They also reduce range, increase jamming, and decrease impact force. Last I checked being quiet didn’t increase harm, and doubly so when the reduction in volume is down to somewhere between a firetruck siren and a jet engine during takeoff.
There’s thinking an outcome is the right one, which I agree with, and then there’s mischaracterizing the dangers of something to support that point.
You can think they’re not good for society and also have an accurate understanding of them.
Being factually incorrect and needlessly insulting and dismissive of people who don’t perfectly agree with you is a great way to convey “gun control is for ignorant assholes” instead of what you actually want, which is “ugh, does our society really need fewer barriers to gun ownership”?
Okay. If you’re saying they should be regulated more because they’re more dangerous, you’re wrong because they don’t make guns more dangerous.
If you’re saying that anything relating to guns should be regulated, that’s a very different statement to what you made.
Being dismissive of peoples physical well-being is just unnecessary.
Guns are a dangerous thing just like any number of dangerous things that exist in society. They have legitimate and illegitimate uses and should be regulated to a degree and fashion related to the danger they pose.
A surpressor doesn’t increase the danger, so it doesn’t need to be regulated beyond what other accessories would.
I think that basically no guns should exist anywhere. I obviously can’t get that, so on the list of things I’m concerned about on the way there “surpressors” doesn’t really register, and it’s certainly not above bump stocks, larger magazines, or even semi-automatic weapons.
They’re typically actually designed to protect people’s hearing.
Guns should be restricted, but silencers aren’t particularly special amongst gun accessories for being more dangerous or violent than any other.
It basically makes it so you get serious hearing damage slightly slower. The shot would still be heard from quite a distance.
Bump stocks and the things that make guns automatic-but-technically-not-in-the-legal-sense should be taxed to hell or outright illegal since they actually increase the danger.
I’d agree that people are naturally interested in understanding the world, but the barriers to rigorous science you mention are present in every field that requires practice and dedication to master. Which is every field.
Most people just aren’t interested in doing the work to master anything, and that’s okay. You can still enjoy playing with a drum, doodling, or tossing a ball around without it being a gateway to the deeper mysteries of those fields.
The biggest difference is that science and science related content is much more capable of being hilariously impactful and dangerous.
As such, it’s easy for a moderately proficient person to do an experiment in their backyard that would have been cutting edge 300 years ago, and safely do things that we’ve all been properly taught are absolutely not safe.
People like novelty and mastery. People doing science video often convey a lot of expertise in addition to showing something new that’s also pretty, loud or just “bright colors”.
I’m pretty sure there could be a long muse about the intersection of the notion that babies are natural scientists, and calling someone an iPad baby.
It’s less for bigger pieces and more for tougher pieces. Shoulder, chuck and bottom round roast is what I usually use for long roast beef preparations. Given enough time the connective tissue breaks down into gelatin and it becomes wonderfully tender rather than mushy.
I like to cook it to rare and then sear or oven it to midum rare ish, which I like for sandwiches.
I like to grind some black pepper, salt, minced dried garlic and onion, and some mustard seeds on mine before cooking. Leaves a good flavor on the outside and you can take the juice in the bag with the spice that fell off and cook it down with some butter to make a really good savory spread.
My advice: only cook the toughest of meats for much longer than that. You can safely go longer, but the tenderness gets to be too much and you cross a line into unpleasantly soft.
Yours looks perfect though! What’d you season with?
Grow up. You’ll have a better time if you learn to live and let live without being bothered by what other people do that doesn’t involve you.
No, it’s similar because it’s a business making a value judgement instead of a business judgement. It would be different if your exact argument hadn’t been used against those groups in the past.
I doubt we’ll see eye to eye as well. I’m not okay with discrimination and I don’t think the beliefs of corporations matter, even when they’re being judgey about sex stuff I don’t understand.
You should work on learning how to handle those feelings. Most people just ignore it when other people do stuff they think is gross if it’s not hurting anyone.
For example, I think egg salad is pretty gross. I manage this in my day to day life by “not buying egg salad”, and if I run into it I usually just “move along quickly”, or say “oh, no thank you”.
I doubt people are as pushy with furry porn as they are with egg salad, unless you and I live in shockingly different worlds.
🙄 On what grounds would doing so operationally impair the platform? Is it illegal? Does it prevent them from servicing other businesses in a timely fashion? Does it cost more money in a way that can’t be reflected in the service fee structure?
Explain to me what reason they would have for objecting that isn’t just a different way of phrasing “morality judgment” or “image management”.
Do you also think that a shipping company should be able to refuse to ship products from businesses they don’t approve of, even if it’s functionally identical to something else they would ship?
What about either of those companies refusing service to someone because of their sexual orientation or gender identity?
