deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I accused the other of misinformation when the article even said I was wrong. I’d be a hypocrite, an idiot, and an asshole to not make it right.

Thanks for not only recognizing but also taking the time to reinforce what we both want to see more of.

Thank you for the compliment. But, in this facet the biggest difference between us is probably only how much time our parents bought us before we had to fend for ourselves. My ideas aren’t special, just regurgitated and stitched together pieces of work by actual smart people.

We’re on the same side because any reasonable and intelligent person is on our side. We came from all directions, reasoning our way to the same basic conclusions: It’s broken and humans suffer. We’ll sacrifice to fix it together.

Thank you for pointing out that I’m being an idiot in such a kind manner. I apologize. I also learned more about mpox.

deleted by creator

Stupider or wiser relative what? If we measure against a what it takes to live a wise life at the time then people are definitely getting stupider (and you are absolutely correct). The wisdom required is rising much more quickly than the wisdom possessed.

Perceptions are also easily swayed because we’ve been on an unusually long objectively (not relative) downward slope. Some think technology of communication the last nail in the coffin, that we will never begin to become wiser again. They may be right. You may be very, very correct. But, hope is an important thing. In this, I think one should believe what’s necessary for personal morale.

You made me think more about pot smokers. I think you’re correct. Even in my own observation they’re a much more diverse group than I present. And, I bet a lot of them keep their habit totally private.

I came down on you pretty hard there. I think you saw I wasn’t attacking you personally. You received it so well you even changed my perspective. This is why I’ve faith in humanity. We’ve still got the special sauce.

deleted by creator

Your perspectives suck and no one’s told you. This was maybe a time when you should’ve only asked a good question.

That’s not a judgement of you as a person.

Handjob McVape chose a ridiculously gerrymandered district. This is middle class wage slaves, rural property owners, and the employees of rural property owners (incl. oil workers on rented rights).

Pot smokers worldwide lean hard left or are unengaged with their political and activist proceses.

It’s not COVID making people stupid. They’re just stupid, always have been, and don’t know it. Humans have been choosing kings to conveniently let another reason and choose for them since the beginning of humanity. They’re not changing. You are.

There’s an incredible story behind it. But, the short form is that Proton is more expensive because they’re not harvesting your private information. In a few months the law will prevent them from doing for as long as the core fiscal law and Proton exist (at least decades).

Remember conservation of momentum. The only way the machine can absorb part of the impulse is through friction, heat, and by redirecting the existing chamber pressure after the bullet has left the barrel.

Remember the human body. Magnitude matters much more than duration. Extending the time of impulse by implementing a slide lessens magnitude, the areas under the impulse curves roughly equivalent.

I’m going to apply the above to answer your questions to say it again :)

Does the slide absorb any significant amount of energy?

For a properly functioning, modern, and typically-designed pistol and a status quo definition of “significant”, the answer is: No. That’s not what it’s designed to do. But, energy can be dissipated slightly if the pistol is compensated: a redirection of chamber pressure from near the end of the barrel, upwards, counter the torque component of the recoil impulse.

What’s the math on this, say the dissipated energy in a semi auto VS revolver using the same round?

It’s not quite a good question. The maximum force during the impulse is what a human cares about when analyzing a slide. That’s what’ll effect accuracy of the next round and how sore your hands will be in the morning.

If minimization of total impulse is what’s being analyzed then one would want to compare rifles. Rifles have larger rounds, longer barrel length thus more time to use chamber pressure to mitigate recoil.

You’ve good questions for coming into the middle. Go to the beginning: rounds and various types of actions, rifleman 101. Come back to the hard science.

Above PugJesus talks about the energy of the round being very large. There’s more to it.

The derringer design lacks any technology to absorb and extend the impulse of recoil, most importantly the slide found on any modern semi automatic.

Not only is there extreme recoil, there’s also absolutely nothing to help the shooter deal with it.

deleted by creator

I’m not actually asking for good faith answers to these questions. Asking seems the best way to illustrate the concept.

Does the programmer fully control the extents of human meaning as the computation progresses, or is the value in leveraging ignorance of what the software will choose?

Shall we replace our judges with an AI?

Does the software understand the human meaning in what it does?

The problem with the majority of the AI projects I’ve seen (in rejecting many offers) is that the stakeholders believe they’ve significantly more influence over the human meaning of the results than exists in the quality and nature of the data they’ve access to. A scope of data limits a resultant scope of information, which limits a scope of meaning. Stakeholders want to break the rules with “AI voodoo”. Then, someone comes along and sells the suckers their snake oil.

deleted by creator

I do not think that life will change for the better without an assault on the Establishment, which goes on exploiting the wretched of the earth. This belief lies at the heart of the concept of revolutionary suicide. Thus it is better to oppose the forces that would drive me to self-murder than to endure them. Although I risk the likelihood of death, there is at least the possibility, if not the probability, of changing intolerable conditions. This possibility is important, because much in human existence is based upon hope without any real understanding of the odds. Indeed, we are all ill in the same way, mortally ill. But before we die, how shall we live? I say with hope and dignity; and if premature death is the result, that death has a meaning reactionary suicide can never have. It is the price of self-respect.

Revolutionary suicide does not mean that I and my comrades have a death wish; it means just the opposite. We have such a strong desire to live with hope and human dignity that existence without them is impossible. When reactionary forces crush us, we must move against these forces, even at the risk of death. We will have to be driven out with a stick.

We’re living in a late stage capitalistic hellhole and you’re advocating faith in the free market.

What. The. Fuck.

deleted by creator