• 0 Posts
  • 28 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 15th, 2023

help-circle
  • Fleet yaw is a different phenomenon that impacts terminal ballistic performance. It’s essentially a way of describing why some projectiles tumble and fragment after impact while others will tend to remain more stable and pass straight through for longer.

    The projectile AoA being described in that context is only a couple of degrees. It’s enough to change how the round behaves after hitting something, but it’s not the type of in-flight wild tumbling that results in keyholing on a target.




  • They had several cases along these lines involving several agencies, and I feel like people don’t understand the underlying legal idea - rule making power belongs to Congress. Federal agencies under the executive branch that have rule making powers receive those powers by Congress delegating it to them in a limited fashion through legislation.

    Nitpick: rule making power does belong to executive agencies (at least until this SCOTUS decides to reverse Chevron deference). Law-making power resides solely with Congress.

    What this means, as you suggest, is that Congress sets up statutory bounds within law, then the responsible executive agencies create rules interpreting them and defining how they’ll be enforced. Where cases like this one go wrong is when the agency oversteps the bounds of the law as passed by Congress. At that point, the agency has engaged in creating new law rather than rules, which is why the courts swat them down.

    I agree with your overall gist, just feel that’s an important distinction to understand the situation.


  • That excellent quote of the text you provided spells out that any modifications to a gun that allows any more than a single shot is to be prohibited.

    Incorrect.

    It prohibits any conversion to a machine gun. The previous sentence has just defined a machine gun. The “by a single function of the trigger” language is what’s critical to this case and you’re completely ignoring it. When reading laws, you use words however they’re explicitly defined if a definition is provided, not how you think they should be defined or would be used in common speech.

    Like I said, Gatling guns are pretty highly analogous. They produce what most people would consider automatic fire. They’ve also consistently been ruled to not meet the definition of a machine gun going back to at least the 1950s because they don’t meet that single function of the trigger requirement.

    The solution is to change the text of the law.


  • However this supreme court said that the magic words ‘bump stock’ wasn’t in the legalisation. Words that didn’t even exist until 2003, or thereabouts. The court ignored the legislative text completely.

    This is the text of the NFA that has defined what is a machine gun since 1934:

    The term “machine gun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

    I’m not a fan of this SCOTUS, but the bump stock ruling was inline with decades of jurisprudence on the topic and the final opinion was fairly unsurprising as a result. It was honestly less of a gun law ruling and more of an executive regulatory procedure one.

    A bump stock does not function by a single action of the trigger and does not meet the statutory definition as a result. The ATF rule banning them got struck down because Congress hadn’t authorized the ATF to regulate machine guns beyond that specific statutory definition.

    Bump stocks are no more a machine gun than a Gatling gun is under the definition that has existed for nearly a century, and the legal status of the latter has been extremely clear for a very, very long time.

    If the goal is to treat them as a regulated item, then Congress needs to pass legislation with language that covers them because saying it was already there is simply incorrect. There is a specificity to the language of the NFA that doesn’t cover any number of mechanisms. It’s been a deficiency of the law since 1934.

    If you want to fix that, that first requires understanding exactly what needs fixing.


  • Tree nested communication is much more superior than traditional thread based communication

    Heavily depends, IMO.

    Nested threads are great temporary discussion of a specific story or idea. They’re absolutely miserable for long-running discussions. New posts get lost in the tree and information ends up scattered across multiple threads as a result.

    It’s also been my personal experience that the nested threads format just doesn’t seem to build communities in the same way forums did. I have real-life friendships that were made on forums decades ago and I never had that experience with reddit despite being a very early user.

    I don’t think that’s entirely due to the ephemeral format, but I do think it plays a part in it. A deep thread between two people on Reddit might last a few hours and a dozen replies before it falls off the page. On forums threads running months or years were pretty common, and that kind of engagement with the same people certainly changes how your relationships develop with them.




  • In a vacuum, sure, but it also completely tracks with Sam Altman’s behavior outside of OpenAI.

    Employees at previous companies he’s run had expressed very similar concerns about Altman acting in dishonest and manipulative ways. At his most high profile gig before OpenAi, Paul Graham flew from London to San Francisco to personally (and quietly) fire him from Y Combinator because Altman had gone off the reservation there too. The guy has a track record of doing exactly the kind of thing Toner is claiming.

    What we know publicly strongly suggests Altman is a serial manipulator. I’m inclined to believe Toner on the basis that it fits with what we otherwise know about the man. From what I can tell, the board wasn’t wrong; they lost because Altman’s core skill is being a power broker and he went nuclear when the board tried to do their job.


  • If just a single Dem like Manchin votes for it with Republicans, it’ll pass.

    Not how this works.

    There has to be a vote to allow debate to start on the bill. This is not passage, just putting the bill in front of the entire chamber for consideration.

    This requires 60 votes; the vote in February failed 50-49.

    If it somehow made it to debate this time, there would still have to be a second vote on passage. It’s not at all unusual for senators to vote for advancing to debate and then vote down the actual bill for any number of reasons.

    So, no. The most likely outcome is not the bill passing; by far the most likely outcome is the bill dying on the vine. Senate Democrats aren’t randomly gambling here.






  • It’s why I’ve avoided anything smarthome tied to any particular vendor.

    My endpoint devices are almost entirely Zwave or Zigbee/Matter based. I started out with a SmartThings hub but migrated it all to Home Assistant last year. HA has honestly had easier integrations than SmartThings did and supports almost anything under the sun.

    I don’t have to worry about suddenly losing control of my devices and the only ‘subscription’ associated with it all is $15/year for a domain name to make setting up remote access easier. This approach requires a little more research, but it opens up the ability to mix and match devices however you’d like. Absolutely zero regrets.


  • To expand a little bit for those that don’t want to click through:

    5.56 penetrates hard targets because it concentrates energy across a small cross-sectional area due to its small diameter. It delivers a lot of energy to a small point which helps it push through hard objects.

    5.56 similarly does not over penetrate in soft targets due to its dimensions: the projectile is narrow and relatively long, with the weight biased to the rear. This means that when it penetrates a soft object, the heavier tail end retains more energy and wants to flip past the tip of the projectile. Because the projectile is long and narrow, it tends to break apart when that happens. That quickly dumps the energy in the projectile and causes the large wounding effect being described above. Since the smaller fragments have less energy, they come to a stop much faster than a solid projectile would.

    tl;dr saying 5.56 is capable of both punching through steel and also generally won’t overpenetrate in soft targets is accurate because physics



  • commandar@lemmy.worldtoPC Gaming@lemmy.caASUS Scammed Us
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    For 3D printers, they’re subpar.

    Noctua fans are typically 12v and tuned for lower speed for lower noise; in 3DP you’re generally looking for 24v fans* with the highest CFM:static pressure ratio you can get which will generally mean a louder, higher RPM fan.

    They’ll work, but you can generally get industrial fans from Delta, Sunon, etc that are a better fit for the application, often for less money.

    * - 5v and 12v fans are getting more common simply because they tend to be more available. Preference for high CFM:static pressure holds true regardless.