I think the article was tailor written as ragebait/smugbait:

I looked up Louisiana’s SB46.

It’s literally just talking about cloud seeding and geo-engineering. It doesn’t say anything about chemtrails. Cloud seeding and geo-engineering are, per the article on top of this thread, real things.

Edit:

Looked up Florida’s SB56.

It’s about weather modification and geo-engineering.

Edit edit:

Tennessee HB2063. It’s about cloud seeding.

This is getting dumb. The bills are about real things and nothing in the text- which is what becomes the actual law has anything to do with chemtrails.

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

deleted by creator

I like the convenience of being shown all my subscriptions, and with a trained algorithm actually being shown suggestions I’d be interested in. I think with an account used just for YouTube and nothing else the value to Google is minimal. It’s the last thing I have left from de-googling everywhere else.

from other users.

Can you elaborate? Using a compartmentalized account just to watch videos seems it shouldn’t draw any attention unless you’re getting into fights in the comments.

I have a Google account specifically for logging into YouTube. I’ve aggressively used the like/hide channel/not interested in this video options to force it to actually show me what I want. It took quite a while to train it, but my YouTube homepage is actually nice right now.

But every so often I’ll go on YouTube logged out and it’s like staring into the sun. The top videos that it pushes seem like brain melting garbage.

Strangely I haven’t had any issues with Firefox+Ublock+Sponsorblock. The way YouTube interacts with seemingly the same sets of software for different people is baffling.

They did the same thing with the fully automatic firearms ban in the 80’s.

There was no ban in the 80s. For full auto firearms to be legally owned, they had to have been registered since the establishment of the 1934 NFA.

What happened in the 80s was the closing of the registry to prevent new full auto guns from being added, but existing legally owned guns would have already been registered.

I went and read the text. The TLDR is the law was targeted to semiautomatic weapons, but the text itself defined those as “assault rifles”.

The text proposed banning “assault rifles” and within the bill it laid out a definition for the purposes of the bill:

“Assault rifle” means a semiautomatic rifle

(1) With an overall length less than thirty inches;

(2) That has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, except for an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition; or

(3) That accepts a detachable magazine or that may be readily modified to accept a detachable magazine and has one or more of the following characteristics:

(A) A folding, telescoping, or detachable stock, or a stock that is otherwise foldable or adjustable in a manner that operates to reduce the length, the size, or any dimension, or otherwise enhances the concealability of the weapon;

(B) A pistol grip or thumbhole stock;

© Any feature capable of functioning as a protruding grip that can be held by the non‑trigger hand;

(D) A flash suppressor;

(E) A shroud that is attached to or partially or completely encircles the barrel and permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the second hand without being burned, but excluding a slide that encloses the barrel;

(F) A bayonet mount;

(G) A grenade launcher; or

(H) A threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward hand grip, or silencer.

https://legiscan.com/HI/text/SB401/id/3226101

Fully automatic weapons can be legally owned after a mere $200 application to the ATF.

The real hurdle is the closed nature of the full auto registry creates artificial scarcity and pushes the price of the gun itself up.

But, assuming you have the money, it is a straightforward process no more complicated or time consuming than legally owning an SBR.

Edit: Not sure why I’m being downvoted. Here is the transfer form. Block 4B is where you list what type of NFA item you are buying.

If somebody agrees to work for me at below minimum wage and seems enthusiastic about it, am I still exploiting them? What if I’m paying them $15/hr but no medical, 401k, or other benefits because it’s under the table? Is it not exploitation, even if the person is happy to get the wage?

It seems a very different situation between legal, documented immigrants being represented by a legitimate job placement company, vs undocumented immigrants who are being paid unknown wages and have much less ability to negotiate.

Some factories run 24/7, yet individual workers do not have 24/7 shifts.

What does that have to do with unrepresented immigrant laborers? Do you think they are really getting a union level wage?

I loves me Wickard v. Filburn which held that a farm not doing interstate commerce could be regulated by the Commerce Clause because the lack of commerce affected interstate commerce.

Oh boy you are late to the party. The interstate commerce clause has been twisted for decades to basically allow a Federal hook for anything to exist.

In this case however, I think the Destructive Device charge alone would have sufficed as the hook.

News media unfortunately tends to look up the absolute maximum a crime can be sentenced and reports as if that is the default sentencing. It is rare for crimes to be sentenced to the max. If we can get past the screaming about “but this is Trump’s America now!”, the sentencing is still unlikely to be at the max, or at least not maxed out on every count.

I wish the article had shown their work, because from my skim (quick skim, but I’m pretty solid on the DD charge maximum at least) the two charges together have a maximum sentencing of 17 years combined if charged by the federal system. It would have been 13 if the state had charged.

If the Federal government takes over prosecution the big charge is going to be that Destructive Device charge which looks to be up to 10 years. It seems unlikely the sentence imposed would be the max on every charge, media loves to report maximums as if they are automatically what always gets handed down, but that’s just media being dramatic.

I’d really love media articles to actually explain sentencing in detail on articles where they just throw around numbers without explaining them.

Based on how verification was revoked for some users on Twitter based on their content rather than question of their identity, I’m cautious about this system turning into the status symbol it became on Twitter rather than the verification it claimed to be.

Unfortunately, the forecast isn’t good for the integrity of what should be a simple system. Under Dorsey, the Twitter blue checkmark had already become a tool for showing content approval by Twitter. In various instances users had their status removed based on their content and not on a question of if they were who they claimed to be.

Tripcodes are not automatically applied. Default posting was anonymous, but a user could optionally post with a tripcode name.

Some boards like /pol/ introduced post IDs where a randomly generated code would follow your anonymous name within a thread, so others could see which comments within a thread were the same person. That system wasn’t site wide though, and it wasn’t a persistent account.