Nobody in the world does that.

The Swiss do, which is where our gun laws originate from. The founding fathers were trying to emulate Swiss gun laws and culture, but they only really managed to solidify the laws not the culture. I’m not saying the founding fathers are the end all be all of legal interpretation, but I don’t think they missed with trying to emulate the Swiss here.

Why do you need guns in schools?

Same reason i think we should bring back shop classes, auto classes, home economics, and stuff like that. There are practical skills that are useful to learn that kids should be given the option to explore. Acting like firearms have no purpose, use, or value is silly. And it gives a good and dedicated space to learn how to use them safely, just like other tools should and did have, and just like guns used to have. Shooting classes in schools are not a novel idea and were actually common at point. Sure, in a coty it might not be the most useful but the majority of the population doesn’t live in cities.

Just make guns act like cars, if it’s fine one way, it’s fine the other too.

I don’t actually think the way we handle cars is fine, it’s actually quite fucked. But my issue is mainly with how we view and treat cars, which is a cultural issue. I have the same gripe with firearms, hence why I suggest reforms that target changing gun culture.

Putting restrictions instead of giving guns away like you’re Brian from Family Guy trying to buy a carton of milk in Texas will drastically reduce the number of people who even want one.

No, changing the way we view and frame firearms as a society will. People often want guns because they either have a legitimate need or because it makes them feel strong/tough/cool/secure in their identity. Adding restrictions mainly hurts the former, while the latter will still go to obtain them but with less oversight and control. The way to actually address the second group is with cultural changes on the perception of firearms. Again, we should look to Swiss gun culture for this.

The government should just mandate that, to own a firearm, you need a license.

In most places you do. The places you don’t are mainly Texas. I’m not arguing we become Texas. If you want to own a firearm in most states you need a Firearm Owner’s ID. If you want to carry your firearm you usually need a Concealed Carry License. This is not what I take issue with. However if this were extended to a firearm owner’s registry, I would take issue with that for the same reasons I take issue with forming registries of people who have done nothing wrong.

Then you have to renew every two years or how long it is, pass a medical exam and on you go.

This won’t work for the same reason it doesn’t currently work with cars.

If you get caught intoxicated while holding or near an unsafe firearm, your license is taken away from you, with all your firearms, for a period of time, or permanently for repeat offenses, like with cars.

You really, really don’t see how this can go wrong do you? I understand the sentiment and agree with what you want to accomplish with this, but this is rife for abuse. And not theoretical abuse, but the exact same type of abuse that has been used to incarcerate a lot of black and brown people in the US. It also is somewhat antithetical to the point of citizens being able to possess firearms if the government can just waltz in and take them away.

If it’s too much of a hassle to own one, most people will just do without.

No because like drugs and prostitution people will just find another way. Legalize all of those things because the way to address those issues is with safety regulation and cultural shifts.

Sure, I can agree with that. But the amount of police corruption is also quite high in Australia. Not saying the US doesn’t have that, but it’s a lot of the same issues just without guns. I mean look at FriendlyJordies getting firebombed for whistleblowing on politicians.

In Paris and Rome most of the police don’t have automatic rifles.

And I think plenty of people would tell and show you exactly why you need a gun in NYC.

America has a lot of government overreach too, don’t get me wrong. I’m just saying that American gun laws were originally meant to be modeled after Swiss gun laws and if we had also adopted Swiss gun culture we wouldn’t have the problems we do today.

Fair, i certainly couldve used better wording

I’m of the opinion that a lot of gun control is ineffective, especially given what guns are supposed to mean. Yes places like Australia have been extremely successful in removing guns, but also look at their policing system and governmental overreach which is honestly quite terrible. I’m of the opinion that the most effective gun control is changing the culture surrounding guns. Bring back (optional) shooting classes in schools, teach kids (and adults) gun safety and actual useful knowledge about firearms. Regulate the access, storage, and use of ammunition. Change the culture from people thinking they’ll be John Wick once they get their glock to people who actually understand that firearms are tools that can be used as weapons, and that they require time, effort, training, and a lot of responsibility to use safely. The cat is out of the bag in the US; guns aren’t going away. Acting like we can remove them is silly, but we can change the perception around them.

I also think we need similar movements for a lot of things, like cars.

P-90 or PS-90

I agree with you but that doesn’t mean everyone does. Whether you like it or not, social media platforms are going to be used. OP is just sharing a tool they built and believe may be useful to others for free. There’s no need to shit on their work just because you ideologically disagree with the underlying services managed. Again, I feel the same way as you but OP is contributing a useful tool to the people; that is seldom a bad thing. I could see myself using this to boost my LinkedIn presence, because it’s one of the few things I have and need in my early career. Would I like to get rid of my LinkedIn? Absolutely. Do I despise most social media platforms (including Lemmy to a degree)? Definitely. Do I appreciate OP for making and sharing this? You bet I do.

