Some of them certainly did. My younger brother, for instance. He’s quite literally a psychopath. There’s no cure for him, no rehabilitation that would fix him. The best that can be done is keeping him out of society for as long as possible. He was in and out of juvie starting at about 11.
People think this without a hint of irony, and yet have never worked in a place without management. Good management improves productivity and efficiency, while also shielding workers from executives. Bad/no management almost always leads to chaos.
It’s like the whole idea of not having leaders; it’s a great theory, but it assumes that everyone is capable of working together perfectly towards the same goal, when the reality is that not everyone has the same goal.
Middlemen, etc., are trading in knowledge. They know who can do what, and decrease duplication of effort.
Higher octane fuel shouldn’t give you any more power; it just prevents pre-ignition. If your engine is very high compression and needs high octane fuels, then usually something like an anti-knock sensor is going to be present to cut engine performance–retard timing, I think?–if you have the wrong fuel in your car.
OTOH, a less energy-dense fuel like pure alcohol can increase power because you can increase compression in the engine even more than you could with high grade gasoline. That means that you can get more benefit from turbo- or super-charging.
IIRC, most fuel injected cars can now make some kind of adjustment to the fuel:air mix if you’re at high altitude so that it shouldn’t be an issue (unless you’re at altitudes outside of their range of adjustment). Carbureted engines can not do that.
Longevity is almost always the price you pay for power though. The engine in my VW GTI could put out nearly double the horsepower that it currently gets, but the lifespan would be under half that of normal.
Uh. I know a whole bunch of people that have bounced at multiple clubs in Chicago. I know one guy that was loss prevention at a store in Chicago that used to love chasing people down, because he enjoys that shit.
Tell yourself that if you want to, but the truth is that bouncers are going to have to know how to fight to at least some degree, because they’re going to end up in fights.
A bouncer isn’t usually going to be fighting to survive; they’re throwing some dude the fuck out of a venue, or subduing them until cops show up.
As far as my comment about Shiv Works - I stand by that 100%. Look them up. They train with bare hands, knives, and guns (firing non-lethal training munitions), and in awkward spaces (such as you might experience in a car jacking).
Any discipline that forces you to act while under pressure is going to improve your odds if you end up in a situation where fighting is your only real option. If you get sucked-punched on a subway, experience in e.g. boxing is going to be far, far better than nothing at all, despite the fact that boxing has rules. IDPA/USPSA will not, contrary to claims, get you kilt in da streets, because practice moving and shooting is better than not.
The idea that there’s a real distinction between self-defense and martial arts in general is nonsense. If you’re good in MMA, this is going to translate almost 1:1 to self defense. Here’s the blunt truth: most of the people that are going to attack a person have a LOT of experience fighting. If you want to defend yourself, you’re going to need to give yourself a lot of the same experiences, even if it’s in a more controlled setting, and “self-defense” classes aren’t going to do that.
And, BTW, I know a guy that teaches wu shu (Eagle Claw, I think?) that also works as a bouncer. He is very, very effective, and uses the things he teaches as a bouncer. He’s small–like, 5’5", 150#–and he punches well above his weight.
This is a difficult question.
If you’re a bouncer, then yeah, mixed martial arts is definitely useful (e…g., something like both muay thai and Brazilian juijitsu). For a typical person that’s unlikely to ever need to defend their life, probably not.
As far as which martial art you should take, if you’re going to take one… It depends on what you want. If you want a physical activity that doesn’t have to be practical, then take up something like kyudo, kenjutsu, or aikido. If you want something that’s practical, then look into juijitsu and things based more in grappling. If you seriously worry about getting into a confrontation with someone that’s armed, then look up Shiv Works, and see what they have in your area.
A concealed carry permit can be useful, yes, but it’s very, very situational, and requires practice. Moreover, ever single bullet you fire outside of a range has to be accounted for.
Most people think it is just in the realm of dietary preferences and cuisine and don’t know why.
And yet, if you said something about black people and watermelon or fried chicken, or Chinese people and cats, you would immediately be treated like a racist, because you would be.
Even worse, the famine was entirely caused by landlords and especially the English. It wasn’t a natural disaster, but a product of monoculture that was forced on the people through no fault of their own.
Functionally? No. Legally? Yes.
When I’m applying for jobs, I do check the box that says disabled, because according to the US gov’t, developmental disorders like autism spectrum disorder are considered disabilities. (Probably ADHD also, but that evaluation isn’t complete yet.) OTOH, it’s unlikely to help if i am subjected to some kind of workplace discipline that’s the direct result of being on the autism spectrum, or if I fuck something up because i have severe ADHD. The kind of accommodations that they would need to make are… Pretty limited, TBH.
And this is covered by freedom of the press.
Their freedom of the press isn’t what’s in question. Their ownership is. They are welcome to continue operating as long as they are not owned by a Chinese company based in China and subject to Chinese national security laws.
But, even if it’s really, truly, a 1A issue, no rights are absolute. You can not, for instance, publish classified information, and then claim that it’s a free speech issue. National security interests can, and do, outweigh individual and especially corporate rights to free speech.
especially when the justification seems to be about the speech on that app
But that’s not the justification. The justification is first, access to data, and second, manipulation of that data. The gov’t is arguing that TT is hoovering up massive amounts of data on users, and then is manipulating the content that is shown to them in order to unjustly influence international policy, and all done with no transparency at all. It’s on-par with Russian election interference, although perhaps a little longer lasting and more subtly done.
