Yeah that was also just a shitty phone- big heavy phone that’s a mediocre phone but only needs charging once every few days.

I’m saying make a GOOD phone, maybe 10-12mm thick, and you can get a phone that lasts at least two full days.

For the batteries your outta luck for now due to a SOB called physics.

How so? Give the battery more volume. Bigger battery = more mAh = lasts longer.

Yeah but if you make the battery 3-4mm thicker you double its volume and then you have a phone with 5000-10000+ mAh.

You don’t think ‘this phone battery lasts a week’ is a selling point? Trust me, it is.

What bugs me about this is THEY ARE ALL THE SAME! Flat rectangular phones with no buttons and few ports. Where is the innovation? Where is the experimentation? Where are the different form factors?

Go back to like 2003 and you had all kinds of variety in the market. Some phones had slide out keyboards, some had physical keyboards like blackberries, they were all kinds of different expansion ports and slots and interfaces, and occasionally something totally different like Compaq had a gadget that took different backpacks that bolted on the back to give it extra capability.

Skip 20 years ahead to today, and every phone is the exact same fucking form factor. And so we obsess over millimeters and megapixels and software. There’s no innovation here. There’s no variety here.

The only even slightly interesting development I see is the new flip and book phones, but that technology is being used in the most boring way possible. I want to phone the size of a Snickers bar where I pull the screen out of it from the side and it unrolls as far as I want it to. I want a phone that flips open like a laptop to reveal a keyboard. Or even simpler, I want a phone that’s 4 mm thicker and has a battery that lasts all week. Give that phone a headphone jack and wireless charging, put a little rubber around it to make it indestructible, then you’ll have something interesting.

Until that happens, you have like six manufacturers that are basically building the exact same product. Boring.

Much has been said about the idea of ‘signal leaving UK or EU’. Little has been said about how exactly that would happen.

AFAIK, Signal has no business presence in the UK or EU. IE, no offices, no registered corporate entities. Thus, they (arguably) have no more requirement to comply with UK’s or EU’s regulations than, say, Iran’s or China’s or any other jurisdiction where they do not do business and have no presence.

Signal’s leadership has a record of giving any regional restrictions the middle finger, so I doubt Signal would voluntarily block EU countries. So that means the EU would either pressure Google and Apple to delist Signal (easily worked around, at least on Android, and soon on Apple too as EU is trying to force sideloading) or they’d pressure ISPs to block connections to Signal (more or less impossible).

If EU tried to do that, it’d just create a giant game of whack-a-mole. And people doing real CSAM shit would just move to even more private distributed systems.

Your moment has come!!

I came here thinking this sounds like she might be getting woke-cancelled for suggesting Israel is pure as driven snow…

Khalifa even urged Hamas fighters to “flip their phones and film” executions horizontally in one of her posts.

Nevermind, she can go fuck herself with a cactus.

If you think military fighters executing civilians is an acceptable strategy, you probably deserve to be among those civilians and see how you like it.

This is the answer.

Matrix needs to make it easier to expire or delete messages from the server, but other than that it’s doing a lot of the stuff Signal should’ve been doing years ago. Easy to use multiple devices, easy to get messages on multiple devices, keep chat history in sync, no reliance on phone numbers for identity or single identity servers, good working federation / ability to set up private hosted groups, etc.

It’s a good theory, but why were they shooting at civilian cars then?

I think your theory may make more sense than most (explains the abductions) but it still mostly seems nonsensical.

I think a broad look at Israel’s policies is long overdue in a few areas.
But this action virtually guarantees that won’t happen.

Perhaps nobody overtly wants to ban all guns in the sense of making all guns illegal. There’s always a ‘reasonable’ proposal. But it overall feels like a roll back strategy, like the US tried to roll back communism in the cold war- pick at the edges until there’s none left.

A buyback program IS a ban by the way- it’s just confiscation with compensation. 'You can’t own XYZ anymore so we will confiscate it from you, but we’ll give you some money.

