The screwdriver trick is mid imo - you run a major risk of just shearing the filter body wall and now your problem is a leaky oil filter that’s much harder to grasp with other hand tools. Go buy a strap wrench that you can use to install and remove.

Or for the very stubborn filters, these kind of tools are very much a one trick pony that only takes the filter off, but it’s a good trick - it has worked every single time for me.

Even one of the hostages who was rescued by the IDF called it out:

As Will Be Seen on TV

An even darker joke was missed here by the creator instead of the analog > digital gag

6. Patent pool

The AR market is not just entertainment, Microsoft has been failing to build a viable AR helmet for soldiers for years now, after the latest-and-greatest fight jets got them.

Professional use too - think of how much simpler and safer ‘realistic’ training could be for deep sea commercial divers or oil rig workers. Live schematic overlays for aircraft technicians at work/in training.

Those are a few of the applications where an absurdly high unit cost/license fee would be gladly swallowed instead by governments or business.

I felt the Fight Club line was pretty clearly tongue i n cheek, but to be clear - I have nothing wrong with self improvement for yourself, with organic rationale.

The grindset lifestyle is super toxic though, and the wellness influencers are just yogis reskinned imo.

To date, EMAS safely stopped 22 overrunning aircraft, carrying 432 crew and passengers aboard those flights.

Seems that this isn’t a new tech but can be hard to retrofit at airports with limited space. Cool to see a list of airports that do have it installed though

In some cases, it is not practicable to achieve the full standard RSA because there may be a lack of available land. There also may be obstacles such as bodies of water, highways, railroads, and populated areas or severe drop-off of terrain.

Agreed, but-

Why not have something softer/gentler deceleration than a hardened barrier? A gravel trap like you see for overloaded trucks at the bottom of steeps hills for instance? It’s still going to suck and likely disintegrate the aircraft a lot, but like the Azerbaijan 8243 crash shows, you can have a hard landing off runway not end with 100% catastrophe.

Self improvement is masturbation. Now self destruction…

The left side is the lifestyles people sell to you in a futile effort to ‘beat the grind set’ required by “line goes up, forever” capitalism.

The right side is min-maxing your output to actualize your rewards in that system, at the cost of your lifespan.

The only winning move is not to play.

Step into the arena, many many people far smarter than you or me have hashed this debate and still have no consensus.

There is no general consensus on the definition of terrorism. The difficulty of defining terrorism lies in the risk it entails of taking positions.

The political value of the term currently prevails over its legal one. Left to its political meaning, terrorism easily falls prey to change that suits the interests of particular states at particular times. The Taliban and Osama bin Laden were once called freedom fighters (mujahideen) and backed by the CIA when they were resisting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.

Now they are on top of the international terrorist lists.

General Assembly Resolution 42/159 acknowledges that the cause of terrorism often lies in the “misery, frustration, grievance and despair” that leads people to seek radical change. The resolution identifies the root causes of terrorism as occupation, colonialism and racism. A definition of terrorism should thus be comprehensive, in order to avoid double standards.

foreign /fôr′ĭn, fŏr′-/

adjective

1. Located away from one’s native country.  “on business in a foreign city.”
2. Of, characteristic of, or from a place or country other than the one being considered.  “a foreign custom.”
3. Conducted or involved with other nations or governments; not domestic.  “foreign trade.”

Don’t be disingenuous , even in native Russian it has distinction of worth:

…explanation of the concept [near abroad] in Russian: " ‘The term originally had an ironic nuance,’ said the historian Ivan Ivanovich. ‘People spoke of nastoyashchyeye za rubezhye, “the present-day abroad.” But now the words have acquired a purely informational meaning, in order to distinguish the new states of the C.I.S. [ Commonwealth of Independent States, a title now in the dustbin of history ] from the “original” abroad.’ “

Auto translation:

A promise from 382 OBMP 810 OGVBRMP to everyone who doubted the joint work of our guys with foreign colleagues! We work in a well-known area of ​​a well-known region

Listened to the first season a while back, I genuinely had one (1) note/dispute, for a series spanning nearly 11 hours on the Iraq invasion. They brought receipts, sources, archived media snippets, and a lot of context that mainstream media still glosses over with 9/11 remembrance justifications.

Very listenable, add it to your queue if you remotely enjoy geopolitics

We can thank Steve for the leaps and bounds that happened in the early 90’s with CGI - tl;dr he was a brilliant animator who snuck in under the radar at ILM and was given run of the animation department because he/his working partner literally invented many of the cutting edge animation techniques, from scratch.

Dude has a tragic story (personality disorder & alcoholism) that led to him being uncredited and blacklisted, pretty well captured in a biopic, worth the hour-ish watch imo.

• The Abyss, 1991 - Academy Award for Visual Effects
• Terminator 2, 1991 - Liquid Metal for T-1000
• Jurassic Park, 1993 - work featured throughout, with the highlight of the T-Rex’s movement and skeletal modeling
• The Mask, 1994 - Nominated for Academy Award for Visual Effect

Seriously. Why the fuck else would your “top investigators” release these kind of details of an ongoing investigation when the normal comment is “we don’t discuss active investigations”?

1. They have no good leads and are hoping for more tips from the public (lol good luck with that $60k snitch line bounty you stiff people on).
2. They hope to rattle this purported individual to do something stupid like grant a media interview or send an email/letter
3. They are throwing a massive digital dragnet around this and are hoping this purported individual is manically F5’ing any and all stories for counterintelligence of their case.

