Last week or two I’ve been learning more about passkeys, and it makes threads like this seem ridiculously out of date. Given the choice between emojis and passwords and hard crypto, I’ll take the crypto.

Then get yourself a basic black & white laser printer. Brother is usually pretty good for that. The cartridges don’t expire and it’ll be ready instantly when you need it, whether that’s tomorrow or next year.

Here’s one for $120

And that’s exactly why Ukraine is kicking ass. Paying $20k or $30k for a single enemy casualty is a pretty good deal in warfare. But these drones aren’t going through some huge defense contractor, they’re being 3D printed and assembled from off-the-shelf parts. Basically a little army of logistics people building hobby drones out of consumer level equipment, just with an improvised explosive like a grenade or some similar impact explosive strapped to the bottom.
They aren’t even paying $20k for a casualty, they are paying $1-2k for a hobby drone and a grenade and many of them create multiple casualties.

The more expensive ones cost more, but those are the ones you see that are reusable and can drop several grenades in one flight. Those are more like $5k-$20k. Still an insane bargain even if each one only creates one casualty before it is destroyed.

IT person here. Avoiding HP is a good idea. But a better idea is don’t buy shitty cheap consumer level inkjet printers from any brand. Most of them have this sort of bullshit, although not usually as bad as HP does. Instead I suggest buy it for life. Get a nice color laser machine, spend a few hundred bucks, and you will have a printer that lasts until you die. I like the Canon MF743CDw, it’s a little on the pricier side but it scans both sides of the paper in one pass. Also does color duplex printing.

If you don’t want the extra size or weight of a color laser, get a black and white laser. How often do you really need color? And if you must get something cheaper, get one of the newer inkjet printers that use refillable ink bottles rather than cartridges, like there is an actual ink tank on the printer and you refill it with a squeeze bottle rather than replacing the cartridge.

Gas stoves rock. Rather than banning gas stoves, just require that they be installed safely.

The answer here is simple- mandate a range hood with real outside exhaust (not the cheap ones that blow air back into the room). And require a make-up air vent with equivalent capacity.

Maybe require the stove to automatically engage the vent at low speed (near-silent) so when you start a burner the vent runs at like 10CFM or something automatically.

Yes exactly. No online platform can catch 100% of prohibited activity. They are punishing the wrong people. What they should do is get a list of all the ones eBay missed, file charges against the seller and start knocking on buyer’s doors. Or maybe send some agents in an undercover Prius to pull them over and issue a fine when they get coal rolled. That would send a pretty clear message that eBay is not a safe place to purchase these items.

It’s a good theory, but why were they shooting at civilian cars then?

I think your theory may make more sense than most (explains the abductions) but it still mostly seems nonsensical.

I think a broad look at Israel’s policies is long overdue in a few areas.
But this action virtually guarantees that won’t happen.

Perhaps nobody overtly wants to ban all guns in the sense of making all guns illegal. There’s always a ‘reasonable’ proposal. But it overall feels like a roll back strategy, like the US tried to roll back communism in the cold war- pick at the edges until there’s none left.

A buyback program IS a ban by the way- it’s just confiscation with compensation. 'You can’t own XYZ anymore so we will confiscate it from you, but we’ll give you some money.

The real issue though is that guns aren’t hard to make and therefore the black market effect will be minimal. Look at illicit marijuana (pre-legalization) as an example. Lots of it was grown in Mexico then smuggled in. Then hydroponic/airponic tech got better and cheaper and instead it was grown in attics and basements closer to where it would be sold. So now the drugs smuggled in are drugs that require lab processing like cocaine or heroin. But if (hypothetically saying there was no legalization) you made home-grow setups illegal, that wouldn’t stop anyone from doing it anyway.