The real issue though is that guns aren’t hard to make and therefore the black market effect will be minimal. Look at illicit marijuana (pre-legalization) as an example. Lots of it was grown in Mexico then smuggled in. Then hydroponic/airponic tech got better and cheaper and instead it was grown in attics and basements closer to where it would be sold. So now the drugs smuggled in are drugs that require lab processing like cocaine or heroin. But if (hypothetically saying there was no legalization) you made home-grow setups illegal, that wouldn’t stop anyone from doing it anyway.

Same is true with guns. For under $500 you can buy a device that turns a half-machined block of metal into the main part of an AR15 rifle. For $5k-$10k you can buy a CNC machine that will turn a solid billet of metal into most parts of a gun. And unlike a drug lab, unlike even a basement marijuana grow op, all these devices can be presented as ‘legitimate use’ with very little prep- just clear the gun CNC file out of the machine and that’s it. Way easier than marijuana (which takes weeks to mature and then must be harvested and packaged). So you could do this in a legitimate front business with a ‘night shift’ crew.

So I argue even if you greatly restrict civilian firearm ownership, the real criminals who commit the majority of gun homicides and gun crimes will have unimpeded access to guns. The same gangs that right now trade in stolen or straw purchased guns, will instead trade in imported or home-machined guns.

Yeah I think indoor farming / vertical farming is going to be the ultimate answer. Much more efficient in every way, including resource use, water, pesticide, etc.

I only know some basics of the whole situation, but I really don’t get this attack. Israel is a modern Westernized nation and enjoys STRONG support, financial and military, from many/most other Western developed nations. They have modern weapons of just about all types.
Israel is accused of some awful shit and stealing peoples homes. From what I can see they’re probably guilty of this.

But I don’t understand how killing a bunch of civilians at a rave is going to overall help the cause. It seems to me like a. it’d give your better-armed adversary an excuse to smack you down once and for all, and b. a good way to make the rest of the world feel like they shouldn’t be stopped in doing so (and if anything, helped in their efforts).

So what is the goal? Is this just an expression of pent up anger? Because it seems a poor strategy to me.

Amen to that. Flying in that game was super fun, especially with the ‘trade lanes’

Pretty sure Halo 1 and 2 were already remastered?

But has a bunch of tracking bullshit and harvest your phone number and device ID and whatnot And of course it asks for location permission so they can sell that too

I think you do me an injustice, and needlessly so.

The US is not ‘just one country’ with the same ideals and attitudes everywhere. We are 50 states, and while there is an overall American culture, each state or even city area has its own local culture, ideals, politics, etc.
I live in a ‘blue state’ (IE Democrat-majority, Democrats are generally an anti-gun party). There’s not a big gun culture here. There are not people with 10 gallon hats and a 6-shooter on their hip riding around in a giant pickup truck with a gun rack. My state has more gun control laws than most in the union.
When I grew up we had no guns or interest in guns. During my whole childhood the only exposure to guns I had was once at summer camp there was an activity shooting .22LR rifles (small caliber), lying down, at targets. And once on vacation we went to a shooting range that was part of a resort.

If we’d had this conversation 10 or 12 years ago, I’d have been mostly on your side. I recognized the 2nd Amendment was a thing that existed, but I saw no reason anybody needed an ‘assault rifle’, I thought gun free zones were a pretty good way to improve safety, and overall a lot of ‘gun culture’ seemed like needless penis extension.

It was actually one conversation that kicked off a change in my position. An old friend of mine and I were getting lunch together. This guy has always been very Republican (pro-gun/conservative party), owns several guns, goes hunting, etc- but we have a lot of mutual respect despite differing worldviews on many subjects. Anyway, as we finished lunch he mentions that he’s going to buy an AR-15 rifle and would I like to come along? I made a dumb joke like ‘damn man, I didn’t realize it was that small, I’m sorry dude’. He just laughed and said ‘You know my deer hunting rifle, the one you said you have no problem with civilians owning? Well it’s actually a lot MORE powerful than an AR-15.’ I started to argue but he said ‘look, nothing I say is going to convince you. So just Google it when you get home, okay?’.
I KNEW he was wrong- a ‘military weapon of war’ would definitely be more powerful than a stupid wood stock hunting rifle like Elmer Fudd would carry. Surely the military wouldn’t be carrying weapons inferior to those of random civilian hunters, right?

