Curious why you bother putting "Russian" in quotes there. Why would it being located in Belarus make it "Russian" as opposed to Russian?

The felony murder rule and proximate cause rule can and do result in the prosecution of people when their crimes lead to third parties shooting and possibly killing people. This has happened numerous times with lone criminals (without accomplices) being shot at by police and the criminal being charged for bystanders being shot by the police. See for example Jordan Waddy who was charged for the injuries to bystanders shot by the police.

Uh, yeah, the next month. This was nearly four years ago at this point. You might be a little behind on the news.

You think that's the more likely explanation?! Seriously? So the drone was supposed to hit some other valid target in the 1600 square mile exclusion zone? Or that debris from Ukrainian air defenses somehow, after hitting a Russian drone headed for a target outside the 1600 square mile exclusion zone somehow flew all the way to the shield and just managed to hit it? That's more likely?!?! Really?!

So you believe that the massive column of black smoke from the cooling tower which normally contains nothing that should produce black smoke when burning is just Ukrainian propaganda?

Sure, I am just saying that there still does seem to be a hierarchy of agitation over these things and, as far as I can tell, people react most strongly to things like these glasses, where the stare from the person filming is most apparent.

Oh, absolutely. I am just speaking from the perspective of someone who spent the first couple of decades of his life with people trying to push how important eye contact was on me along with the idea that people find it unfriendly and unsettling if you don't do it. Clearly there's nuance to it, but if you don't naturally do it, people ignore the nuance and and extol its virtues. Studies done during Covid with the increase of video conferencing, etc. have demonstrated just how stressful the effect of having many sets of eyes apparently staring right at you can be for many people.

I am going to state categorically that I am not falling into a rhetorical trap. It is a little unclear whether you mean that I am being swayed by someone else's rhetoric or that I myself am somehow abusing rhetoric, but I will address both possibilities. For the first, I am very certainly not simply regurgitating someone else's opinion that they have swayed me with here. I am following a very simple logical argument of my own. If an entity puts a lot of effort into an action to achieve a goal then, assuming that the entity in question was not wasting their effort, then if the goal was achieved, the action must have contributed to achieving the goal. It is a very straightforward argument and does not require anyone to convince me through rhetoric because it is fundamental, it leaves open the question of whether the effort was wasted, of course. Certainly that avenue can be considered. As for the possibility that I am abusing rhetoric, the question is how? I am not making use of Ethos or Pathos in my argument at all, only logos. As far as logos goes, I don't see any fallacy in it, so ergo I can not be abusing rhetoric.

Here it seems that you are agreeing with my fundamental argument, but tacking on that the effect is not to the degree I imagine. However, I never stated a specific degree. I only stated that, provided the incompetence exception, it was clear in what direction the election would be swayed. Your statement above does not actually disagree with what I actually wrote in the slightest, except for your incorrect assertion that my argument implied a specific magnitude.

While there is not really enough room in a Slashdot discussion to cover a subject like this in detail, I would argue that this is highly dubious. I would refer you to the eight box law, the 1895 constitution of South Carolina, the 1890 constitution of Mississippi, the "Mississippi plan", constitutional changes in Louisiana, the "Redemption plan", etc. South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana had majority black populations after the Civil War, yet elected representatives in Congress and heavily influenced Presidential elections. See also the "Solid South". The simple fact is that South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana had majority black populations after the Civil war but somehow voted solidly against the interests of the majority of the population up until at least 1965. It seems disingenuous to just pretend that voter suppression was not happening and that it did not have a real effect.

I've read it multiple times and, though it is a bit run-on, it seems clear. I will break it down. When Trump lost the election, there were fake slates of "electors", proven election sabotage, recounts by bizarre organizations (Cyber Ninjas? Really?), an assault on Congress, numerous elected and appointed government officials making a huge amount of noise, calling for the execution of their enemies, etc., etc. for years right up until the present day. Meanwhile, the buzz about voter suppression in the recent election is largely muted and mostly just individuals complaining on the Internet with very few public officials even weighing in. Comparing the scale of activity from one to the other is no contest.

You're talking about three Democratic senators lodging a perfectly legal ceremonial objection and comparing it to a President in public ordering his Vice President to illegally violate his constitutional duty (unlike the Senators who are actually allowed to voice objections, the Vice President has no authority to do anything other than state facts in that situation), oh, and also a mob attacking the building and trying to kill him?

The problem here, as I pointed out is that you have a clear bias. You claim that the two parties are equal in this sort of thing when that is clearly nonsense. However, even if we pretend that they are equal in this behavior, your position is that should sway votes away from the Democrats towards the Republicans. So your position is one of Republican impunity and Democrat culpability. From my perspective and, I would argue, any rational perspective, any pretensions you have to neutrality are nonsense and you are displaying a clear bias.

To put it more simply, your argument appears to be X and Y are just as bad as each other and therefore everyone should favor X and shun Y. Even aside from my argument that X is clearly worse, your argument makes no sense even if we grant the proposition that X and Y are as bad as each other.

