Companies use the same kind of systems to (poorly) automate the search for candidates, which is also spammy, inefficient, and wastes job-seekers time. This just levels the playing field.
Companies use the same kind of systems to (poorly) automate the search for candidates, which is also spammy, inefficient, and wastes job-seekers time. This just levels the playing field.
My guess is it depends on the damage this attack will cause. If the missiles are all shot down or hit desert, it will be some punitive F-35 strike on an Iranian airfield somewhere. But if there’s significant damage and casualties it could escalate.
I don’t think Iran is going to risk all out war with Israel and the US. I suspect they expect most of their missiles (like the drones) to be shot down. Perhaps that’s wishful thinking though…
Who considers Patrick a trusted source of information? He’s basically doing comedy news with a focus on finance. Entertaining, interesting, but not like a full-on serious reporter.
It’s surprisingly calming to listen to Patrick cathartically vent, after what must’ve been a stressful education and career in finance.
Keep Lemmy small. Make the influence of conversation here uninteresting.
I’m doing my part!
“Arroooooo!” feels more appropriate
Nationwide, sure. But localized I wish we would do better, given the population densities. California has a population density of ~100 people/km2. Not far off France at ~120/km2. Yet we still are mainly reliant on cars to get around.
You know what never mind, you seem to think guns in the US are generally a good thing and think they’re generally bad. We’ll probably never agree. Hope you never have to use your guns mate.
Plenty of diversity and wealth inequality problems in Europe. Just look up the stats if you’re really interested.
And these issues are noticeable as you say in Sweden for example. And in Germany, and France, and Spain, etc.
But I don’t see how proliferating guns in Europe would help make these places safer. I would imagine letting everyone have guns would see Sweden’s murder rate go up. Maybe another 5x to 10x and it would reach US per capita levels. Progress?
I’ve lived in a few different countries, and they have many of the same problems as the US, but there’s of course far fewer guns, and those places are safer. That difference in safety is really palpable.
Without all these guns, and the associated culture of violence and fear, perhaps American policing in general would be less violent. It’s something I’ve wondered about.
I am sympathetic to the desire for self-defense, arms as a safeguard against tyranny, etc. But I personally don’t think it’s worth this.
So it’s a complex issue, but I don’t think the 2A is a net positive. At least not anymore.
This most extreme level can cause complete HF (high frequency) radio blackouts on the entire sunlit side of the Earth, lasting for a number of hours.
So, is that really it? A HF radio blackout? I can’t imagine most of us would even notice if HF were disrupted. I don’t know the physics involved, but if VHF/UHF were hit it would be a much bigger problem.
Killing someone to prevent them from stealing your stuff may well land you in prison. Guns cause a lot of misery in this country.
I get it btw. But still. I think we’d all be better off with fewer guns :\
Perhaps. I think it’s pretty obvious no matter how it’s phrased, or who posts it, comments critical of unrestricted gun ownership typically get downvoted without a lot of replies. At least you are engaging and we’re having a conversation.
Obviously, gun ownership should be restricted.
Judging by the downvote brigade whenever somebody argues for gun control, which also plagues Reddit, it seems not so obvious to many.
No the person I’m replying to is.
While it may be a factor, I’m pointing out America is by no means unique in having these problems, such as wealth inequality. In fact all the problems so often touted as the cause for gun violence are not unique to America. The main exception is the incredible proliferation of guns and the lax regulations surrounding them.
But many Americans love their guns, as long as they don’t have to pay the price in blood for it, they’ll continue blaming other factors…
Then restrict gun ownership. It’s the most rational action which can be taken to stop American classrooms being stained by blood.
But… I know I am just venting. I know this isn’t going to happen. Millions of Americans are demonstrably fine with other people losing their little girl or boy, their small bodies torn apart by bullets, just so they can have a gun for whatever reason. It’s just the way it is, sadly.
Restricting access to guns is specifically achievable (see also: most of the rest of the world) and would save many lives.
In tandem, sure let’s work on preventing violence in general. I’m all in favor, but achieving this semi-utopian goal seems far more challenging.
It’s impossible to control people’s thoughts. There’s unfortunately always going to be people like this who become radicalized to the point of insanity.
There must be something else special about the US, compared to most countries, why here so often these radicalized people grab their rifle, walk into a public place, and start shooting.
I can’t quite figure it out.
I know. It’s still way better than the US. Because guns are a bigger factor than wealth disparity, mental health care, social homogeneity, or anything else which is typically pointed to by people who value their access to guns more than other’s lives.
Dealing with 6 different media companies is exhausting. You have no idea. When they finally merge my staff will only need to pay one of them. More time for everyone to play golf. Win-win.