I don't think it's only just the cap when you look at the gun closely. It's so minimal I think there's a few things that are potentially delicate. Because it's a break action for example it comes apart because well, it's designed to come apart.
Most of them were simply reasonably intelligent and experienced.
I was sceptical but when I took a closer look I too started to think it looked a little fragile.
So I looked it up and then noticed it was special because it's supposedly designed by a youtube gun enthusiast.
Found this: https://youtu.be/GR4jdHe6uiE?t=382
We have a winner.
I think people might be too quick to blame the round. It does also look the same as a jammed round. Same thing happens. If the pressure can't go forward it has to go backward. Literally the meaning of backfire.
There might be a desire not to blame the gun or operator. I guess he's trying to showcase the gun. There's a question of did they recover that round? This seems curiously omitted. Perhaps it's still in the barrel.
Looking around I'm starting to wonder. Guns will, rarely fail. I think for the 50 calibre though it's particularly likely to result in injury from backfire due to the enormous amounts of power and the strain. There's another video of it happening. I would really think twice when firing something like that if the neck is right in the path of blowback.
Similar case:
https://www.military.com/video/guns/rifles/50-cal-blows-up-in-shooters-face/3223685684001
Maybe neck armour as well as some sturdy safety goggles might be recommended though realistically this is probably exceedingly rare.
His hand was also where it didn't need to be. I suspect if he were firing the gun prone with his head leaning to the side well honestly shooting something that can kickback as much as that if it goes wrong you'd not want the other end of the barrel pointing right at you and I suspect the position you see people take on the field would have in this case protected him from injury. As far as I understand you're usually be blocking with your shoulder and your hand further back. I'm not sure that table is a normal setup.
Having looked into the details of this gun it looks like a combination of it being not designed robustly or with safety entirely in mind made worst by the operator being somewhat unaware of this in their approach to use of the gun though in this case for the operator to reliably compensate would really require shielding.
This is from the British saying "If someone told you to jump off a bridge would you do it?" usually followed up the next day by "Why won't you do as you're told?"
If it brings down the Democrats I'm all for it.
https://hist1039-16.omeka.fas.harvard.edu/items/show/51?collection=2
Here's an ancient text message threatening to call the police.
A message from Silla-Labbum and Elani: Tell Puzur-Aššur, Amua, and Aššur-šamšī: Thirty years ago you left the city of Aššur. You have never made a deposit since, and we have not recovered one piece of silver from you, but we have never made you feel bad about this. We have sent many messages to you but, but we have never received a reply. We have addressed claims to your father but we have not been claiming one piece of your private silver. Please, do come back right away; should you be too busy with your business, deposit the silver for us. Remember we have never made you feel bad about this matter but we are now forced to appear, in your eyes, acting as gentlemen should not. Please, do come back right away or deposit the silver for us. If not, we will send you a notice from the local ruler and the police, and thus put you to shame in the assembly of the merchants. You will also cease to be one of us.
That's probably from way before Jesus was born. Here's another:
Saga nor a free-born person, but a slave of the naditu-woman of Samas. Release him so she won't appeal to the king! Since the man was not born (in wedlock) to Ris-Samas, and his (adoptive) mother is a slave girl of a naditu-woman of Samas, why do you want to put him on the roll of the redu-soldiers? Really, the neighbourhood where they live is always being robbed.
I think they messed up. Not going to explain why again. Several things about DVS were distraction though. The only thing that really works is to audit.
I could have written this myself. Spot on.
The only way to truly know that you have good quality ammo is to use it.
It could be a good idea to sell the gun back to the manufacturer so they can examine it and consider the design. Though they could do those experiments themselves and realistically there's no real fix for too much explosives. If you want to break something you will.
Their next step is to tear it down and report on it like it's the Berlin wall.
Creepy as fuck.
He may have lost his temper a bit but I can't really blame him.
Being fair, I'm a specialist in building systems like that and a lot of people were talking out of their asses about what may or may not be a problem. People trying to work out how they did the fraud when the only thing you can really do is go in and investigate.
The annoying thing about the approach of the layman is that they tend to treat suspicion as guilt and have no idea the real ways in which cheating might occur. The election is as suspicious as hell based on surface signs but to really know what happened you have to investigate. A lot of people imagining what's behind the wall but it's like someone trying to write a script about hospital work that has never been in a hospital or worked in one.
As far as Coomer is concerned, I remember there being tentative evidence but a lot of noise as well. DVS definitely has connections that raise conflicts of interest but also it's all just been scrubbed. This is part of a larger problem in providing election services. There's nearly always going to be a conflicting connection in a highly connected world. Now it's hard to rule anything in or out. Google, Twitter, everything else will have removed anything implicating Coomer, destroying any evidence under their "election integrity" procedures. I can't speak much on that issue as a result though I remember at the time though technically it could be fabricated or was not always conclusive there was some potential evidence.
