You can't trust Amazon reviews either though.

* Sellers frequently farm good reviews by including cards in their packages that state "give us a 5 star review and get a full/partial refund!"

• Sellers update their listings with good reviews with different pictures, descriptions, etc. which effectively creates a different listing while carrying over a large review count.

* Amazon doesn't allow reviews after 30 days (?) from purchase, so items poor durability will not have that reflected in their reviews

It's a damn shame, but between this broken review system and their incredibly low quality items and quality control, they're not worth the money or headache to use. Especially since most of their products are no name Chinese garbage that are exclusively available on Amazon. They're basically Wish, Tubi, or Alibaba.

Edit: Amazon must've updated their review policy since I've last used them, 2+ years ago. They explicitly ban monetary rewards for good reviews, and I don't see a mention of review deadlines either. The only references I found about their review deadlines is a few Reddit posts from a year ago. So my bad!

If nothing's changed though, they still sell hot garbage.

If they cared more about making our society safer, they'd pay teachers more, build more homes, quintuple minimum wage, make education cheaper or free, actually tax the rich, reign in corpos, reform the police, abolish for profit prisons, make healthcare affordable and accessible, remove money from politics, just to start.

But nah, virtue signaling is way easier and is clearly enough to get them re elected, so let's ban 3D printers baby!

If you read the article, the family got everything they wanted from the lawsuit. $1.8 million, and the police department rehauled their blacklist protocol. Blacklisted addresses expire after one year, and they're verified every time emergency responders are dispatched to one of them. I wonder why similar precautions weren't in place before, although I can see how something like this can get overlooked until something bad happens and consequences occur. We should demand better, though.

What happened was tragic, but it's great that the lawsuit had the best outcome for everyone involved.

Eh, I don't know Apple's intentions but this specific design change isn't that complicated. The lightning port still uses the USB protocol so the firmware will be the same or very similar. The supporting electronics also wouldn't change much, but at most they'd omit/add a few small passives and slightly reroute that part of the circuit to make things fit together. They'd also have to lock down a large production run of USB ports, but any manufacturer would accommodate a customer as large as Apple. They'd need to test fit it with the new phone chassis but that's relatively simple as well. Regulatory certification would also be smooth sailing for a change this simple, since most of what's changing is simply the form factor.

I figure it would take two years before customers would see this design change from the moment engineering was assigned it.

I'm an electrical engineer who works in production if that matters.

More games should use real skyboxes like this. Makes me wonder why they don't.

Why? Nuclear power is the most complex and expensive option of any clean energy source from what I know.

Ahhh yes, but you see, on page 176 §12.4.11 of the EULA it clearly states that by using our products you've given us your consent to rip you off.

The Banach - Tarski Theorm is up there. Basically, a solid ball can be broken down into infinitely many points and rotated in such a way that that a copy of the original ball is produced. Duplication is mathematically sound! But physically impossible.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banach%E2%80%93Tarski_paradox

During my senior year of college, I made a burner Google account for my girlfriend and I to use with apartment/property websites. We needed a place to live after graduation, but neither of us wanted to use our personal email addresses to make accounts because fuck 'em.

The last year of engineering school requires completing a design project, typically for real business owners. My senior design team and I had a weekly video chat with my clients where we gave progress updates on our project.

During my video call the week after I made this burner Google account, the first thing my clients say is "OP, what is wrong with your name? It says something very strange." I had no idea what they meant by this, so I shrugged it off and the meeting continued.

Later that week while I was driving home from class, what they meant finally dawned on me. I forgot to log out of my burner account before joining the video call, and the name I gave this account was "Joe Lickembottom." So instead of my real name shown under my face during this meeting, Joe Lickembottom was.

This may not sound that bad, but one client is a self-made Texas rancher sorta character, and the other is a retired Navy SEAL commander. These people meant business and were dead serious the whole time I worked with them.

But hey, they offered me a job after graduation so they must've not thought too much of it haha

That's a class-act response.

I love how people will blindly support nuclear power plants so strongly that any argument made against them is automatically called propaganda.

My power electronics professor told us the same thing you did, that nuclear power plants are dead because they're too complex and expensive to maintain in the long run, and that renewables are the better choice at this point. Maybe this will change as fusion reactors improve, but we're probably decades out before industrial fusion plants start showing up, if they ever do.

Not to distract from the content of this article, but why is journalism so poor now days? Almost every sentence/paragraph in this article says "she was a victim of childhood marriage," just worded in various ways. I appreciate the background info on the origin of these laws and the the discussion of how widespread this issue currently is, but this article could be reduced to 6 or so sentences without losing any information.

These photos may very well be my new favorite thing on the internet.

Thinking about getting one printed for my wall in the study...

There's no evidence that suggests these photos were posted by Trump's campaign, and BBC didn't mention who posted them despite having talked to them.

I doubt it's just me, but when I read the headline, I assumed that Trump's campaign posted these photos. How else would it be news worthy? "Trump supporters post AI generated photos of Trump in an attempt to garnish support for Trump" is a normal Tuesday activity for these loons.