Someone linked a story that didn’t have an image (didn’t watch the video) so this may not actually be fake

that’s fine, give me the hammer. I despise this increasingly pervasive online first mentality. I like native applications using native toolkits. They’re installed on my machine for a reason. I don’t want the clusterfuck of HTML, CAS, and JavaScript managing my interfaces; they’re horrible. Just because a monkey eating pop rocks can piss out a Pollock doesn’t mean i wanna buy it. I am absolutely willing to trade some UI/UX niceties for actual fucking applications.

My brother in Christ, im sorry to inform you but the upcoming fiscal crisis are gonna be some of the least of your kids worries. I’m still probably closer in age to you rather than them, but i grew up knowing that money is gonna mean jack shit once the water starts boiling (metaphorically, but hyperbolically realistic). We’re the frogs in the pot and the economy is gonna be the least of our troubles. We’re seeing a global rise in fascism, climate disasters, war, inequity, and yes financial instability. If you wanna help your kids, get involved in the community and organize. Start unions at your work places and march in protests for a better future. I’m not talking about a stronger or more fashy future, but one where we work together. Join or make mutual aid networks where you live. The best thing you can do for your children (imo, coming from a young person) is help set up the future you want for them. I would hope that’s one of community and mutual aid where we help each other not because we expect a reward or are paid to, but because together we stand taller and can hoist up those who cannot stand on their own. I hope i don’t sound too preachy, but it sounds like you love your kids so I implore you to get involved further. The future did not look kind to me when I was a child, and it looks even less hospitable now. We can change that. Direct action and mutual aid are the way forward to a better future imo.

I would actually love a portal miniseries like this

I mean i definitely do in a sense of the word

We have no right to judge intelligence purely through our perception of intelligence, rather we must seek to broaden our understanding and view of intelligence and sapience. Yes there aren’t any other species that are sapient like humans, but then there are very very few species that are like humans. Dolphins and other aquatic mammals are known to have complex social structures and languages, and are very evidently self aware and able to comprehend themselves and their existence. Are we to deny their sapience simply because they don’t have economies of scale or what we perceive as civilization? I would argue that dolphins, elephants, whales, and some birds have formed (by our standards) rudimentary civilizations that are practical and necessary for their survival.

If we expand the concept, i would argue that similar things could be said about insects/bugs if we aggregate the intelligence. Ants have colonized every continent except for Antarctica. They have complex social structures and very clear markers of civilization. The only difference is that they function as a collective rather than as an individual. Are we to say that the Borg are not sapient because their civilization is predicated on the collective rather than the individual? The biggest thing I would have against calling ants sapient is that I am unsure of how self aware the collective is, but is that a necessity for sapience? To what degree is it necessary? Are we basing this off of a model of ourselves, of which only we fit into? Do we even have the right to demarcate what is and isn’t intelligent, sentient, and/or sapient? I would posit no to a lot of these questions, especially given that I also think we are a lot less intelligent and sapient than we think we are. I don’t believe a truly intelligent and sapient being would judge the intelligence and sapience of another being, but simply accept that it is as it is.

Snaps are a closed-source proprietary packaging format that Canonical controls. And they have also altered apt on Ubuntu to download snaps first before native packages. You may be using snaps right now without realizing it, which is also part of the issue.

i would absolutely say there are other sapient species, we just don’t like to think of them as such. Obviously a lot of aquatic mammals come to mind, but I think there’s a very very good case to argue that cephalopods, elephants, some aquatic mammals, and some birds are sapient. Especially by sci-fi rules. I think there’s sufficient evidence to show that elephants, dolphins, and maybe corvids or cephalopods would pass the trial of Commander Data and be considered intelligent and sapient life.

I think that a separate free market that is isolated from the necessities of life can help fulfill human ambition, but there need not be scarcity of the necessities of life.

or a system and culture that isn’t predicated on a fear of artificial scarcity

I prefer multiple systems of scale based on mutual aid, where all shared institutions and resources are collectively owned and managed by the people working in those institutions without the obligation of profit. Then those institutions would cooperate to form larger scale systems that can form the complex widespread support for our technologically advanced society without having to be centrally managed or owned. Necessarily, but not ideally, there would be a limited free market that is completely isolated from the actual organizational structure (no lobbying, no private ownership of necessities, etc.) to allow interaction with non-collectivist states and entities.

generator hookup shouldn’t be one of those, as shouldn’t proper generator transfer switches have plugs designed so you don’t need a suicide cable?