Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Tofu Golem (tofugolem@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 15-Mar-2025 03:08:51 JST Tofu Golem

   The best part is that Elon's incompetence is the cause of all this, from shoddy workmanship, lethal self-driving systems, lies about legal self-driving systems, a Cybertruck that falls apart if you try to do truck things with it, spending years antagonizing his target audience in Twitter, the Nazi salute, dragging America into authoritarianism, etc.

   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Saturday, 15-Mar-2025 05:22:34 JST feld

     in reply to

     • Yak Herder
     @tofugolem @dch I'd like to believe it so which insurance company is going to drop Teslas? Can anyone provide a real source?
   • Embed this notice
     Mike J👹🐀 🤘🏻 (mikej@mastodon.online)'s status on Saturday, 15-Mar-2025 09:53:54 JST Mike J👹🐀 🤘🏻

     in reply to

     • Yak Herder
     • feld

     @feld @dch @tofugolem Yeah, I want to believe, which is why I don't

   • Embed this notice
     feld (feld@friedcheese.us)'s status on Saturday, 15-Mar-2025 09:53:54 JST feld

     in reply to

     • Yak Herder
     • Mike J👹🐀 🤘🏻
     @mikej @dch @tofugolem Geico hasn't said anything to me 🤷
     
     I did have an issue with renewing a policy through Progressive in South Florida last year but that was because the agent said it was classifying a Model 3 as a "luxury car" and they were not writing any new policies for luxury cars down there at the time. (there's a ridiculous amount of insurance fraud down there)
   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 16-Mar-2025 03:48:31 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     @tofugolem Someone should make a HOWTO on how to make what looks indistinguishable from spontaneous Tesla battery fire to insurance investigators.

   • Embed this notice
     Rich Felker (dalias@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 16-Mar-2025 03:52:20 JST Rich Felker

     in reply to

     @tofugolem So many compounding positive effects. Makes Teslas further uninsurable, and makes owners get rid of their Teslas fearing they'll be accused of insurance fraud when theirs burns.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:49:38 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • divVerent
     • Mistake not ...
     @divVerent @zeri @tofugolem Isn't that website full of proprietary JavaScript and lots of spyware and sends the personal information to ????.
     
     That's more objectionable than $50 to me.
   • Embed this notice
     divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:49:39 JST divVerent

     in reply to

     • Mistake not ...

     @zeri@chaos.social @tofugolem@mastodon.social Sorry, but I get my information from the actual bills.
     
     If the bill says all sales have to go through an FFL, that means a transfer fee of $50 on average for the FFL's cut.
     
     Fun fact though, my current state already has universal background checks using a state website. Those I am fine with, as they do not distort the market. It is a website, you enter personal details and numbers, and get a yes or no, and a receipt to keep.
     
     However various federal bills that had been floated would replace this by a full on private sale ban by forcing everyone into a FFL's shop and to pay the FFL a fee for a service they never wanted. THAT I object to.

   • Embed this notice
     Tofu Golem (tofugolem@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:49:40 JST Tofu Golem

     in reply to

     • divVerent
     • Mistake not ...

     @divVerent @zeri
     Ah, so you think Democrats are trying to ban guns.

     You should get your information from someone other than the Republicans.

     Dems just want things like universal background checks, which is why the repugnance have to lie and claim that Democrats want to ban guns.

     Yes, some Democrats want to ban assault rifles, but for the most part they are just looking for the same things Republican voters want.

   • Embed this notice
     Tofu Golem (tofugolem@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:49:41 JST Tofu Golem

     in reply to

     • divVerent
     • Mistake not ...

     @divVerent @zeri
     How is it political suicide?

     Even a majority of Republicans favor the gun regulations Democrats push. That's why the Republicans and the mainstream media have to lie about what the Democratic position is.

   • Embed this notice
     divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:49:41 JST divVerent

     in reply to

     • Mistake not ...

     @tofugolem@mastodon.social @zeri@chaos.social I strongly doubt that the majority of Republicans is in favor of banning any and all private gun sales (which is what the implementation of "universal background checks" does, as it forces all sales to go through a registered dealer, and these then always will take a cut for themselves).
     
     If it were what it claims to be, it'd be implemented by requiring the private seller and buyer to go through an online background check... basically a website where personal details are entered, a background check is performed, and that spits out a yes or no.
     