So I went home and Googled it. And I found he was right- his .30-06 hunting rifle has SIGNIFICANTLY more muzzle energy than the .223 AR-15 he was planning to buy. The hunting rifle was larger and heavier and in almost every way, more powerful.
I’m usually not wrong about technical things. So I was curious what else I was wrong about on the subject, turned out it was a lot. Not about policy or position, but about provable technical things of how guns work and how deadly they are and whatnot.
So I decided the best course of action was to basically forget everything I thought I knew, and start fresh. That kicked off a good 3-4 week deep dive on the subject, reading articles, watching YouTubes, doing research on both sides of the issue.

This brought about a few basic conclusions. The biggest is that most of the politicians who talk about guns appear to know little or nothing about guns, as many of their gun control arguments are easily disproved on basis of fact. And many of the laws they promote do nothing to regulate the actual lethality of guns, but rather try to describe ‘scary looking guns’ and ban those. For example, my own state’s laws regulate rifles that have ergonomic features like a pistol grip or collapsible stock that have NO bearing on the rifle’s lethality.

I then started doing research into use of force, defensive situations, etc. And that brought a very sobering realization- I lived in a bubble. Violence is not a part of my life (and I prefer it that way). My area is quite safe. But that doesn’t mean I am immune to violent people- and there ARE people out there who ARE violent. Not many near me, but they exist.
And I’d say I’ve done more research than most into what happens in a fight. I’ve seen a lot of videos of defensive situations- robberies, fistfights, assaults, kidnapping, and straight up attempted murder. I’ve seen what happens when people get shot (you won’t find it on YouTube). And I’ve seen how easy it is to seriously harm a human. We live safe lives in civilized society, but on the scale of the world, our bodies are pretty fragile and it doesn’t take much to seriously damage them.

And that’s why I say thought experiment for how to kill someone from 100’ away. It’s why I say that if someone wants to kill people, they will, gun or not. It’s why I reject the logic that removing guns will save lives, because I recognize that gun regulations affect the law-abiding more than the criminals who are doing the most harm.

Point is-- I have done the thought experiment, a few different ways.

Do I want guns in vending machines? No. Is the absolute ideal to have everybody armed? No, the ideal is where nobody needs to be armed. But absent that perfect future, I think civilian armament as a deterrence to criminals works.

oh fuck yes.

Or websites that exist as nothing but a ‘click here to download our shitty app!’ placeholder

And you’re missing the most important part of the point here. WOULD you?
Whether you can kill me from a distance or from up close, WOULD you do so? I wouldn’t. Most people wouldn’t.

There’s a few who would. And a few of them think it’s fun.

You say you can’t kill me from a distance. I think you can, even without a gun. Consider this a thought experiment. You need to kill me from say 100’ away. You don’t get a gun. How do you do it?

Most illegal guns today are stolen or straw purchased, because that’s the easiest and cheapest way of getting them and it requires very little transport.
Let’s assume you made civilian gun ownership totally illegal. The math changes- they get a bit more expensive, they get shipped in from overseas along with the drugs. Or they get made locally- a gun isn’t that hard to make in any decent machine shop. Certainly easier than making drugs. And unlike the drug lab, the machine shop has a legitimate ‘day shift’ use so it doesn’t have to hide in a basement.

But you yourself said there’s 1.5 guns for every person. That doesn’t go away overnight you know. Even if you could get support for broad spectrum civilian disarmament, the criminals won’t give up their guns and they’ll just start importing or making more.

If you want to stop crime, of any kind, you have to stop the root causes. Stopping drunk driving by banning alcohol didn’t work in the 1920s. Stopping gun violence by banning guns won’t work today. You need to go deeper- look at where most gun violence comes from (gangs and drugs), and address that. It means education, jobs, a war on poverty, and it costs a hell of a lot more than just signing a law. But it would actually improve our society.