That works. I’m not saying you can’t hunt with other methods. I’m just saying that I can’t see much of an argument against the use of leadless firearms for hunting, besides a weak gun control one (hunting weapons aren’t a significant portion of the danger from firearms, mostly handguns or rifles like the AR-15). People can hunt however they want, or not at all, as long as it is controlled to healthy levels and doesn’t cause any other issues, and, ideally doesn’t cause unnecessary suffering to the animal.

Either you haven’t thought this all way through or you are intentionally ignoring the whole host of other emotional and logical arguments around gun control.

If we’re talking about gun control, fine. I’m all for reasonable gun control. I don’t think targeting hunting rifles/shotguns are the most useful though. Handguns are the issue there. Still, yeah, more good gun control would be nice. Not really part of this discussion though, but that’s the one argument I did consider, but doesn’t really apply to hunting weapons. If we can get it passed for the weapons that actually matter, then I’d agree losing hunting weapons are fine.

That’s only true in an ecosystem where the predator (us) and the prey are in natural equilibrium, which I’m sure you’ll agree is absolutely not the case.

Without that natural equilibrium you need formal and enforced regulation to make this work.

Yes. That formal enforced regulation needs to exist, and I don’t know anywhere that it doesn’t. In the US, you need a license, and you can only kill a certain number of the animal per season, and that’s all based on how many of the animals need to be culled, and it does need to be done. Equilibrium is maintained through this regulation.

This magical “naturally healthy” state of existence glosses over a lot of problems with that statement.

I never said “naturally healthy”. I said they evolved to have a certain percentage of losses. If that isn’t maintained by other predators, we need to do it. It’s naturally (in its current state) unhealthy. Hunting is required to keep it healthy.

we are also animals, so us dying and being eaten also fall under this, so by that rationale another effective solution could be to reintroduce more (non-human) predators and a few of us die here and there, but the animal populations now stay under control.

Sure. That’d be another solution. If we’re discussing policy, I think we can safely ignore it though. There’s a lot of solutions that are not going to happen. We don’t need to rule out all of them to discuss what we actually can do.

Until a new equilibrium is reached, because that’s how ecosystems work (or collapse, depending).

No. They boom and collapse. This repeats, until evolution takes it’s course maybe, which will be quite a while. It doesn’t reach an equilibrium state because they evolutionary pressures were different when they evolved. Maybe this isn’t true for all prey animals, but many, such as deer and rabbits, it is. Population booms, they eat all easily available food, they die off from starvation or disease, then they boom back.

A lot of your argument against hunting is that it requires regulation. No one is arguing against that. It is needed, and this is already recognized and enforced. We just need to now enforce participation in a way that doesn’t create negative externalities from lead poisoning.

Well, they’re trying to kill him (Luigi), so that’s a valid interpretation.

You must be pretty rested, because you didn’t even try to make an argument. What were the leaps in logic? Can you actually explain, or are you just implying there are to sound smart, but can’t actually identify any?

An appeal to nature is only wrong if it’s saying something is good because it happens in nature. I don’t believe I did so, except maybe saying it’s ethically better for them to live in nature than in slaughter houses. I’d love to see an argument in favor of horrible large-scale animal raising though. That’d be interesting.

It being evolutionarily necessary isn’t an appeal to nature. It’s just stating a fact. It isn’t a judgment. It’s just a statement that overpopulation causes massive issues, and prey animals evolve to have tons of children because they were hunted (by other animals than humans) . Without hunting of some kind, their populations balloon out of control.

It’s not circular, because it needs to be done. If it isn’t done we have massive problems. It doesn’t depend on any other logic. Sure, the issue was created, in part, by hunting also (a lot just because predators won’t live near population centers though), but the argument that it needs to be done isn’t dependent on you agreeing with killing predators.

Sure, you can hunt without guns. I don’t really see an argument for not using them though, as long as there’s no lead. What’s really the ethical or environment argument in favor of only allowing bows, or whatever? I see the emotional appeal, if people have a negative view of guns. Not a logical appeal though, besides maybe making them harder to access to prevent deaths by firearms. If you can ban hunting with firearms, you can also just ban using lead ammo, so I don’t see how banning them is the best option in general.

