I'm a Satanist. I would be fine dating an atheist, depending on their morals and ethics. I would probably be okay dating someone that was agnostic, since technically most atheists are agnostics. I could date most reform Jews, since for most of them it's a cultural religion, rather than a literal one.
I would not be able to date anyone that sincerely believed in a supernatural deity, because I would not be able to respect them, or trust any of their conclusions.
Honestly, my advice, unpopular as it might be, is that unless you plan on riding a motorcycle you should probably get an automatic transmission car instead of learning on a manual transmission. Manual transmissions--in the US, anyways--are largely relegated to performance vehicles where people want them. But the hard truth is that automatic transmissions do a better job at driving efficiently and keeping the engine at a safe and ideal load than any driver with a manual. And it's a lot less hassle for most of the driving that people tend to actually do. For instance, it's uncommon to have a cruise control on a manual transmission car, which makes long drives more tiring, and stop-and-go traffic puts less wear on an automatic transmission.
If you plan on riding a motorcycle though, you must learn to use a clutch, because all non-electric motorcycles use a clutch (usually a wet clutch, but Ducati uses a dry clutch); manual transmissions are lighter and more compact, and weight matters a lot on a motorcycle.
I say this as someone that learned to drive on manual transmissions, and exclusively had cars with manual transmissions up through about 2022.
Learn to shift based off the sound of the engine, dont stare at the tachometer.
Do not do this.
Every engine has a different redline. The redline is based mostly on piston mass, which doesn't necessarily correlate directly to engine displacement, given that it's common to have 4, 6, or 8 cylinders in a car. If you're shifting primarily based on engine sound, you can be shifting too low in one car, and then too high in another. The tachometer is a much more reliable way of learning where you should shift in any given vehicle.
Also, constantly running your car in the maximum power band--which tends to be close to the redline--probably isn't great for it.
I'm guess that you don't live in the US? Almost all cars in the US--whether training vehicles or not--are gasoline, and it's mostly larger pickup trucks that are diesel. VW is one of the few companies that sells consumer cars that are diesel, and I'm not sure that they do anymore, not after there was that huge scandal about intentionally cheating EPA emissions standards with their diesel cars a decade back.
Thought I could/should work through discomfort and then pain at the gym, supersetting overhead push-presses and triceps dips. LOL, nope, gave myself a labral tear and tore my supraspinatus. My shoulder now has an unpleasant popping feeling + significantly less strength when I'm doing anything like a bench press with my elbows properly tucked; I'll likely never be able to do narrow grip bench press or triceps dips again.
Why was this dumb? Because I was a personal trainer, and I fucking know better than to try and push through pain. But I was trying to get back into lifting seriously after losing a lot of time to the pandemic.
Okay, people in the US generally didn't though. How is the information going to get to them, when mail took months, phone calls were not realistically possible, and telegraphs were incredibly expensive? Unless it's getting reported by the major news outlets, the majority of people in the US simply didn't have access to that information. Given the propaganda that was coming from both sides at the time, reports might not have even been very believable to the average citizen.
Average people simply didn't have access to information at the scale we now enjoy at that time. Leaders of countries and militaries might know, but unless it was being reported by wire services and in local newspapers, the average person would have had no rational way of finding out about it.
I don't know that my parents were ever the kind of person that bitched about paying taxes. They might have privately, but i don't remember it ever being a big deal. Me, I understand that my taxes are too low for what I expect the gov't to be doing.
And you're exactly right about the social experience. One of the enormous struggles for atheists has been building a community. Churches fill that need, even though they cause real harms in other ways. If you go to a church, it's easy to meet people and make friends when you move to a new community. If you don't, well, good luck because you're going to need it.
Honestly, this is why I don't discuss Mormon history and the massive, gaping chasms in their claims of Truth with my parents. My parents are old--old enough that the family is talking about who is going to call the coroner, who's going to deal with tying up finances, etc.--and knowing that they've wasted an entire lifetime and hundreds of thousands of dollars in tithing on a con isn't going to do anything useful at this point. Fifty years ago? Sure, they would have had plenty of time to come to terms with it. Now? Meh.
I've had a car with where the oil pressure sensor failed; combine that with an oil leak, and you quickly have a major problem. So, what happens when the sensor telling you the oil level fails? A dipstick is extremely unlikely to ever fail to work correctly, so...?
