redhorsejacket @ redhorsejacket @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

222

Joined

2 yr. ago

That's not really what BFAs do, at least not the models I've used. You seem to imply that weapons with BFAs fitted are still firing real rounds, which are rendered safe by hitting the adapter. That's not true. They are firing blanks, which are cartridges with the bullet and some of the powder removed. Pull the trigger, you get a pop, a flash, and some smoke. Yay!

Pull the trigger again though, and you're very likely to have a misfire because the next round failed to feed from the magazine to the chamber. This is because most semi or fully automatic weapons use some of the energy of a fired round to cycle the action which expels the spent cartridge and feeds a fresh round into the firing chamber. When you fire a real bullet, it actually acts as something of a plug in the barrel for the very brief period of time it travels through it. This allows the pressure to overcome the resistance of the weapon's action, and thus operate.

When you fire a blank, there's no bullet. No bullet means no plug, which means that all of the gas from the explosion just rushes right out the end of the barrel and is not enough to cycle the gun. This, you have to manually run the action, turning your scary big black assault rifle into a quaint bolt action rifle.

So, how do you solve this problem? You make your own plug and stick it on the end of the barrel to redirect all of the energy through the weapon system rather than expelling it. That's a all a BFA is, a metal post matched to the diameter of the barrel that screws into place to plug it. This has the additional positive of preventing anything from exiting the barrel accidentally while firing blanks, which is useful in the training contexts that you often see these devices, because you're often "firing" on other people.

If you were to use a BFA in the manner you describe, i.e. with a real bullet, you're certainly going to damage the shit out of your weapon, and possibly wind up in the Emergency Room because you caught some metal splinters in the face when the end of your weapon exploded.

Then you leave me no choice. I hope you stub your toe. Not the big one. The lil guy. Just remember, you've brought this curse up on yourself.

I mean, if they spill enough Amish blood to the point where sailing and docking is involved, don't you think someone should stop them?

I had almost managed to scroll away before I remembered what soaking was, and now I want an apology for the image that you've placed in my head

Depends on your bunny rabbit stance, I reckon.

Oh my goodness. Thank you for pointing out the different VA. I knew something felt off, moreso than the new character models.

Also, I can't help but feel like the updated Frank wandered out of the basement tier of fighters from a Street Fighter title. I feel like he should be chubbier and ruddier. I can't speak for the direction they took the character in later installments but he always felt like kind of a goober schmuck whose "instincts" finally paid off. I like that characterization, especially in light of the game's satire of clueless Americans.

I'll keep an eye on this one. I never did get that achievement for killing the 53,000 zombies in a playthrough...

Bro, maybe the Wally world clientele is different in your neck of the woods but seeing someone with makeup on, or their hair did (leaving aside the question of quality for the time being...) is the exception to the rule.

Love Ahoy's essays. They're so slick.

Wouldn't the establishment of a new precedent require the Supreme Court to overturn their previous ruling though? I'm not super familiar with the judicial system, so perhaps someone could tell me if I'm on the right track here with this hypothetical series of events

1. Charges filed
2. Defense motions to dismiss case on grounds that police don't have to protect anyone
3. Prosecution counters that that's not necessarily what they are arguing here
4. Judge at the lowest level with jurisdiction decides to allow the case to proceed based on prosecutions argument that they aren't litigating settled law
5. Trial
6. Defendants found guilty
7. Defense files an immediate appeal and a stay of sentence because they still feel like their clients are protected by precedent
8. Repeat until Supreme Court gets a writ of certiorari asking them to take up the appeal
9. If SCOTUS accepts the case, they will decide if A) the defense IS actually protected by precedent in this scenario B) whether previous precedent is constitutional and C) the ultimate fates of the defendents 9.1 If SCOTUS does not take up the case, the lower court's decisions are affirmed and that becomes legal precedent.

Is that a probably series of events? Obviously the suit being allowed to continue and the defendents being found guilty are huge assumptions, but, assuming they come to pass, am I on the right track here?

I'm looking to reenter the dating pool in the near future and this has been on my mind, especially in light of Roe and my location in middle America. Would you be willing to share your personal experience with the procedure? Everyone says it's very easy, but I gotta be honest, it makes me nervous.

