• 0 Posts
  • 38 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle

  • That excellent quote of the text you provided spells out that any modifications to a gun that allows any more than a single shot is to be prohibited.

    Incorrect.

    It prohibits any conversion to a machine gun. The previous sentence has just defined a machine gun. The “by a single function of the trigger” language is what’s critical to this case and you’re completely ignoring it. When reading laws, you use words however they’re explicitly defined if a definition provided, not how you think they should be defined or would be used in common speech.

    Like I said, Gatling guns are pretty highly analogous. They produce what most people would consider automatic fire. They’ve also consistently been ruled to not meet the definition of a machine gun going back to at least the 1950s because they don’t meet that single function of the trigger definition.

    The solution is to change the text of the law.


  • However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation. Words that didn’t even exist until 2003, or thereabouts. The court ignored the legislative text completely.

    This is the text of the NFA that has defined what is a machine gun since 1934:

    The term “machine gun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

    I’m not a fan of this SCOTUS, but the bump stock ruling was inline with decades of jurisprudence on the topic and the final opinion was fairly unsurprising as a result. It was honestly less of a gun law ruling and more of an executive regulatory procedure one.

    A bump stock does not function by a single action of the trigger and does not meet the statutory definition as a result. The ATF rule banning them got struck down because Congress hadn’t authorized the ATF to regulate machine guns beyond that specific statutory definition.

    Bump stocks are no more a machine gun than a Gatling gun is under the definition that has existed for nearly a century, and the legal status of the latter has been extremely clear for a very, very long time.

    If the goal is to treat them as a regulated item, then Congress needs to pass legislation with language that covers them because saying it was already there is simply incorrect. There is a specificity to the language of the NFA that doesn’t cover any number of mechanisms. It’s been a deficiency of the law since 1934.

    If you want to fix that, that first requires understanding exactly what needs fixing.


  • Tree nested communication is much more superior than traditional thread based communication

    Heavily depends, IMO.

    Nested threads are great temporary discussion of a specific story or idea. They’re absolutely miserable for long-running discussions. New posts get lost in the tree and information ends up scattered across multiple threads as a result.

    It’s also been my personal experience that the nested threads format just doesn’t seem to build communities in the same way forums did. I have real-life friendships that were made on forums decades ago and I never had that experience with reddit despite being a very early user.

    I don’t think that’s entirely due to the ephemeral format, but I do think it plays a part in it. A deep thread between two people on Reddit might last a few hours and a dozen replies before it falls off the page. On forums threads running months or years were pretty common, and that kind of engagement with the same people certainly changes how your relationships develop with them.



  • He came to suck years later.

    At the time he was considerably farther to the left than the rest of the field short of Dennis Kucinich. Opposition to the Iraq war was central to his campaign when half the party was still trying to justify it. He wanted to push universal healthcare before that was a common position within the party. He was on the cutting edge of promoting gay rights and was extremely popular in the gay community when that community didn’t have the voice it does now. His stint as DNC chair built real party infrastructure and helped set the stage for Obama’s 2008 run.

    The country – and the Democratic Party – were considerably more conservative 20 years ago and he definitely helped push things toward where we are now.

    That said, he’s absolutely said and done some things in recent year that make it pretty clear he’s not the progressive vanguard he was back then. He’s stood still, and arguably regressed, while the country kept moving. It’s unfortunate. But I think it’s also a mistake to dismiss him outright; he was a pretty important figure in getting the party to where it is now.



  • In a vacuum, sure, but it also completely tracks with Sam Altman’s behavior outside of OpenAI.

    Employees at previous companies he’s run had expressed very similar concerns about Altman acting in dishonest and manipulative ways. At his most high profile gig before OpenAi, Paul Graham flew from London to San Francisco to personally (and quietly) fire him from Y Combinator because Altman had gone off the reservation there too. The guy has a track record of doing exactly the kind of thing Toner is claiming.

    What we know publicly strongly suggests Altman is a serial manipulator. I’m inclined to believe Toner on the basis that it fits with what we otherwise know about the man. From what I can tell, the board wasn’t wrong; they lost because Altman’s core skill is being a power broker and he went nuclear when the board tried to do their job.



  • Like how Ferrari cars are designed for 20 year olds but only 80 year olds can afford to buy them.

    I mean, making the comparison to motorsports just emphasizes how cheap gaming is as a hobby.

    Autocross is as entry level as you can get and a typical ~$50 entry fee gets you maybe 10 minutes of seat time and it’s typical to need to drive 2-3 hours each way for an event. That’s before you start adding in things like the fact that a $1500 set of tires will last you a season or two at most, suspension and brake upgrades easily running a couple of thousand dollars, etc.

    Start dipping into actual track time and fees jump to more like $250-750 plus around that much again for track insurance per event. And the upgrades needed for the car to hold up on track are even more expensive still. And this is all ignoring the purchase price of the car and potentially needing to trailer a dedicated track car.

