Notably, the FBI found it was entirely possible to disable the striker block without the trigger being pulled. A combination of wear, inadequate design, and loose manufacturing tolerances.
They couldn’t get it to fire uncommanded however, unless they bypassed the trigger.
However, they got the gun because it had gone off uncommanded in the holster - with witnesses - and no hands or anything else near it.
FBI found it was entirely possible to disable the striker block without the trigger being pulled. A combination of wear, inadequate design, and loose manufacturing tolerances.
To disable the striker block, they removed the rear plate, applied pressure to lift the slide up and away from the grip, then stuck a punch into the back of the gun to manually release the sear. Maybe this is the beginning of discovering an issue with the striker block, but this isn't simulating a failure that could happen under normal circumstances (specifically jamming a punch in the back and releasing the sear).
Not really, it doesn't have a firing pin block like every other striker fired handgun, it has a weird sear block thing from a hammer fired handgun because it's a shitty hack job conversion from the P250
The P320 does have a firing pin block. There is a lever that physically blocks the striker from moving. When you pull the trigger, the trigger bar lifts the lever, allowing the striker to move if the sear is also disengaged.
None of this is a sear block, or has anything to do directly with the sear. It will prevent the gun from firing if the sear were to fail.
Browsers need to start displaying a count of em-dashes and en-dashes in articles so that we know what to expect from AI generated self-aggrandizing articles like this.
Coldbrew's law states that if an article is written in praise of AI and abstrusely written, then it's probably AI slop, written by someone who holds their own ideas in high enough regard to publish but holds their audience in low enough regard that they won't bother to edit it.
Edit: there it is. `vibe-coded and deployed with Claude Code`
Y'know, you (the general 'you', not you specifically, coldbrewed) feel bad about your writing or blog because of the odd spelling error, or grammar issue, or repeated language, or maybe your points aren't clear enough, or maybe you're talking in the wrong tone...
...and then you read something like this, and realize, "Yeah, no, I have room for improvement, sure, but thank f*** I'm not like this."
The entire post reads like someone high on their own supply. Just when I think they're getting to a point, they pull out every fifty-dollar word and concept they possibly can (explaining none of it, nor linking to any Wikipedia articles to help readers understand) to ostensibly sound smarter-than-you and therefore entitled to authority.
I'm sure there's a law/rule/principle for this concept somewhere, but if you can't explain your point simply, you don't understand the topic you're trying to communicate. This one-off, vibe-coded (RETCH), slop-slinger is a prime example of such.
Pay no attention to the charlatan cosplaying as tenured academia.
Again this piece is not written with GPT, feel free to ask any GPT. Ironically, maybe I should have to increase the appeal of my ideas. I chose my words carefully to communicate my ideas precisely.
GPTs' historically aren't great at identifying their own work; if they could, AI-based cheating wouldn't be the problem it is at present.
Assuming you're the OP, and this is your blog, let me give you some feedback:
* Choosing your words carefully and communicating your ideas clearly are separate skills. You may have chosen the most precise language, but your ability to communicate ideas to as wide an audience as HN is lacking (judging by the comments)
* If you're going to invoke half a dozen rules, principles, laws, and/or proofs in the span of two pages, then you'd better link the associated Wikipedia articles for folks to follow along, at least until you've established a readership baseline. People read blogs for learning or entertainment, and if you're trying to teach a perspective, then you need to include copious links to this material; otherwise, your readership is going to turn into an echo chamber of similar academics (or people cosplaying as such, which is dangerous)
* Your narrative structure leaves a lot to be desired. Are you sharing an opinion piece about a potential AI-energized future? Or are you mocking AI detractors? Or are you digging up old memes? Maybe you're getting into the philosophy angle of capitalism and entrepreneurship? Or perhaps making a judgement about the perceived lack of "startup spirit" of modern workers? I honestly can't tell, because at times it feels like this single piece is touching upon all of them, but not going into anything more than surface-depth about any of them
* As far as reads go, it's a strugglebus. Your blog gives no insight into the author as a person, but the piece reads as if we should already know you and respect your authority on the topic because of credentials. Its sentences meander far too long before stopping, as if you're trying to consolidate complex thoughts that demand a paragraph of context into a single, lengthy, concise sentence - and leaving readers to figure it out on their own time, like a University Professor with tenure.
* Personal nitpick here, but your application of the Pareto Principle to human labor within corporations betrays your inexperience (at best) or your absence of empathy (at worst). More than likely, it displays a profound level of distance from work "in the trenches", and the associated lack of understanding of why corporations are formed, grow, function, struggle, wither, collapse, and die. Talk to more workers, and not just ones at your present company/title/rank/experience level/demographic brackets. Humans are messy creatures, not machines, and assuming they will behave as machines inside other machine-like structures is ignoring the inherent chaos of existence.
Just like the first critique of mine above, the how of communication is just as important as the vocabulary used. Consider your description above with this reworked (organic, AI-free) example:
"Core contributor to mid-size successful startup"
Based on the limited information you gave me in your line, I rewrote it to give off a different tone and vibe. Now, instead of standing atop trophies ("FAANG") and leaderboards ("multi-billion dollar", "1,500 people"), the same description sounds more grounded in reality - a contributor as part of a larger whole, someone who seeks to do the same through their blog as opposed to someone commanding attention based on past glories alone.
