DreamlandLividity @ DreamlandLividity @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

589

Joined

2 yr. ago

No, it works at any point and the local network needs to be compromised (untrusted), the host can be secure.

So it is likely not an issue at your home unless you have weak Wi-Fi password. But on any public/untrusted Wi-Fi, it is an issue.

It does not seem available on mobile. On desktop, it is an extension called "Temporary Containers". You may also want the official "Firefox Multi-Account Containers" for managing sites where you want to stay logged in.

I use Firefox temporary containers. So not only are they deleted 5 mins after I close a tab, but different tabs don't share cookies unless I explicitly allow it or the tabs are opened from one source (e.g. open link in new tab)

Yes, as I wrote earlier it is theoretically possible.

That being said, the subjective here is subjective perception (what you see, hear, ...), not subjective evaluation of that perception. So IMO perceiving that someone shot someone else without seeing what preceded that absolutely does not give you the right to shoot immediately. Objectively evaluating that perception, it could be a murderer, or self defense, or an undercover cop. You do not have the justification to fire unless you see them threatening you, or someone who you actually perceived to not be a threat.

The way I see it, appearing threatening goes with carrying a gun. If you choose to carry, you need to be responsible for your appearance to the surrounding. As an example, aim a gun at a cop and it does not matter whether it is intentional, unintentional or even outside your control due to a medical condition. You will likely be turned into swiss cheese. It is your duty not to point your gun at people. The duty comes with the right to carry a gun. If you are unable to do so, maybe consider not carrying.

Also, I personally like how many European nations only allow concealed carry. This way, you don't create tense and possibly dangerous situations unnecessarily. You only reveal your weapon when you intend to use it.

Finally, what is the alternative to subjective perception? Oh, the terrorists gun was not loaded. You had no way to know but you go to jail, because objectively he was not a threat? That does not make sense.

Both subjective and objective evaluation of your subjective perception is the current requirement and IMO the reasonable one.

Of course, there are always details that could be improved.

You seem to be correct, I misremembered.

That being said, I don't think he would have a valid self defense claim against Rittenhouse after running up to him with a gun and pointing it at him. But I am not sure on this one.

Absolutely no. Gaige Grosskreutz would not be able to claim self defense exactly for the reason I explained. You don't get to claim self defense immediately after assaulting and battering someone. That counts as provocation.

That would be true even if Rittenhouse no longer had a claim of self defense (for example because Grosskreutz visibly stopped attacking), since as I wrote, those are two different things.

You are confusing two different questions here. Whether someone is justified to shoot the robber in the bank and whether the robber is justified to defend themselves if they are attacked (fired upon).

Yes, it would have to be armed robbery to justify shooting at the robber, and even then that alone may not be enough. (IANAL, depends on state, it's complicated)

On the other hand, even in an unarmed robbery, the robber does not have a claim of self-defense if they injure/kill a guard trying to stop them.

I was talking about whether the delivery driver was allowed to return fire, not if the homeowner was allowed to shoot them, which is somewhat unexpectedly not the same thing.

By the way, another interesting and unintuitive law is felony murder. Lets say you rob a bank with a permanent marker, pretending it is a gun. You obviously do not intend to harm anyone. However, lets say a cop shoots at you thinking it is a gun, misses you and kills a bystander behind you. You can go to jail for felony murder, because you created the dangerous situation by committing a felony (the bank robbery) and the bystander died as a result of that dangerous situation.

Rittenhouse is the reason I know about this. Again, legal actions do not ever count as provocation for purposes of self-defense law. So you can make yo mama jokes all you want and still defend yourself.

Also, a provocation from last week does not count. There are detailed rules as to when a provocation stops counting, it does not carry on for a lifetime.

No, it was my fault for wording it misleadingly :) I will edit it to clear it up

I don't disagree. Sorry if it sounded I did. I just did not want to state it with certainty as I am not read up on trespassing laws.

There theoretically could be a situation where two people shoot at each other and both can claim self-defense, but it would be convoluted.

Self defense does not apply if a person legally provokes the attacker. Now legal provocation means committing a crime, not telling a yo mama joke. As an example, if I try to rob a bank and someone starts shooting at me, I can't claim self defense because I provoked them by robbing a bank.

So in this case, depends on if the trespassing is a crime that would count as legal provocation. If not, delivery guy is allowed to return fire. And I hope every sane person agrees it is not a provocation or a crime.

Edit: So in this case, the only provocation could be trespassing, if parking in some ones driveway counted. Which it almost certainly does not as explained in replies to this comment. In addition, I am not sure trespassing would qualify as provocation, this may depend on state laws and the details of the trespass.

Edit 2: Just to make it even clearer, the answer is yes. I believe the delivery driver could legally return fire, but I am not a lawyer.

I use metric, so you tell me weight in kg and I imagine it in half the number of (2 liter) water bottles. Which I have a pretty good intuition for since I often carry anywhere between 1 and 12 at a time.

Of course if I had to suffer imperial, I would like analogies as well.

