I've also experienced the same, except it produced the same stupid code all over again. I usually use one model (doesn't matter which) until it starts chasing it's tail, then I feed it to a different model to have it fix the mistakes by the first model.
We should have given them this support when Russia took crimea, but didn't. The least we can do now is follow through on our agreement.
(Plus all of the other reasons in this thread -- there are fantastic reasons for the western nations to support Ukraine's defense separate from those I'm referring to here)
> 1. Respect the signatory's independence and sovereignty in the existing borders.[7]
> 2. Refrain from the threat or the use of force against the signatory.
> 3. Refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by the signatory of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind.
> 4. Seek immediate Security Council action to provide assistance to the signatory if they "should become a victim of an act of aggression or an object of a threat of aggression in which nuclear weapons are used".
> 5. Refrain from the use of nuclear arms against the signatory.
> 6. Consult with one another if questions arise regarding those commitments.[8][9]
I think the hunters safety courses should be a requirement for everyone, even those that aren’t buying a firearm — and should probably come around the age of 14/15 unless you’re going to be hunting earlier.
I looked up something quickly, to see if it was still true.
In the UK, where you're not allowed to use firearms to defend yourself, home invasions where someone is home is 64%. In the US, where it is permissible, home invasions where someone is home is 27.6%.
You're over twice as likely to be robbed while you're home in the UK as you are in the US. I'm sure the factors are complex, but knowing that you're actually risking your life when you break into a home in the US has to be one of the factors.
Gun registration wouldn’t have done anything to stop this shooting. A legal adult with no criminal record purchased the guns in advance of his rampage. A waiting period wouldn’t have worked, and his registration would have gone through because he hadn’t done anything yet.
I think we'd need to be honest about it and compare individual European countries to individual US states. New York and California are NOT like Alabama, Texas and Florida.
California, Illinois and New York have different populations and different issues than Ohio, Texas, and Alabama for example.
I don't want gun violence, but I 100% want the 1986 National Firearm Act repealed.
I believe fully automatic assault weapons and machine guns should be available for purchase, new, just like any other weapon. (Fully automatic weapons are legal to buy and own right now in the US, if you pay a $200 stamp tax and wait 9 months for the ATF to process the paperwork, but you can only buy "NFA" regulated machine guns that were registered in 1986 or before ... which means they're all collectors items now, and the cheapest machine guns are $15-20k and up).
Most people I know would like to see the existing laws enforced, and don't want anything new passed or put in place.
I know you’re being facetious, but
It’s fun to point out that you can purchase an Apache if you can find a government to tell you one.
The missiles are separately regulated, and likely not legal for private ownership. Missiles and high explosives are licensed and legislated for separately.
Any weapon that’s part of a standard infantry soldiers load out should be available, new from the manufacturer. I don’t have a problem with the background checks that are required for a class 3 weapon, like an m16 or a Thompson sub machine gun (https://dealernfa.com/product-category/machine-guns/all-tran...), but as it stands only wealthy people can still afford to purchase them.
> The missiles are separately regulated, and likely not legal for private ownership. Missiles and high explosives are licensed and legislated for separately.
So we -can- put limits on the ownership of weaponry, then?
I would also like to see my children grown up. I’m aware that insane/evil people will do awful things, but that you don’t suppress the rights of everyone to stop one or two bad apples.
In my local community groups I see people demanding metal detectors be installed in our schools.
This is in response to: An attempted murderer being chased by police, going into a school he doesn’t belong in, barricading himself inside and murdering children.
It’s feel good security theater. If you’re in the middle of a killing spree you’re not going to stop because of a metal detector. If you’re dealing with kids bringing weapons to school, that’s different — but the responses to this event from people local to me are about 90% make-believe security.
To use a real world example: Columbine was a failed school bombing because their detonators didn’t work because the product they used for the detonator’s changed between their testing and when they purchased the final “real” devices.
The guns were intended to keep everyone terrified and in place until the bombs could kill everyone.
A fluke manufacturing change to the product (I think a clock) between their detonator tests and their actual attack is the only thing that stopped nearly everyone in the school from being killed that day. They even set a bomb outside of the school to kill the first responders when they arrived — again, it was a horrible tragedy, but what happened was so much less than what was intended.
The conservatives I know believe everyone should know how to handle a firearm safely, and believe people have a right to defend themselves from criminals, as well as the government. It appears to be liberals trying to disarm fellow citizens and make sure the government has all encompassing powers.