People that are registered Republicans, consistently vote Republican, or hold Republican views make up a little under half of the overall population, current population in the US is around 340M (last time I checked, it’s been a minute), so 140M is a fairly conservative (ha!) guess at how many people would more-or-less be Republican, or lean Republican.
Oh, and the flip side of that is that there are a larger number of people that are registered as Democratic voters, consistently vote Democratic, or tend to lean Democratic in their views, even if they don’t vote/don’t vote consistently.
…It’s not even close to the majority of people in the GOP. It’s not even a particularly large minority
Jesus fucking christ.
Even if it was 100 people every single day that were being, caught, arrested, or convicted for CSAM or sexual misconduct of some kind with a minor, and every single one of them was in the GOP, that’s still 365,000 out of about 140,000,000, which is .2%, on an annual basis. Two tenths of one percent is about fifty percent away from being a majority.
After all its not hard to make a corporation in the US
…A US corporation is subject to US laws.
ByteDance is subject to Chinese laws.
If TikTok wants to do everything that it’s currently doing, but under US law and under US scrutiny, they’re more than welcome to do so. But they’re currently evading any serious scrutiny. Hence the reason to shut them down if they refuse gov’t oversight.
National security interests are the interests of the people though.
The fundamental issue is that, assuming I’m not leaking national security information, I can say nearly anything I want on Facebook, Twitter, etc. (as long as I’m not in violation of their terms of service). The US largely does not censor people using the power of the gov’t. If I am an authoritarian communist, I’m more than welcome to spread these views on any American social network that I choose without gov’t interference. I can spread anti-vax and Q nonsense if I wish, and the worst-case scenario is that my neighbors will stop talking to me. I can attack the very foundation of the country if I want, as long as I’m not spreading military secrets.
This is not the case in China. Spreading pro-capitalism and pro-democracy messages can quickly get you arrested. Trying to share accurate information about what really happened in Tianamen Square in 1989 can result in you disappearing. Words and phrases are actively censored by the gov’t on social media. The Chinese gov’t takes a direct role in shaping social media by what it promotes, and what it forbids. Anything that’s perceived as an attack on the political system of the country, the party, or any of the leaders (remember the internationally famous tennis player that abruptly disappeared when she accused a local party leader of sexual assault?) will put you at risk.
This isn’t a case of, “oh, both sides are the same”.
The Constitution doesn’t only protect American citizens, it protects everyone
Uh, no. It doesn’t protect everyone, not by a long shot. The US constitution doesn’t guarantee Chinese citizens, living in China, the right to freedom of the press.
…And this isn’t about which speech they’re allowing. This is about who controls the platform, and how they respond to gov’t inquiries. If TikTok is divested from ByteDance, so that they’re no longer based in China and subject to China’s laws and interference, then there’s no problem. There are two fundamental issues; first, TikTok appears to be a tool of the Chinese gov’t (this is the best guess, considering that large parts of the intelligence about it are highly classified), and may be currently being used to amplify Chinese-state propaganda as well as increase political division, and second, what ByteDance is doing with the enormous amounts of data it’s collection, esp. from people that may be in sensitive or classified locations.
As I stated, if TikTok is sold off so that they’re no longer connected to China, then they’re more than welcome to continue to operate. ByteDance is refusing to do that.
Until it doesn’t.
…And that point is often what we call “genocide”, when you’ve killed so many people that there simply aren’t enough left to effectively resist, and then you forcibly assimilate the remainder into your culture.
Are you okay with losing the majority of battles and having x10 the casualties?
The thing is that having 10x the casualties tends to create more fighters.
This is why Israel needs to commit total genocide in order to “win” in Gaza and the West Bank. Every time they kill a legitimate Palestinian fighter–versus an uninvolved civilian–they’re killing someone that had a family, and friends, people that knew the person, people that loved the person, had probably heard about the injustices (real or perceived; mostly real in the case of Palestinians) from them, and knew why they were taking up arms. These people don’t end up being cowed by the violence. Then you add in the people who have their whole families killed by indiscriminate bombing, and no longer feel like they have anything to lose except their shackles.
We know this already. We’ve known this since WWII. The Axis and Allies both through that bombing civilian population centers–London for the Axis, Dresden for the Allies–would break the will of the people, but instead it hardened them. The concept of total war and mass casualties simply Does. Not. Work.
You can’t win wars like this through military force alone, unless you’re willing to commit total genocide.
and your relying on sympathetic locals
This would also be true of a guerilla civil war in the US though. You’d be relying on locals–people that had probably had friends and families killed by gov’t military operations and indiscriminate bombing–to help you root out insurrectionists.
Would a large number of 2A supporters be in favor of tyranny as long at it had an ® next to it? Sure. Certainly not all of us though.
My experience has been that executives don’t usually have a solid grasp of how things work at ground level. They’re good for vision and overall direction, but can have… peculiar ideas about how to get there. Good management makes sure things go in the direction that executives want, without the executives interfering in actual processes.
This does assume that executives aren’t actually malicious though, and same with management.