very risky timeline because about a million things will still go wrong all throughout the process, and "simple" design changes like this are never, ever simple.

I'm impressed if they began production one year after deciding to make the change. The EU directive might've been approved roughly a year ago, but Apple might've seen writing on the wall and started earlier too. Regardless of context, this is definitely not a >2-3 year process though.

GEDs are high school equivalency credentials. GED test scores are treated the same as high school credits by practically all institutions.

I'm not sure why this bill would exclude GED holders since there's no practical reason to, so I'd assume they are included until we know for sure.

The ATF said that people at Waco and Ruby Ridge shot first too, turns out that was a lie.

We shouldn't believe a word they say about this case yet, wait for an investigation to take place. For some ungodly reason, they have a track record of fabricating gun charges against people, surrounding their home with armed men, and claiming they were shot at first when stories like this hit the news.

Yes, and I'm 100% sure you'd feel that way too if someone ever tried to kill you or someone you love. Just because you don't like thinking about it doesn't mean that bad things don't happen to good people.

Well, CCW insurance really only covers legal costs associated with CCW use. Unfortunately in some states, it's entirely possible (and in some states likely!) that someone who uses their firearm in self defense can get charged with a crime or sued by their attackers, regardless of how justified their use of force was.

I'm aware of some policies that cover third party damages like hospital bills and property damage, but the victims in this case are never held liable anyway.

So am I missing something? Especially given that practically all gun violence and deaths come from suicide and organized crime, how does this bill help anyone? CCW holders are statistically much less likely to break laws than those who don't have a license, these people really shouldn't worry anyone. This reeks of political posturing to me.

Edit: Just read that the law requires bodily harm and property damage coverage, so nevermind. The only scenario where the CCW holder would be liable for those damages is if their use of force isn't justified, so I'm still not sure how this helps anyone.

Yep, we just gotta vote in people who will legislate it. Which means normal people who don't take bribes donations from corporations will need to run for office and beat those who do.

So basically we're doomed. We either need a modern day Teddy Roosevelt or we need to start building guillotines.

I'd almost rather see our government burn down and get replaced by another than let status quo limp along another four years.

Real issues that real Americans want fixed have been ignored by Dems and Repubs alike for longer than I've been alive. Real issues, like widespread poverty wages, declining quality in public education, inaccess to healthcare, the prison system, terrible public transport in cities, no social safety nets, little action against climate change, etc. These issues have only gotten worse over time, so why would I vote for the status quo knowing that?

Hell, the "good" party in charge right now is actively supporting genocide in the east and keeping healthcare so expensive at homr that I can't get a cavity filled without taking lien out on my car. I'll never own a home despite being an engineer and having virtually zero debt. Life as an American fucking sucks, and if the last 80 years of American politics are anything to go by, then voting in the status quo in 2024 will continue making life worse.

The only American government that's been in charge while I've been alive has done nothing but make my life worse. If things continue this way, maybe Americans will finally reach their tipping point 100 years from now and grow the balls to take their government back. I'd rather not wait that long.