Rivalarrival

I'm not a fan of this approach. I think the idea that users should never touch a command line is an inherently proprietary philosophy. Without the command line, at any given moment, the user is fundamentally limited to whatever options the developer elected to offer.

I think a good GUI will assist a user in learning text configuration and command line functions.

SteefLem is a 47-year-old scuba instructor and retired lion tamer from Winnipeg who has just learned the colloquial meaning of the phrase "pulled it right out of my ass."

NGO: Non-governmental organization

GDPR: General Data Protection Regulation. A set of European laws intended to empower individuals to control personal data held by companies.

"noyb" is a European privacy rights organization, who appears to prefer to style their name with lowercase letters. The name is an acronym for "none of your business".

Reddit users were infamous trolls and shitposters leaning heavily on sarcasm. The problem they are in facing is Poe's law.

You can argue that it was not prudent for him - or anyone - to be there, but you cannot argue that he had no right to be there. He had the exact same right to be there as all the protesters, and much more right to be there than any of the rioters and arsonists, including the arsonist who initially attacked him.

There is no evidence that Rittenhouse did anything to invite the initial attack against him. "Carrying a gun" is not, in and of itself, a justification for someone to attack the carrier.

The event happened in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Not Washington.

The law in Wisconsin actually did allow him to possess and carry a rifle at the time; the way the law prohibiting minors from carrying weapons was written, he could only have violated it if he was illegally hunting. It's a rather technical point that the Wisconsin legislature probably should have corrected, but the judge dismissed the charges because the law did not actually prohibit him from carrying the rifle.

"Duty to retreat" would not have played a part in the Rittenhouse case: he was on video retreating from all three of the people he shot, as well as a fourth person who he attempted to shoot, but missed. The first attacker was in contact with the rifle as Rittenhouse was running backwards from him. The next two attackers attempted to jump him after he had fallen. The fourth had a gun in his hand with his hands up, indicating he was not a threat. Rittenhouse initially held his fire. However, the final attacker suddenly pointed the weapon and lunged toward Rittenhouse.

Reducing the safety factor from "everyone is responsible for using multiple safety factors to prevent injury" to "one designated individual is responsible for everything that happens" is not "different". It's dangerous.

You would not tolerate this in any other circumstances. A random gun owner hires a designated safety officer to protect everyone in the area, then recklessly handles a gun and shoots someone. You wouldn't tolerate this exact same behavior from some random redneck; why does Baldwin get a pass?

Based on this incident, it seems that the film industry doesn't work.

Correct. You have no business discussing this topic.

Being on a film set is not an excuse for reckless behavior. If anything, it makes his actions more egregious, not less.

The only "condition" that is relevant is the fact that he was handling the firearm at the time it was fired. Yes, he was fully and solely in charge of that condition.

He failed to take any safety precautions whatsoever. He failed to abide by the layers of multiple precautions of normal gun use, let alone the heightened precautions necessary for film.

Standard operating procedure when picking up or being handed a gun is to immediately check if it is loaded. He failed to do a proper check. He failed to do any check at all. Had he pointed the gun at the ground and pulled the trigger 6 times, it would have fired, but nobody would have gotten hurt.

If someone blew through a red light in a school zone at 80mph, without bothering to check that there was no cross traffic, let alone that the roads had been closed, the fact that he had a cameraman in the passenger seat would not absolve him of any injuries he caused in the process. The way Baldwin used that revolver was far more reckless.

Even if the armorer had deliberately tried to murder her by telling him the gun was safe when she knew it wasn't, his actions would still rise to the level of criminal negligence.