So, uh. That glove isn't leather. You don't need to break in a glove that isn't leather, because vinyl isn't going to shape to your hand with oils, etc. the way leather will. Same goes for shoes; unless your shoes are all leather, there's no break in period.

Yes, plastic will melt in the oven. And that's what your glove is. Or was.

I've known entirely too many alcoholics that have had too many wake-up and come-to-Jesus moments, only to go back to drinking as soon as the immediate crisis is over. Change only comes when the alcoholic wants to change for their own reasons, not due to external factors.

Livers are a limited resource. Wasting a donor's liver on a person that us is unlikely to stop drinking--despite their protestations--means that another person doesn't get one. It may seem like a cruel calculus, but it's the only reasonable way to ration a scarce resource. It doesn't matter if alcoholism is a disease, or you think that it's a moral failing; the end result is the same.

Unless all these Gen Z kids actually fucking VOTE it won't matter, because Boomers fucking do.

Oh, you think the choices are trash? Well fucking vote in the primaries then. Get involved at a local level, and start promoting candidates that represent you. Don't just bitch and moan that the choice is between a codger and senile draft-dodger.

Anyone that thinks that it's going to be only 'criminals' that get deported forget that crossing the border without documentation is a crime. Yeah, it's a misdemeanor, but it's still a crime, and the Trump administration is still going to deport them when they can.

Here's what this means:

If you favor access to reproductive healthcare, you NEED TO VOTE IN NOVEMBER.

The GOP will absolutely vote to restrict access to all reproductive healthcare now that SCOTUS has refused to do so.

Some of these are wrong.

Tracing a call is instant. It took longer back in the days when there were physical switches, but that's been a long, long time ago.

Silencers can make a gun nearly as quiet as the movies, in limited cases. Something like a subsonic .22 will be about as lout as a golf clap. A 5.56x45mm rifle will be hearing-safe, but only barely; it's still going to be very loud, and will def. sound like a rifle.

You can shoot some locks off. You're not shooting through the shackle, you're disrupting the locking mechanism that keeps the shackle closed. It's still unsafe; you're going to have ricochet and spall going everywhere.

Under very, very limited circumstances, maybe. Like you need gas to get to work now, get paid tomorrow, and have nothing in your account? Yeah, maybe, but that's an expensive tank of gas for someone that's that short on cash.

OTOH, I can't count the number of times where my former bank processed my paycheck last--even though it went in first--and then hit me with overdraft fees for buying groceries, gas, paying bills, etc. (This was National City Bank; they ended up losing a class action lawsuit about it, but they still made more money from their theft than they had to pay back out.)

IMO, there should be zero overdraft fees; if the money isn't in your account, the charge is declined. All of this shit should be done in real-time, instead of waiting for a merchant to post at the end of the day. This is the twenty-fucking-second century, and it's not that goddamn hard.

Let's say that Mangione committed the crime.

My understanding is that he gave cops a fake ID when they questioned him on reasonable suspicion (the basis of which was a tip from an employee). That is something that yes, he can be arrested for. And he can be personally searched after that arrest. But at that point, he can no longer get a gun out of his bag, and cops have control of it, so he can't destroy evidence/get a weapon from it; so searching the bag should be out at that time. So, my understanding, based on case law, is that they would have needed a warrant to search it at that time, as the contents of the bag aren't related to the reason he's been arrested. You aren't supposed to be able to use a pretextural arrest to search a person's car or belongings (e.g., arrest you for suspicion of drunk driving, then search your car to find evidence of burglaries).

In theory, without the warrant, the search and everything from the search should be out. Even if he committed the crime, and kept all the evidence conveniently in his backpack, it should be completely excluded from the case. I'm sure that the DA is going to argue that there's some exception that allows a warrantless search, but I can't say what that argument will be. If the evidence is allowed in, his defense attorney is going to have to object every single time that prosecutors refer to it, for any reason, in order to preserve the option to claim that evidence was improperly admitted in an appeal. (Which they should absolutely do, if it goes that far!)

Federal rules of evidence is pretty complicated stuff. But goddamn, does it look like someone fucked up bad on a really high profile case.

I'll take, "Laws that violate the 8th Amendment" for $100, Alex.

That's such a fucking stupid take from someone that doesn't even have a grade-school understanding of politics.

