I think usually is a very strong and very incorrect word here.

I understand what you're getting at, but I think you greatly underestimate the amount of incorrect assertions that need to happen before a sensible consensus is reached. Historically, in the body of science, we're wrong something like 99% of the time until someone gets it right.

Also, your comment is a straw man argument. The law isn't going to chastise people questioning existing mainstream views, only the ones spouting horribly incorrect information. Noone is saying it will do that, other than you and other commenters who didnt read the article.

Last, are you really questioning the benefit of washing our hands?

> Last, are you really questioning the benefit of washing our hands?

It's dishonest to call his position a strawman then take a strawman position that doesn't have bearing on the rest of your statement.

Along with that, this law was just passed. We don't yet know what it will and won't be used for. You're arguing about what it should and shouldn't be used for.

What's the other pronoun?

I believe it's its own plural :-)

Touche :D

Yeah I agree, but doubt the senate's ability to understand the concept, much less draft regulations that enact it.

Please stop the whataboutism. The devil doesn't need an advocate. Go home.

I don’t consider it whataboutism, I think that many social media companies are clearly in literal violation of googles policies and thus citing policy to shut down truth social gets an “okay bro” reaction.

The moderation is clearly totally arbitrary in where it draws the line regardless of if truth social is or is not worse than other social media platforms. Google is effectively making this up as they go.

The distinction might be: are they at least trying and putting a reasonable investment into moderation, or do they not care / have no plausible plan.

Disclaimer: I have to idea what degree of content moderation Truth Social currently has... but it certainly wouldn't shock me if they have no viable plan or aren't bothering to try very hard.

It is objectively whataboutism, and welcome to the real world.

People pointing out rules that have gone unenforced being enforced the moment somebody unpopular comes along is not whataboutism. The point of the argument isn't admonishing the behaviour of others to cover for your own, which is the point of the whataboutism argument. Whataboutism requires you to avoid the critical question or argument, that is not the case here, the critical question is the interpretation of the moderation policy.

It is essential to discuss how policy has been enforced in the past in a discussion about the fairness of a policies enforcement. It would be very obnoxious if every time somebody cited a similar case to the current enforcement action they were accused of whataboutism and told to live in the real world.

Flak shells are designed to explode into a hail of steel fragments, in order to damage the target. Naturally a rain of steel from the sky is not good if you are standing below.

Allegedly at Pearl Harbour 63 American civilians were killed by anti-aircraft shells falling on them and 34 wounded.

Yup, and the smallest typical flak shell is going to necessarily have a pretty large lethal radius as that is what would get the drone.

It takes a lot less than that to blind everyone in the crowd with shrapnel or kill them, if you’re trying to shoot down the drone flying 20 ft over their heads.

The smaller the kill radius, the more difficult the intercept (fundamentally) - and that’s assuming there is a safe backdrop for any non-exploded shells.

These scenarios are much different than point defense at sea of a warship, or defense of the skies over a military base or city surrounded by mostly empty desert.

Their point I think is that drones can operate outside of the safe operation envelope of a flak canon. I don't think flak canons would be a good anti-drone defense except in really specific scenarios, and drone operators would then just not fly those scenarios.

I was too tired to elaborate, thank you for doing it for me.

I have been using cannabis and it helps a lot on reducing stress for me. I smoke it (hybrid) even during work when I get tired. I felt it help me become more focus on my task. Curious why you think we shouldn’t smoke it and use edibles instead.

Edibles don't have smoke residue which can cause respiratory problems especially with long term use. The only caveat with edibles however is that many get the dose wrong. So ask an experienced psychonaut how much you should eat. Tell them your BMI and then do a little math to calculate the correct dose.

So... Correct?

This article makes do many poor assumptions. Disregard it.

The ground is there to protect humans against an electrical fault by shunting enough current to trip the breaker and shut off the power.

If you feel an electric shock from touching the MacBook while plugged in, there's a fault in your electric system. You need to have a professional electrician come out and look at it, immediately. Delaying or not doing so is waiting for a disaster to happen. You may now be liable too, because you know there's a problem and didn't fix it.

Why? No idea, but get your shit fixed before someone gets hurt.

> If you feel an electric shock from touching the MacBook while plugged in, there's a fault in your electric system.

It means isolation on the charger is faulty.

A properly working modern charger should not have any galvanic connection to the grid.

The isolation transformer is likelly to be defective.