Blackgate.com - the remnants of Black Gate magazine, which was published from 2000-2011 and then continued in digital form since. It focuses primarily on vintage literary fantasy, though occasionally the an article will be published in films or new fiction. Of particular note to nerds is the Cinema of Swords column by Lawrence Ellsworth, who fantasy fans may be familiar with as the Principal Narrative Designer for Baldur's Gate 3. I'm not so immersed in the fantasy world that I understand most of what is discussed on the blog, but it is a nice taste of the old Internet, one which might resonate with other fediverse users.

Seconding the other poster. Excellent write up; you distilled every rebuttal point I would have made to OP perfectly.

I'm circle jerking here, but Lemmy needs content so I'm gonna inflict it on y'all. It's just nice to hear that the genesis of this project is a bunch of creative people experimenting and seeing what sticks rather than some suit writing "Live Service" on a white board and circling it a bunch. Maybe a dollar sign or two.

This is a factually accurate statement, but it reads like you're encouraging someone to get into smoking cigarettes, which is (I thought) a myth invented by DARE types. Hey OP, speaking as someone with a 15 year off and on addiction to nicotine, steady on your course, bud.

I feel like this is the sort of thing that should make an appearance on LGReviews' YouTube channel at some point, if it has not already.

I don't understand diddly about the specifics of this article (I'm a member of the normie minority on this site who is neither working in IT, nor interested in the field), but I gotta say, I loved how it was structured and written. In a sea of AI generated crap, or simply parroting talking heads and calling it news, I found the way they laid out the article in two parts ("this is what happened, followed by "this is our subjective opinion on those events based on the wider context") to be very refreshing.

You deserve the hose for this, because now I can't stop thinking about it.

I'm no legal scholar, but my read on Thomas is that he is, at the end of the day, a constitutional originalist. He is also a scumbag, but the opinions of his that I've read tend towards similar things: i.e. what does the Constitution/Founding Fathers say about this issue? Of course, most of the time, that ends up generating some wacko opinions because he's generally unwilling to deviate from at 1700s era mindset. In fact, he seems to immerse himself in that mindset in order to form his opinions.

For example, if you read the majority opinion he wrote, Thomas defines the case very narrowly on Constitutional grounds. Basically, the payday loans companies argue that the consumer protection agency is in violation of the Constitution because, unlike most other federal agencies, its director is imbued (by Congress, mind you) with the power to withdraw up to a stuatory cap of funds from the Federal Reserve every year "as [they] determine fit to meet the agencies operating expenses". The loan companies say that this is in violation with the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, which states, " no money shall be drawn from the Treasury except in consequence of Appropriations made by Law".

So, Thomas's approach to this disagreement is to determine what an "Appropriation" is, as it might have been defined by the people who wrote the clause. To do so, he, I shit you not, consults a dictionary from the period, like the intro to a lazy term paper ("Merriam-Webster defines appropriation as...). He also gets into the historical case law of Britain, rather extensively, as he believes (probably accurately, frankly) that that's the best way to understand what the authors of the constitutional had conceived as they wrote the document.

After all of this, he winds up with several examples of executive agencies which do/did not fund themselves via the standard appropriations bill process (Customs Offices and Post Offices being the primary examples used). So, he concludes that it's clear that the Founding Fathers had a broader view of how to find the government than ONLY annual appropriations bills, even if the literal text seems to indicate otherwise.

Also, he points out that the whole thing kinda falls apart in the sense that the creation of this agency was an act of Congress, with stuatory funding regulations drawn up by Congress, which was then signed by Obama into law. So, Congress made a law that said this particular agency is allowed to bypass the appropriations clause in x y z ways. Thomas has a stack of historical records which show that this was something the founders not only were aware of, but actively sanctioned via how the Post Office and Customs offices were set up at their establishment. So, he has no choice but to conclude that this agency is in line with what Jefferson et al had in mind. Thus, tough shit payday loans, bribe a congressman to change the law because ain't shit can be done from a judicial perspective. Which, I imagine is probably what Thomas told these companies' bag men when they showed up to secure his opinion.

Thank you for your service

As a small, optimistic caveat to the above, Biden's pardon does work for anyone who was charged in Washington DC since they don't have a state body representing them. So, yes, typically anyone with a federal marijuana charge is also likely the subject of many more serious charges, there is a population of people that may have received immediate relief at the time, which is good.