     And fun fact, that's precisely how the background check at a gun dealership already works. Just open up that thing to private sellers, and then it can be made mandatory for ALL sales...

   • Embed this notice
     Tofu Golem (tofugolem@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:49:43 JST Tofu Golem

     in reply to

     • Mistake not ...

     @zeri
     We have a few fun collectors throwing that average off.

     My data is decades old, but last I checked, Canada has a higher percentage of armed households.

   • Embed this notice
     divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:49:43 JST divVerent

     in reply to

     • Mistake not ...

     @zeri@chaos.social @tofugolem@mastodon.social I think the Problem is rather that it is mostly a partisan issue in the US. I wish more Democrats were armed, to not have yet another area where one party is totally dominating.
     
     In a way the Dem anti gun stance (as opposed to e.g. a don't care one) is political suicide. This was meant to be the 5th power in the separation of powers... and as such it should never be allowed to become a partisan issue.

   • Embed this notice
     Mistake not ... (zeri@chaos.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:49:44 JST Mistake not ...

     in reply to

     @tofugolem The 340 Million citizens of the USA hold about 398.5 Million guns in their hands ... at some point you have to accept they are all to blame, they are all insufferable treacherous non-entities that let What's his stupid face and Trump do their shit.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:53:57 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • divVerent
     • Mistake not ...
     @divVerent @zeri @tofugolem An "assault weapon" is clearly what heavily armed government agents use on assaults and as far as I can tell, getting such kind of firearm as a citizen has been difficult or impossible already for decades.
   • Embed this notice
     Tofu Golem (tofugolem@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:53:59 JST Tofu Golem

     in reply to

     • divVerent
     • Mistake not ...

     @divVerent @zeri
     And here comes the inevitable backpedalling and more lying.

     I said that other than assault rifles, there has been no attempts by Democrats to ban guns.

     You presented evidence of Democrats banning assault rifles as evidence that I was wrong.

     Why can't you just admit that you're want to maximize the number of deaths of Americans? Isn't that why the NRA takes money from hostile foreign governments?

   • Embed this notice
     divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:53:59 JST divVerent

     in reply to

     • Mistake not ...

     @tofugolem@mastodon.social @zeri@chaos.social The evidence I provided was evidence of Democrats banning pistols and shotguns. Just read the GOSAFE act. Remember that almost every pistol is semi automatic and striker fired nowadays.
     
     Anyway, you do not seem to want to read.
     
     And yes, I agree Democrats did probably not intend what they wrote there. But they did write it.
     
     Then there is the case of my own state having banned literally all rifles and shotguns, not just assault ones (it has a separate assault weapon ban). How did they do that? By first using the term "firearm" to mean handguns only, and having a handgun roster that all FFL sales have to conform to (BTW: introducing federal background checks via FFL would then automatically also ban all private sales of non-roster firearms). Then they change the term "firearm" by a new bill to include rifles and shotguns. Result: we now have a roster requirement for rifles and shotguns, and not a single one is listed on the roster. This was by accident, and the state government has currently suspended this part by order.
     
     Please do not respond until you have actually read the GOSAFE act and realized it bans more than just assault rifles.

   • Embed this notice
     divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:54:00 JST divVerent

     in reply to

     • Mistake not ...

     @tofugolem@mastodon.social @zeri@chaos.social First, I did not say that, my initial point was about private sales and you brought assault weapons into it.
     
     Second, the GOSAFE act explicitly includes many common pistols too.
     
     Third, the recent law passed in my state bans the sale of ALL rifles and shotguns, and Democrats voted for it en bloc. Yes, due to clerical error, just tells me they did not actually read what they voted for (and Republicans are guilty of that too for other bills).

   • Embed this notice
     Tofu Golem (tofugolem@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:54:01 JST Tofu Golem

     in reply to

     • divVerent
     • Mistake not ...

     @divVerent @zeri
     You lied when you said Democrats were trying to ban guns other than assault rifles.

   • Embed this notice
     Tofu Golem (tofugolem@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:54:02 JST Tofu Golem

     in reply to

     • divVerent
     • Mistake not ...

     @divVerent @zeri
     That's an assault rifle ban.

     Now we are getting somewhere.

     When Reagan's assault rifle ban lapsed, the rate of mass shootings when up.

     So you lied.

     This was about assault weapons, and you a lying for the express purpose of getting more Americans killed.

