I'd never heard of STIR/SHAKEN....but after looking into it, supposedly T-Mobile was one of the first mobile carriers to implement it...and I'm on T-Mobile....but for the past several years, I keep getting unwanted spam calls to my cell phone that appears to be originating from very regional local numbers (area codes and number prefixes that are local to my area)...because of that I just assumed that they had to be spoofed since the calls are always an unwanted telemarketing robo call and never involve an actual business that is local to me.

So I don't know how they are still doing it, but somehow telemarketers are causing calls to route through exchanges that are completely local to me.

I think it's too late for this to be useful. Number spoofing is ultra-common these days and most of the unwanted calls I receive are from spoofed numbers that appear to come from local areas.

If we start blocking the spoofed numbers then eventually we'll just be blocking every possible combination of digits that can exist.

What we really need first is better detection and blocking of calls using spoofed numbers.

If answering the email requires writing a book to anticipate all the possible questions or options or complications that might come up, then no it's not disrespectful to call someone instead.

I tried a similar scenario: The phone has a nfc reader built in, so I put the tag on the charger and tried letting the phone read it, but quickly discovered that android can't/wont read nfc tags unless the phone is unlocked, which defeated the elegance of the solution. I hadn't considered buying a standalone reader and attaching the tag to the phones, that sounds a lot more complicated.

Using an Automation APP like Tasker to turn off a Home Assistant-controlled smart plug when the battery exceeds a reprogramming threshold, might be a more reliable method & works for any device.

This is the method I have been using for years and it works great. I use Home Assistant to manage the automation, the Home Assistant client app for Android (you could use tasker for this) to collect the device telemetry to send to Home Assistant (how it knows when the battery hits 85% or drops below 70%).

I do want to point out there is one small downside to this method: your device charger (and I'm using an Anker wireless phone charging stand as my charger) only works for one device. Example, say my personal phone is charged up to 85%, so I take it off the charger, but my work-issued phone needs to be charged, but when I put my work phone on the charger nothing happens and it doesn't charge because the charger is connected to a smart plug that's turned off because my personal phone is charged up.

And job applications!

As much as I would LOVE to see them waste their money on this, we know they are all talk and no action and won't actually contribute anything.

Just because the boss can't spy on their employees

Even this is no longer a valid justification. Activity monitoring software installed on companay provided computing devices used by remote employees has been around for a while and is gaining in popularity. They don't even need physical presence to spy on employees.

So, its even more confusing why corporations are so against the idea of remote work.

They don't need to "enter the war" because they are already successfully planning, funding, and supporting it from behind the scenes.

Not only did they NOT do a recall, they also did NOT execute any kind of customer outreach program to advise about the very real possibility of data loss. And then to just shit all over everyone, they put all the affected products on sale with deep discounts - presumably to sell them as fast as possible before the bad bress became more widely heard.

I don't know anything about how truthsocial works.

Is "retruthed" the same thing as "retweeting" (or whatever that's called now on xitter), or is it closer to "liking" something?

Regardless, trump now thinks he's found a loophole in the gag oder by letting other people post it and then boosting it somehow?

The article was super confusing to me.

No vendor is selling their guns advertising how fun they are to make up.

This is a huge part of the build community, vendors know it, and vendors specifically cater to it. In fact, there in an entire industry built up around supporting and selling to this community. I have no idea how you can make this claim from the position of complete ignorance on the topic.

You are saying that the purpose of a gun is to go in a box. Not a purpose. A shoes purpose is not to go in a box.

Yes, and that's true for the vast majority of them. Most are just display pieces that are never even fired.

Yea let’s get that eneegy out woo! How fun. What are the bullets doing to the targets?

It's not for you to shit on what another person finds fun. That's pretty lame of you and is a textbook ad hominem fallacy. Blanks don't do anything to targets. Neither does laser gear, which is very popular these days for indoor practice. Bullets that hit a target, obvious go into or through the target....which, for the vast majority of bullets fired, is either a paper target or a piece of wood.

People gotta eat. What does the gun do to the animal?

Ideally...kills it swiftly. You're point? Are you forgetting that the only part of the article that I challenged was that the "sole purpose is to kill people as fast as possible"? You love trying to move goalposts and get onto tangents don't you? You do understand that killing-animals is not killing-people right?

Need to stay safe. What happens to the dangerous animal?

