commandar

Chiming back in here to say that yes, that was exactly my point.

To maybe make it a little clearer, a hypothetical: imagine a Republican-controlled state enacts a law banning late term abortions and makes it punishable with jail time for women to receive one.

That hypothetical law includes a clause defining a late term abortion as one taking place at any time past 37 weeks from conception.

A woman has an abortion at 36 weeks pregnant. Anti-abortion activists insist that she should be culpable under the law; an abortion at 36 weeks is functionally the same as an abortion at 37 weeks and 36 weeks is very obviously late term pregnancy, they claim.

If the local sheriff then arrests that woman, is the sheriff behaving lawfully?

That's why the government being bound to the letter of the law is so incredibly important. A law can be stupid, harmful, regressive, or otherwise bad in any number of ways, but if the government must act within the law as written, then at least we know what rules we're playing by and can work to change them.

If the government is allowed to arbitrarily and capriciously ignore the letter of the law in favor of what the people enforcing it wish the law were, that will be abused by bad actors. That sort of thing is more or less a universal component of authoritarianism.

tl;dr - we shouldn't do it because allowing it will allow it to be used against us.

If the law says you can’t kill people by driving into them, and then someone slides into them (intentionally), is that illegal?

It depends on how it's defined in the law. States generally don't write laws that define vehicular homicide solely as striking a person specifically with the front of a passenger car for exactly this reason. Further, the need for precision in law is why intentional acts and negligent acts are generally defined separately e.g., murder vs manslaughter.

Beyond that, judges exist and are given sentencing discretion (or at least should be) because there are mitigating circumstances… in other words shit happens.

Discretion in enforcement/prosecution is not the same thing as enforcing something that isn't defined in law. One is arguably a necessary component of real justice, the other is how authoritarianism functions.

The National Firearms Act has very specific language defining what constitutes a machine gun. It does not include language giving the executive branch power to expand that definition. Either something meets that legal definition and is legally a machine gun or it isn't.

I'm not even saying that it's impossible for an enforcing agency to be given those powers -- the FDA, for example, has been given pretty sweeping authority to classify drugs. In fact, they have the explicit authority to classify analogs of illegal drugs as illegal. That's basically the parallel to what's being discussed here with the NFA and the ATF.

The difference is that Congress hasn't given the ATF the authority to do so. If you want the law to grant the ability to enforce a less specific definition than what exists in the current law then you need to either change the law to carry a more expansive definition and/or give the enforcing agency the power to make that definition outright. Either of those things would allow the sort of enforcement the other commenter was calling for, but it would be within the letter of the law.

The point wasnt that you can't enact a particular law or even that you can't allow for enforcement to be adaptive -- it was that rule of law requires that adaptiveness to be defined within the law itself. It's totally okay if the law says "it depends and here's who decides." It's not okay to decide to enforce the law on the basis of "this is what I feel like the law should do" even if the actual language of the law doesn't support it.

There’s the letter of the law and then there’s the spirit of the law.

Only the former should be legally enforceable. If you start enforcing the latter regardless of the former, the legal system stops being about rule of law and more about the subjective whims of those enforcing it.

If the letter of the law doesn't capture the intent, then the law needs to change, but laws shouldn't be subjectively enforced on the basis of what someone feels like they should mean rather than what they actually say.

It's SEO-optimization nonsense.

He had a medical condition that left him more or less unable to speak that was only corrected through a risky surgical procedure that could have left him permanently mute.

Being unable to communicate with other humans in person is a different level of isolation, and I definitely believe it likely contributed to him breaking entirely.

That said, the rest of the BtB series mentioned in this thread also made it pretty clear that he sucked for a long, long time before that. It just went all gas no brakes at that point.

Personal favorite is Crocodile Hunter at 0.5x.

Absolutely shithammered Steve Irwin fucking around with Komodo Dragons is amazing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GljZY7pellI&t=151s

Look at the Netherlands and how it's often done there, you walk around with a scanner so you can scan as you go and quickly pay at the end.

Walmart and Sam's Club have this with their Scan & Go app in the US. Scan the barcode with your phone, add it to your cart, pay from your phone, and someone at the door will scan a QR from your phone then scan a few random items in the cart and you're done.

I pretty much wouldn't shop at Sam's if it didn't exist. The checkout lines there have always been long and a pain. It cuts a ton of time standing around waiting in line out of a trip.

There's been an AMD/GloFo fab in Dresden for decades.

The nature of how firearms are used in film generally requires breaking the normal fundamental rules of firearm safety. You can't just give somebody a quick rundown of the "four rules" and call it good.

Further, they're also often modified in ways that change what safety factors need to be considered.

It's the job of the on-set armorer to make sure firearms are safe and used in a safe manner because it's not reasonable to expect actors who are firearms laymen to understand everything that plays a factor in what is or isn't safe.

I do think this case is a little different, but that primarily has to do with Baldwin being a producer.

With that price I feel like the dev has 0 faith in lemmy getting very big

It feels kind of the opposite to me.

Going back and checking my Google account history, I paid $1 for Sync Pro. In 2012. And was using it up until last month. In retrospect, that was far too low a price for the utility I got out of the app for literally years.

If anything, it feels like the dev has learned that lesson and has priced the lifetime option where it's actually sustainable for them if Lemmy stays around.

Hall effect has been the norm in all but the cheapest sim gear (sticks, throttles, etc) for a very long time now.

Hall effect gimbals on radio control/drone controllers have been pretty common for some time, too.

It's mostly that this is a solved problem that more general purpose controllers are just now catching up to after the problem's been exacerbated by the smaller gimbals used in modern controllers.

It doesn't help that, by the power of marketing, people can mean multiple distinctly different things when they say "bed leveling".

What you're referring to is Z offset. This is the difference between where the endstop or probe triggers versus the actual Z coordinate of the nozzle. This is generally what you're trying to set with the paper test. The paper test is only mostly accurate, though. A set of feeler gauges will do the same job with better accuracy.

It can also mean tramming, which is making the bed itself planar to the printer's gantry. This is what you're doing when you adjust the 'bed leveling' screws on a printer or what happens automatically if you have triple lead 'bed leveling.' It pretty critical that Z offset is set correctly for autotramming. Manual tramming is essentially setting Z offset to be consistent at each of the bed adjustment points.

Finally, mesh compensation also gets called bed leveling. Even if you have a perfectly trammed bed, the reality is that real, physical things (like beds) are never perfectly flat. Mesh compenstation probes multiple points along the bed, registers the difference between Z0 and the probed point, and builds a mesh that the printer uses to compensate for variations in the bed surface. The denser the mesh, the better the printer can compensate for small variations in surface flatness.

All of these things are complementary and will have an impact on each other. The fact that they all get lumped into "bed leveling" causes a lot of confusion for folks when understanding what each is and does is pretty important to get the most out of a printer.