Do you see new, unique colors, or are you more sensitive to what’s already there?
Do you see new, unique colors, or are you more sensitive to what’s already there?
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.
There’s gotta be a way to disable telemetry. My first thought is to cut whatever antenna is used to transmit your data to the corporation. It could be the same antenna used for radio, but I’d go without radio in a heartbeat if it meant Ford, Chevy, or whoever can’t spy on me in a car I paid $15,000+ for.
Of course, we shouldn’t have to do this. My first choice is to not give any of these car companies a dime of my money, but literally every single brand is doing it. This disgusting trend of spying on people should be illegal. It’s rapist behavior.
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.
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.
Anyone else have a stroke trying to make sense of the title?
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.
America takes awful care of its citizens, some other countries certainly do better. I wish we’d focus more on addressing the root cause issues that push people to commit violence instead of superficial actions like banning weapons, though. Even if all guns disappeared overnight, the conditions that incentivize violence would still be around.
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.
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
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.
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.
Go to the bathroom and hudge a big 'ol grumpy
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?
There is exactly one firearm on the market that has reliable fingerprint/facial ID. It’s made by a company called Biofire, and it starts at $1500.
People who have children in their house can choose to buy one, but no one should rely on this sort of safety mechanism to stop their kids from killing themselves. Education and a simple gun lock works perfectly fine for kids and standard firearms when taught/used correctly. There’s nothing wrong with layering safety like with the ID features in Biofire’s gun, but requiring these features by law is just unnecessary, short sighted, and prices put poor people from arming and defending themselves.
Man, if the only thing that’s preventing a country’s populace from murdering each other is restricted access to weapons, then that country is a failed society.
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.
I thought this thing was a gag at first, but that’s actually really clever. I wonder if dogs would hate it.
Their recent ToS update: “We bricked your TV until you ‘consent’ to waiving your right to sue us if we do something illegal. Also, we won’t tell you what you’re consenting to up front, instead we’ll make you spend hours reading through pages and pages of legal garbage to find where we buried this statement.”
They know that nobody would agree to this if they put it in big bold letters right above the “agree” button, so they bury it behind hours of tedious reading so that people cave in and just “consent.”
If you roofy someone’s drink and pester them until they “consent” to sex, you would get thrown and jail and probably shanked in the liver. If Roku bricks the TV that you purchased and won’t let it work again until you consent to something that you’re nearly guaranteed to miss or not understand by design, their profits go up because people can’t sue them.
This capitalism hellhole can’t burn down fast enough.