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.

Fear and Loathing on the Campaign Trail 72 may be his most important work in terms of political insight. It’s almost stunning how on point his criticisms of the relationships between politicians and the media 50 years ago are and continue to ring true. I feel like it’s a pretty important book for anyone with interest in American politics.

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.

In fairness, tires really should be replaced at minimum in pairs on any vehicle. Definitely hurts more when it’s a full set, though.

And it hurts extra hard on the STi. My latest set of tires a few weeks ago because I damaged a sidewall was ~$1500.

Subaru’s AWD system is legitimately better at putting down power to the wheels and getting traction than the vast majority of other AWD systems on the market. There are plenty of third party tests showing as much.

That said, it’s a question of whether you actually need that. The truth is the vast majority of people don’t need AWD at all for the kind of driving they’ll actually do.

I have an STi which has an active center differential beyond even the typical Subaru system and I absolutely love it. It’s magic feeling it at work. But my “likes to take the car on dirt and go sideways at 50MPH” use case isn’t needed for a commuter either.

Canoo is supposedly going to make a pickup based on their electric van platform that looks really interesting:

https://www.canoo.com/pickup

The expanding bed is an absolutely killer feature IMO. Small footprint the vast majority of the time but expands out large enough to fit a 4x8 sheet of plywood when you need that. All the fold-out workbenches are a really cool touch too.

The whole thing feels like the Kei trucks people in other comments are mentioning but upsized and up-powered to be more feasible on US roads.

80%+ of severe injury and death on a bicycle is caused by motor vehicles, or complications of motor vehicle involvement.

Which would mean ~1 in 5 have absolutely nothing to do with a motor vehicle. That’s significant.

There is considerable evidence that everyone wearing a helmet in a car would save vastly more lives and prevent severe head injury

Then that should be an easy [citation needed] for you because my searches are coming up blank for actual studies. Lots of assertions of it, but I’m not finding anything in terms of actual data.

It’s very easy, on the other hand, to find comprehensive meta analyses on the efficacy of helmet use.

It’s also worth noting that the introduction makes a point of calling out another common online assertion that you repeated – that helmets make people engage in more risk-taking behavior – as false:

There has already been an extensive peer-reviewed literature review conducted by Esmaeilikia et al.5, which found little to no support for increased risk-taking when cyclists use helmets and if anything, they cycled with more caution.

I don’t feel those people should be called stupid for their choice.

I don’t think they’re stupid. I think they’re bad at risk analysis. That’s a pretty inherent feature of humans. It’s the reason I want to see actual data.

A helmet is only needed if you intend to spend significant time in traffic.

The worst wreck I’ve ever had on a bike was without a single car in sight. Pinch flat while carrying speed through a steep downhill curve. I split an expensive MIPS helmet in two and still hit hard enough that I had a minor concussion, road rash up one side of my body, and cracked the face of a week old watch just to pour salt in the (metaphorical) wound. I mostly landed on my head and that helmet is the reason I didn’t have drastically more severe head injuries.

Helmets aren’t just for traffic.

According to the affidavit, Prieto said: “The reason I say Atlanta. Why, why is Georgia such a f------up state now? When I was a kid that was one of the most conservative states in the country. Why is it not now? Because as the crime got worse in L.A., St. Louis, and all these other cities, all the [N-words] moved out of those [places] and moved to Atlanta. That’s why it isn’t so great anymore. And they’ve been there for a couple, several years.”

Yes, black people have only been around in significant numbers in Atlanta for a couple years.

Certified stable genius.

He came to suck years later.

At the time he was considerably farther to the left than the rest of the field short of Dennis Kucinich. Opposition to the Iraq war was central to his campaign when half the party was still trying to justify it. He wanted to push universal healthcare before that was a common position within the party. He was on the cutting edge of promoting gay rights and was extremely popular in the gay community when that community didn’t have the voice it does now. His stint as DNC chair built real party infrastructure and helped set the stage for Obama’s 2008 run.

The country – and the Democratic Party – were considerably more conservative 20 years ago and he definitely helped push things toward where we are now.

That said, he’s absolutely said and done some things in recent year that make it pretty clear he’s not the progressive vanguard he was back then. He’s stood still, and arguably regressed, while the country kept moving. It’s unfortunate. But I think it’s also a mistake to dismiss him outright; he was a pretty important figure in getting the party to where it is now.

“Smarter” is the wrong way to look at it. LLMs don’t reason. They have limited ability to contextualize. They have no long term memory (in the sense of forming conclusions based on prior events).

They potentially have access to more data than any individual human and are able to respond to requests for that data quicker.

Which is a long way of saying that they can arguably be more knowledgeable about random topics, but that’s a separate measure from “smart,” which encompasses much, much more.

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.

When I was a teenager in the early 2000s, typical retail price for a game was $50.

That’s equivalent to about $85 today.

The vast majority of the games I buy today are well under $50.

Like how Ferrari cars are designed for 20 year olds but only 80 year olds can afford to buy them.

I mean, making the comparison to motorsports just emphasizes how cheap gaming is as a hobby.

Autocross is as entry level as you can get and a typical ~$50 entry fee gets you maybe 10 minutes of seat time and it’s typical to need to drive 2-3 hours each way for an event. That’s before you start adding in things like the fact that a $1500 set of tires will last you a season or two at most, suspension and brake upgrades easily running a couple of thousand dollars, etc.

Start dipping into actual track time and fees jump to more like $250-750 plus around that much again for track insurance per event. And the upgrades needed for the car to hold up on track are even more expensive still. And this is all ignoring the purchase price of the car and potentially needing to trailer a dedicated track car.

I’ve almost certainly spent far less on PC gaming in the last 5 years combined than I have on motorsports in the past 3 months. I’m on the upper end of spending for most gamers and a dabbler at best when it comes to the cars.

The insanity of the GPU market since covid has put some upward pressure on things but A. the proliferation of great indie titles means you can get incredible value without breaking bank on the highest end equipment and B. even then, the money I spent literally tonight ordering just brake pads and rotors would buy you a 4070 all day long. And I went cheaper than I could have.

Gaming dollars go a long, long way. It’s a hobby that was affordable even when I was younger and broke. It’s still relatively affordable compared to many, many other hobbies.

Plus Russia had 8.7 million military deaths in WW2, so this is really just a small military operation for them.

The current casualty numbers are something like 5x the total Soviet losses over a decade in Afghanistan. That conflict was ultimately deeply unpopular and destabilizing for the Soviet Union, so I’m not sure I’d agree with characterizing it as small change for them.

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.

I’m not currently, but I do know that HA has made specific pushes to improve voice-control over the past year. Should be numerous blog posts on their website about it.

It’s part of why you’re seeing many departments move from internal (under the uniform) vests to external vests.

It also helps get gear off their very heavy duty belts.

Depends on the department but police vests being carriers with ceramic plates is far from uncommon these days. I know for a fact that’s the case for my local department.