     There, was it really so difficult for you to be honest with us?

   • Embed this notice
     divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:54:02 JST divVerent

     in reply to

     • Mistake not ...

     @tofugolem@mastodon.social @zeri@chaos.social So you lied.Where? I did not say anything to the opposite.
     
     And please do read it - the GOSAFE act definitely does not only cover rifles, but also pistols - even absent clerical error many pistols in common use. Arguably explain to me why gas operated pistols are any more dangerous than recoil operated ones? Both are semi auto after all. No difference.
     
     Another thing of course is defining what "assault" means. It's definitely a hard problem, and covering every semi automatic rifle seems going too far, especially given semi auto is mainly a safety aspect for the shooter (if a bolt action blows up, typically the bolt is gonna fly in your face, a semi auto OTOH has other ways for hot gases to escape and generally blows up less catastrophically).

   • Embed this notice
     divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:54:03 JST divVerent

     in reply to

     • Mistake not ...

     @tofugolem@mastodon.social @zeri@chaos.social
     
     As for bans other than assault rifles, the GOSAFE act is a nice example: bans almost all modern handguns, as they're recoil operated and striker fired, and thus fall under "a recoil-operated system that utilizes the recoil force to unlock the breech bolt and then to complete the cycle of extracting, ejecting, and reloading" but not "is a single or double action semi-automatic handgun that uses recoil to cycle the action of the handgun" (as striker fired is neither considered single nor double action).
     
     But my point isn't that. My point was specifically the ban on private sales by routing them through an intermediary and generating profit for them. One thus can rightfully call most universal background check bills "free money for gun stores" bills. And finding a reference for that isn't hard: https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/715/text -> "It shall be unlawful for any person who is not a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not so licensed, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection".
     
     This provision isn't required for universal background checks, but just is there to cause financial harm. There is literally no reason why the NICS check can't be provided online, specifically because that's what it already is - for gun stores. And even we presumed for the sake of the argument that the internet didn't exist - let's have the police station be a possible (tax funded) intermediary then.
     
     And also, see a pattern? This is primarily not bad intention in those bills, but bad workmanship...

   • Embed this notice
     Tofu Golem (tofugolem@mastodon.social)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:54:04 JST Tofu Golem

     in reply to

     • divVerent
     • Mistake not ...

     @divVerent @zeri
     Uh huh.

     In which bill were Democrats banning gun sales other than assault rifles?

     In which bill were they confiscating guns?

     This should be good.

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:55:36 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • divVerent
     • Mistake not ...
     @divVerent @zeri @tofugolem A "throway VM" can't make proprietary malware JavaScript not malware.
     
     Both ways seem absolutely proprietary then.
   • Embed this notice
     divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 22:55:37 JST divVerent

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Mistake not ...

     @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @zeri@chaos.social @tofugolem@mastodon.social Let people have the choice then - pay $50 or run it on your own computer in a throwaway VM.
     
     And the personal information is still sent to ???? when you do go via a FFL, as the FFL will then ask you to enter your details on a computer running a website with proprietary javascript...

   • Embed this notice
     翠星石 (suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 23:13:09 JST 翠星石

     in reply to

     • divVerent
     • Mistake not ...
     @divVerent @zeri @tofugolem I reckon a "real assault rifle" would be anything good for a governmental assault.
     
     An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle and the government doesn't use it for assaults, therefore it's clearly not an assault rifle.
     
     A good rifle with select fire (semi-auto, 2 or 3 shot auto and optionally full auto (for that nasty crowd of assembled civilians)) would be a real, government approved assault rifle.
   • Embed this notice
     divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)'s status on Monday, 17-Mar-2025 23:13:11 JST divVerent

     in reply to

     • 翠星石
     • Mistake not ...

     @Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @zeri@chaos.social @tofugolem@mastodon.social That anyway, but for the sake of the argument I let that slide and accepted the common mainstream definition of "any black semi automatic rifle".
     
     And yes, in many states the Mini-14 is not an assault rifle and the AR-15 is, even though they have basically the same capabilities and differ mainly by the looks (and well, availability of enhancement parts). One looks like grandpa's harmless hunting rifle, the other looks like scary military.
     
     What would a real assault rifle be? The StG 44. StG literally means Sturmgewehr = Assault rifle - unlike AR which just means Armalite Rifle. Essentially the StG is a machine gun. These are actually regulated very strictly in the US.