I didn’t make any proposals in my above comment. It’s entirely statements of observations. I don’t know what you mean by saying you don’t see how they would work or not. I gave explanations of why hunting isn’t negative, and is often positive, but not any proposals of how anything should be done. Would you care to elaborate?

OK, I think this is an incredibly stupid argument.

From the ethical perspective of anti-meat, hunting animals is so much better. They get to live natural lives, and they die in a similar manner to they do in nature (maybe a little faster, which is good).

From an environmental perspective, hunting keeps pray populations in naturally healthy levels, since most of their predators are driven out of populated areas, because people don’t like to be attacked by wild animals. It also doesn’t consume many resources, as they’re just living their lives in nature.

I don’t think there’s any valid argument against hunting honestly, besides just being grossed out by it. That’s fine, and you can just not do it. I’ve never hunted in my life, and I suspect I never will. It’s not really something I want to do. I can’t construct a good argument against it though, and I suspect you can’t either. If you can, give it a shot, and remember animals dying and being eaten is natural, and frequently necessary to maintain an equilibrium that was evolved to be maintained by external factors. Deer, for example, will die horrible deaths of starvation, and do damage to the environment, if they aren’t hunted by humans.

People are thinking machines. The problem is, we aren’t a collective thinking machine. People thinking in their own self interest have caused most of the problems. It makes perfectly rational sense to burn the world if you only care about the quality of your own life.

The thing about that press release is that it fairly cleverly doesn’t say “no AI.” It says no slop. She’ll push AI, it’ll create slop (as always), but she’ll argue it isn’t slop and is actually great.

That’s not how the filibuster works. It only takes one person to do it. It’s take 60 to vote against it to stop it from being done by that one person. Even Schumer isn’t dumb enough to call the dems to vote against them doing their own thing.

Well, one example would be a web browser. I’m sure you can at least agree with the utility there. I would say it could also be a useful tool for a prototype, but the problem is, once you have a working prototype, that tends to become the final product.

That’s not exactly the same as not asking for permission. They could have asked, but not told him when or how. I would assume they didn’t, based on the wording, but there is some room where they could have still.

It’s an HTML, CSS, JS renderer. The fact so many use Electron for bloated app GUIs doesn’t mean that’s what it is. Every browser is functionally the same thing as Electron (with even more stuff), but the use case requires it.

This surely will be used to make bloated GUIs, but that’s good if it replaces Electron and is faster. There is a use for Electron. It’s just over-used.

No matter where you buy it, expiration dates are only a general guide, and more of a “date of manufacture” note than anything. We evolved to detect potential food that has gone bad. Trust your senses. Look and smell should be enough to know what’s actually gone bad (which is usually past the “expiration” date). You can use something like this as a better guide for when food will actually go bad, but, again, trust your senses.

It won’t sadly. I can run many on my computer. They’ll still be available, even if every server-based one goes down.

Even after they’re convicted, they usually say “convicted rapist” or whatever too. If it’s for the sake of honesty, I appreciate it. Sometimes I’m certain it’s to soften the language for the benefit of the accused though.

And Unreal Engine started on 1995. This argument always shows people’s ignorance of software development. When the first pieces of the engine were built is not why it’s shitty. It’s because they haven’t invested money into it where it matters. (Unreal Engine also has some serious issues. It just looks prettier.)

Laws are much older than 2000 years. To be more specific, at least about double that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Ur-Nammu

I haven’t read the bill, but from the description I think you could actually get around this by building your own. They can’t sell a printer that doesn’t have this, and you can disable it, but it doesn’t say here that you can’t build your own that never had the software. In that case, I assume we’ll see kits that are totally not meant to be assembled into printers with all their parts you need, and then unrelated documentation online somewhere on how to assemble it.

No, the whole point is things occurred, but were not caused by a drug, but by the brain. It’s still equally as valid.