With a big tech that's literally modelled on 1984 and the ministry of information I think Newmax haven't thought their position through. You can really only be agnostic at this point. They've let themselves become entrapped in a very common logical fallacy. Being unable to prove something is not the same as disproving it. They're calling unconfirmed allegations false allegations. I would stick with a presumption of innocence when it comes to allegations but that should not shroud the fact that you don't really know.
I'm guessing that if for example those facebook posts are real and also not just for example someone with the same name you can be sure that he'll have long deleted them and laid low. You can also be sure that any evidence like that would be deleted by big tech.
I think any news outlet should take great caution in reporting allegations and endeavour to properly investigate. However, to now assert that the allegations are false is another misstep. They should have collected and investigated the evidence at the time and should have had a file on it rather than relying on hearsay from other sources.
In the election the focus on DVS was often over the top and overshadowed that there's no single attack vector. People were telling me exploits that didn't make sense as someone that builds systems like this and has to be concerned with exploits. A single component like this alone isn't enough to cheat, it would require integration to make sure all the different parts appear to line up. There was a great deal of naivety about how different parts line up.
Some people, if they saw something they couldn't explain often because they are naive they would say that must be it! Most cheating will happen out of sight and it won't be easy to see up front. Securing an election is challenging and if you get the system wrong you can make an election with holes where you can never be sure of the result to the point that it's broken. People were promoting theories of DVS cheating in ways where they would obviously get caught. I can tell you if I were working for DVS and I wanted to through the election the information I would be imparting as an insider would specifically be how not to get caught and even if I wanted to throw the election I'd certainly not want it done in a way attributable to me, I'd want the least attribution. I'd be pinning it on the others from the start and having them do the heavy lifting.
If this were played properly they could have been embroiled in a blame game among each other. Let them do the work for you.
There are many attack vectors and all of those need to be properly investigated. Steps need to be taken as well to simply check the ballots to find anomalies. You don't even need a theory as to what happened. The accountant always checks the books and if anything doesn't match up then they try to work out what happened.
That said several legitimate problems with DVS have been brought to light and valid concerns that should be investigated. Statements made by DVS themselves basically make it clear that they never should have been used for US elections. They make it clear they're not interested in the count being accurate, integrity, security, etc. From a business perspective that's great. They wash their hands of the problem. It also means they can sell to corrupt countries.
For a country that's supposed to be taking democracy seriously however it should be concerned with integrity on every level including accuracy and security. A provider that does not play their respective part in that role simply should not be certified. Many people have missed the context in which they say they don't get involved in how people run their elections. They're acting almost like a manufacturer of a calculator that doesn't care how you use it. The problem is in this context they're responding not to procedural discrepancies but specifically safety and security of the election results.
They're not wholly responsible but shouldn't be AWOL either.
I find the only way to counter that sometimes is overwhelming force. Gauging it out of them.
The form it takes is nearly always an indefinite prejudice that someone did something wrong and you can detect these positions because all roads lead to Rome and they rifle through each one to try to reach it.
Disconnecting might be one interesting strategy but really it's a duel and they will bring whatever resources they have to bare to resist. It really is just might makes right sometimes.
You see the dance when for example that teenager that was shot. You explain she was about to stab someone. Then they'll say well he should have deescalated.
Putting the work on them to argue their case is often ideal. In this case just ask how.
Sometimes teaching them skills to move from an immobile position helps I think. They're like a tortoise stuck on its back. Saying a normal person would just say I didn't know that. A normal person might redirect their anger at the media. Fool me once shame on you fool me twice shame on me. Don't believe everything you see on the TV. Various subtle or less than subtle life hints.
The most extreme version of them going through the files is with the Chauvin case. You see it on so many levels that no matter what he's wrong and he caused the death. Ask people how and you don't get a single answer. Even the prosecution dances around. When it comes down to it Chauvin did nothing that would apply lethal force in any certain manner so we're really talking theory about incredibly improbable circumstances.
What ever theory it is they present next after you rule out each one it has to be one where the cops killed him. They become ever more remote. Outside of that it's also that they must have done something wrong. They should have done this or should have done that.
If you have studied the situation more than other people and have gotten used to all their dirty tricks you can end up tiring them out as it becomes harder and harder each time they have to grasp at straws.
If you don't know the background very well asking a lot of questions helps. I also believe forcing people to take up the hypothetical of what if you're wrong may loosen things up a bit. Not knowing or basically not having a position is the safest place. It's not just about swinging them to the other side. The first thing is to step back into not having a position on it and realising you need to be more patient before jumping to conclusions.
I deal with this in logic a lot and I've always pointed out that the only true utility in going from base 2 to base 3 beyond concerns about space saving would be something like having a maybe in addition to true and false. Maybe guarantees you can't be wrong (you can't be right either). The innocence of not knowing.
To get through to people you really need a mixture of approaches.
If a guy says the cop shouldn't have shot that teenager trying to stab the other you can often through them off saying what if that were your girlfriend or sister. Sometimes at least.
Sometimes you can only override emotion with another emotion.
The left is bereft of logic. Their favourite is extreme amounts of ethos and pathos.
The ethos however tends not to be used good faith.
