What do you mean by demonstrated intent? (I assume something like observed effects compared to your estimation of other effects he could have achieved.)
Hm~ I'm curious what you'd think about the pilots from that sketch then (I understand that it's sufficiently out-of-context that it might be hard to extrapolate there or back, but I'm still curious).
You might enjoy https://yewtu.be/watch?v=XfLdFZ4my9g and it's IMO somewhat relevant ~here: it demonstrates that literal contents of speech is not what is communicated. Sadly this means that unless one assumes good faith of the speaker, one can't really judge what they want to convey other than by looking at what effect it has, lest the estimate be ~easily manipulatable :(
Sure, but if there's an open vent in the tank, and there is noticeable sound coming from the vent, then I'd assume that it's at atmospheric pressure and thus can be punctured without much risk (assuming nonsparking tooling and/or long duration venting upside down so that it's unlikely to flash). I wonder whether the warning is trying to warn me of some remainign risk that I don't see or whether it's (overly) simplified.
The thing that caused me to wonder now was a shaving cream can, where I could test the pressure inside by deforming it with my fingers first.
I also saw such a warning on camping gas bottles (some mixture of propane and butane), which did have a way of ensuring they're empty provided: there's a plastic shim you can push into the valve to permanently open it (so that you can vent the bottle after you used up the gas). In such cases I don't really see a reason not to amend it to say "don't puncture unless the shim has been inserted for a few minutes".
@freemo@jenny_wu Taken very literally, "X should be murdered" is not a threat: it's simply a statement about a world you'd prefer to live in. Obviously that approach makes no sense, because then well-understood codes speech becomes a way to skirt around any laws prohibiting threats.
If one tries to include various coded threats, then the statement itself is not enough to detemine whether it's a threat: the whole point of coded speech is to make it easy to read for intended recipients and hard to convincingly convey to others, so it relies on lots of context.
@freemo and presumably on carrying them? (For example in CH access to guns is pretty open, albeit in most cases carries a registration requirement, but carrying them other than to move them between places is mostly illegal.)
Many European people will find what you are saying confusing or misunderstand it. I'd rather phrase it as "unrestricted access and unrestricted carry".
@freemo the point about guns is unclear for two reasons. First is not a phrasing that will mean things to people unfamiliar with the US. Secondly, I can't tell whether you want to say "whatever the constitution of the country says goes", "everyone should have a right to carry guns they could use at ~all times unless sentenced to a loss of that right", something in-between, or something significantly different.
@freemo oh, do you have references? I thought that resisting a _legal_ arrest in the US could be reasonable grounds for an arrest, which would be valid iff there was a valid reason for the arrest that was being resisted.
@freemo there's one other thing that's imo incorrectly popularly accepted: that an arrest is a punishment. Training about being arrested "for" something imo perpetuates that notion, which the power hungry variant of the police want to do, because it increases their discretionary power.
@freemo are you pointing at the concept of being arrested "for" something in general or that an original reason for arrest would still be valid if it was valid initially?
Sadly, we keep conditioning each other to interpret things we say in an indirect fashion. See e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XfLdFZ4my9g (comedic fiction, but the mechanism is IMO real) and consider why would the passengers be alarmed by an announcement that tells them something they are pretty sure is true.
@freemo Do you know how that changes across age, cities/small towns, and immigration status? (I can't easily find anything that would give me those answers for Switzerland, but the general tendency seems to also be true: ~4/5ths are men.)
I enjoy things around information theory (and data compression), complexity theory (and cryptography), read hard scifi, currently work in infosec, am somewhat literal minded and have approximate knowledge of random things. I like when statements have truth values, and when things can be described simply (which is not exactly the same as shortly) and yet have interesting properties.I live in the largest city of Switzerland (and yet have cow and sheep pastures and a swimmable lake within a few hundred meters of my place :)). I speak Polish, English, German, and can understand simple Swiss German and French.If in doubt, please err on the side of being direct with me. I very much appreciate when people tell me that I'm being inaccurate. I think that satisfying people's curiosity is the most important thing I could be doing (and usually enjoy doing it). I am normally terse in my writing and would appreciate requests to verbosify.I appreciate it if my grammar or style is corrected