    I’ve almost certainly spent far less on PC gaming in the last 5 years combined than I have on motorsports in the past 3 months. I’m on the upper end of spending for most gamers and a dabbler at best when it comes to the cars.

    The insanity of the GPU market since covid has put some upward pressure on things but A. the proliferation of great indie titles means you can get incredible value without breaking bank on the highest end equipment and B. even then, the money I spent literally tonight ordering just brake pads and rotors would buy you a 4070 all day long. And I went cheaper than I could have.

    Gaming dollars go a long, long way. It’s a hobby that was affordable even when I was younger and broke. It’s still relatively affordable compared to many, many other hobbies.


  • To expand a little bit for those that don’t want to click through:

    5.56 penetrates hard targets because it concentrates energy across a small cross-sectional area due to its small diameter. It delivers a lot of energy to a small point which helps it push through hard objects.

    5.56 similarly does not over penetrate in soft targets due to its dimensions: the projectile is narrow and relatively long, with the weight biased to the rear. This means that when it penetrates a soft object, the heavier tail end retains more energy and wants to flip past the tip of the projectile. Because the projectile is long and narrow, it tends to break apart when that happens. That quickly dumps the energy in the projectile and causes the large wounding effect being described above. Since the smaller fragments have less energy, they come to a stop much faster than a solid projectile would.

    tl;dr saying 5.56 is capable of both punching through steel and also generally won’t overpenetrate in soft targets is accurate because physics



  • Free Stars is being made by the original creators of the series, Paul Reiche and Fred Ford. They had nothing to do with SC3 or Origins.

    The reason why it’s not using the Star Control name is because the IP ownership around the whole thing is messy. The short version is that Paul and Fred owned the rights to the universe, but Atari owned the rights to the Star Control name.

    When Atari went bankrupt, Stardock bought the name. They thought they’d bough the universe. This resulted in Stardock spending the next couple of years trying trying to use the courts to bully Paul and Fred into turning over the rights to them and generally being dickheads.

    This finally ended in a settlement and work on Free Stars has been happening quietly for the last couple of years.






  • I had a few years of young and dumb followed by struggling through the great recession that pretty well wrecked my credit early on.

    I then went through a few years while rebuilding where I really dug into learning how the credit system works and gaming it to my advantage. It was literally a case of getting entertainment out of “number goes up.” I got bored with it once my available lines of credit hit a couple multiples of my annual income, but the end result was having a basically perfect credit score.

    It ultimately paid off when it came time to buy a car and get a mortgage. Basically had immediate access to the absolute best rates available and approvals have always gone super smooth.

    The flip side of that is my SO who never went through the young and dumb stage and hadn’t needed to rebuild credit, but had a similar “fuck credit” attitude as the OP so they’d never had credit in the first place. The fortunate thing there is we were able to jump start their credit history by adding them as an authorized user on one of my older accounts with a high line of credit – this gave a massive boost to both average account age and available credit and pretty much instantly brought their score up from the 5-600s to low 700s. Add in a few more deliberate things like financing a car instead of paying cash and now they’ve got enough of a credit profile built up that it’ll be okay if anything ever happens to me.

    Obviously, that requires a lot of trust, but it’s good info for relationships where one partner has established credit and the other doesn’t.


  • For myself, I simply dislike the usury present in the debt market for consumers and have decided not to engage with it.

    You’re engaged with it whether you like it or not.

    Credit cards are a reality of the modern economy. There are costs associated with every credit card transaction and, due to the ubiquity of credit cards, those costs are priced in to nearly every single purchase you make. Because most merchants charge the same price regardless of payment type, this effectively means that your cash purchases are subsidizing my purchases made with a rewards credit card that has its balance paid off each month by a couple of percent.

    You can choose to opt out, but that doesn’t mean you’re not playing the game either way.


  • I request a credit increase every time I get a raise or every 6 months, whichever happens first. Why get credit I dont need? In case I ever do need it, but more important is that debt ratio. That is what gets you good loan rates. Do it before you need it, and you will be set.

    There’s also a feedback loop here – once the credit limit increase hits your report, other creditors see it and are more likely to extend increased limits to you. I went through a few years where AmEx and Discover both seemed intent on being my highest limit card and would preemptively offer CLIs after the other one had.

    And to expound on your point re: credit utilization ratios - this is another area where having higher limits than you need helps. Your percentage utilized of available credit has a huge impact on your overall score. Having a higher limit means that if you need to carry a balance due to an emergency spend, it’ll have less impact on your score.

    e.g., you have an emergency expense of $700 with a line of credit of $1000. Your utilization is now at 70%. This will have a negative impact on your score pretty quickly.

    Take the same $700 spend and apply it to a $5000 line of credit and you’re only at 14% utilization. That’ll still have an impact but much less than anything over ~30% utilization.

    Even beyond emergencies, if you use a credit card to pay fixed bills each month and then immediately pay them off, you’ll occasionally have months where the payment credits after your statement date and hits your credit report – same deal there. It looks much better on your report if that balance is a fraction of your available credit than if it takes up a large chunk of it.