Same is true with guns. For under $500 you can buy a device that turns a half-machined block of metal into the main part of an AR15 rifle. For $5k-$10k you can buy a CNC machine that will turn a solid billet of metal into most parts of a gun. And unlike a drug lab, unlike even a basement marijuana grow op, all these devices can be presented as ‘legitimate use’ with very little prep- just clear the gun CNC file out of the machine and that’s it. Way easier than marijuana (which takes weeks to mature and then must be harvested and packaged). So you could do this in a legitimate front business with a ‘night shift’ crew.

So I argue even if you greatly restrict civilian firearm ownership, the real criminals who commit the majority of gun homicides and gun crimes will have unimpeded access to guns. The same gangs that right now trade in stolen or straw purchased guns, will instead trade in imported or home-machined guns.

Yeah I think indoor farming / vertical farming is going to be the ultimate answer. Much more efficient in every way, including resource use, water, pesticide, etc.

I only know some basics of the whole situation, but I really don’t get this attack. Israel is a modern Westernized nation and enjoys STRONG support, financial and military, from many/most other Western developed nations. They have modern weapons of just about all types.
Israel is accused of some awful shit and stealing peoples homes. From what I can see they’re probably guilty of this.

But I don’t understand how killing a bunch of civilians at a rave is going to overall help the cause. It seems to me like a. it’d give your better-armed adversary an excuse to smack you down once and for all, and b. a good way to make the rest of the world feel like they shouldn’t be stopped in doing so (and if anything, helped in their efforts).

So what is the goal? Is this just an expression of pent up anger? Because it seems a poor strategy to me.

Amen to that. Flying in that game was super fun, especially with the ‘trade lanes’

Pretty sure Halo 1 and 2 were already remastered?

But has a bunch of tracking bullshit and harvest your phone number and device ID and whatnot And of course it asks for location permission so they can sell that too

I think you do me an injustice, and needlessly so.

The US is not ‘just one country’ with the same ideals and attitudes everywhere. We are 50 states, and while there is an overall American culture, each state or even city area has its own local culture, ideals, politics, etc.
I live in a ‘blue state’ (IE Democrat-majority, Democrats are generally an anti-gun party). There’s not a big gun culture here. There are not people with 10 gallon hats and a 6-shooter on their hip riding around in a giant pickup truck with a gun rack. My state has more gun control laws than most in the union.
When I grew up we had no guns or interest in guns. During my whole childhood the only exposure to guns I had was once at summer camp there was an activity shooting .22LR rifles (small caliber), lying down, at targets. And once on vacation we went to a shooting range that was part of a resort.

If we’d had this conversation 10 or 12 years ago, I’d have been mostly on your side. I recognized the 2nd Amendment was a thing that existed, but I saw no reason anybody needed an ‘assault rifle’, I thought gun free zones were a pretty good way to improve safety, and overall a lot of ‘gun culture’ seemed like needless penis extension.

It was actually one conversation that kicked off a change in my position. An old friend of mine and I were getting lunch together. This guy has always been very Republican (pro-gun/conservative party), owns several guns, goes hunting, etc- but we have a lot of mutual respect despite differing worldviews on many subjects. Anyway, as we finished lunch he mentions that he’s going to buy an AR-15 rifle and would I like to come along? I made a dumb joke like ‘damn man, I didn’t realize it was that small, I’m sorry dude’. He just laughed and said ‘You know my deer hunting rifle, the one you said you have no problem with civilians owning? Well it’s actually a lot MORE powerful than an AR-15.’ I started to argue but he said ‘look, nothing I say is going to convince you. So just Google it when you get home, okay?’.
I KNEW he was wrong- a ‘military weapon of war’ would definitely be more powerful than a stupid wood stock hunting rifle like Elmer Fudd would carry. Surely the military wouldn’t be carrying weapons inferior to those of random civilian hunters, right?