Answered this already. The linked article is saying "sole purpose is to kill people as fast as possible"...so why are you continuing to imply that animals are people?

I’m not trying to say it isn’t fun to do that, but it isn’t a gun’s purpose. No vendor is selling their guns advertising how fun they are to make up.

Yes it is, and yes they are. There's an entire community built up around this along with vendors who directly support those communities.

The only thing i am saying is guns are meant to destroy.

Some are. Lots aren't. And even among the some that are, it's not necessarily humans and not always "as fast as possible". I'm not disagreeing that we need to change the way we think about guns and make changes. But that's not the topic of this debate. The topic of this debate is whether the sole purpose of them is to kill people as fast as possible. And that's clearly not the sole purpose. They have a lot of other purposes. I've demonstrated that. Just go look at the statistics. As of 2020, there were about 20 MILLION AR15 style firearms in the US. If the sole purpose for them was to kill people as fast as possible, we'd already be extinct a thousand times over. We're not...because that's not their sole purpose.

I have always thought of it as how graffiti taggers work. They are always tagging over each other's work. The last one to paint gets the most exposure but you can still see remnants of more recent taggers the lay under the topmost. Eventually the oldest stuff just gets covered completely. They don't necessarily pick their canvas because there is other work they try to cover up, they pick their canvas for the location and exposure.

Edits are date/time stamped. My unedited comment included all 9 items in the very first submit. I later made a minor edit to correct some typos and spelling errors. You can see the timestamp of my edit was 7 hours ago. Your replay was posted 5 hours ago....that's 2 hours AFTER my only edit.

Are you just talking about dynamic DNS services for one or a few home servers?

There's always DynDNS, but that's a paid service. I actually discovered that dynamic IP address service was provided free by Google when using Google Domains as the registrar, so I moved a few of my private domains over to Google several years ago to save myself $55 a year.

Unfortunately, Google Domains is shutting down and all registrar services and existing customer domains are getting moved to squarespace and I've not yet been able to determine if squarespace is going to be offering the free dynamic DNS service or not.

That's what used to be called a "Freudian Slip". These days, it it's just standard GOP tactics to testing the waters to measure the amount of support for fascism.

I’m not trying to fight.

Oh really? You taunt me earlier with your "Will you honor the question? What are 6 different uses for guns?"

And then when I reply in good faith with 9 things, you a) completely ignore everything I wrote and b) try to change the focus of conversation from whether guns have only a 'sole purpose of killing people as fast as possible' and into a broader philosophical argument about guns in general being used for destruction.

The wooshing sound of the goalposts you just moved is deafening. You do not discuss in good faith, and now are just guilty of textbook sealioning.

First, let's be clear about something...my originaal comment was challenging the article's assertion that they only had a "sole purpose". That's their quote. If you believe that words still have meaning, then you should understand that "sole purpose" means "one and only one purpose". So I don't need to name 6 other purposes, I just need to name 1 other purpose. But I'm going to smash your naive challenge anyway and give you multiple.

1. From the perspective of the people who built them (the manufacturer), the "purpose" is to sell guns, not to kill as many people as fast as possible. They build what is popular and likely to sell.

2. For the vast majority of people that buy them, the sole purpose is to sit in a box or a case and never be used. People largely buy them the way they buy insurance policies. You buy an insurance policy because if you need it but don't already have it then the consequences are catestrophic. So this is just people getting it before they need it hoping they never have to use it. The reality is that most people just buy them to have them without ever using them.

3. Recreational shooting (not to be confused with target/practice shooting). The modern AR15 is just a fun gun to shoot. This is one of the most common uses. What makes it so much fun? The action is usually very reliable, you can shoot a lot before having to change or reload magazines: It's got the perfect amount of recoil - you can feel it but it's pretty light. Ammunition, compared to other firearms, isn't cheap but also isn't super expensive, and it's also a popular enough cartrige size that it isn't hard to find. It's lightweight and has great balance. It's just a very fun gun to recreationally shoot.

4. Marksmanship and Training (target practice). This is another very common purpose. The AR is well suited to this because of how modular it is. As a platform, it can accommodate a large number of accessories and has a lot of options. Example: longer heavier barrels with more riflings for better distance accuracy, a wide variety of scopes and sighting devices, many options for different sizes and shapes of stocks to accommodate the needs of the owner.

