What was the overall impact? Did the debate never happening end up deteriorating Mosley's approval?
Disclaimer: IMO free market of ideas does not favor logic, so debate is completely worthless for preaching logic. I advocate deplatforming deliberate bad actors, while still showing some patience while explaining things to those who are still acting in good faith. Also, if you aren't usually very good at explaining things, just steer them towards more eloquent orators - it's better than killing their willingness to listen.
I think if we can steer this burning trash pile into a regulated coop-based economy, with a star-based voting system (I'd settle for ranked choice at this point), whose economy isn't propped up by the cheap exploitation of developing foreign nations, I'll be much happier. While we're at it, solving homelessness and developing more sustainable infrastructures would be great.
Claymore mines are terrifying. Most commonly, though, they are used in large open areas and may be problematic if your home is not rural.
Claymores fire steel balls at a wide 60 degree angle. It's stated that they are guaranteed a kill at 50 meters but can still be dangerous out past 150 meters.
While claymores are often depicted as being laser or tripwire activated, they are most often activated using a clacker detonator held by an operator. They can be rigged to detonate via both electrical and mechanical means, so they can potentially be activated by a variety of methods.
I think you're attributing more grandeur to Apple's decisions than is warranted.
Apple's iPhone was not the first phone to use a touchscreen - that goes to IBM in the 90s. Apple did produce a PDA the same year with a touchscreen, though it used a stylus-based touchscreen. During that time touch tech was still developing. If you follow the overall evolution of touchscreens, Apple actually deployed its touchscreen phone about as early as they could - probably because every other company was also eyeing making one but were waiting until touchscreens were cheaper and more reliable.
It also was not the first smartphone. Again, that IBM phone with a touch screen also had e-mail capability, a calendar, and various other features, and phones being able to access the web and play games along with various PDA functions was almost standard as we got into the 2000s.
The touchscreen rectangle smartphone was already on the way - Apple just grabbed the bag first.
What Apple consistently does is act brashly by deploying a usually obvious future product before the tech is actually developed enough to fully support it. They then sell it at a stupidly high price which trims off who buys to mostly just futurists with rose-tinted glasses on. It's a very effective strategy to get credit for innovation and leading the future while avoiding bad PR, and it fools massive amounts of people.
Apple is a company that is insanely good at corporate strategy. In fact, if there's anything that Apple has truly pioneered, it's the modern predatory, anti-repair, designed obsolescence fashion-tech environment we currently see.
Both Crowder and Shapiro have claimed this. They point out that the Nazi party was the 'National Socialist German workers' party' and claim that's enough for it to be socialist, and then also claim Russia is a communist country.
Yeah, I suspect most guns are obtained unlawfully via two means: theft and undocumented pass-offs. Part of why serial numbers are removed is so the route by which the gun got to someone is obscured. You have someone willing to lawfully buy firearms or burglarize them, dremmel off the serial numbers so they're harder to trace, then sell it off for whatever at a profit.
Also, I think when they say 'removeable serial number', they are absolutely counting dremmel-able numbers on the body. I could see manufacturers being able to embed a copy of the serial number; either throughout body of the part or inside the body of the part. For example: every printer in the US has a signature of dots it leaves on the copies it prints, which allow that copy to be traced back to that specific printer. That would undoubtedly complicate manufacturing, though. You're going from precision milling some billet to all of sudden having to embed some signature into/onto that billet.
Illegalize selling of user data without consent, at minimum.
The majority of online enshittification stems from profit motivation. Removing the incentive will fundamentally change how the internet is used and will likely change it for the better.
You forgot about polymer shortening. During the first synthesis process from petroleum to the usual type of plastic, long polymer bonds are formed which give the plastic its malleable-yet-durable characteristics. During shredding to get the plastic into a more feedable shape (as in feedable through a hopper into an extruder to be melted) those polymers are shortened. This polymer shortening ends up leading to a more brittle plastic, and because of this new plastic beads are added to rejuvinate.
Because of this, recycling plastic inherently requires new plastic in its process, and old plastic is only recyclable for a few cycles until its essentially garbage being mixed into the process.
We are essentially just pushing out the inevitable, which will be that we'll need to dispose of massive amounts of plastic waste that is unusable after a few cycles. I imagine we'll eventually just have to compress this waste into blocks and bury those blocks deep underground like nuclear waste.
I don't think Navalny believed any resistance would be mounted for him - he might have had hope but I don't think he counted on anything. I think he chose to go back knowing he would likely die. He chose to be a martyr to maximize the effect he'd have.
What was the overall impact? Did the debate never happening end up deteriorating Mosley's approval?
Disclaimer: IMO free market of ideas does not favor logic, so debate is completely worthless for preaching logic. I advocate deplatforming deliberate bad actors, while still showing some patience while explaining things to those who are still acting in good faith. Also, if you aren't usually very good at explaining things, just steer them towards more eloquent orators - it's better than killing their willingness to listen.