This is both naive and missing key facts.

1) There were weapons, lots of them. The FBI actually did a fair job here and stopped multiple bomb threats just prior to the attack. Weapon caches with multiple firearms and incendiary devices where found.

2) While the bulk of the people there were just rabblerousing, this was used as cover by more organized groups to take action. Thankfully things didn't get too out of control and these groups hesitated. There is extensive documentation on groups like the peacekeepers and their role in the attack.

If things had been just a little worse, if those bombs had gone off, if the crowd with babbit had actually breached that door, if martial law had been declared, etc etc.

We were a hairs breadth from real disaster. Don't down play this. Just because idiots are present doesn't mean there is a lack of planning.

This is the speech of someone that doesn't understand the problem.

Biden, like most older lawmakers, simply can not wrap their world view around the amount of influence social platforms now have in the 'american voice'. That while those few problem actors are directly responsible for the majority of misinformation, they exist and are able to utilize that influence simply because those platforms allow them.

Social platforms can easily identity these groups, especially as they don't bother to hide. They let them exist because they know that taking action will impact their income enough that letting them sit and ferment is financially advantageous.

To PAX 2008 when Nintendo DS ownership hit critical mass and completely overloaded the wireless space with people trying to network games.

Who knew the same principle applies now?

I've always been really suspect of the "power an internet action takes" figures. It's always felt like they overestimated server power usages, or more specifically underestimated the number of users one could serve for the power used.

You can't support environmental laws and be against enforcement.

If a business can not be fined, taxed or otherwise actioned against by the government, then Environmental laws can not be enforced and might as well not exist.

The organization views those things as 'evils'.

It holds(lp.org/issues/taxes/), to quote: "The Libertarian Party is fundamentally opposed to the use of force to coerce people into doing anything. We think it is inherently wrong and should have no role in a civilized society."

This includes taxes, fines and effectively any government enforcement.

They may not wish for my death, but they are against, fundamentally, the mechanisms of action that are required to safeguard my and my family's health. Needless to say, that lends me a rather poor outlook on their morals.

Well put.

I can expect a Libertarian to fight for my rights of choice or any freedom they can personally empathize with.

I can also expect one to fight vehementantly against my right to not be actively poisoned by industry. Environmental and health protections are 'evils' to the ideology because they restrict their 'freedoms'.

If it's their family being poisoned, oppressed or elsewise troubled, that tune will change in a heartbeat, but otherwise any restriction or tax on their actions, to quote, "is inherently wrong and should have no role in a civilized society."

No, but the leadership was. Hospers was gay and helped shape much of the party's outlook, from the laudable, ie their LGBT outlooks, to the more problematic aspects, like the barely disguised objectivism.

Like I said, on paper the party looks quite good. But the reality is that it largely attracts folks that are focused on their own selfish wants, thanks to the parties outlook on taxes.

If it requires any restriction on a libertarian, I can expect them not to support something, regardless of how much lip support they give the parties stated ideals of equality.

Literally any they can't find an immediate application to their current situation.

Unless said right is immediately useful to them, they are generally against anything, including portions of the bill of rights, that exert any type of control or restriction over them.

Only on paper. I've yet to met one that cares about rights beyond those that directly affect them.

Trouble is, if that was the majority of strikes being given out people wouldn't be a such a fervor over it.

Piped music like in a pre-stream is directly supplied by the streamer, If they aren't screening it they won't last long.

It's controversial largely because people get flagged for background music that's a secondary pickup, or for Game music that's copy written/had a change in status/pursued by an overzealous lawyer.

It's entirely possible to have a 5 year old VOD get flagged because you streamed a game with that had a 5 year license for the music end, with distribution rights changing back to the label, whom no longer grants this type of usage. Play the game over multiple VODs? Bam, that could be your 3 strikes right there.

There is no way to reasonably(or really otherwise) protect yourself against that.

That's a huge problem for anyone making a living from streaming.

They'd have me believe 10% less power usage nets 2 extra hours of battery life while actively using the internet?

Not only does that assume a 20 hour native battery life, but no real world web usage is going to let the system last that long.

Not being anything resembling a specialist on this, I'd want to know if this shares or avoids the issue that the last study show this type of result had.

Namely that they used a way overaggressive method that didn't match with recommended practices.

Figured out what the parent poster did.

They took the entire state population of New york, applied the death count to it, and then completely failed to understand how percentages work.

19.45 million population with 31,500 deaths comes out to a decimal value of .0016 or 0.16%

So they either only multiplied by 10 instead of 100 to get the percentage....

or they did it right but applied the 10x infection rate and divided by 10, despite their numbers already assuming a 100% infection rate.

Not to mention NY state has already lost 0.16% of their total population, making the virus at least 60% more deadly than their assumption even if the state had a 100% infection rate.