5. Hunting (animals). This is a common use. It's popular because it's relatively light (which means it's not a huge burden to carry it all day hiking/scouting), it's a large enough caliber to be useful for a wide variety of hunting, and because of #4 above, it can be modified to fit the need of the hunter.

6. Defense (against potentially dangerous animals). This is a common use case for me. I do a lot of trekking in the mountainous wilderness of the pacific northwest. I do occasionally come across mountain lions, bobcats, black bears, and even occasionally bull elk/moose who can be aggressive toward humans during some parts of the year (like during mating season). I've never had to shot an animal in defense yet, but I have had to discharge a round on many occasions to de-escalate a close encounter.

7. Defense (against potentially dangerous people). Related to #6 above, an unfortunate part of the modern world affecting our beautiful wilderness and forests. While out experiencing our great natural wilderness, I have come across many illegal marijuana grows in the middle of our state and national forests. I've also come across many inactive or recently vacated meth operations and even one active one. You obviously don't engage, and you get away as quickly and quietly as possible, but there is a very real threat to your own life when coming across something like this. I would not consider not being armed for these scenarios.

8. Show of force. Next to #2, this is probably the most common purpose. To be worn/carried and displayed as a show of force without ever actually being used. People go into a frenzied panic just at the sight of a modern AR15 (I mean, just look at you, your comments, and the comments of a lot of other people here just upset they exist). This is the actual most common use case and fate for a lot of these firearms...just carriedd and displayed as a show of force without ever being used to "kill as many people as fast as possible".

9. Building/assembly. This is an aspect that a lot of people really enjoy - the building/tinkering aspects of the platform. There are so many internal parts and so many parts options, and a lot of people just like to start off with a registered lower receiver and then spend a lot of time thinking about the build, acquiring the parts and then building it out exactly as they intended...only to disassemble/reassemble for the pure enjoyment of it. It's a bit like modle building, only instead of plastic or wood you have the feel of the metal, the sounds of the action moving andd sliding, the smell of the lubricating oil. This is a very common and popular use case and a lot of these are disassembled/reassembled more than they are fired. This one also appeals to me...probably thanks to all the time I spent in the US Marine Corps doing this and now it brings me a sense of nostalgia and is a very pleasant activity for me later in life.

Definitely Agree. I will often pause the television to better hear or track down the source of a barely audible sound...and feel like I can't resume normal activities until I identify it. It really annoys my wife who either doesn't hear it or just isn't as audibly observant...and then I'm annoyed at my wife for having no concern about the bizarre out of ordinary unidentified sound that she is content to ignore.

I don't care whether you said "purpose" or not. RTFA - "sole purpose" came from the article, and that is what I my original top level comment was challenging.

Your making this into an argument about what the legal status of guns should be, and that is a good and separate argument to have, but the entire point of my original comment was just pointing that the article's use of the words "sole purpose" is opinionated and inflamatory (and objectively wrong). "Sole" means "one and only" and so that's obviously ludicrous given that the vast majority of gun owners aren't using them for their supposed "sole purpose".

Draft dodging piece of shit tries telling me, a left leaning veteran of the US Marine Corps, that I am vermin...on veteran's day. Yeah, get fucked, asshole.

Please define your new take in the interpretation of the word "sole".

The actual sole purpose of what most people refer to as an "assault rifle" is just to be a modern, reliable, modular platform that can be customized to fit the needs and use cases of the owner. It's good at that, and so it's good at being customized for a lot of different uses.

The hunting argument you make is dumb. You would need to turn around and argue that any advancement of any produce anywhere that allows it to perform even marginally better than absolutely necessary needs to be undone. The fastest posted speed limit in the united states is 85mph, and yet every modern vehicle can exceed that by a lot...some of them by double. It doesn't mean the sole purpose of the car is to break speed limits.

If you break it down by time used for any one specific purpose, then the primary use case of an assault weapon is to be stored in a box or a case, unused (that is what the vast majority are doing the vast majority of time). I would argue the primary purpose is synonymous to the use case of an insurance policy (something you have in case you need it but don't actually ever use it). The next most common use (by time spent performing in the role) is to exist solely as a show-of-force without even being fired -and that seems to work pretty well because just imagining the appearance of one tends to get people upset and agitated. For the rifles that actually get used regularly, practice is another common use (using it to maintain proficiency with marksmanship skills) and also shooting for fun (which isn't always/necessarily practice) is a common use case. In the past, I have used mine for both hunting and for protection against potentially dangerous wile animals while hiking through the vast wilderness of the pacific northwest - I personally don't like the idea of having to mess around with a clumsy bolt action in the event I might need to fire multiple shots.

