Weasel words.

You directly compared the number of defensive uses directly to the number deaths due to gun violence.

That comparison is only relevant if every defensive use averts a death. This is obviously not the case as many defensive uses don't even prevent a crime!!

I think the US homicide rate would severely drop if we ended the war on drugs, which is a driver of most of those homicides. We'd further reduce deaths with universal background checks that included both criminal and mental health checks. And mandatory safety training would again further reduce deaths. Now improve the social safety net for those having a mental crisis, that could prevent a lot of gun related suicides.

I agree on these points.

Where do you think criminals get their guns?

Start with criminals for sure, but the fewer guns civilians have the fewer guns that criminals (who are also civilians) will also have.

Assuming you're American do you actually vote Democratic? Because that's the implication of your policy bundle.

In either case, that reminds me of the politician promising to "reduce waste". If reducing drug crime and abuse was easy then everybody would do it. The point of guns is the more you reduce the number of guns the bigger the drop in deaths.

Those numbers are measuring completely different things.

A defensive gun use does not necessarily prevent a crime, much less a homicide.

A gun owner successfully deterring a mugging would could as a very successful defensive gun use, but the benefit would only be in them keeping a few hundred dollars worth of property.

Again, a sanity check. Do you really think it's plausible that the US's homicide rate would triple without guns?

Personally, even if a few additional crimes are prevented I don't think that's worth the large number of excess deaths created by US gun policy.

BS.

Those self-reported defensive uses virtually never actually deter a crime. It's just a gun owner thinking a crime might happen, touching their gun, and claiming their gun saved the day.

If that were actually true, can you imagine how insanely high the US's crime and homicide rates would be without guns? And why is neighbouring Canada so much safer with far, far fewer guns and defensive gun uses.

The "defensive gun use" statistic is nonsense.

This is the immediate family making the choice, not some random pundit.

Because the audience understands it's an AI representation and not the actual person reincarnated. And people have the ability to judge if the tech is being used appropriately.

I mean we literally do have photos and other archival footage of dead people already. And those, just like this, are used in the media to advocate for issues related to their cases.

Why aren't you freaking out about whether those photos and videos are being used appropriately either?

I agree we need to approach this tech with caution, but not with this level of histrionics.

Democracy includes creating a set of rules for folks to be treated fairly. If Aurora has demonstrated the safety of their vehicles to a sufficient degree then I'm fine with them using them.

Implementing features through plugins is one way you get bugs. And the WM without plugins is generally how new users (who might not stick around) experience it.

And I'm sure they were working on bugs as well, it's just the eye candy is what got the headlines because it's what people see.

Russia started the Nazi talk because they're still very proud of the "Great Patriotic War" (WWII) and claiming it's a continuing fight against Nazis is good domestic PR. Not to mention the fact that Ukraine did historically have some issues with Nazi sympathizers (not surprising when you consider the crap the Russians put them through).

Ukrainians throw the Nazi talk back at the Russians because modern Russia is about as close as you're going to get to a modern Nazi state. They're not only riddled with far right open Nazi sympathizers, but their treatment of civilians is downright Nazi like, and their treatment of POWs seems to be as bad or even worse.

They never even tried.

The problem with the gang members and criminals is they try to stay under the radar, so the government doesn't really know where they are.

The undocumented immigrants who are meeting with ICE officials? Trying to go through the asylum process? Following the law and looking for a path towards legal status?

Now those folks are easy to find, and therefore deport.

The obvious outcome? Undocumented immigrants stop interacting with the government and start looking for the kind of work where the employers will help them stay off the radar.

Sounds like a big boon for gang recruitment.

Multiple reporting since the start of the war has shown that war crimes are far worse coming from the Russian side.

Have you seen the videos of POWs exchanges where the Ukrainian exchanges look like they're coming out of a concentration camp? Did you miss the widescale slaughter of civilians in places like Bucha?

There's no question that the level of warcrimes is disproportionately coming from the Russian side.

Have you seen the same from Ukrainians? If not, then in that aspect at least, one side is acting worse.

Except in your case I actually justified it.

War is nasty, folks will do nasty stuff. It's not hard to find the occasional video of war crimes to amplify. It's really hard to get a good sense of the level of war crimes on both sides just by cruising social media.

Also note that Russia has been caught repeatedly manufacturing evidence of war crimes. The lead up to the war had them staging fake atrocities, not to mention their repeated attempts to blame Ukraine for their own atrocities. I'd have extremely low confidence that a video of Ukrainian atrocities coming from a pro-Russia source is actually what it claims to be.

Both sides commit atrocities, that's true of every war in history. But the difference is that on the Ukrainian side atrocities are the exception, while on the Russian side they're standard operating procedure.

I mean there's literally videos of Russians shooting their own soldiers for the crime of retreating from certain death in human wave assaults.

You just did.

Not this week.

I doubt this can't be appealed. It's more do to with the fact that they couldn't show they suffered any damages (harm) from the infringement:

He cited [PDF] precedents where an award of damages was deemed unnecessary if the plaintiff could not "adequately tie a dollar amount" to the infringing acts.

"Accordingly, the Court enters nominal damages in the amount of $1," he stated.

For this reason, the portion of WD's Rule 59 Motion regarding damages was declared moot, while the request for a new trial was denied.

Despite the judge denying almost all of the storage firm's post-trial motions, its legal representatives Gibson Dunn claimed the reduction of damages "a significant win."
[...]
He cited [PDF] precedents where an award of damages was deemed unnecessary if the plaintiff could not "adequately tie a dollar amount" to the infringing acts.

"Accordingly, the Court enters nominal damages in the amount of $1," he stated.

For this reason, the portion of WD's Rule 59 Motion regarding damages was declared moot, while the request for a new trial was denied.

Despite the judge denying almost all of the storage firm's post-trial motions, its legal representatives Gibson Dunn claimed the reduction of damages "a significant win."

"Prior to trial, Western Digital made a successful motion to exclude SPEX's damages expert. SPEX then tried the case and attempted to put on a damages case without a damages expert. Based on damages theories that were never disclosed, and legally improper, the jury awarded SPEX over $250 million in damages," Gibson Dunn claimed in a statement sent to The Register.

So WD did infringe, but I guess because they were just a patent troll with no actual business they couldn't actually show they suffered any damages.

Not sure why they couldn't claim lost licensing revenue, maybe the rule was really made to combat patent trolls and it worked as intended?

Nothing illustrates how seriously Tesla takes safety as paying someone to be a full-time safety driver, but sticking them in the passenger seat so it looks like the car is more self-driving.

Could one ask for a clearer illustration of sacrificing safety (of the passengers and wider public) for publicity purposes?

I could see a couple of causes.
One, communication is a bit more democratized. So people who read and write have less formal training around grammar than they used to.

Second, language evolves. The gap between a comma and period was always a bit tenuous. The semicolon simply lost it's niche.

Impossible;