To state that differently: one side appears to believe that if we pass law "A" or ban object "B" that everything will be better. The other side seems to believe "bad" or "evil" people/governments will always exist, and that everyone has the right to actively defend themselves and their families. Including the people that don't like "B".
The "true conservatives" conceit is... Sad. I think it is safe to say that nobody wants kids getting shot. Despite that, most of the conservative voting block has routinely pushed measures that lead us here.
So this, "bad people will find a way" is such a "let's ignore the evidence of literally every other nation" to give up and clutch pearls before swine.
Directly, though, my point is that most of these extreme conservative views are self consuming and on the way out. I thought it was Carlin that said it, but I can't find a direct quote. Basically the world gets more liberal as old views literally die off.
Except the National Guard are actually part of the Army, Navy and Air Force.
"The National Guard is a state-based military force that becomes part of the reserve components of the United States Army and the United States Air Force when activated for federal missions."
It may be organized by state, but it's a federal force.
The 2A exists to give people tools to fight the government (or support it), it's not a gun fetish, it's literally a tool to empower citizens. If you doubt that people armed with rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatics can overcome the Worlds Biggest Armed Forces(tm), then look at the most recent example: Afghanistan (repelled the US -and- the USSR).
I addressed that the US National Guard is part of the US Military. I don't doubt that an armed civilian population can defeat the US Military, but most 2A advocates support the physical mechanisms of tyranny: militarized police, violation of privacy, unlawful detainment. They wait for a civil war that never comes, while supporting the growth of the police state. Is the annual number of gun casualties worth an absolutist 2A position when guns don't actually make us any freer?
Presumably in any situation where individually owned firearms were helpful in resisting the United States military, some significant portion of national guard members would also say “no thanks” when activated. After all, the United States military can already conscript individuals, so any hope of individual firearms being useful for resistance obvious assumes that individuals would say “no thanks” to conscription.
I wish I could find the video but there was a great video by this Army infantryman who explained why there wouldn't be a splintering of the US military and why they would 100% kill US insurgents. Basically before shit hits the fan the National Guard would be mobilized and no longer receiving news. So if the government committed some horrible atrocity, they wouldn't hear it. Second let's say there's a Waco-style siege of an insurrectionist group holed up in a compound with families. Their briefing would say that "the insurrectionists fired on US troops and are using civilians as human shields" not "some of your fellow citizens and their families have rebelled against the tyrannical US government". Our military performs countless atrocities every day with almost zero defectors and yet for some reason people think that if they ever fought on US soil, they would begin falling out of line.
I haven't seen this video, but would like to -- It sounds right to me, which instantly makes me question it, but it does fit the information coming out of Ukraine re: Russian military and local population.
This is exactly the scenario the 2A is designed to thwart.
It doesn't guarantee a win, but it gives civilians a chance to group together to protect themselves. I've got friends from Hong Kong, and what the government did there to a helpless (disarmed) population in order to crush any unapproved views absolutely blew my mind. People being murdered, rounded up and vanished, thrown from buildings, beaten in the streets on a wide scale. If the troops are given false information, and move in to attack, then they're going to be made to pay dearly for every mile they advance. There's a lot more people out of uniform then in it, and I mean a lot -- winning against a mostly disarmed population (in the middle east) is more than we can handle. Attacking a heavily armed population in its home area is suicide for the attacking forces.
That argument falls apart when you realize that the same people adopting the "shall not be infringed" stance also "back the blue" and vote in favor of the physical mechanisms of tyranny. You can't simultaneously argue that guns are necessary to fight against a tyrannical government and then turn around and approve of things like probable cause, qualified immunity, civil asset forfeiture, increased surveillance under the auspices of border security, and increased funding for police. The argument is intellectually dishonest coming from 90% of the people who make it. If they were really interested in "liberty" they would be in favor of ending the drug war and the laws associated with it, but they aren't. They just don't want to admit that dead kids is a price they're willing to pay to keep their fun toys.
You can have multiple echo chambers. Just because they’re different doesn’t mean they’re not all echoing garbage from their biased view points.
Fox News is the echo chamber of the right, while everything else is either extremely left or mostly left echo chambers. CNN, NBC, NPR, ABC,CBS spew just as much trash, however it fits the politics of the left.
It’s all biased, it’s all garbage. The only different is the politics of that channel.
