This guy needs to be compensated for his pain and suffering, his economic losses due to his disability, and for the care he'll need for the rest of his life. Jailing the people whose negligence is responsible for his injuries doesn't help him.
There's quite a bit more negligence going on here than a typical murder—unless you've got some information that the cops were out to intentionally harm the victim.
The public would probably be served by the shooters not carrying a badge anymore, but it doesn't take jail to accomplish that.
The big exception to this I've seen: The functioning bit of software was written in an oddball language that was already niche decades ago and the pool of developers who are competent to work on such a codebase is exceedingly small.
Yep - I was at a company that replaced something super obscure - I suspect the number of people in Australia that knew the tech was like 10 to 20. The tech was so obscure I don't think there was any path out other than a full rewrite.
A company I worked at decided to rewrite a Fortran system - I suspect that if they wanted to avoid a rewrite they could have started breaking bits off into C and mixing the languages at the linking step... but I understand their desire for a clean break - a rewrite was going to take years but a migration would have taken even longer and been even harder due to the lack of Fortran developers.
Other countries regulate the pressure-bearing parts instead. It probably started off with a safety rationale (those parts are generally proof tested), but those parts ALSO tend to be the ones that are more difficult for someone to produce at home.
There are plenty of 3D printed guns that are good for more than one shot. The classic examples are 3D printed Glock-style frames and AR-15 lower receivers. As far as US gun laws are concerned, those parts are the firearm and the rest of the parts are uncontrolled. So you print those, buy barrels, triggers, magazines, etc to finish the build and voila, ghost gun.
You're making exactly the mistake I'm pointing out!
You do not print a lower receiver compatible with standard parts. The threat is a CNC milling machine cutting one from metal.
Ghost gun = key part made by sources other than a legal firearms manufacturer. Typically, this means CNC milling.
Printed guns are ghost guns, but the vast majority of ghost guns are not printed guns. Printing plastic has a very hard time confining the gunpowder. It's possible to print metal, but it's sintered (not nearly as strong) and the printers are still way beyond the home level.
> You do not print a lower receiver compatible with standard parts.
I've personally seen 3d-printed polymer Glock frames and AR-15 lowers. I've personally seen them stand up to sustained automatic fire. You're not going to be printing with PLA and there's plenty of bad designs out there that can't take the stress, but good designs that are durable when printed with the appropriate filament or resin exist.
> Printing plastic has a very hard time confining the gunpowder.
Which is why printing Glock frames and AR-15 lowers works so well—they're the controlled part and they don't bear the pressure of the gunpowder combustion products.
> Printed guns are ghost guns, but the vast majority of ghost guns are not printed guns
Sure, you're probably seeing way more Polymer80 and aluminum 80% lowers than 3d printed ghost guns... but people aren't CNCing those at home, either. They were milling those out with special jigs and a drill press.
It's not as if people are pushing random drugs into epidurals. There's a small number of drugs that are commonly used and the differences come down to selecting the classes of drugs to be used, the particular drugs from those classes, and the dosing. There's no one right answer. In other words, it's just like the rest of anesthesia.
The problem that The Retrievals deals with is epidurals failing during cesarians, which, they're quick to emphasize, is painful, open abdominal surgery. The not-so-simple solution is to convert to general anesthesia (anesthetic gas, IV propofol, etc). This isn't without its risks to the mother and the child, so there's reluctance on the part of anesthesiologists to go that route if there's other options. The result is unnecessary birth trauma.
anesthesiologist here, I really fear a dodgy epidural being used for caesarean section surgical anaesthesia, and if there is any hint that an epidural isnt perfect I pull it out and do a spinal anaesthetic (as long as I have time eg. If the baby can wait long enough). Its a big call which needs to be made quickly. I have a theory that modern epidural medication mix has been dropped to be so low concentration of active drug that it is harder to differentiate a good epidural from a patchy one, and as a result people are topping up patchy epidurals and then running into problems with pain during surgery.
The "risk to mother and child" is referring to using general anesthesia. The "unnecessary birth trauma" is referring to C-section without any anesthesia.
Still expensive, for a devkit. $1,750 would buy me a new in-box Pimax Crystal, or likely a Steam Frame with enough money left over to afford a Steam Deck.
Vision Pro just doesn't have the content to justify that price. I use VR for flight simming, but even at half-off the Vision Pro looks like one of the worst immersive headsets money can buy.
I downvoted the original comment because grammar pedantry adds nothing here. But if you're going to correct a pedant, you've got to be right. You're applying a test you don't understand and you messed it up.
"I" is the subject of the sentence, or the person who is doing the thing. "Me" is the object of the sentence, or the thing that is receiving the action. Since he and his friends are the ones who did the building, "I" is the correct pronoun.
Going back to the test you gave, the correct way to apply it is to replace entire the noun phrase with "I" or "me". The noun phrase here was "me and my friends together". "I built an 8 bit CPU" vs "Me built an 8 bit CPU". The former is the obviously correct one.
reply