Didn’t he already do that before? Am I imagining that?

Well they have my vote. My bar isn’t very high anymore after the last few elections

Oh good. I don’t think we need to add a 137 year old Hitler to the current political situation. It’s bad enough as it is. I assume your Nans haven’t Holocausted anyone. …right?

Both Hitler and Nana?

Didn’t your nana?

Frankly it seems more like a mild inconvenience then actual prevention. I don’t really care how smart a software gets, it can’t predict and prevent all possible configurations of prints that could possibly be used to create functioning guns without being so overly restrictive that even perfectly innocent prints would get flagged constantly in which case they simple won’t sell to normal users.

It would be a constant game of whack a mole with new creative designs, using multiple printers or with non-printed parts in the design. But no hardware or software that a smart enough engineer has their hands on is impervious to mods either, especially if they’re motivated like someone seeking to produce firearms would be.

It’s an overreaching law that will likely solve little to nothing, but might make 3d printers in general a bit more annoying to work with. “Sorry, you can’t make your dice tower because there’s a 16 percent change that it could be capable of firing an RPG out of the dragon’s mouth. Please make your design at least 12 percent less gun-ish and try again.”

I don’t really see how ceasing to exist is justice, nor how the fact that your nana and Hitler had the same ending is a comfort. But to each their own, I guess.

opiate of the masses

Right. And I wish I could experience some opium sometimes for a bit of peace with the world. But I’m immune.

Sometimes I wish I could be a believer in religion so that I might have solace that evil people will at least face divine justice in death even if they received no Earthly justice in life. Alas, the depressing truth is that evil coasts through life without facing justice all the time, and the good just as often fall victim to the machinations, crimes, and sadism of the evil and never find any justice, retribution or closure after it. It’s one of the reasons that I don’t believe unfortunately.

Fucking never. Never ever. I’d sooner cut myself off from all technology and live in the woods than willingly give those creepy fucks my middle goddamn name. There is absolutely nothing good that will come from this company. The people at that company literally fucking movie villains. It’s fucking crazy that absolutely anyone works with them, let alone world governments.

These large scale surveillance companies like Palantir, like Flock, they shouldn’t exist. They should be outlawed. Our government needs probable cause and a warrant to surveil a suspect. If a normal civilian followed you around and filmed you, kept track of you at all times, they’d be arrested for stalking. But for some reason private companies can just watch every man, woman, and child in public and online, catalog all our movements, where we went, how we went there, who was with us, track what we do, what we read, who we know, how we spend our time, what we say, etc., and then permanently log all of that, use it to form dociers on us, predict our behaviors, or desires, ways to manipulate us, and then turn around and sell that data to governments, other companies and private parties. How the fuck is that legal.

Why in the fuck would you ever allow a private, profit-driven company to have that kind of power over your nation, let alone reward it with federal dollars, long term contracts and access to our law enforcement and military data and systems?

Worse, the founders and CEO are unhinged wannabe dictators trying to form their own sovereign techno-states. They’re not even secretive about that. And our goverment is fucking funding these nuts and giving them every detail of the lives of our citizenry, our goverment officials, our military… how fucking stupid do we have to be, guys? I wish I could say it’s just Trump but it’s not. It’s mind boggling.

Depends on your definition of “perfect” and “improved”. Is it perfect because it does one fundamental thing really well? Is it improved by adding new features?

I think what you’re meaning is, is there a program that is ubiquitous (or at least works anywhere), will basically remain used forever because it does a fundamental job that will always need to be done, and it does that job in the most straightforward way possible that can’t be made any algorithmically simpler, faster, etc. Probably plenty, honestly. Bitwise operations, arithmetic, fetch/store, etc. Though ubiquity/working anywhere gets rarer the higher you go from hardware. Even your suggestion of cd, for example, has to interface with an OS’s file system, of which there are several common types. What it’s doing is simple in concept, but will always be dependent on other programs for the file system.

Incompetent is common, even the default. Half of people are dumber and less competent than the average person, and people who are incompetent tend to over estimate their competence at the same time.

True, but never blame malice when incompetence will suffice.

Grand jury indictments are required for felony charges to make it to trial, including felonies like murder/involuntary manslaughter.

Indictments are a very low bar (probable cause). In this case, it seems clear to me from everyone’s accounts that, at minimum, this was a reckless homicide where the mishandling of a firearm resulted in someone’s death, and therefore probable cause existed to indict, so this is very clearly a poor decision on the jury’s part if the charge was manslaughter. I’m not sure if they tried to seek an indictment for involuntary manslaughter or murder though. Murder is a higher bar.

However this isn’t necessarily a done deal. Double jeopardy does not apply to grand juries’ “no bill” (i.e. the decision not to indict), so the prosecutor can gather more evidence or plan a different approach and try again. If, for example, they attempted to get an indictment for murder and failed, they could try again for manslaughter. This is really only news if the prosecution decides to stop trying to indict.

Taking off dress shoes

Discrimination against trans people is a plain violation of the Constitution’s equal protection clause and is a form of illegal sex discrimination.

You’re kind of making my point. The right would argue that they’re not discriminating on sex because sex differs from gender identity (and frankly, they’d be correct about that even by the definition of transgenderism). Had the law not been written to protect discrimination based on “sex”, among other traits and categories, we wouldn’t be arguing over what “sex” means in terms of the law and gender identity. That’s what I’m saying about over specificity.

Like you said, it should already be covered under current sex based discrimination, but it’s not. And so “You need to explicitly ban discrimination based on gender identity and gender expression.” If the language had been more broad to begin with and not set such narrow areas of protection, they could already be covered by default if not explicitly excluded, so we wouldn’t need to add more protections in the first place.

I’m not saying that adding explicit protections is bad in itself though, but it shouldn’t JUST include the protections that are relevant now and leave open discrimination where we can’t even predict in the future. It will just move the goal post and we’ll keep playing constitutional whack a mole with bigots for generations.

No shit. He literally doesn’t believe in germ theory. He’s a moron.

Hello? Nena? You’re not gonna believe this… 🎈

“It’s all over and I’m standin’ pretty In this dust that was a city If I could find a souvenir Just to prove the world was here And here is a red balloon I think of you, and let it go”…

Such a surprisingly depressing song if you’ve only heard the original and you don’t speak German

Right. Over specificity in establishing rights and protections is how we end to with trans people being denied rights and how we have to argue semantics about who is actually protected by the law. The same thing happened for gay and lesbian people, and could happen again as protections for discrimination against some sexual orientation(s) are not explicit in some cases, and open to reinterpretation by bad actors in SCOTUS. Even if you cover that gap now, the it may not help the next group that falls along the fringe or entirely outside of those specific protections when they’re targetted in the future. It should be written to be broad in protection and specific in exemption (where necessary), not the other way around.