From the gun manufacturer's perspective, the 'sole purpose' of "assault rifles" isn't to "kill people as fast as possible", it's to: sell weapons and make profit. The "sole purpose" of a thing is defined by the user...and at least in the united states that means a lot of things other than killing people.

Hey, you're right. I also use my butter knife for a lot of things other than butter, such as: brie, jelly, jam, nutella, spreading mayo, cutting my over-easy eggs, etc. Yeah, it turns out it's useful for a lot more than just butter. It's almost as if it's a multipurpose tool that has many different and acceptable uses. I think you're on to something.

The sub-headline of the article claims there is no purpose for "assault weapons" other than killing people.

each designed with a single purpose — to kill lots of people as fast as possible

Is this article trying to tell me I'm using mine wrong? Because I use mine only for things that don't involve killing people.

Yeah, this was predicted by everyone, long in advance. The surprising thing here is how long they've managed to cling to life. I expected them to be deceased by now. I didn't think they'd last another three years, let alone five.

There were two races in my local school district that I just voted on. I don't even have kids of my own, but it's important to me that the next generation gets the best education possible. Since I didn't know any of the candidates, I was digging up their backgrounds and endorsements and a couple of them were proudly affiliated with "Moms for Liberty"...and that is an automatic 'nope' from me. That group is a toxin with a carefully chose name to sound reasonable. They aren't.

I don't even understand why there is a burden on the part of the insured to have to make a written request for this.

If you have a claim that is denied, the insurer should be required to provide the full details and reasons for the denial automatically at the time of the denial.

State population of California is roughly 39 million. State population of Florida is roughly 22 million. That alone covers 18% of the US population.

For California: see California Family Code, Chapter 2, Section 6250, Paragraph (A) here: https://studentaffairs.fresnostate.edu/survivoradvocate/documents/CA Victim Protection Statutes.pdf

Excerpt from the 'requirements' section:

a person’s allegation of a recent incident of abuse or threat of abuse

For Florida: see 2023 Florida Statutes, Title XLIII (43) Domestic Relations, Chapter 741, Section 740.30. http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&URL=0700-0799/0741/Sections/0741.30.html

Relevant excerpt describing the requirements and process:

(a) Any person described in paragraph (e), who is either the victim of domestic violence as defined in s. 741.28 or has reasonable cause to believe he or she is in imminent danger of becoming the victim of any act of domestic violence, has standing in the circuit court to file a sworn petition for an injunction for protection against domestic violence. (f) This cause of action for an injunction shall not require that either party be represented by an attorney.

In both states, all it takes is the unsubstantiated claim of the accuser on a sworn petition to 'claim they feel afraid'. Funny that you lead with "I'm an attorney" when the process doesn't even require an attorney in Florida. I'm not going to waste my time looking this up for each and every state, but I'll assert that Florida is not alone on the lack of requirement for an attorney to file the motion. I'll also assert that neither California nor Florida are alone in the fact that neither require any evidence beyond the say-so of the accuser claiming they feel threatened. But since you do claim to be an attorney, I invite you to read those state statutes, tell me I'm wrong, and assert that the process cannot be weaponized by the accuser just to make life a living hell for the accused. When was the last time you even heard of someone suffering any consequences at all for filing a falsified petition for restraining order? I'll bet never. I've witnessed several instances of this happing with zero consequences, not against me, but against friends and family) and even after being proven false later in an actual court proceeding, there were zero consequences for the falsified petition even when the financial and reputational damage caused to the accused was substantial.

If you really are an attorney, you must practice in a jurisdiction with stricter requirements. Lucky you. The topic we are discussing is a national issue, not a local-to-you one, so you must consider the reality that not all jurisdictions are like yours.

Sadly, the value of a thing is what the market will pay. You shouldn't be mad at blizzard, you should be mad at all the more-money-than-brains people that can't get in line fast enough to throw their money at blizzard. If it weren't for them, blizzard couldn't get away with that kind of pricing.

What do you even mean? Preponderance of the evidence is the standard used in most jurisdictions.

