quirzle @ quirzle @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

167

Joined

2 yr. ago

Sure, if you're willing to count my house as a "fence," otherwise the same logic would make you liable if someone breaks into your house and drowns in your bathtub. Of course it's not likely at all, but if someone were to smash down your front door to commit suicide in your tub, nobody's going to argue that's your fault.

I'll agree that leaving a firearm laying in the open in your back yard should be criminally negligent though, so can get behind that much of the pool analogy.

I’m not saying that is the case here, but I’d like to know if it is.

It's not. The reason I called out the specific Nanovault in another comment was that a friend had locked his (the gun bumped into the internal button to change the combination and it had gotten changed and was unknown, another ridiculous design flaw). Rather than mess around with cracking the new combination, I shoved the blade of my pocket knife into it, twisted it, and it popped open. Literally the same amount of effort/force and sticking a key into a keyhole and turning it, but without needing the actual key.

After realizing how secure it wasn't, he decided to test the other one he had before replacing them. Picked it up and dropped it from about waist height onto the garage floor (empty, no gun in it). It popped open, sending little plastic bits from the locking mechanism everywhere.

Yet, these are generally considered to meet the California legal standard of "a locked container or in a location that a reasonable person would believe to be secure."

I disagree. The safe or trigger lock does nothing in this example, making them functionally identical situations. You're literally suggesting making it illegal to be burgled but legal to be robbed, which is an asinine distinction.

And you're implying that not using a safe or trigger lock means no precautions are taken. If the gun is in a locked house already, is that not "secure"? It's as secure as a knife needs to be to not be a liability if stolen and used in a crime. Hell, a locked building is sufficient security for a pyrotechnics company to store their literal explosives.

I also specifically disagree that the barest of minimum (as you're describing it here) is better than nothing (as defined as no safe/trigger lock). A gun locked in one of these in an easily accessible room meets your "barest minimum" criteria, but is more easily stolen than one hidden in a non-locking box in a locked apartment.

I think the better solutions focus on harsher penalties for the theft itself and more laws/enforcement around failure to report thefts.

The "safe storage" laws are usually pretty worthless just on how they define "safe" on top of the actual problem with enforcement. They're not meaningful in any practical way, as anyone responsible enough that they should be allowed to own a gun already locks their shit down.

People who only lock their firearms away because they're required to are the reason shit like Nanovaults are so popular. They're a good-sounding concept, but in reality are held together with flimsy plastic internals. You can literally pry them open with a knife or housekey, or even just slam them onto the ground to pop them open.

tl;dr: Given the lax legal definition of a safe, using one doesn't necessarily add any meaningful security.

As an aside, I have safes for valuables and documents I'd like to survive a housefire...but I don't have any record of owning them. Were they stolen, I don't think it'd be easy to prove I didn't have them.

On one hand, I think there's an argument to be made about this depending on how "secure" is defined, but this has too much in common with the case that promiscuous enough clothing implies consent, so I'll reject that notion outright.

And "robbery" implies force or the threat of force. If somebody has a gun to your head and tells you to give you the gun in your safe or the gun in your nightstand drawer, is there really a meaningful difference? I somebody stabs you then takes your gun while you crawl around bleeding, does are you really any more/less a victim based on where they take it from?

I don't think they're that different. I also don't think there's many (any?) cases where kids are getting their hands on gun where existing laws could/should not be used to charge the owner, as happened with this case. I'm rarely in favor of new laws when the existing ones would accomplish the same goal, were they actually being enforced consistently.

You can keep all the guns you want but if you fail to secure them you’re held liable.

I think support for this depends a lot on where that line is drawn. Failing to keep your admittedly troubled children away from guns is obvious (and covered by existing laws, hence the guilty verdict here). At the other extreme, I don't think having a gun stolen during a legitimate robbery should be criminalized, since that's moving into victim-blaming territory.

I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but a parent in this sort situation has some responsibility both from the failure in parenting and the failure in securing the firearm. Makes for an easy agreement with the verdict in this specific situation, imo.

1. https://www.synology.com/en-au/support/RAIDcalculator or similar is good to easily do these calculations
2. No, but more RAID configurations than not are limited by the smallest size drive. It's a factor to consider, assuming you can't afford to just buy a bunch of disks. I wound up maintaining two separate NAS devices, one of which gets my old, smaller disks.
3. Generally yes, though you'd be surprised how little difference disk speed makes once you get enough of them in an array.
4. I use Synology with various shucked WD externals. I have a bunch of other stuff in my homelab though, so I need the storage to not be it's own project, else I likely would have built something less expensive. I'm sure there will be better suggestions in this thread than mine.

Possible, but given the unwarranted confidence in the earlier comments and the "Couldn’t give a shit" in response to being shown to be inaccurate, I'm not inclined to give the user in question the benefit of the doubt.

No it didn't, given the wording used.

From the article linked in the OP:

“When they wrapped the baby up tightly, they propped the baby’s head on top of the blanket to make it appear like the head was attached when it wasn’t,” attorney Dr. Roderick Edmond said.

Definitely doesn't sound like an "internal decapitation" to me. What a strange thing to lie about.

For things I don't care enough to archive to my own collection, I use a Shield TV with SmartTube, an alternative client that blocks ads, incorporates SponsorBlock, and a few other nice tweaks. Definitely my favorite YT experience of all the ones I've tried.

I don't know how common they are anymore, as Plex has moved toward hosting their own metadata and I've never bothered using any myself, but there historically have been some number of YT metadata agents (e.g., this one) folks could add onto their Plex server and pull the metadata from YT directly. Expanding something like this to also query the Sponsorblock API seems like it wouldn't be terribly difficult.

The harder part would be getting the player to incorporate Sponsorblock to actually use that data to skip the segments. Plex, in particular, seems unlikely to ever try something like this, as their business model is moving more and more toward ad-supported streaming content rather than improving the self-hosted media server that got them popular.

You wouldn't want the Sponsorblock to be part of the download process, but rather the player. Being crowdsourced, it's not immediate and often gets improved/corrected over time, so a video's least likely to have good Sponsorblock timestamps right after being uploaded (when an automated program would likely be downloading it).

We need a Plex/Jellyfin/etc. metadata provider with the Sponsorblock info included. Could keep the data up to date, even after the videos are downloaded.

So what's you're proposed solution? Your directive to "fix that" was a bit light on details.

This is a step in the right direction. The automated reviews will supplement, not replace, the reviewing triggered by manual reports you supported in your initial comment. I'd argue the pushback from police unions is a sign that it actually might lead to some change, given the reasoning the give in the article.

So fix that.

Were it so simple, it would have been fixed decades ago. The difference is that having AI review the footage is actually feasible.

RAID6, one big storage pool. On that one, the bulk of it's usage in a single shared folder for video, though I do have another carved out for a VMware datastore for the homelab, though it's mostly just there for somewhere to stick VMs when I'm updating DSM on the smaller DS9220+ (4x8TB in RAID 5).

I've got a DS920+ on a shelf, and she's super jealous of the Rackstation.

Most retail stores have a 30day refund window…

90 days is pretty standard. But also, retail stores are selling goods. Not wanting to accept goods that have been used for over a month is more reasonable than not wanting to refund a service that's not going to be utilized.

Seriously. I'm running a Synology with 12x16TB. That'd buy a bunch of months of streaming services...but this way actually gives me content to watch that I want to watch.

Wasting time asking dangerous clarifying questions like that is what gets you shot.