The Republicans endorsing Harris don't like her, and they don't agree with any of her policies. They probably do agree with much of the bullshit that comes out of Trump. On the other hand, the Republicans endorsing Harris genuinely believe in America, and in the idea of democracy. They clearly see that Trump is an enormous threat to democracy in the US, and that he's doing everything in his power to break the system that they believe in, even if his specific policies are things they agree with.

Whether I like Bush Jr., or Cheney (either one, really), or George Will, or any other Republican endorsing her, or not, they are still people that believe in the rule of law. Trump does not believe in the rule of law. These Republicans largely believe in letting voters decide, even if they'll jerrymander the shit out of districts. Trump does not. These Republicans don't believe that this country can survive a second Trump presidency, and they would rather lose the Presidency, the House, the Senate, and possibly a few seats on SCOTUS, than watch our democracy die.

IIRC, this was posted earlier today on the lemmy.ml instance, and very, very quickly deleted by a mod.

...Which undermines the central claim.

EDIT: I am wrong about the sample size. Yes, the sample is a little small, but not too far off. They're registered voters rather than likely voters, which is not quite as good, but, again, no terrible.

The poll surveyed 892 registered voters and has a margin of error of 3.2%.

As FiveThirtyEight would say, that's a bad use of polling. That's a very small sample size, and there's no indication that it's representative in any meaningful way.

Even more important, Obama has said she has no interest in being the president; she's not willing to run.

IIRC "books" were a medieval-period invention. Before the common era, everythign would have been scrolls or tablets. The first codices wouldn't have existed until about 100BCE in Rome. So, assuming that this is (roughly) what a cuneiform tablet was saying, I wonder what the actual work used for 'book' was, and what more accurate translation there would be, if we had the relevant cultural understanding?

But, more so than that - the earliest proto-novel that we know of is The Tale of Genji, that dates to roughly the 11th century BCE (Edit: this is a typo; it is definitely CE, not BCE). Which makes the question of what kind of 'books' this is supposed to refer to even more interesting.

Or--alternatively--is it just a shitpost?

This kind of thing pops up repeatedly. There's some big, splashy news about a male contraceptive, and then it flames out, or ends up being vaporware.

The problem is that you need to stop a few million sperm with every single ejaculation; reducing that number by 99% means that you're still risking pregnancy. Severing the ductus deferens (a vasectomy) means no sperm get through; trying to clip or block them means that some can potentially get through. Hormonal BC has the same issue; while it significantly reduces sperm count, it may not eliminate it entirely. (And there can be some really significant negative side effects from eliminating endogenous testosterone production, since hormonal levels need to be pretty far out of whack before there's a really big cut in sperm production.)

OTOH, women have to stop two eggs per month, or stop them from being implanted in the uterine wall. A 99% reduction in fertility for women means that it's very, very unlikely that they're going to be able to get pregnant.

(Yes, women suffer from hormonal BC as well, but some women need it just to be able to live normal lives. It's overall less of a problem than it ends up being for men. And women have the option of an IUD as well.)

Personally, I'm in favor of vasectomy; it's allowed me to avoid having any children for 20-odd years now.

This is why school funding needs to be entirely de-coupled from property taxes, and funded on a per-student basis at a state level.

And why charter/magnet/and any private schools that take any public money need to be utterly abolished.

FWIW, nitrogen asphyxiation is one of the methods that's preferred by advocates of assisted suicide. Done correctly--by which I mean in a way that doesn't allow a buildup of CO2 in your bloodstream--it's not only painless but gives you a mild high. The proper way to do it is with something like a BiPAP, where the air that's being piped in is pure nitrogen, and the CO2 is all being removed immediately so you aren't breathing it back in. Without a buildup of CO2 in your bloodstream, your brain doesn't recognize that you're suffocating.

Have you ever breathed in helium from a balloon and gotten lightheaded? It's about like that.

I'm in favor of the death penalty in very, very rare cases--and this is not one where I would support it--and this is one of the surest, least barbaric ways to execute someone.

There's an interesting dissonance here; he praises Putin for being a strong leader, a good leader, but then he compares himself to Navalny. How does this even work in his mind? If Putin is good and strong, then surely Navalny should have been killed for opposing him, right? And where does that leave Trump, if he's like Navalny?

indicates that this person might groom children for real

But unless they have already done it, that's not a crime. People are prosecuted for actions they commit, not their thoughts.

I wish for one electron to disappear from every atom. The net result would be that all atoms would now have a positive charge.

True, it would not only end all life on earth, but also destroy the entire earth. But everything would be positive.