Skip Navigation

InitialsDiceBearhttps://github.com/dicebear/dicebearhttps://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/„Initials” (https://github.com/dicebear/dicebear) by „DiceBear”, licensed under „CC0 1.0” (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)A
Posts
7
Comments
1129
Joined
3 yr. ago

Migrating here (or maybe keeping both) from @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.ml

Will put an eternal curse on your enemies for a Cinemageddon invite.

  • To elaborate a little, feature bans (like magazines, pistol grips, adjustable stocks) are a fairly "recent" (comparatively) development in gun control. Some idiots figured "if we can't ban the ones we don't like because we've been repeatedly told it violates people's rights, we'll violate them by proxy through banning features of those guns we don't like," and then the market adapting to sell legal versions in CA because they can't actually stop it that way. They're literally always pointless and intended to circumvent the court rulings, and so a cat and mouse game of loopholes is born.

    Access restrictions historically go back to the birth of the country, and only because further back than that would be British laws. They were first used against slaves of course, they couldn't own guns, then after that the laws were used to stop free black people from arming themselves in the Jim Crow era, and then specifically to answer "why are the CA laws so bad," well, besides the feature bans which are newer of course the answer for CA's shit laws is Ronald Reagan made them to disarm the Black Panther party who was causing problems for the racist LAPD by following them and making sure they didn't brutalize black members of the community. Access restrictions are firmly rooted in racism full stop. True, today's anti self defense activists are kind enough to extend their fear to everyone, but that is where it came from.

    And in many cases, where the Sheriffs office is the deciding factor in who can get permits, in practice that is still how it is used. One I remember reading about, one state had a requirement to get a permit to even purchase a pistol, they ended it, mostly because someone found out 60% of permit denials went to black people. Others are still like that, and that state probably still is with carry permits, tbh.

  • Can't until I see the ads!

  • Might get me tbh, how much per frag?

  • Oh what's that? The thing I've been warning about for decades, turns out I was right AGAIN? Well "good" I guess, and we'll learn from this and kill the spyware industry now right? Ah of course not, you just want to control it, yup how could I think otherwise..

  • Depends highly on the city/town, not everywhere is super active 24/7, some cities do sleep.

  • It also can't be cleaned off as fast as paint, and costs more to replace.

  • Or

    Put a fucking bullet in it. Or ~100. Birdshot should do nicely.

  • Well if you're carrying it for defense it has to be loaded by definition, the attacker never gives you time to load it lol, BUT:

    A) Get a handgun and a proper holster, much easier. You can even get a trigger guard, so it's safe(r) if your state has dumb unsafe laws that tell you to leave a loaded gun unsecured flopping around a car, at least the trigger is blocked.

    B) If you're married to the unsecured shotgun that then has to be loaded, you can't leave it chambered, or this could happen.

    It's dumb either way, for sure, it's complete negligence on their part.

  • Though using IDs for rights in the US has historically been seen as racist (voting,) so technically we shouldn't even be IDd for guns or we should get background checked to make sure felons don't vote.

    Not that I agree we should actually do either of those things but y'know, consistancy applied and all.

  • In many "open carry" states, that's one of the only legal places you can put it without inadvertantly "concealing" it (the others being usually "on the dash" which is insane or "in the trunk" which technically is "transporting" not "carrying.") Pretty bad idea and is unsafe as hell, if you do that you shouldn't have a round chambered (or imo shouldn't do it at all, concealing it illegally is honestly safer), but y'know what are you gonna do.

    Pretty sure this guy could be charged with criminal negligence for that since a bystander was hit btw, as to whether the DA will decide to bring charges we could never guess it's a coin toss, maybe they have already for all I know.

  • The Church of the SubGenius is the only cult that matters, praise "Bob"!

  • The contract will include a carve out to ensure that the A.I. model is not used on Americans’ data, said the officials, who added that the White House wants the contract to serve as a model for other companies.

    Mmhmm, sure.

  • England said "Bitch, get me a chicken sandwich, and some waffle fries, FOR FREE."

  • Of course it was, she was French.

  • I'm gonna be honest, I don't think it is being polite to the robots we'll eventually kill in the coming Butlerian Jihad that is keeping you human, I think it's your humanity in the first place. Doesn't hurt that you have years of XP dealing with the receiving end so you know how it feels of course, coincidentally same, and I'm still nice to staff, but not to those fucking clanker spies.

  • Depends on where, they're legal in most countries despite their rep. Apparently the UK hates them though. They're legal in Canada again however.

  • It does, in this case you can choose not to get the tumor at all.

  • If we hate LLMs hard enough and they train on that data, can we make them suicidal?

  • Tbf it often gets things wrong and has hallucinations already, and while that is still there in traditional searches AI removes it from it's context and puts it right at the top of the results, where it insinuates that it is the most accurate results.

    This highlights the issue quite well imo, it's easier for a human to understand satire or nuance or context or when to take X with a grain of salt depending on the source and other context clues than it is for a lowly machine to do the same, and when the machine fails at the distinction and pushes false things as truth devoid of (or even with slightly obfuscated) context and by the way it does it while it pretends to be human itself, it makes it easier for the human to just accept it as fact. Should they? Of course not, but currently it seems to be an issue and whether you hate AI or love AI bringing attention to this issue (in a hilarious way no less) can only be a good thing.

  • I'm just a fellow reader here but if I had to hazard a guess it was either autocorrect from NSA to NASA, or my preferred option "it's much funnier to say NASA because it's silly."