People used to say it’s bad business to service gays, blacks, Jews, Catholics, Hispanics and the Irish. At some point we decided that businesses need to shut the fuck up and just do business without judging, or else their service has no place in society.
The free market that businesses love so much exists entirely through the grace and in the service of society at large. If they fail to at least not harm society, why should society extend that courtesy to them?
why should they be forced to process payments that facilitate things against their beliefs?
You’ll excuse me for thinking this means you think corporate beliefs are more important than the social benefits of neutral financial institutions.
To answer your question again without assuming anything about your opinion: they should be forced to process payments because they don’t have beliefs, it’s better for society if financial institutions only look at the business relevant portions of a business, and a legal obligation is perfectly sufficient to protect their business interests in reputation management. All the same reasons we don’t let shipping companies refuse customers for morality reasons.
Because they’re a financial institution, not an individual. They don’t have beliefs.
Arguing that corporate “beliefs” (image management) and interests take priority over societal order is ridiculous.
We regulate banks and financial institutions all the time. We regulate businesses all the time.
They should suck it up and treat businesses with legal activities and proper tax documents as just another business. Kinda like how we have laws that say that public shipping companies need to generally treat all customers the same. It’s why they don’t typically ask what’s in the box aside from questions related to operational characteristics. Porn doesn’t spontaneously ignite and threaten an aircraft, but lithium batteries can.
It’s not even legal risk. It’s brand risk.
There’s a difference with cannabis shops because that’s actually still federally illegal. As such, the required business accounts and tax documents required to use a national payment processor are often not forthcoming. It’s a low level regulation that you can’t generally tell a federal bank you’d like an account to store the proceeds of a federal crime.
With porn, the legal standards and protections are pretty well established. As long as the company is in possession of the required tax documents and business accounts, there’s no legal risk beyond the standard due diligence they need to do for every customer. Visa isn’t generally liable if a tire shop is discovered to be breaking a non-financial law. What processors don’t want is to have their brand attached to something that they worry could make them look bad.
So?
It’s a game with a representation of something that can’t even happen. It doesn’t even get to the point where you could have a discussion about simulation creating a demand for real that some things have because it’s not even remotely realistic.
It’s not my cup of tea, but that just means I don’t look at it.
It’s because you think it’s icky and you don’t know how to handle those feelings, isn’t it?
I felt your fat sweaty buttocks under my belly and saw your flushed face and mad eyes. At every fuck I gave you your shameless tongue come bursting out through your lips and if I gave you a bigger stronger fuck than usual fat dirty farts came spluttering out of your backside. You had an arse full of farts that night, darling, and I fucked them out of you, big fat fellows, long windy ones, quick little merry cracks and a lot of tiny little naughty farties ending in a long gush from your hole. It is wonderful to fuck a farting woman when every fuck drives one out of her.
There’s a reason Joyce is considered a master of the English language.
Eh, they provide that level of file access control on their own devices as well. Feels more plausible to me that they just don’t put that much development effort into their iOS app.
Putting any significant amount of work into making a photo library management app work with “not the library” on a platform that your software doesn’t see a lot of usage on to appeal to a subset of users who want that is the exact sort of thing product managers skip because it’s just not a problem to enough people.
No, that makes them slower because theyre leaning into the wind. You want to try to mostly use A’s, because they’re the most aerodynamic, and anything else should be formatted as subscript to keep code size down and reduce drag. C should be avoided at all costs because it’s just going to catch the wind.
One of the other interesting things in the US is that different states can have different laws for meat standards, as long as they meet or exceed USDA minimums. They can’t, however, advertising that fact because it’s a violation of interstate trade.
So in the US, a legal hotdog ranges from a blend of the trimmings above and what can be removed from the bone with a power washer, up to “hot dogs must be made only of the product of primal cuts with no trimmings or waste meat”.
Eh, “refuse” makes sausage sound worse than it is. In the modern world anyplace with a food inspection system will typically see sausage made from cuts of meat that are perfectly edible but don’t meet the grading standards likely to sell on the shelf , or the excess pieces of muscle left over after breaking primal cuts down into smaller pieces. No one wants to buy USDA certified Meh grade steak, or a palm sized wedge of uneven thickness. So they get sent off to make hamburger, sausage, and various canned or commercial meat products that don’t need to be pretty.
Processed meat also includes much more benign seeming foods, like sandwich meat, ground meats, and bacon. We’ve known for a while that eating meat, and more so red meat, is a risk for colon problems. Red meats are more likely to be processed and therefore cheap and salty.
The new thing the study adds is that there isn’t a lower bound. For a lot of things there’s a quantity that isn’t associated with any issues, and it’s only when you go above that limit that the risk goes up.
