If a hispanic guy being aquitted for defending himself from three white attackers is your best example of white supremacy in action and your reference is from the civil war - maybe take a deep breath and realize the country isn't doing as bad as your peers at facebook claim
Gaige is a convicted felon who was illegally armed with a gun and drove to Kenosha to riot. It is hard to understand how you label him the good guy in this scenario.
What? "Chaotic good" and "lawful evil" are common terms. Why are you trying to split up the grandparent post's wording in a way they very obviously didn't intend?
Except they're not supposed to be split. Just like splitting "therapist" into "the rapist" doesn't capture the intended meaning of the thing, neither does splitting "chaotic good" into "chaotic" and "good" capture the intended meaning. Someone of chaotic good alignment is one who "combined a good heart with a free spirit. These characters acted as their own conscience directed with little regard for the expectations of others. They were often kind, benevolent, and strong individualists who were hostile to the claims of rules, regulations and social order.[1]" I don't give two figs about which horse you have in this race- splitting a phrase to distort the intended meaning is bad faith, full stop. That's all I came to say. But thanks for being condescending in the defense of your fallacious claim, it gave me a good chuckle.
[1] Player's handbook v 3.5, page 105. Draws from version 1, 2, 3.x, and influences v 5. Essentially, everything but 4, which is largely regarded as a version to be swept quietly under the rug.
Gofundme did the same thing. They killed the gofundme for Kyle's legal defense and then after it didn't matter anymore they "reversed the decision".
this article talks about a post the family of a recent school shooter made praising/defending him on facebook - so obviously facebook is applying this rule very selectively. I think it would help their credibility if they had examples of other times they apply these rules - but it seems more like they make up the rules on the spot and apply them based on their internal politics.
I didn't downvote but it doesn't seem like a stretch to imagine that industrial mining vehicles will go electric in the near future.
Tires are definitely an issue but producing gas involves a lot of trucks as well. Between all the work in oil pumping/refining/distribution there must be quite a bit of rubber burnt!
Edit - I think the tire issue definitely needs to be solved, but theres no reason it has to keep us using gas vehicles over electric
It's not remotely a stretch. The biggest mining machines in the world (open pit coal shovels in Europe) are already electric and have been for ages. In the rest of the mining industry most big manufacturers like CAT and Sandvik are releasing battery powered scoops, haul-trucks, etc. It's on its way but industrial adoption will surely follow consumer adoption. We do need better batteries, faster charging, and more experience before they can take over, but thankfully that consumer demand is paving the way (i.e. paying for the research).
> I didn't downvote but it doesn't seem like a stretch to imagine that industrial mining vehicles will go electric in the near future.
Ah, I may have miscommunicated my concern, which is that the resources involved/required in the acquisition, sequestration, production, and recycling of batteries may ultimately be more damaging than conventional fuels [in the long run]. It is possible that I am wrong, however, it remains a personal point of concern.
this video compares co2 emissions of a tesla vs hybrid vs regular ice car. I think it is an interesting exploration of the topic although I think the presenter had a hard time getting correct data and his data on the EV is more conservative than Tesla's numbers.
I would definitely be interested in exploring this further. It seems probable to me that we won't have a better grasp on this for years yet as EVs are still pretty new and not widely adopted.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEqxaH47DTs
meanwhile i bought a 240v connector for my EV but never paid to have it hooked up because the 120v connector it came with it unexpectedly turned out to be fast enough for my use case.
I tend to get down to about 50% battery on my base model3 after a weekend of errands and it will charge back up to 80% overnight
I realize this new cable design would be more for on the road quick charging - but I think even that is pretty fast currently.
If you have it, you do actually save electricity by using the higher-voltage connector. Just to toss some numbers out, ~85% charging efficiency at L1, ~95% using L2. FWIW.
Same for me. I have 240v mains in my garage, but I’ve never bother to get it wired up because the 120v receptacle has been good enough for my 20mi/day driving pattern. I’ll eventually get a dedicated 50amp circuit installed, but currently I can plug in every 2-3 nights and never think twice about range. Tesla Model Y. I’ve popped into a supercharger a couple times to “catch up” to go from 20% to 60% in ~20 minutes, if I’ve forgotten to plug in several nights in a row, very handy option to have as a back stop.
I don’t think the cable is the problem for the cars today. At a supercharger, I get throttled back from 150kw lrettt quickly, and it seems to settle in at 60kw.
If the cable really is the problem, why not just use a busbar with a couple hinges?
Highway range is the bugaboo that needs to be resolved though. Supercharging gets thermal throttling too quick.
This is where somebody pipes up and says unless it can drive 3,000 miles on one charge with 16 kids in the back whilst towing a 60 foot boat then it is useless for everybody.
The Tesla truck, the only model that made sense of you do any back country/rural driving was the three engine 550mi (if I remember right) version. Even then, I would think a generator would need to be carried (and fuel).
Rural areas don’t have chargers for the most part. That said, I’ve seen some chargers along 395 in rural NV that surprised me.
Until range becomes less of a concern, I’m not getting rid of my Tacoma.