As I'm a qualified scientist I've started just shouting them down and it works quite well. I just also point out all the time that they're using conspiracy theories. Letting myself lose my temper at the slightest disrespect really works well on them.
Mocking them, insulting them and also not having to explain yourself works wonders. Someone said that's a straw man fallacy when it wasn't. Didn't bother explaining why it's not, just shut them down with no it's not. Shaming them morally repugnant is very important.
Funnily enough I've just described this effect in a video I made earlier today.
Specifically in talking about the impact of all the black lies has on standards.
The effect is like this...
Person hears of a case where a white cop shot a black person for no reason other than being black.
They have an emotional reaction to this that it's really bad, the cop needs to be punished and so on.
Later the truth comes out that the black person was shooting at the cop.
I might go an tell that person and even get them to accept those facts such as if I show them the footage.
Their response will however still be that it's still as bad. They will maintain the same position.
This is something I've observed many times. Every single black person who died or was beaten that's paraded around by the press ends up being like this.
This really allows all kinds of awful standards to be established as a result. Whatever the truth is takes on the same standard as the lie.
This is really just mathematics.
It has been quite clear that all of these really dampens the impact of the illness:
- Vitamin supplements to combat any deficiency.
- Anti-inflammatory drugs to reduce the damage from inflammation.
- Anti-thrombosis drugs.
- Drugs with some potential for viral suppression either specifically or broadly.
- Anti-biotics that can reduce load on the immune system and prevent secondary infection.
Not all of these may be given at all times but rather based on the patient's condition and circumstances. There's quite a few options available that when taken the mortality rates start to look a lot like that of flu.
Some of these options are known for really any condition where are others are more specific. If doctors were allowed to treat COVID-19 from the start they would have developed a better sense of what works and what doesn't.
They're criminals.
That woman is a lunatic. Absolutely insane. She should just kill herself if she's really so enthusiastic about fixing society because I can guarantee you her absence would be an improvement.
Police (law enforcers) have been a part of any civilised society and are known to have existed even in prehistory because even the oldest text in the world basically describe systems of law that would require enforcement.
As far as anyone can tell basically all major civilisations throughout history have always required police. That's because these as systems of law, of policy, they need law enforcers and police.
Civilisations just do not work at any scale or extent without organisations as well as regulation and that requires things like rules and regulations.
This can often sometimes be not easy to discern because it's quite common for the military to perform this role in civilisation with the police as a separate force often branching out later. It's also something of a default in systems for quorum law enforcement or basically lynching to tend to initially fill that role. As Souza points out, vigilantes. People having guards to protect their goods is ancient.
Honestly though if someone is so retarded at to say what that woman said that the police were only set up in the first place to catch escaped slaves they should not be treated with any respect at all. They should be treated as an idiot. Just tell them they're an idiot. Blank them. There's no point having to entertain that level of stupidity.
She's a fake professor, you should be angry, going to your school's administrating and demanding to know why their staff aren't qualified to teach. You're the customer. You have a right to go absolutely ballistic.
This is where you need your state's militias to protect the facility.
The constitution is a two way contract. You can't rely on it to grant your freedoms without you doing your part.
If you're not in a well regulated militia and ready to actively defend your rights with force you're doing it wrong.
The constitution does not defend you. You defend the constitution.
I would normally say that a process should ideally have multiparty observers where possible.
However the Democrats are so psychotic that I don't believe they would do anything in that position other than use every opportunity to disrupt, try to spoil the audit, interfere and obstruct.
I suggest DeSantis look at Britain's Data Protection Act.
It was made for situations like this based on concerns of a nightmarish bureaucracy. Your bank for example refuses to serve you because they have records mixed up with someone else. It was a concern of not only secrecy in a bureaucratic society but the impact of the introduction of automation which would make errors and require human intervention.
Part of the thinking was around also the topic of discrimination. If you imagine what a human might be capable of then imagine what a machine might do.
The result is that if you're in the UK you as an individual can subpoena any big tech company for not only your data but an explanation of how it is processes including for automated decisions and you have a right to challenge that. If they remove one of your comments for example, they have to tell you why basically and show you the data it's based on.
I wouldn't recommend copying this legislation as it's not perfect and has its own problems but it's worth consideration. It was written a little differently to GDPR which is coming at it from the angle of mass surveillance.
Sadly the UK's heavy technology regulation is why it has done very poorly when it comes to things such as producing social media sites despite having substantial technical talent. The regulation smothers start ups. The UK's lack of things like a 1st amendment neutered it's ability to develop a homegrown digital economy. Lawful compliance is excessively complicated.
For companies like Google however this isn't applicable.
Also you need to read this because it's UK laws social media are imposing on US users with their one size fits all. I remember when it was great, we went online, places offer a US standard of free speech for the most part. That trend is reversing however and basically breaking the internet as these companies want to remain solvent as transnational organisations.
If you look at reddit and click report on something, it has NetzDG or something, a Draconian German law, that's being imposed on US citizens online.
It's kind of funny now because big tech is killing itself with its own over regulation.