I mean I could almost see that? Helldivers is kinda a satire on the american brand of fascism so it could be argued its an anti-fascist peace of media. But that’s a stretch to say the least.

But my real issue with this is that federal investigators saw something they had absolutely no clue what it is and called it a transgender symbol. Its an incredible amount of bias in a particularly very bigoted way.

Reminds me of a lyric from The Clash - “taking off his turban, they said, ‘is this man a jew?’” They see something unknown to them and just assign it to the marginalized group they have a preconceived notion of being bad.

At least is it 2 games bundled together?

Inb4 they say “its two games, so this will be $140!”

Ok but these are meant to be in bike lanes, sharing space with regular bikes. Part of the point of bike lanes was because it was dangerous for bikes to be sharing space with vehicles that can go so much faster than them.

Edit: imo if it has a throttle which can be used to keep up with motor vehicles then it is a motor vehicle. It should be classed with motorcycles.

If its gonna be considered a bicycle, it should have at the very least a speed limit on the throttle, or maybe no throttle allowed at all and pedal assist only.

This says that the “sequence of arrows” was interpreted as a transgender symbol.

Now we know that the sequence of arrows was “up, right, down, down, down”

…that’s the strategem code for the 500kg bomb in helldivers 2.

The ATF interpreted a video game reference as a transgender symbol…

Edit: another claim I’m seeing, quote from snopes:

Some users online claimed officials had misinterpreted “TRN,” an engraving found on ammunition produced by Turan Ammunition, a Turkish company, as “transgender ideology.”

This is a more logical mistake to make but is also an embarrassing and irresponsible mistake from the ATF if true.

It does need better tagging but honestly thats not the issue here. This is because of the new UK law, simple as.

deleted by creator

Thats why I said “come close” - there are plenty of crimes committed by the ultra wealthy.

However, those aren’t the kind of crimes this kind of mass surveillance is targeting either. They are trying to get rid of petty crime, gang violence, theft… stuff like that. And those kinds of crimes would almost dissapear entirely if you eliminated poverty.

The only way you could actually come close to eliminating all crime would be if you eliminated poverty. But that would make the rich less rich, so not gonna happen.

Power brick, power adapter, or USB charger are what come to mind for me.

I gotta say I disagree heavily with your fiancee on dongles. IMO dongles are adapters for data of some kind, not just power from the wall. But to each their own I guess.

deleted by creator

There was debate around whether they should use lidar. I thought I remembered that the initial plan was lidar but that musk dropped it before any actually got into the hands of consumers. I could be wrong though

This is ancient news, but I still cant believe they ditched lidar. Relying in computer vision alone when you could easily give it more reliable data to work with is just stupid.

So let’s look at these requirements:

• violence: not really. Vandalism and destruction of equipment aren’t violence, to my knowledge PA has not harmed or attacked anyone.

• non combatants: they targeted weapon shipments and military equipment. While I suppose you could argue the UK military aren’t combatants as they aren’t part of the war directly, but honestly that point is entirely moot given that they didn’t target people.

• political and ideological aims: sure, they are a political activist organization. Obviously that alone doesn’t make them terrorists.

So, even by what Wikipedia defines as the “broadest” definition, not terrorists.

I mean, at an absolute minimum, terrorism requires violence against people, which they did not do. They targeted planes and other military equipment. That’s not terrorism no matter how much damage they caused.

Im not saying what they did isn’t illegal. I’m saying it’s not terrorism. This is like if someone was charged with murder and punished for it only to turn out all they did was rob a store and you’re like “well akshually ☝️🤓 they’re a criminal so it’s fine”

Then the UK’s legal definition is fucking stupid. Terrorism is when a group attempts to strike fear and terror into a populace to coerce them. It definitionally requires violence and fear.

So they vandalized some planes and snipped some cables? And this got them declared as terrorists?

I’ve noticed a pattern where “terrorist” is often used as a stand in for any group that opposes the government.

Sure they did something highly illegal, but anyone who thinks that illegally trying to stop a weapons shipment is terrorism is insane. If “using force to achieve a political goal” is terrorism, then nearly every country on the planet is a terrorist organization. Idk if thats like actually the UK’s definition or something but that is a ludicrous definition for terrorism.

Terrorists use terror. Its why they are called that. Not the use of force, but specifically attempting to strike deep fear into a civilian populace. At no point was PA trying to make people fearful. They were trying to stop people from dying.

What’s acts of terror has Palestine action committed for it to be classified as a terrorist organization?

I have mixed feelings on this one, tbh

On one hand, that was actually the original name. That changed after WW2 and to be honest I kinda think the name was part of a greater campaign to make it seem as though, somehow, the military actions that followed in the next few decades in the middle east, Asia, Latin America, etc. were actually all just “defending” the US. Which is bullshit.

On the other hand, having perhaps the most insane president this country has ever seen saying that calling it war instead of defense because its more accurate to the current times is quite concerning to say the least.

I find it very promising. As much as I love meat, its pretty undeniable that raising livestock is super inefficient. It takes so much food to raise livestock that, iirc, more farmland in the US is dedicated to growing food for our food than to growing food for us. Lab grown meat doesn’t completely solve this - there are still lost calories in the process to my knowledge - but its way more efficnient. Plus less land usage, less fossil fuel emissions, overall it would be more sustainable.

I see 2 big problems facing it right now:

The first is scale, which is the more significant. We’d need to figure out how to grow meat on a truly massive scale. Definitely doable though, just needs more research.

The second is “realism” or how close it seems to natural meat. Lab grown meat has the advantage over like plant based stuff because it is actually meat. However, ifnits too perfect or uniform, or maybe doesnr have enough fat or variety, it might be seen as unnatural by many (even just subconsciously) and push them away from it.

But yeah, could be awesome.