You can use DOT 5.1 to significantly increase that wet boiling point, but it's expensive for normal car use. I usually use it in my motorcycle, since I've experienced brake fade on that before, and it's... Not fun.
Depends on how much you drive, and what the recommended interval is. If the interval is 7k miles, and you drive 18k in a year, yeah, you need to change the oil 3x/year.
It seems to me that counting the number of cycles each makes, and basing your intervals off that would make more sense than mileage. If I'm constantly running at high RPM, that should require more frequent oil changes in terms of mileage.
Trucking used to be a way a person could provide for their family, remain independent, and feel in control.
Still can. There are still owner-operators, and they have significant control over how they do their job, as long as they aren't caught cooking their books (...which is what most drivers used to do before there were crackdowns, because you got paid per mile). They usually get paid a lot more than fleet drivers, because fleet drivers aren't responsible for the maintenance of the truck.
No, silencers weren't regulated into the NFA by the ATF; congress put them in there, way back in '34. You can read the text of the act here. It's in the very first section:
AN ACT
To provide for the taxation of manufacturers, importers, and dealers in certain firearms and machine guns, to tax the sale or other disposal of such weapons, and to restrict importation and regulate interstate transportation thereof.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of American in Congress assembled, that for the purposes of this Act -
(a) The term "firearm" means a shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length, or any other weapon, except a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such a weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machine gun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm [emphasis added] whether or not such a firearm is included within the foregoing definition.
It's right there in the text.
Aside from that, the ATF per se didn't even exist prior to '72; before that, it was part of the IRS, rather than an agency within the DoJ, and before the IRS, it was part of the Bureau of Internal Revenue.
It's not up to the ATF to make laws; congress is supposed to do that.
Also, "sensible" gun control is functionally no different from "sensible" abortion restrictions. If you want to fix gun violence, fix the problems that lead up to it. If you want to stop abortions, it's easier to teach factual sexual health and make sure that everyone has free access to birth control.
First - the place to shoot is the hard part for many people. Indoor ranges don't allow you to do the kind of practice that you would need to do in order to become proficient with an automatic firearm. Outdoor ranges are quite a drive for most people.
Second, and more important - the fact that people can learn doesn't mean a lot. Most people, including most gun owners, don't. A shockingly large percentage of gun owners don't practice regularly, or at all.
Hard pass on discussing anything with your denialist guns r gud mentality
Yeah, isn't is strange that someone doesn't want the state to have the monopoly on violence, and believes in civil rights? Weird, right?
From your article:
"Platkin said Glock is profiting by continuing to sell the adaptable version in U.S. markets, even as they make and sell handguns in Europe that cannot accommodate such a switch."
This is something I've having a really hard time finding a source on. Everything I can find says that that about half of the Glock pistols that are sold in the US are made in Austria. And, as I said, sales in Europe for pistols are very tightly controlled, meaning that very few pistols--relatively speaking--are getting into the hands of anyone other than cops and military, so I'm not sure that there's a strong motive for them to make the design alteration in the EU.
Aside from the assertion from New Jersey's AG, I just can't find a source for that. I'm not saying that it doesn't exist, and, if the AG is correct, then yes, Glock should change their design in the US. There's already precedent for this; open bolt semi-automatic firearms manufactured after 1986 are banned because they can--in general--be readily converted to full auto. However, given how many Glocks currently exist in the US, that would be an enormous legal mess that could possibly result in the National Firearms Act being declared unconstitutional.
"Also known as “auto switches,” the devices, which are already illegal in New Jersey and some other states, [...]"
They're illegal in EVERY state; it covered under federal law, specifically the National Firearms Act (1934) and Firearm Owners Protection Act (1986). Even if it was legal in New Jersey, it would still be a felony to possess or use one.
How many people actually go out to a range every single week and burn through a couple hundred rounds working on training drills though? I did shooting at distance today (100-550y with .223) and burned through about 140 rounds, and most ranges don't even have that kind of distance available. (Thank fuck the RSO had a spotting scope; I couldn't see my splash in the grass to see where my rounds were going when I didn't hit. He was able to see trace with his scope though.)
I'm a Satanist. I would be fine dating an atheist, depending on their morals and ethics. I would probably be okay dating someone that was agnostic, since technically most atheists are agnostics. I could date most reform Jews, since for most of them it's a cultural religion, rather than a literal one.
I would not be able to date anyone that sincerely believed in a supernatural deity, because I would not be able to respect them, or trust any of their conclusions.