So I went home and Googled it. And I found he was right- his .30-06 hunting rifle has SIGNIFICANTLY more muzzle energy than the .223 AR-15 he was planning to buy. The hunting rifle was larger and heavier and in almost every way, more powerful.
I’m usually not wrong about technical things. So I was curious what else I was wrong about on the subject, turned out it was a lot. Not about policy or position, but about provable technical things of how guns work and how deadly they are and whatnot.
So I decided the best course of action was to basically forget everything I thought I knew, and start fresh. That kicked off a good 3-4 week deep dive on the subject, reading articles, watching YouTubes, doing research on both sides of the issue.

This brought about a few basic conclusions. The biggest is that most of the politicians who talk about guns appear to know little or nothing about guns, as many of their gun control arguments are easily disproved on basis of fact. And many of the laws they promote do nothing to regulate the actual lethality of guns, but rather try to describe ‘scary looking guns’ and ban those. For example, my own state’s laws regulate rifles that have ergonomic features like a pistol grip or collapsible stock that have NO bearing on the rifle’s lethality.

I then started doing research into use of force, defensive situations, etc. And that brought a very sobering realization- I lived in a bubble. Violence is not a part of my life (and I prefer it that way). My area is quite safe. But that doesn’t mean I am immune to violent people- and there ARE people out there who ARE violent. Not many near me, but they exist.
And I’d say I’ve done more research than most into what happens in a fight. I’ve seen a lot of videos of defensive situations- robberies, fistfights, assaults, kidnapping, and straight up attempted murder. I’ve seen what happens when people get shot (you won’t find it on YouTube). And I’ve seen how easy it is to seriously harm a human. We live safe lives in civilized society, but on the scale of the world, our bodies are pretty fragile and it doesn’t take much to seriously damage them.

And that’s why I say thought experiment for how to kill someone from 100’ away. It’s why I say that if someone wants to kill people, they will, gun or not. It’s why I reject the logic that removing guns will save lives, because I recognize that gun regulations affect the law-abiding more than the criminals who are doing the most harm.

Point is-- I have done the thought experiment, a few different ways.

Do I want guns in vending machines? No. Is the absolute ideal to have everybody armed? No, the ideal is where nobody needs to be armed. But absent that perfect future, I think civilian armament as a deterrence to criminals works.

oh fuck yes.

Or websites that exist as nothing but a ‘click here to download our shitty app!’ placeholder

And you’re missing the most important part of the point here. WOULD you?
Whether you can kill me from a distance or from up close, WOULD you do so? I wouldn’t. Most people wouldn’t.

There’s a few who would. And a few of them think it’s fun.

You say you can’t kill me from a distance. I think you can, even without a gun. Consider this a thought experiment. You need to kill me from say 100’ away. You don’t get a gun. How do you do it?

Most illegal guns today are stolen or straw purchased, because that’s the easiest and cheapest way of getting them and it requires very little transport.
Let’s assume you made civilian gun ownership totally illegal. The math changes- they get a bit more expensive, they get shipped in from overseas along with the drugs. Or they get made locally- a gun isn’t that hard to make in any decent machine shop. Certainly easier than making drugs. And unlike the drug lab, the machine shop has a legitimate ‘day shift’ use so it doesn’t have to hide in a basement.

But you yourself said there’s 1.5 guns for every person. That doesn’t go away overnight you know. Even if you could get support for broad spectrum civilian disarmament, the criminals won’t give up their guns and they’ll just start importing or making more.

If you want to stop crime, of any kind, you have to stop the root causes. Stopping drunk driving by banning alcohol didn’t work in the 1920s. Stopping gun violence by banning guns won’t work today. You need to go deeper- look at where most gun violence comes from (gangs and drugs), and address that. It means education, jobs, a war on poverty, and it costs a hell of a lot more than just signing a law. But it would actually improve our society.

I think the problem is a community full of bot reposts basically guarantees there will be no original content posted on Lemmy, which is what we really want.

modern layouts with tons of wasted whitespace and lowercase buttons that have no obvious widget borders.

I don’t care if it looks cluttered- I’d rather have one page that I have to stare at for a second and then learn it than 5 pages that I have to scroll through every time.