This "journalism" is just rage bait, in my opinion.

Who is Billy? Who is Mary? What is a "boy ong?" Is the man's name Shazam? Why is she surprised/confused?

If the fingers didn't look good, I'd assume this was generated by AI. But nope! I need answers.

Depending on which modern definition of "militia" you choose, the National Guard either is one or isn't one.

But remember that the Bill of Rights serves to restrict the government from passing laws that infringe on certain rights - so it doesn't grant you and I rights, it instead prevents the government from impeding on some the Founding Fathers felt The People (white dudes) had. It'd be ass backwards to argue that the government allows us freedom of expression, for example. That's a natural right.

Building on that, stating that the 2nd Amendment only applies to the National Guard is a shortened way of saying "the government may not infringe on the People's right to have a government sanctioned and controlled branch of the federal Armed Forces." Anyone with a cursory understanding of the American Revolution will know that this is not at all what the Founding Fathers intended the 2A to do.

Unlike Bethesda, who locks their brand new AAA games with terrible graphics at 30 fps, and that if you don't feel that the game is responsive and butter smooth, then you're simply wrong.

I'd almost bet money that Todd has never played a game at 60 fps or higher.

I thought this thing was a gag at first, but that's actually really clever. I wonder if dogs would hate it.

Most Americans, myself included, don't like giving up personal rights for "security."

To draw a parallel that I figure you'll agree with - far-right rhetoric is on the rise and I think we should do something about it. As much as I disagree with Nazi rhetoric, I absolutely don't think the "solution" to this problem is banning pro-Nazi speech by law. We could easily point to Germany and say "well they had a massive issue with pro-Nazi speech. They banned it, no more Nazi rhetoric! It's that easy!"

The root cause of far-right ideologies (or far-left for that matter) isn't that free speech exists, it's unhappy people radicalized by their living conditions and culture. Germans lived through a terrible economic depression after WWI, where a lot of people experienced homelessness and malnutrition. Fascism gave everyone a job and fewer people starved, plus they stood up militarily to countries that levied the economic sanctions which ruined their economy in the first place. From their point of view, fascism saved them. Fascism didn't happen because the government allowed pro-fascism speech to occur, fascism happened because the horrible economic and world-status of Germany pushed people too far.

Have you thought about what the root cause is behind school shootings and other senseless killings? A cursory understanding of American gun rights and laws, and how they've changed overtime, proves that the existence of certain weapons platforms is absolutely not the root cause. My grandparents could have literally mail ordered full-auto machine guns to their front door, yet school shootings literally never happened. If public access to guns = school shootings, they would've been 100 times more frequent when your grandparents were kids.

Even if we poofed guns out of thin air, the people who would shoot children would still be around. This "solution" does nothing to treat them. It also does nothing to prevent others from becoming as jaded and sick in the head. The end result is still a bunch of radicalized, fucked up people who will lash out at society in other ways besides school shootings. Maybe when the start blowing up schools, stabbing kids, and running them over with huge F-150s, the DNC will start saying "Public access to fertilizer, pointy metal, and cars is the issue! No more fertilizer = no more school bombings! It's that simple!"

You: American exceptionalism; " nah, if it worked ; we woulda already done it!"

Me: I'd rather fix the root cause issue that pushes people to murder children, instead slapping a bandaid over what is 100% a social issue. Maybe we should take real effort to stop climate change. Maybe we should better fund our schools and make college free. Maybe we should increase minimum wage so anyone who holds a job, regardless of what it is, can support themselves and their family. Maybe we should make medical care free. Maybe we should restructure our prisons so they focus on rehabilitation instead of cruel punishment and slave labor. Maybe then, our society wouldn't breed people that murder children because they're so upset and jaded after growing up with zero prospects of having a happy and fulfilling future.

But our politicians would lose power and money if they fixed these issues, so they'll instead say that AR15s are what's murdering babies and if you don't support banning them, then you're pro baby murder. And people like you will gobble it up.

60 years ago, US citizens could mail order guns to their doorstep and shooting clubs were common place in schools, yet mass shootings like we see today were unheard of. Violence in the US has slowly decreased over time, just as it has in other western countries, but gun violence hasn't dropped at a faster rate than that, which indicates that gun control hasn't impacted gun violence. Increased gun control =/= decreased gun violence.

The European countries that people point to as counter examples to this don't have mass shootings or gun violence because gun ownership is nearly or outright impossible. Gun culture is vilified, self defense is basically illegal, and owning a gun (in countries that allow it) requires so many hoops to jump through that it's hardly worth doing. Some people feel this level of government control is a good thing, but it's inconsistent with the US 2nd amendment.

If the goal is to eliminate gun violence, then guns need banned. The US can't do that without amending their Constitution. Gun control that maintains ownership will never eliminate gun violence, so calls for more gun control will never stop.

In order to maintain gun rights and decrease gun violence, people should ask what changed between now and 60 years ago.