I think it also misses a special case, where a active shooting would have happened, but a ‘good guy with a gun’ stopped it before a death toll occurred by either holding the shooter at gunpoint or shooting them.
This would likely be a rare case that would be much harder to quantify but you know it will be argued it’s needed for that case.
They’re saying that if someone tries to attack you with a knife (or even no weapon), pro-gun proponents argue you should have a right to a firearm to defend yourself against that attacker, citing that most people straight up do not have the physical ability to ward off the attacker (who is on average an adult man).
Was gonna say, it’s almost definitely a cost-savings measure.
Answer provided by chatGPT /s
I’ll trust that’s true, but even still, logic has never stood in the way of any legislation passing in the US or corporate decision.
Gimme an ASCII character for it. We can replace the bitcoin character with it
I mean, I think alittle? Not because of the reasons you think, though, and it’s not really ‘your fault’. More of a pitfall that most people fall into.
TLDR: ditch the apps and try to get out into more social situations through clubs and sports. The ‘right one’ will come along when you are more socially able an mm you’ll likely make friends along the way (genuine friends are WAY more important for staying sane).
So, tinder specifically objectifies and compresses you into a blurb and some photos - it basically cans you for mass consumption. When you finally get ‘bought’, you only get a chat box to communicate unless you actually exchange contacts, and the whole thing’s kind of terrible in general because of that. I’ve tried bumble and it’s pretty much a similar thing.
There’s this thing sometimes called the ‘predator/prey relationship model’ by feminists, and dating apps explicitly reinforce this model, with the only minor change being that bumble required the woman to open the interaction. The predator/prey relationship makes it so that in our society, dudes are expected to go out, find a random woman they fancy, and ‘pounce’ them, essentially. Originally, this was quite literal if you have heard some stories of relationships starting in the 40s and 50s where a couple got together because the guy was just constantly unrelenting. This has shifted to being more egalitarian and consensual but still requires the guy to basically peacock to gain the woman’s approval. Once it officially becomes a relationship, the woman is expected to be submissive while the man is expected to be dominant. It’s a pretty old-fashioned relationship style that still affects modern dating today. Some folks even still subscribe to it.
The better model that I think is more natural is to just go out and find new friends and groups I can participate in. This way, anyone you might date sees you in more context. You get more practice being social, which can be helpful in actually getting someone to become attracted to you, at which point they might actually start putting in effort.
I don’t see much problem with this. It’s one thing to advocate for everyone having greater freedoms to form non-heteronormative-style relationships, and an entire other thing to necessarily want that for yourself. That’s what Feminism is about after all, a broadening of accepted lifestyles and freedoms - not necessarily a complete shift to a paradigm that prohibits the previous one. In this kind of case, it just sounds like you are discovering up front that you two are not seeking the same type of relationship, which is good to find out early.
It’s kind of like advocating for a bike lane in your city despite you not biking and having no interest in biking. I don’t think you’re a hypocrite for not using freedoms you advocate for.
My understanding is that infant labiaplasty and other female genital cosmetic surgeries are pretty common as well in western countries. Luckily there is a growing protest to these practices on ethical grounds, since they’re all medically unnecessary surgeries performed on babies that can’t consent to it.
This journal publication seems to put it into perspective decently. It also points out some of the racist hypocrasy surrounding it, like how we classify these actions being done by non-western cultures as ‘mutilation’ which is unlawful, while classifying ones aligned with our own culture as ‘cosmetic’ and still allow them.
New fear unlocked, great
Second, we’re talking about ethnicity here, not religion. Jews are also an ethnic group. Y-DNA is very relevant.
Ethnicity is not what was being talked about just now; You were talking about DNA lineage.
Ethnicity deals with cultural self-identity, which includes religion and does not deal at all with DNA relation.
My understanding, though, is that Jewish culture actually has a long history of genealogy via family tree mapping long before DNA testing was available. That does have some ethnic connection as a cultural tradition.
The process of collective disarming is the path towards growing past war. And that first step is the collective banning of manufacturing such weapons.
So we’re still in a limbo period with nothing actually on the market.
I know you’re correct, since there are now solid state batteries on the market which outperform liquid-electrolyte LiPo batteries, but just stating “we’re at the tipping point” without dropping any link as evidence makes your claim very unconvincing.
The first news I’ve heard is Yoshino power selling solid state power banks. here’s a video covering them.
Are we talking anarcho-capitalist, anarchist, or some third option? Because since Ayn Rand wrote Atlas Shrugged, the meaning in the US has been a bit shakey.
For an idea of US libertarians, most people think of "A Libertarian Walks into a Bear"
Stop watching WWE with them. They’re clearly imitating an pile driver elbow drop from the top of Hell in a Cell. /s
Edit: wow I really bungled that one. Elbow drop, not piledriver.
It needs to capture sweat too.
I understand some instruction expansions today are used to good effect in x86, but that there are also a sizeable number of instructions that are rarely utilized by compilers and are mostly only continuing to exist for backwards compatibility. That does not really make me think “more instructions are usually better”. It makes me think “CISC ISAs are usually bloated with unused instructions”.
My whole understanding is that while more specific instruction options do provide benefits, the use-cases of these instructions make up a small amount of code and often sacrifice single-cycle completion. The most commonly cited benefit for RISC is that RISC can complete more work (measured in ‘clockcycles per program’ over ‘clockrate’) in a shorter cyclecount, and it’s often argued that it does so at a lower energy cost.
I imagine that RISC-V will introduce other standards in the future (hopefully after it’s finalized the ones already waiting), hopefully with thoroughly thought out instructions that will actually find regular use.
I do see RISC-V proponents running simulated benchmarks showing RISC-V is more effective. I have not seen anything similar from x86 proponents, who usually either make general arguments, or worse , just point at the modern x86 chips that have decades of research, funding, and design behind them.
Overall, I see alot of doubt that ISAs even matter to performance in any significant fashion, and I believe it for performance at the GHz/s level of speed.
Also Freetube has these features.