I don’t understand where or how or why vigilante murder is even brought up here? Who said or implied anything about murder.

The original post is literally about a vigilante murdering the UHC CEO and another company seemingly changing policy afterwards, with OP attaching a comment about ‘not saying it’s good, but maybe violence does work’. You brought solidarity in out of nowhere, and implied it was parallel to sectarianism/tribalism.

That is why I called you out as being obtuse, a vigilante murder is the only reason this comment thread exists - it was there from the very beginning.

I’m merely specifying the easily missed core of solidarity which is that a background of legitimacy is required to have these soup kitchens and co-op farms. The state and it’s “violence” of set rules and consequences must exist as a background before the space can be opened up for these examples you use.

You never mentioned legitimacy - I inferred it. That’s called reading comprehension, not strawmaning. Which is why I posted that legal is not inherently moral. Because enforcing laws, not persuasion or incentives to prompt compliance, ultimately requires a state actor to force that law on another person. And if that person still says “no” then that state actor is empowered to use violence to either make that person submit and follow that law, be arrested, or ultimately killed if they continue to resist. A law prohibiting rape or murder is different than anti-vagrancy laws or occupational licensing - but the enforcement is facsimile if met with resistance.

Quite hilarious to call me the obtuse and myopic one here, when my whole cornerstone from the start has basically been a suggestion to step back and think about what Solidarity means and how it is effectively sustained before we rush in to believing we can so easily make such harsh distinctions between legality and morality or state vs tribalist violence.

This is a good explanation. Your initial comment was half-baked and didn’t expound on what you were trying to say, which is why challenged what I inferred your thrust to be. I’m not foolish enough to believe that we can all live in 100% peaceful coexistence, nightly drum circles, and unlimited cooperation and mutual respect. Because there’s always some asshole who doesn’t want to help or respect autonomy, and becomes the aggressor in order to steal/subjugate/dominate/etc. But my thrust was that the social contract is broken, when a company can essentially renege on a financial contract (heath insurance) arbitrarily and capriciously, and faces no legal repercussions. Because lobbying. Because “business friendly” legal environment where the one with the most money almost wins by default, if there even is a legal challenge.

Please don’t triple strawman me here

I genuinely don’t think you understand what that means, or are confusing presumptive argument for it. It you feel misrepresented and I am straw manning - explain in further detail. Like you just did now, instead of a snarky “u iz strawman winnar”. We never got to that part of the debate initially because you got huffy and left a drive-by comment at the first challenge.

You’re trying hard to be obtuse, or super myopic if you don’t see the through line from state violence, to consent of the governed to accept laws (and the violence required to enforce them) - hence my comment that legality is not morality, and the inference that lobbying has broken that trust and consent by legalizing policies like UHC’s that are not unique to that one company.

You brought solidarity into this, which is distinct from tribalist/sectarian violence like you’re alluding to. Soup kitchens, community legal defense funds, or cooperative farms are examples of solidarity. Not vigilante murder.

Why?

You, your boss, the executive board, hell the country and the planet even, is completely irrelevant to the ghouls who only see profit. Everyone is replaceable.

Externalities are not a cost feature of capitalism, and when the government fails to prevent the most egregious excesses of the ‘line must go up, forever exponentially’ money chasers, everyone pays the price for their greed.

Communities poisoned because freight trains “need to be umpteen cars long to be profitable” whilst demanding priority treatment on taxpayer funded infrastructure.

Over $60 billion in taxpayer handouts to corporations in the last ten years alone, often with no or weak strings attached, and a legislature that refuses to enforce the clauses and responsibilities that secured those subsidies. Collect payout, ‘restructure and reincorporate’ and poof - there isn’t a company by that name anymore, our contract is void but they keep the money.

Public sector employees driven to destitution by crippling low pay, while Congress voted themselves $174,000 per year rocketing themselves into the top 9% of all earners, whilst we pay for 72% of their healthcare insurance premiums.

I’m no lawyer, but the legal system calls this “reasonable doubt” and if you are on a jury, you are duty bound to do your best to judge the case on the facts, not vibes.

And the fact is, a grainy photo of two people who may have somewhat similar clothing is not proof, nor mens rea required for a possible murder conviction - who are we to claim to understand the mind of this individual?

The state has a high bar to clear that this anonymous shopper, is the same person they claim, the photo was taken on the same day, that this photo isn’t a forgery/deepfake, that only one set of that particular clothing was ever sold- otherwise it’s hearsay and conjecture.

Yeah, because nobody else speaks up for those who’d be railroaded through court otherwise. You don’t ’see them speak up’ because those same people’s voice get lost in the crowd of everyone else’s outrage/support.

It’s trite but true, failure to defend the fringes leaves a smaller and smaller pool of resistance/solidarity:

First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
     Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

So just because it’s sprinkled with the magic fairy dust of ‘government’ it’s immediately moral and good violence?

Here’s a freebie thought experiment I had to pay a PoliSci professor for; if tomorrow the democratically elected government passed a law that from today forward, all babies with blue eyes will be euthanized at birth, is that legal?

Yes. 100% legal. And 100% morally bankrupt.

Consent of the governed is the bedrock of civil society - the ghouls that run big business seem to have forgotten/don’t care that legality does not equal morality.