Notices by divVerent (divverent@misskey.de)

@kaia@brotka.st Exactly.

I just found it funny - and clearly have not read that particular part back then in class - that this word order is a bit untypical for Latin (AFAIK one usually puts the adjective after the noun, even if it is "omne").

But of course, Latin is quite open regarding allowed word order, and well, many people made use of that property quite a lot :)

But of course, this was Cicero, who definitely varied a bit more than usual for rhetorical reasons.

@kaia@brotka.st I like how you obviously used a machine translation for this, and yet it's fully understandable.

Maybe this is Latin how it should have been?

EDIT: No, this is the actual quote. The word order is a bit odd, IMHO, and se ipsum is a pleonasm, but it's not wrong.

@georgetakei@universeodon.com I've seen that book cover before.

#Latin #Cicero #philosophy

@icedquinn@blob.cat Then we get the sofa king, who's worse.

Seriously, Vance is Trump's life insurance.

@randahl@mastodon.social Putin never wants peace. He wants the world. The entire world.

@Emily@mastodon.de Wenn sie dich lassen. Werkzeuge nicht erlaubt.

@Suiseiseki@freesoftwareextremist.com @Revertron@zhub.link @rayslava@lor.sh Bad example ;) this is an unaligned address for int, and it's quite expected for this to still segfault (or rather, bus error) even if the page at the address is mapped.

In fact, in this particular example, the compiler could already error, as it can know this is never a valid int pointer.

@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.

@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...

@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...

@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).

@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).

@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.

@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.

@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...

@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.

@sixtus@mastodon.social Also wenn jemand die Impfung nicht will, muss man das IMHO akzeptieren. Das Aufzwingen medizinischer Prozeduren ist einfach eine Macht, die weder Arbeitgeber noch Regierung haben sollten. Man kann aber klar argumentieren und dafür sorgen, diese Leute mit echter Information und Fakten umzustimmen. Und im sozialen Bereich kann man ja auch seine Freunde frei auswählen...

Aber Masken? Die tun einem nichts! Sieht höchstens blöd aus - na und? Wer sowas verweigert und damit anderen schadet, gehört weggesperrt. Man musste Masken ja nicht einmal kaufen, sie wurden überall ausgehändigt (jetzt leider nur noch in Arztpraxen).

@wonka@chaos.social @mmol@mastodon.social @sixtus@mastodon.social Selbst bin ich ja geimpft.

Ich sehe aber in der Tat menschenrechtliche Probleme damit, dies zu erzwingen, auch wenn - aus Notstandsgründen - diese wohl dieses Mal durchgingen.

Aber in der Tat, unter den Optionen will ich lieber eine gesetzliche Impfpflicht, die vom Staat durchgesetzt wird, als dass der Arbeitgeber irgendwas zu sagen hat bzgl. medizinischer Interventionen.

Denn wenn wir akzeptieren, dass Arbeitgeber eine Impfpflicht einführen können, dann kommt bald auch eine Abtreibungspflicht, damit sie keine Freistellungen riskieren müssen. Solche Fälle gibt's bereits irgendwo auf notalwaysworking.com - also untere Manager, die von Schwangerschaft einer Mitarbeiterin erfahren haben und sogleich "vorschlagen", eine Abtreibung vornehmen zu lassen, weil, "du willst ja den Betrieb nicht hängen lassen".

Oder eine Alkoholpflicht. Hatte ein vorheriger Arbeitgeber (die wöchentlichen Kneipenabende, wo sich alle besaufen, waren Pflicht, weil "wir sind ja ein Team"), habe deshalb schnell gekündigt.

@wonka@chaos.social @sixtus@mastodon.social @mmol@mastodon.social Haha, nur in der Arbeitszeit... erzähl das mal dieser echten Consulting-Firma.

Wobei, die ging ja pleite so ein Jahr, nachdem ich da abgehauen bin, weil ich mir das nicht bieten ließ... denn, Überstunden waren natürlich auch zwangsweise nötig.

Funktionierte so: im Arbeitsvertrag steht 40 Stunden. Durchgesetzt wurden aber 40 abgerechnete Stunden im Timesheet. Und die täglichen 60 Minuten langen Team-Meetings durften nicht abgerechnet werden. Ebenso auch keine Downtime, weil der Kunde mal wieder nicht in die Pötte kommt. Tatsächliche Arbeitszeit war so 50 bis 55 Wochenstunden. Und dann noch die Kneipen- und Poker-Abende, zu denen man kommen musste.

Naja, gut, dass die untergingen...

@icedquinn@blob.cat Probably would pass, after all, Trump is perfectly fine with Russia blowing up churches.