This is why I think the by hybrid market will still win for now. Tesla makes sense for people driving short distances but not really long distance trips.
The hybrid 2022 Tundra is expected to get 20-25/gal which is great for a truck that size. And it was on the radar before my Subaru was totaled - I’ll stick to my Tacoma (paid off).
I see no real solution to the CA no fossil fuel engines post 2030. Our infrastructure can’t handle it. The majority of the state is suburban to rural. I cringe when I see a friend’s posts driving from Seattle to Truckee in their Tesla. The added time for charging.
The start to my recent road trip - Truckee - Ashland; Ashland - port Townsend; the first leg cost the same as the second in fuel prices due to CA gas taxes; but the whole route would have taken 2-3x as long if we had to charge an EV.
GMaps gives me 12hr non-stop from Seattle to Truckee. Add 1hr total stops and it’s 13hr total (I’d stop much more frequently on a long trip like that, prob 15h total).
Using the Tesla planner you need ~5 stops at 20-30m each. Total time is 16 hours. Looks like it would only be slightly longer than gas for myself.
Stock Rivian performing well at Moab. Tesla are a marketing hype company and a major distraction IMO.
https://youtu.be/Yeth5v_5dPM
Regarding the 'could' article about potentially charging batteries faster: the plumbing analogy of a wider pipe/charging cable has to also take into consideration battery design and heat issues, a major BEV problem.
I think we are ~15 years away from safe and viable 100% BEV's before we break out of the affluent local transport virtue signaling markets.
the phrase comes from the unique German WW2 weapon "Sturmgewehr 44" (literally Assault Rifle 44).
It was the first example of the Assault Rifle weapon type with the defining characteristics being an intermediate cartridge (between pistol round and rifle round) that allows controllable automatic fire at engagement ranges further than submachine guns.
Most AR15s cannot be considered 'Assault Rifles' as although they are chambered in an intermediate cartridge, they are for the most part semi-automatic and not capable of automatic fire.
Note that 'Assault Rifle' does not seem to be a ATF defined term, they always use the term Machine Gun for automatic weapons. The term "Assault Rifle" is more commonly associate d with anti-gun organizations as it has become a emotionally charged word
> The term "Assault Rifle" is more commonly associate d with anti-gun organizations as it has become a emotionally charged word
Every game I've played where it is relevant uses the "Assault Rifle" term, and way more young people are familiar with game definitions than anything else. Here is roughly how weapons are defined in games:
Submachine gun - Automatic pistol with large clip.
Rifle - Single shot long barrel higher calibre weapon
Battle Rifle - Burst fire rifle with large clip
Assault Rifle - Automatic fire rifle with large clip
Machine gun - Belt fed automatic fire rifle
Edit: Nothing legal about the above, of course, just noting what the general population would associate with each term. And you can understand why people would be worried about automatic fire high calibre weapons. They aren't useful for anything other than to kill lots of people.
I don't think general population cares about the full-automatic distinction of "assault rifle" because you don't actually need full-auto for the kind of attacks people are potentially worried about.
And afaik the usual distinction for a battle rifle is that it's larger caliber (e.g. as many cold-war standard-issue rifles were)
Just to be pedantic, as we're already in the weeds here, all but "rifle" in your list probably do not use a "clip", they use a magazine. The M1 garand is a rifle that uses a clip, the mini-14 would be a rifle that uses a magazine. Generally.
I understand the point you were making. I do have to ask people, if there's any difference between the Mossberg 464 lever action and the Mossberg 464 ZMB rifle - I mean purely from how scary it is, or whatever.
right, parent commenter seemed to claim that it's a legally clear definition. Which people do all the time, and then don't back up if asked, but still feel the need to make sure to let everyone that doesn't use their definition know that they are wrong. While "assault weapons" at least has been used legally to also include semi-automatics, which muddles the water for general usage quite a bit.
I think every home/car repair that I did in the last year I learned by watching a youtube video. I would argue that not using youtube is actually very very difficult in 2021
The reason that no one makes an issue of it is because he did not kill anyone and is therefore not the one on trial. If he had killed someone it is perfectly reasonable to bring this up. (Also as far as I know he did not illegally travel there or am I misunderstanding? )
He lied to the cops, had an expired CCL and was seen carrying on camera. There are quite a few crimes that could have been charged based on what is known.
So, let's continue to clarify the facts. I went and found the video of the incident, and you're stretching the truth to the point of being disingenuous.
Considering he never even swings it at Rittenhouse, and merely has it in his hand when he tries to stop him running away, that's a real stretch to say he's "trying to beat him to death". I won't argue that trying to stop an armed person by jumping them is a bad idea, but that's not what you said.
That's the same video I linked. He makes contact with the board, yes, but he basically just lands on Rittenhouse. It's not like the After going frame by frame, on the youtube version, though, Hubor does pull his arm back slightly, so I'm no longer as confident that there's absolutely no wind-up.
there is a picture about halfway down this page that makes it look like he is really nailing kyle with the board. it looks brutal, right on his neck. -- but when I watch the video it goes so fast that it could also just be him basically running into him. So.. idk