This is what I mean when I say you may have chosen your words with specificity, but the way you string them together can have a more outsized impact than the words themselves. It's the same myth that a meal is just the sum of its ingredients, rather than the steps taken, the chaos managed, and the personal touches from experience or wisdom added into it that the recipe didn't cover.
Looks like you felt attacked by OP success/experience.
> This is what I mean when I say you may have chosen your words with specificity, but the way you string them together can have a more outsized impact than the words themselves
This sounds exactly like what you are doing. Your long replies even sound like chatgpt.
Lolz. Not the first time I’ve been accused of botting, but certainly the first time it’s happened in the context of a comment thread. I don’t know if I should savor the compliment that I annoyed you enough to scream into the void of a nested comment thread several layers down without meaningfully contributing to the discourse itself, or be annoyed myself that you’re comparing my bleary-eyed discourse in lieu of sleep to the token-predictive slop of a chatbot.
I had one sentence to work with; you have an entire career to draw from. My straw man rewording was literally just an example of impact through choice of words.
If you’re talking to someone in the startup sphere, the talk of being a founding engineer in a unicorn is excellent! If that’s not the audience you intend to reach, then it’s akin to an automotive designer discussing about how much downforce they generated through a modest angular adjustment to a spoiler design’s leading edge, while in the midst of casual conversation - lost in translation to anyone outside their field.
> In fact in a fully optimized system, once consumers have all of their wants and needs met, they will have zero dollars left over.
What are your parameters for optimization here? If the point is to maximize extracted revenue then this is a reasonable outcome but we could optimize for any number of targets. We could optimize to make the best use of resources, we could optimize for best consumer reviews, we could optimize for the ideal buyer/seller price that makes both entities in the transaction walk away with the best deal for each of them.
But there's this persistent notion in the current business zeitgeist that the only metric worth optimizing is profit maximization and it's one that we should reject. Companies need to make a profit and workers need to take home a salary and that's fine, but we get to build the world that we live in. Living in a world where we care about quality of life and equity in transactions is much more interesting to me than living in one where all we care about is the velocity of extraction from anything that isn't nailed down.
I agree with you 100% on the “should”. Companies should behave well. However, they are still profit maximizing machines, so one way to get what we want is to change the system of rewards and punishments such that profits are maximized while we still maintain a livable planet.
What I’m suggesting is to punish bad behavior and reward good behavior.
Every time a company is hacked, they pay into an annual pool. Every company which isn’t hacked receives money from that pool.
CO2 emissions are taxed, which goes into a pool. This pool is used to pay companies that scrub emissions.
I’m wondering if these incentives can work to increase life expectancy, decrease child mortality, eradicate diseases, etc.
Without better incentives there is no reason not to burn down the planet for a dollar. Of course it is not a panacea, it still requires some social trust.
Open source is a gift within a gift economy. The software may be freely used but the labor needs to come from somewhere, and donations of either direct labor or compensation help ensure that the overall gift economy can continue to function.
My guess is that the presence of lithium in the groundwater is in trace amounts if at all, while the dosing of lithium is in the domain of ~300mg. A casual search for the quantity of lithium in brine from a mine shows a max of 1400ppm for a rich mine in Chile[1] so drinking straight brine wouldn't get you anywhere near the therapeutic dose. Good question!
Software engineer, or IFSAC Apparatus Operator engineer? On the west coast we absolutely refer to our pumping apparatuses as fire engines; when Engine 813 is dispatched from our station to a call we bring the whole vehicle and not just the engine block!
ICE vehicle fires take about 1000 gallons, and the average fire hydrant puts out about 500-1000 gallons per minute. Structural fire engines carry about 1000 gallons and the heavy duty nozzles and ground monitors/deck guns put out 500-1000gpm. This is a LOT of water for a vehicle.
More like 300-400 gallons for your average urban engine. That's enough (with not much to spare) to knock down your average ICE car fire, but it's really there to allow the crew to get to work while they ship a hydrant.
The heat from vehicles isn't distributed spatially across rooftops/walls/trees where the heat might be dispersed; instead the heat from vehicles is concentrated and radiated adjacent to sidewalks (impacting pedestrians) and asphalt (which is effective at storing and re-radiating heat). Nor is it dispersed evenly throughout the day; congestion during rush hour will cause a spike of heat during the hottest part of the day with greater numbers of pedestrians experiencing that heat. Idling vehicles are also running air conditioning, and all of those idling/air conditioned vehicles will be creating an ambient atmosphere where their AC systems will have to run harder to create the same level of cooling.
As you note solar heating likely dominates the overall heating of the city but I would fully expect that idling vehicles contributes meaningfully to the pedestrian and driver perceptions of heat.
BS. Most cars drive on freeways and interstates most of the time, especially the large trucks etc. traffic in residential areas is generally pretty low and it more only during mornings and evenings.
Cars are used only 5% of the time, the rest of the day most of them sit around. They sit around in the sun, heat up and only disperse this heat during the night. Without those massive metal blocks in our streets, instead of large trees, the air could stay cooler during the day and night.
Indeed. And those pesky metal and concrete office buildings sit there empty half the time soaking up heat as well. Not to mention the apartment buildings.
In fact, let's just get rid of the whole city all together. That'll solve the problem.
In a lot of US cities, freeways/state highways are where a lot of commercial, retail, and entertainment destinations exist. The first homes usually aren't that far away either, and a lot of apartment complexes are built directly on state highways.
