theunknownmuncher @ theunknownmuncher @lemmy.world

Posts

4

Comments

919

Joined

1 yr. ago

If you have a muffler on your car, then you must be a criminal getaway driver that just wants to escape from the cops without being heard

Ear drums are nice to have

Hollywood myth.

I think Debian is generally well respected for its stability and boringness, no?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

Don't forget pedophilia

makes an incorrect claim, gets factually proven wrong

"I dOn'T cAAAAAAAAAAAAArE!!!! pOsTiNg SoUrCeS iS sPaMmInG!!!!!! sToP fRoThInG!!!!!!!"

lmao.

But that's just like the story your brain wrote to explain how you feel about reality

These aren't my feelings, they are facts.

I'm well aware of shotspotter systems.

with great accuracy and provide rapid response

This is provably false. Shotspotter is incredibly inaccurate, the false positive rate is EXTREME (84% false positive rate). Even when it does correctly detect a gunshot, this information is of almost no value to police. 0.9% of shotspotter detections led to seizure of a firearm and 0.7% of detections led to an arrest. This means that literally over 99% of shotspotter detections are wrong or unhelpful. It's a totally bunk system that does not work and provides no value to a community's safety.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/larsdaniel/2024/12/05/new-study-nypd-shotspotter-gunshot-detection-is-wildly-inaccurate/

The most value shotspotter has to police has literally nothing to do with guns or suppressors. The shotspotter towers can be used as general surveillance of the public, because the microphone systems are able to record human voices, and these recordings have even been used as evidence in court to make convictions.

https://sls.eff.org/technologies/gunshot-detection

It is actually a major waste of police resources as they constantly respond to false positives and dead end leads with no useful information. Shotspotter is so ineffective and wasteful that many cities are canceling their contracts.

https://www.daytondailynews.com/local/dayton-not-renewing-contract-with-shotspotter-program/PYYGLLNVRJGUHEAF4OSJJ7K4NA/

Suppressors would have almost no impact on how effective shotspotter systems are, regardless of the fact they are only 0.9% effective anyway and can't really get any worse, but because the gunshots when using a suppressor are still loud enough to cause hearing loss and would still theoretically be detected by these microphone systems. From the company's own promotional material:

https://www.soundthinking.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/FAQ-June-2019.pdf

Quote me where I claimed a supressor is necessary in order to use a firearm.

Strike 2! Is something wrong? I would think it easy to scroll up and find my words that make this claim, since you seem so convinced that's what I've said. Whatever could be the problem preventing you?? 😛

It's not just media. The number of software engineers I've heard talk about "fixing" a "zero day" in a code dependency by updating to a patched version...

"I even quoted you: [empty space where a quote would be, if you had one]"

Still waiting. 😴

Canned pickles are fine.

Are you replying to the wrong comment? Quote me where I claimed a supressor is necessary in order to use a firearm. I'll wait.

what a fantastic distortion of reality.

What is the reality, then? Tell me how I'm wrong (you cannot).

god forbid you wore your actual ppe while using firearms.

Hearing protection is still required when using a surpressor to prevent hearing damage

poor baby, wants the boom boom but doesn't like the bang bang. take your tinnitus like the rest of us and stop fucking crying.

The problem with your comment, yet again, is "tax-exempt" is a meaningless term in this context. What does that mean, exactly? Exempt from what tax?

Yes, airbags are exempt items from the National Firearms Act. Your question genuinely doesn't make sense. What tax do you think applies to airbags? Property tax? Sales tax? No one is suggesting suppressors be "tax-exempt", especially because that term doesn't make any sense in this context.

Right, there is no valid argument that is based on reality, not Hollywood fantasy, for restricting suppressors or taxing suppressors, a literal safety device. It's like restricting and taxing airbags on a car.

The reason it looks so strange to your brain is because the video's speed has been messed with to emphasize the robotic effect. Someone else commented with a video of him doing this live on stage, and it just looks like anyone else who can do the robot well. Your brain is correct, the OP video is fake