I'm drowning in Kool Aid (I should note that they actually drank Flavor Aid at Jonestown)? Where have you demonstrated that any of what I am saying is somehow cultism or influenced at all by outside opinions? I mean, seriously, even you couldn't help saying that the Republicans tried to overthrow the whole process with a mob, yet you still claim that the behavior is equal and that, somehow, the existence of such behavior, though you claim it is equal, should make people lean towards the Republicans. I am not sure whether or not to call that drinking Kool(Flavor) Aid, but it is clearly bias.

I think there are plenty of people who want to help, in principle. People also tend to get overwhelmed in a crisis situation and suffer extreme performance anxiety. It's not like we don't know that there are biological underpinnings for this. Consider the effects of epinephrine/adrenaline. It boosts some senses, making you more alert to danger while dulling sensations of physical pain, etc., priming you for fight or flight. However, it also compromises your higher cognitive abilities, memory, etc. PET scans have demonstrated drops in blood flow to areas of the brain handling those things. That is why people trained for emergency situations (EMTs, firefighters, soldiers, etc.) often drill and drill and drill and do so when possible in situations that are close to real emergencies as possible. Such training may reduce the level of epinephrine produced in such situations, or at least increase tolerance to it, while also converting the behaviors required in those situations from ones that require a lot of cognition to ones that are as close to natural instincts as possible. The simple fact is that most people don't have that kind of training and the average person, not very smart to start with, drops a hefty chunk of IQ points in a crisis.

That is only one reason people are bad in a crisis. I already mentioned the group dynamics issue where people in a group can often end up waiting for someone else to act so they can follow, lack confidence in their own abilities, etc., etc. There is also the concern about liability, etc. and an AC that replied to you also said pretty much exactly that in their post: that they had been burned before trying to help and now refuse to.

Right, but I think that would be an example of what I am talking about really. You were upset that their attention was constantly focused on you and it felt aggressive and unsettling. I think it is likely it would have been the same if they were simply staring directly at you, especially right at your eyes.

Well, that's the thing isn't it. The answer to that question is basically everyone. Restaurant, theater, retail store, bank, DMV, anywhere along the road in any public area, etc.; if you go out to eat, you are on camera basically the whole time. Virtually every business has a camera on you, including restaurants. You could argue that it's not pointed directly at you, but that's meaningless for a security camera. If you're in frame, it's pointed at you. The human eye is different. It has high resolution concentrated in central vision, with low resolution in peripheral vision. Being pointed directly at you means something and we instinctively know if means something because of millions and millions of years of evolution that have programmed us to instinctively understand what eye focus can mean. Now, the ubiquitous cameras also provoke those same instincts, but at a lower level. Admittedly one that is causing many people some degree of constant stress, but a lot of people have simply accepted that (and its continuous expansion) as the status quo.

Sure, it's creepy. It is pretty necessary for it to be legal though. There are a lot of very good reasons to allow recording people in public. The fact that it is legal is the only reason that, for example, police actions can be recorded in public. Even when it is legal, we still hear plenty of stories about police officers arresting people, assaulting them, stealing their property and destroying it, etc., etc. recording. Ultimately, the social good is largely inseparable from the social bad. Also, much of the behavior that people object to with cameras recording them, they would probably object to equally as much if it were done without a camera. For example someone on a train being stared at intently by a stranger is probably also going to feel like the person is creepy even when the person is not using a camera. Ultimately, if that kind of behavior goes too far, with or without a camera, there are legal concepts like harassment that can apply. It's not all clean an cut and dried, but I would say that, in a lot of cases, it is not really a camera recording that is the primary problem.

Hmm. I've been watching TV for most of my life. Based on thousands upon thousands of examples of people filming in public places, that absolutely, 100% happens a lot. There may be nuances like news programs trying to get releases for people they interview directly or focus on, but that's often after the fact and not really always done.

I'm not making that assumption though. Clearly people sometimes get upset about that also. I am just noting that it seems like the vitriol over these glasses seems to be a bit higher than over other recording devices, or at least it seems like people are classing them differently. Consider the fact that, currently, there are five replies and one flamebait moderation on my fairly modest post. I mean, reading my post, does it seem like flamebait? Nevertheless, it appears that the mere suggestion that people's response to these devices might be a little elevated made someone angry enough to waste a mod point on that. I have seen plenty of people suggest that such glasses type devices should be outlawed while not demanding that cell phone cameras, etc. be outlawed. There can be other reasons for that of course. Other forms of recording devices are considered to be relatively established at this point, whereas devices like this are relatively "new" (not really new at this point). I still think that the primal aggression of direct gaze may be a factor, but I am not saying it is the only factor.

seriously, slashdot? It's 2025 and you still can't do the Euro sign?

Even so the prices are excessive. If I want to upgrade the SSD in the current MBP from 512 GB to 2 TB that's +750 â

Meanwhile, a Western Digital Red SN700 with 2 TB I can get for a bit over 200 â.
A Samsung 990 PRO 2 - 245 â (was just rated the best M.2 SSD on the market by Tom's Hardware).

Whatever exact chips Apple is using, they're not 3x as expensive as other high-quality SSDs.

Even if "locked in place" is your underlying assumption, anyone who's even heard of the real world from their mom who has a friend whose father once visited it should know that there is no rule without exceptions and even if that is perfectly true, a small number of those particles will not be locked in perfectly.