pokemaster787

So they progressively increase closing force if it keeps detecting something but the owner keeps trying to close it. I can vaguely see the reasoning only if they aren't confident in the frunk sensor for some reason. I mean garage doors solved this problem forever ago without having to resort to something like that.

I wonder if the "vision-based everything" mandate from Musk applies outside of autonomous driving features? Makes sense to not be confident in it if it's just a camera...

Gunpowder itself isn't particularly strong as far as explosives go. Like you can probably make a bomb with enough of it packed tightly but you're better off with dynamite.

To be fair, in that specific case it is almost certainly not YouTube directly censoring the phrase. They aren't known to do any kind of editing like that on uploaded videos.

What is happening is the person that uploaded that video censored themselves....because YouTube's policy around monetization. They'll demonetize videos with certain no-no words. Part of that is YouTube and part of that is advertisers demanding their ads not be placed on content that they find objectionable.

Indirectly, YouTube and advertisers are censoring our content. A lot of it is also TikTok, which will ban you for no-no words. This seeps over into YouTube where something that might be fine on YouTube but is banned on TikTok gets censored anyway in case it gets clipped for TikTok.

Genuinely the power TikTok and it's advertisers have over how we communicate is pretty scary. Imagine how often you hear "unalive" instead of "suicide" these days. "Pdf" (or others) instead of "pedophile." The list goes on.

Instead of pretending One Man With A Gun is going to do something

I used to agree with this train of thought, why be armed when the government has tanks?

But the realities of the past several years have shown us that an armed rebellion can be significantly more powerful. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, look at Myanmar today where the rebel groups are literally 3D printing carbines. A guerilla group with small arms can put serious pressure on a modern military. Will lots of them die? Probably. Will they "win"? Probably not, but they could easily wear down the enemy with attrition. When you need to move a couple dozen men with rifles it's an entirely different game than coordinating 12 tanks and 500 men, you can employ completely different tactics. Especially on your home turf that you know inside and out.

Is an armed rebellion happening anytime soon? I sure hope not. But the threat that an armed populace can at the least put some serious hurt on a military/government is a deterrent to tyranny. Just the possibility of it is a huge deterrent, compared to authoritarian countries where citizens aren't armed and get run over by tanks.

I'm not saying gun violence isn't a huge problem, but saying armed citizenry is zero deterrent is just factually untrue.

Chevy has had a perfectly serviceable and low cost EV on the market for years

With the caveat that for those years it's been basically unobtainium. I looked into buying one at the start of last year and five dealers all had none in stock + a 6 month wait. (Their websites listed several in stock but we'll ignore that other thorn)

They killed production of it to focus on building luxury SUVs (Cadillac Lyriq) and the Blazer EV (starts $42k), so the stock that exists today is all there is. Used ones exist but the problem is they never actually made them in sufficient quantities to meet demand, and instead of ramping up production decided it'd be better to sell $40k-60k vehicles instead.

I'm not arguing one way or another but I want to clear up some very common misconceptions about US gun laws.

in some states, you can get semi-automatic weapons (which are completely banned in Austria) in a shop in just minutes. And that without any background checks, psychological reports, justifications, approval required, without anything like that

This is just blatantly untrue and I wish people would stop parroting it. If you go to any shop you need to pass a federal background check to buy any non-vintage firearm (pre-1899..not exactly a ton of those floating around). The exception here is private firearm sales, i.e. I go to Craigslist and sell a rifle or handgun. The law states the seller has to have no reasonable cause to believe they would be an unlawful possessor (weak, yes). With that said, almost half of the states (22 per Wikipedia) have implemented state-level laws requiring a background check for private sales.

In many states even convicted criminals can get guns like that.

Again, objectively untrue. You are not buying a firearm from any legal, licensed dealer in the US without going through a background check. And a violent criminal offense will get you barred from purchasing. For the 28 states without laws around private sales, the seller can be federally legally liable if they sell to someone that is not legally allowed to have a gun and they use it to commit crimes.

In the US, guns are sometimes a presents for kids which they can just…own and use (while in Austria everything is obviously 18+).

No, a child cannot legally own a firearm. The parent can purchase and own a firearm that they are allowed to use, but they do not own it. In many states if the child hurts themselves or others with such a firearm the parents will be held liable, many states have laws around safely storing firearms when children are around.

While in the US (in many states), you can just carry any gun around in public whatsoever. So even if the police sees you having weapons in public, they can’t / don’t do anything about that

In most states if you don't have a license to conceal carry and you do you are breaking the law and can be charged. I'll say this one isn't entirely false but heavily depends on your state.

A large part of why this issue gets nowhere is that neither side can even agree on what is true today, rather than what should be true to bring down the issue of violent crime. If one side says "They're totally unregulated you can just buy one off Amazon and start blasting. We have to do something!" The other side is gonna think "Well they obviously have no idea what they're talking about, no point in listening to what they have to say"

I really hope you're a troll because if anyone genuinely thinks like this I am concerned for democracy.

With guns in general, or with Polymer80 or similar products? I’m guessing he’s intentionally mixing the two to make it sound scarier than it is.

This is what I hate about the rhetoric around gun control, especially "ghost guns"

As a gun owner that thinks guns are fucking cool, I'm happy to have reasonable compromises and regulations around them. Compromises and regulations that do something to stop crime. Almost all cases of 3D printed guns being used in crime are when the crime is having a 3D printed firearm (mostly in Europe). Actual violent crime it is a fraction of a fraction of a fraction. We should focus on legislation that does something about the problem, not ban things we arbitrarily give scary names like "Ghost guns." Look at the actual numbers, the actual types of crimes being committed, go after those things. Don't start background checking people for 3D printer purchases of all things.

Honestly just left it. Debating on putting carpet in the room where it's pretty bad. But decided if I couldn't do it well myself I'd just wait until I was ready to fork over money to have it done correctly.

Usually that affects businesses that either provide an online service, so their costs spike massively

It was reported they were spending half a million USD a month on server costs. A lot of the servers are player-hosted but there are also official servers hosted by PocketPair. Half a million won't immediately crush them with their current sales numbers but it isn't great either.

Honestly no idea why they even have official servers.

750ti and 1050ti were pretty well liked since they didn't need external power (easy to toss into a cheap pre built) and were a reasonable price.

These days they aren't even a reasonable price though.

Note that isn't illegal, it just means the company doesn't get to get out of paying unemployment when it happens. And that's only if someone is willing to challenge them on it.