Kalcifer @ Kalcifer @lemm.ee

All of this user's content is licensed under CC BY 4.0

---

Read more

Posts

9

Comments

209

Joined

2 yr. ago

Hm, I would be very hesitant to say that the voters are enjoying the fact that their representatives are in poor health. Unless you are inferring that jests directed at one side for voting in an individual who is in poor health is "reveling in politicial opponents bad health".

From what I can gather, Biden's victory was due to a more of a strategic vote, than a vote truly for Biden.

I would argue, with a rather high degree of confidence, that this would never occur. If it did, it would certainly indicate a complete degredation in the core functions of the government, as well as the trust that the public has in its operation -- I suspect that a revolution would be imminent. Furthermore, due its unstable nature, I would wager that it would be rather fleeting.

This mindset is not conducive to a properly functioning democracy.

People are being given limited bad choices and choosing the lesser of evils.

What's interesting about this statement is that I interperet it as saying that the candidates that the voters are considering are pre-chosen by some independent third party that the voters have no control over. I would argue that, as it currently stands, in the U.S.A, for example, there is no such gatekeeper -- the DNC or, GOP are not gatekeepers as the voters could choose to simply ignore them, and vote for an independent; however, from what I can tell, the issue certainly seems to be that the general public thinks that they only have two choices so they vote accordingly. This is quite possibly a symptom of the FPTP voting system, but I am not knowledgeable enough on the matter to say conclusively.

The question does still remain whether the public not caring about the competency level of a specific elected official is grounds to restrict their voter autonomy. An argument could certainly be made that voting in a less competent candidate could be a strategic move.

My argument is based on principle; therefore, it would be in opposition to any such restriction whose purpose is to “ensure” the competency of the candidate.

Out of curiosity, what is your justification for removing a natural born citizen clause?

My argument is based on principle; therefore, it would be in opposition to any such restriction whose purpose is to "ensure" the competency of the candidate; however, it should be noted that there is a difference between such a restriction based on competency, and another based on, for lack of a better term, trustworthiness, e.g. a natural born citizen clause (this is not an argument for, or against the natural born citizen clause, I'm simply outlining the scope of my previous statement).

We already have restrictions on other government jobs about how old you can be.

For the sake of clarity, are you referring to the minimum age limits of U.S. government officials?

It’s not breaking new ground or saying anything new that Congress and other elected officials should not be able to serve in excess of 10 years.

My argument isn't that it should be avoided because of it's novelty, I'm saying that, in order to justify such rules, one must be of the belief that the voters are unable to determine the competency of who they elect. Given that a democracy is founded upon the idea of a government ruled by, of, and for the people, it is of paramount importance that the people be able to make such decisions for themselves.

Your example is fundamentally flawed. Plutonium on its own does not create the threat of a nuclear bomb -- plutonium is used in the manufacturing of nuclear bombs. The only threat of plutonium would be the levels of radiation that it would produce, as such, one would need to make sure that the plutonium is properly shielded in order to protect the public.

That being said, I do understand the point that you are trying to make, and I do agree with it -- if one looks at things through the perspective of the non-aggression principle, an argument could certainly be made that there exists examples of items whose mere existence is a threat to the safety of others. For example, stockpiling large amounts of fertilizer (e.g. ANFO), improper storage, and handling of dangerous pathogens, nuclear bombs, etc. These examples, by their mere existence, creates a threat to the livelihood those around it, as such, an argument could certainly be made that they should be regulated by law to ensure the safety of the surrounding public; however, in general, I do not see firearms as falling within this category, or, at the very least, it heavily depends on context. I would look at it from the perspective of whether or not the situation at hand constitutes reckless endangerment. For example, say you leave, unattended, a loaded firearm on a public bench. This could be argued to constitute reckless endangerment as the firearm could easily be accidentally discharged by an unassuming passerby -- since an item in the public domain could certainly be expected to be interacted with by a member of the public -- thereby creating a threat to the safety of others -- the individual whom is the owned of that firearm could thus be considered as responsible for endangering others. Another example would be leaving a loaded firearm unattended in a residence with children around. This could be argued as negligence for the safety of the child, and could be legally treated as such. However, if your firearm is in a location that, on its own, creates no immediate threat to the safety of others, and the only way for it to become unsafe if it is taken from that originally safe location by an individual who is not reasonably expected to interact with it -- e.g. theft, and trespass -- why should one be responsible for that outcome?

Are any of the examples that your provided libre/free and open-source? I wasn't able to find any info for Google's, and Cloudflare seems to only offer theirs for free if you are already using Cloudflare's services. If not the examples that you provided, does there exist any tools that are libre/free and open-source?

How was it handled on Reddit? Did the moderators have to handle it there as well, or did Reddit filter it out beforehand?

I would say that, for this example, an argument could be made that having a loaded firearm that is reasonably easily accessible to children could be defined as reckless endangerment, or negligence. I am generally in favor of punishing such behaviours; however, it should be noted that such a punishment is generally not at all black and white, so it should certainly be mostly left up to a jury.

When I said "responsible" I was meaning "held accountable by the law". Of course one should be stroring their firearms in a safe manner.

Im generally on the side of reposting for archival and continuation.

Unless an instance has been built with the intention of archiving information, I don't think that it should be automatically expected that an instance would be in favor of archiving posts from other platforms -- there already exists services that archive internet data, and they are better equipped to do so. An instance should outline in their rules whether or not they support such types of posts.

Is there an English version of the article?

I personally think that the simplest solution would be to put the STEP files (don't share STLs, as converting to them is lossy) in a git repo (You could, of course, also format the repo with pictures, a descriptive README, etc.). You would then have a myriad of ways to host that repo i.e. Gitea/Forgejo, Gtihub, Gitlab, etc.

As a side note, it is also very helpful if you include the CAD project files. For example, you could add a FreeCAD project file to the same repo; however, if you do share the project files, do note that it's also very helpful to include the CAD software's version information for future compatibilty reasons.

This is Techrights (But with Jews!) – a satire site based on Techrights (But with Jews!)

It looks like the site is satire. But, I'll be honest, it initially had me fooled. How have we gotten to the point in society where one could come to the conclusion that it is perfectly possible for such an article to be unironically written?

Dude should never be allowed to own firearms again.

I would argue that, generally, one isn't responsible for the crimes that another commits -- the perp would have had to have trespassed, and stolen the rifle. What one does on their own property is generally of their own concern. This is assuming, of course, that the reason in which this occurred has no laws on the storage of firearms (whether such laws are justified, or not is separate argument, ofc).