I don't know enough to be sure, and i would imagine it would depends a lot of the year of manufacture and how well it had been maintained. It would probably still be illegal; guns really should be unloaded during transport.
But, even if it did fire, the toolbox is likely a bit more durable than the cab interior. It's meant to have potentially heavy, metal things banging around in there even when driving rough.
Contrariwise, you are also commanded to love racists, homophobes, transphobes, and authoritarians. You can certainly try to convince them away from those stances, but you are still supposed to be kind, even generous, to the persons.
Oh, insurance would probably help in this case. It would depend on the specifics of the law, and whether the gun owner was negligent / grossly negligent.
The main reason it wouldn't help in general is because most gun violence is intentional, and you generally can't insure against intentional acts, only accidents.
If the act was intentional or the result of (gross) negligence, the negligent/intentional person could (probably) be successfully sued for damages. Failing that, I doubt the victim will be able to recover her costs at all.
Age verification laws are cropping up in far more jurisdictions than California (which is already quite large both in population and economically).
Anti-circumvention laws already exist. If OSes and browsers do start reporting ages, you can expect Apple, Google, and Microsoft to use the DMCA to (at least) shift liability (potentially criminal liability) onto users that adjust their browser to report an inaccurate age.
If this proposed law the "end of the world"? No. But, it is yet another contribution to both tech and government panopticons and should be resisted, even WITH a POSS carve-out.
As several people I follow try to remind me: "Users of non-FOSS software deserve privacy and safety, too."
IIRC, they want to have browsers automatically report age, and have OSes restrict access to software (like browsers that don't do that) based on age as well.
I believe the "goal" is to restrict access to information to younger persons. Porn is the threat they most often wave around, but many advocates also want to restrict access to social media, and apps that have in-app purchases, etc.
Absolutely the law is still dumb, and people that use FOSS OSes should still fight it. But with this change, as least you won't have to compile your own version of systemd (and NOT distribute it) to escape the insanity.
I agree. Certainly while in public (e.g. public roads).
That said, I want to say that got proposed in the 90s and somehow the NRA not only defeated it at the federal level, but got congress to ban states from doing it. I could have just imagined that tho.
EDIT: There's no "rack" mentioned in the source. I assumed that. A loose loaded gun makes even less sense, tho.
Loaded while in a vehicle-mounted rack. Not just illegal, but also violates some fairly fundamental gun safety principles.
Heck, just "treat every gun a loaded" and "never point a gun at anything you don't want shot" means we should probably do away with most vehicle-mounted racks to being with. I suppose inside the metal toolbox in the truck bed would be okay; at least then the dog wouldn't fire it.
Yes, while Mr. Doctorow isn't interested in policing any language, including the term "enshittification", it was originally a process of how platforms are first good, to attract users, then bad, betraying their users for advertisers and/or suppliers, then worse, betraying their advertisers/suppliers for their investors, and ultimately they provide the cheapest/worst service possible to just barely keep users and advertisers/suppliers using the platform, advertisers/suppliers locked in to the user base, and users locked in due to a lack of interoperability or effective monopoly.
It's related to "chokepoint capitalism" and to a lesser extent "technofuedalism".
I agree the the number-theoretic shortcuts for multiplication (and division!) based on the factors of 9, 10, and 11 should be taught.
I disagree that single-digit sums and products shouldn't be memorized. Neither students nor practitioners derive formulae from first principles each and every time, and breaking down a single-digit sum or product into "simpler" ones is a very similar ask.
Excess activity from your baseline will cause excess caloric output and can result in weight loss. BUT, human bodies are quite adaptable and what used to be excess activity can easily become your new baseline.
Absolutely, 75-300 minutes of cardio-vascular exercise is good for almost anyone, even if they need to gain weight. The same can be said for hitting every muscle group with resistance training twice a week, to a lesser extent. (Do both if you can, but do the cardio if you can only do one.) EDIT: Neither of these activities has to be done expressly for "exercise" -- they are just as good for you when they are part of your work or play or any other purpose.
If it's something you both enjoy and that is good for your health, you need to double-ignore any "haters". They aren't going to live in your head with your future body, so fuck 'em.
I'm 265 lbs. and if the treadmill takes that into account I see about 400 calories down 30 minutes into my 5k.
BUT, the saying I've heard is "you can't outrun your fork" and it seems to be true. (For example, I quite enjoy eating 2000 calories at a buffet in 30 minutes... if I'm going to get back down to a reasonable weight, I have to DON'T DO THAT.)
It is actually harder this time, because before the rapist-in-chief got re-elected, I was down to 220 and could finish a 5k in <28 minutes.
See the legal analysis linked earlier, in particular note 9.