You're wrong.

or put someone in fear of imminent serious physical harm.

What do you think the legal test for this is? It's nothing more than someone claiming they are in fear.

Most jurisdictions will issue a restraining order solely on the claims of the filer. But if you want to save yourself some time verifying this, just look up state of California (biggest jurisdiction in the US). Word of the accuser is all it takes. Then go look up the state of California guide for bench judges which requires judges to also revoke gun ownership rights for anyone who is the subject of a restraining order.

The restraining order process can be (and regularly is) weaponized, without evidence, by people who just want to make life a living hell for their ex who pissed them off, with no repurcussions for false accusations.

Some people actually believe you shouldn't have your rights trounced without due process of a trial.

The democratic party thought it wasn't relevant in 2015/2016. Turns out they were pretty damned wrong about that.

So yeah, I'd say it's very relevant.

In 1000 years from now (if humanity survives that long, which is increasingly unrealistic), historians will look back on this time period and study it as the largest scale mass occurrence of Stockholm syndrome the world has ever ever seen.

The people supporting trump have somehow been convinced to fall in love with their oppressors. It's mind blowing to be witness to it.

The vote was an attempt to expel without waiting for due process to run its course. There is an ethics investigation that will wrap up in under 2 weeks.

Many of the democrats who voted not to expel did so because they didn't want to see a new precedent set in congress where the body can expel a member without some form of due process. If all it takes is a vote to eject someone, then the party in power would be able to expell at will, and that would be bad for everyone.

Also, republicans were trying to get rid of him as a publicity stunt to look better for the Nov 2023 elections running across the country and wanted to be able to pull this stunt off to make themselves look better to help their regional elections.

The democrat holdouts are eager to expel just as soon as the ethics investigation is complete. Those holdout democrats are playing 4d chess and winning. They made the right call.

Rep. Jeff Jackson explains it nicely here:

https://youtu.be/QEvUmJ4gpWM?si=UbhtJhGhDrKvcRrJ

The vote was an attempt to expel without waiting for due process to run its course. There is an ethics investigation that will wrap up in under 2 weeks.

Many of the democrats who voted not to expel did so because they didn't want to see a new precedent set in congress where the body can expel a member without some form of due process. If all it takes is a vote to eject someone, then the party in power would be able to expell at will, and that would be bad for everyone.

Also, republicans were trying to get rid of him as a publicity stunt to look better for the Nov 2023 elections running across the country and wanted to be able to pull this stunt off to make themselves look better to help their regional elections.

The democrat holdouts are eager to expel just as soon as the ethics investigation is complete. Those holdout democrats are playing 4d chess and winning. They made the right call.

Rep. Jeff Jackson explains it nicely here:

https://youtu.be/QEvUmJ4gpWM?si=UbhtJhGhDrKvcRrJ

"The Thing" (1982)

I first saw this movie at the age of 13, in a very dark and creepy unfinished basement. It was terrifying.

Even after all these years, this movie still holds up very well to modern standards and stands out as one of the best sci-fi horror movies of all time. I just watched it again in October (my designated horror movie month) and it still never fails to make me uncomfortable and on edge while watching.

In the US, copyright is implicit. All work is instantly protected by copyright the moment it is created. Registering with copyright office is optional/voluntary. I think the judge's comments that you are referring to was probably referring to the works where copyright protections were waived by the artists for works placed into public domain (which, on Deviant Art, covers a vast amount).

I'm guessing because by March 2022, due to international sanctions that would have also applied to this Danish beer company, that all businesses headquartered in countries implementing the sanctions against Russia were legally required to cease operations in Russia (so, 18 months ago)...except this beer company didn't - they kept operating and eventually started trying to find a buyer while continuing to operate. Arguably, there wouldn't have been a beer company in Russia to steal if they'd obeyed the laws of their country in the first place.

My standard breakfast (for years) is: 1 hard boiled egg, a large spoonful of cottage cheese, and some fruit (usually a small banana or a mandarin orange). Assuming you hard boiled the eggs in advance, the prep time is however long it takes you to peel an egg.

I'm not aware of anything proven other than diet & exercise. There are a few trending weight-loss drugs hitting the market right now, but from what I've seen they are expensive and come with their own side effects...so for me, it's just doing it the proven old-fashioned way: diet & exercise.