kook_throwaway

[CoC authors] should speak and act with good intentions, but understand that intent and impact are not equivalent.

2 and 3 absolutely can apply. Considering you get reported to the feds for transactions over $10,000 (or is it lower now?), it's completely reasonable for someone to decide it's not worth the risk and set the cash aside.

As far as number 5, you can't assume that's illegal either. I have a family member who's ex wife continues to commit identity theft and cause headaches for him 5 years after the divorce is over.

I don't think it's fair to say your experience represents some runaway extra-judicial outcome.

Being involuntarily committed makes you a "prohibited person" and includes a lifetime ban on owning a firearm.[1] It wouldn't surprise me if there were other strings attached to having that on your record too.

[1] https://uclawreview.org/2021/08/18/pulling-the-trigger-on-am...

Lots of folks are just too coddled and unwilling to take a risk, even for the greater good.

I'm not sure how you arrived here from my comment. If I was willing to dox myself you'd see that I have probably taken more risks for 'the greater good'™ than you or even most folks on this site. But those days are over, and this whole situation is setting off all of my finely tuned alarm bells.

You should spend less time stereotyping and more time attempting to understand others.

Letting others do as they please is also a risk 'for the greater good', by the way.

Your threat model for ubiquitous cheap sensing tech is nation states? I'm not overly worried about being spied on by nation states. In general, my feeling is that if a nation-state decides I'm important enough to deploy hardware against, I have no real defense.

Nation states worry me precisely because I'm uninteresting. They wouldn't deploy hardware against me, but I'm under no illusion that they wouldn't use every mass-surveillance option available to them, including mass exploitation of commodity hardware.

I agree wholeheartedly with the rest of your post.

There is an online course called nand2tetris where you build a whole computer from nand gate level (CPU, ram, ROM, memory-mapped display output, keyboard scanning, etc), write your own assembler and high level language, then program it to play tetris. It is, bar none, the most fun online course I've ever taken.

https://www.nand2tetris.org/

As long as it’s limited to reasonable fines

This will only result in those not living paycheck to paycheck being willing to speak out.

Thank you.

Hiro Protagonist

Because we weren't debating the safety of mRNA. That is unrelated to the discussion and I would be feeding the troll by moving the conversation from ethics to semantics and efficacy. I stated in my original comment that even if it's effective I still have ethical issues with coerced administration of it, gene therapy or not.

I never said it altered DNA, that was the straw man the poster who replied to me built.

The gravity of the falsehood is key to understanding.

We have seen an incredible growth of authoritarianism, from the near daily 'Simon says' mandate changes, lockdowns, increased surveillance, destruction of small business, 12 trillion dollars printed, and coerced administration of a novel gene therapy. You have no choice but to be right with all of that on your shoulders, that's a lot to weigh down a conscience if one is wrong.

Moderna and the FDA think it's a gene therapy. "Currently, mRNA is considered a gene therapy product by the FDA." [1]

Please quit spouting misinformation.

I like how you start with the word "please" so you can pretend you're being polite.

[1] https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1682852/000168285220...

Less AI and more people. I hope this succeeds.

Maybe it is working, but being coerced to take a novel gene therapy from organizations with a long history of abuse is a horrific precedent that should offend everyone.

SCOTUS has made many rulings that cops both know and regularly ignore. There's hundreds of videos online of police threatening a camera person with arrest if they don't provide ID and then blinding or obstructing the camera. All three of those have been explicitly ruled on and leave no question, yet they continue to do it en masse.

If you don't stop, cops will happily chase you in violation of department policy, endangering innocent bystanders[1], then shoot you when you are running away. If you happen to get away the next step is sending a paramilitary team to your house to shoot your dog and throw a flashbang in your baby's crib.

Cops don't have to use violence to solve all their problems.

They don't have to, but its usually the first resort. There's literally thousands of hours of videos online of cops knowingly making illegal 'requests' on video and threatening arrest for noncompliance.

[1] I had to ride my motorcycle over a curb because a police SUV somehow thought he could outrun a race bike and came flying around a blind stop sign in my neighborhood at a fast enough speed to hit the opposite lane. Policy in my city is no pursuit.

I'm having trouble finding mighty on ddg, got a link?

Was MitMing half the web the giveaway?

Its the entire system. The police, courts, judges, DAs, legislature. Those with power will always stand together against those that don't have it.

This kind of unintended impact should have been forseen, but I guess it wasn't.

Why do you think it wasn't forseen?

When you start asserting your rights and recording some of the more corrupt cops move on to legally stealing from folks that cooperate. There's really no reason to make the corruption easier to get away with.

For anyone else wondering: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warri...

Would having two meshes of opposite charge work?

Neither of those statements is even close to being true.

box retailers do not use armed staff. Target, Wal Mart, CVS, Walgreens, Best Buy - I have never, ever seen a worker with a gun

It wouldn't be the corporation arming the staff, it would be the staff arming themselves via a CCW/CHL. The first letter states 'concealed', so by definition you shouldn't see it.

A Wal Mart employee is more intimidating, simply because they're Texan

Its less about any individual employee, and more about the general culture and nature of crime in the two areas. If I were a criminal in Texas, I would undoubtedly prefer crimes with less chance of confrontation.

Why on earth would you jump straight to that conclusion? Even if the firearm was drawn, which is a huge if assuming the carrier was attacked, almost all defensive gun uses end before a shot is fired.

Someone carrying a firearm should be more willing to nonviolently confront a thief than someone that's unarmed.

https://reason.com/2018/04/20/cdc-provides-more-evidence-tha...

Why not? Plenty of folks from all walks of life down there get their CCW.

The fact that it's secret.

Also that you aren't even allowed to show up to defend yourself. [1]

Also that they denied 11 out of 34,000 requests over a 35 year period.

Also that the judges are appointed by one person and don't even need congressional approval.

How could it possibly not be a kangaroo court?

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_parte

I've never signed into google, are they really uploading my pictures to their servers?