Then you factor in Germany and Japan going fully back to nuclear and rising demand for energy and realize you’re off by a factor of 20. Let’s be very conservative and say it’s a factor of 10. Since you either didn’t get that or tried to bury it in BS again:

What in the flying fuck are you talking about now. I was criticizing Germany taking offline already existing reactors, not saying to replace renewables with nuclear.

Your argument fell apart, can't be always right. Move on. Stop embarrassing yourself.

Straw man again, really?

Right, comparing safety to the other source that is currently available is straw man, just like bringing up how many lives seatbelts save when discussing seatbelt safety. Cope much.

Sure because that one just ripped an iceberg-shaped hole into your HMS Nuclear Titanic. But keep on shilling.

Now who is strawmaning. Sure, 230 years is such a short time, that nuclear can't even be a transitional source. Also, it is absolutely impossible that nuclear fusion, fuel reprocessing or thorium reactors would be developed to a usable state in such a short time.

Since you seem to have run out of actual safety related arguments other than calling research papers low quality while every source you provided was a wikipedia article, I am done here.

Go an be a fossil fuel shill without even realizing it.

Or do you realize it? Were you speaking from experience before? Have happy fossil fuel bosses of your own?

Published by team working for Bangladeshi Nuclear energy providers and reads a bit like a promotion piece. It is cited nowhere but I'm sure their employer/customer was happy.

Ok, never mind that the people with most expertise and practical experience will inevitably work in the nuclear sector. Lets give this one to you, since I really have no way of knowing if it is honest.

Way better than your 1st article but still drives on assumed probabilities.

Ok sure, its not perfect, but it is pretty good evidence without trying it in practice.

Please explain the relevance pertaining to this discussion.

Since I expected you would scoff at the theoretical papers, here is a practical one. The reactors left behind waste that was buried since before humans existed, yet there are no signs of leakage or discernible signs of health issues caused by it. Now again, sure. We did not exactly have Geiger counters around it to know there were no issues, but it is good evidence there are no catastrophic ones.

Given both theoretical and practical evidence, I would asses the dangers of sealed underground storage to be low.

If you'll look at the corresponding Wikipedia page you'll find these are mostly in developed countries or where they can be detected by developed countries. Surely this is just coincidence and not the tip of the proverbial iceberg...

Excellent, you brought articles with causality numbers yourself. Never mind that not many developing countries operate nuclear powerplant, maybe some countries dump their fuel there. Go ahead and multiply the casualties 5 times over. Add to it the low risk that underground disposal will not be perfectly safe and a relatively small area of land may become uninhabitable in the future.

Now compare that to the yearly deaths cause by air pollution that the coal and gas plants Germany had to reactivate to replace nuclear produce. Then add to it the certain future damage from climate change and tell me that was a reasonable trade-off.

At current (nuclear energy) consumption level the global stockpile of fissionable material is estimated to provide energy for another 230 years.

I never claimed nuclear should be a permanent solution and I really don't want to start another long discussion.

PS: Oh right, almost forgot.

This article is by psychologists. Relevance?

This one might interest you if you intellectually understand nuclear is safer than fossil fuels yet you still feel afraid of it.

Oh no, a professor of astrophysics disagrees. Oh the humanity.

If YouTube is too peasant for you, you can read peer reviewed articles:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1810.02865

https://pubs.geoscienceworld.org/segweb/economicgeology/article-abstract/84/8/2286/20752/Natural-fission-reactors-of-Oklo

https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/20/7804

https://www.science.org/doi/abs/10.1126/science.254.5038.1603

FYI: There are generally five types of toxicities: chemical, biological, physical, radioactive and behavioural.

Toxicity at least in scientific literature only refers to chemical toxicity. What even would be "physical toxicity"?!

To be fair radioactive toxicity stands a bit out because it is (in your wording) much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much much more toxic than anything else possibly including 'forever chemicals'.

If you went to eat unenriched uranium, you would die sooner (as in from smaller dose) from chemical poisoning than radiation damage (uranium is also chemically toxic). People not educated about the actual dangers of radiation tend to greatly over exaggerate its dangers.

Follow up: How long does it need to be safely stored? Please note the number of years.

For how long do you need to store toxic (by your weird definition I guess chemically toxic?) substances like lead?

Since they don't have a half-life, until the heat death of the universe. So why does storage time only suddenly matter for nuclear waste?

Nuclear energy is not cheaper nor safer, you're just kicking a toxic, radioactive can down the road.

Nuclear energy killed fewer people per kilowatt generated than hydro, wind, gas, and coal. Its just people like you spreading misinformation.

Here is a good video why nuclear waste is not the issue people like you make it out to be: https://youtu.be/4aUODXeAM-k

Its been a long time since I finished the story, I mostly played multiplayer

Toxicity I believe is about equal. Storage requirements are a bit stricter for nuclear in terms of storage container requirements, but much much much less in terms of storage space. Overall, it is much cheaper to safely dispose of the nuclear waste then waste from solar power.

Note: radiation is not toxicity.

GTA SA is dope even today :D