pishadoot

About half of SCOTUS decisions are unanimous. The just don't make the news.

The 6/3 splits usually do but they're actually much more rare.

Maintaining geosynchronous orbit does require maintenance because there's still a non-trivial amount of air resistance that will slowly decrease speed and de-orbit the satellite.

With a bit more detail: there is a specific altitude and speed that an object must maintain in order to stay in orbit above a fixed point above the earth. Earth's mass, and thus its gravitational pull, dictate this speed and altitude through physics. There are other speeds and attitudes that can achieve the same effect (geosynchronous orbit) but they require propulsion to maintain. With the Earth, that "sweet spot" where you can achieve the correct orbital velocity to keep a geosynchronous orbit is still within the atmosphere, albeit very thin, so friction with the air slowly makes satellites lose speed. An orbit is based on speed (speed up and you get farther away from the planet, slow down and you draw closer to the planet) so as the satellites slow down they have to periodically "boost up" or eventually their orbit will decay and they'll re-enter and burn up.

Self destruct? Not a good idea. Controlled re-entry is essentially self destruct.

More space junk from just a random explosion is really bad. Space junk is really bad. If it gets bad enough it can potentially have a cascading effect where space junk collides with other stuff and causes more space junk and explosions, starting a chain reaction that creates a scatter field of junk that traps us on the planet. The concept is known as Kessler Syndrome.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome

No, he was responding to a top level comment about banning a style of weapons being ineffective, and essentially said that banning this particular platform of weapon will be effective because reasons.

That's a pretty common perspective for anyone that's never lived a life where you must hunt in order to put food on your family's table, or you need to shoot coyotes or other pests that attach your livestock or crops that threaten your farm-to-table, or lived in an area where there's literally no police for an hour or more and it's just you if anyone comes knocking.

Poor rural folks don't have a huge representation on Lemmy but there are plenty that live this way in the USA.

You don't see it in the bigger cities and suburbs, rightfully so.

I don't even live in a small town and there's plenty of people I work with that drive in ~45 minutes and have livestock that have to worry about coyotes and other wild dogs attacking their livestock.

Guns are a tool. If you can't imagine what they're a tool for all it means is you lack perspective to see how - no judgment, just stating the fact. I mention all this because this misunderstanding is a huge reason for the divide between pro/anti gun crowds, and closing the gap can help set us up for better discussions about where we want to go in terms of gun legislation (assuming you're in the USA - if not then all applies in general, not to you specifically)

My reply wasn't in response to the law, but to the guy claiming that by removing AR-15s you increase the barrier to entry to mass shootings.

Read the federalist papers if you want to understand the 2nd amendment better. You're just as wrong as the people who like to say that the 2nd amendment was just to protect having a militia.

Hand guns are so, so much more common in crime, rifles are barely a blip on the map. Also, handguns have almost no use other than killing humans/sport. (You can argue that they can offer some sort of protection from wild animals when you're hiking, by scaring them away with noise... I can't really think of much else)

Semi automatic rifles cover the gamut of utility. They're not JUST for killing people and/or sport. Every reason you could legitimately need a gun for, the broad category "semi auto rifle" covers, so banning them has a disproportionate impact to people who use them legally and as tools vs banning handguns.

If people seriously want to make a dent in gun crime/accidental deaths/suicide we need to look at handguns, but they're not scary looking enough so there's no clout. Instead we get stupid laws that try to ban scary looking black guns or limit magazine sizes. Pisses off gun owners that know it's useless and doesn't actually get at anything that can make a difference. It's all theater.

It really doesn't. AR-15s are everything you said, but just because you take this one specific model rifle it off the market doesn't mean there aren't thousands of lightweight semi automatic rifles that are cheap and just as capable to buy instead. They might not be the gun owner's version of LEGO, but they're just as available and just as lethal.

If someone wants to be a mass shooter they have unlimited options in the USA. AR-15s are just so common you see them more. Starting this decade about 1/4 of the firearms produced in the USA are AR-15s.

If 1/4 the cars sold in the USA were Corollas because they're cheap and easy to drive, would banning Corollas in Maryland reduce car wrecks? No, people would just drive Camrys or Civics or whatever and still drive like idiots.

Hey man, I agree with you on principle but the fact is that you're trying to run new AAA games with an older card at 4K.

Time marches on, and graphics demands have changed. Newer cards are built differently and games are (albeit poorly) designed to utilize the new hardware.

6600 is a fine card but yeah, you're going to have to compromise somewhere. A lot of good advice here to tap into older games, or you can spend $180 and buy a good 1440p monitor and see if that opens up your options as well.

You're hermit crabbing into used parts on the cheap which is great, but if you're not willing to pay a pound of flesh for a new card then you're going to have to settle for reduced performance - it's that simple. Otherwise what's the point of making better hardware, if nothing takes advantage of it?

I use BlueIris (one time cost for software) and a mix of cameras that link up using RTSP protocol. If you search for BlueIris compatible cameras you can see big lists of cameras, but at the end of the day most anything that's RTSP is g2g (it can be a bit more complicated but generally if something is listed as RTSP compliant you will be able to get audio/video, and usually pan/tilt/zoom if the camera has it). I actually think that if you just want to use one camera you could just access it via VLC and its IP address, but I've never done it personally.

There's a YouTube channel called The Hook Up, guy does INCREDIBLE camera reviews.

Personally I use a smorgasbord of cameras, mostly from amcrest, TP-link, hikvision. Probably others that I can't think of. Another commenter recommended ubiquiti/unifi cameras. I do NOT recommend them, but they are very easy to get going. Problem is they're SUPER expensive and their quality is meh. In order to use them you either need to self-host the controller software or buy another expensive piece of hardware to go with the overpriced cameras themselves. On top of all that they are NOT RTSP compliant so you can't really use them outside of their ecosystem, which is BS imo.

I don't trust Chinese-made low cost cameras to not call home so none of them have access to the open internet, and I can view my cameras remotely using a VPN. Everything is fully locally hosted, no cloud shit.

Also, you can buy NVR+camera kits that don't call home. Analog ones with 4 cameras are probably pretty cheap these days and the video quality will be good. You'll have to do some digging to find out if a model is fully locally controlled but I know they do exist (and you can probably get a full NVR with cameras for less than the price of a single unifi bullet camera and a cloud key).

Disagree. They are easy to get up and running but they're very, very expensive and their quality is mid-low. I love unifi/ubiquiti and have a ton of their stuff in my house but I won't buy any more cameras from them.

Wow, really?

Can you explain more?

My experience is anecdotal for sure, but it spans a few cities/ regions of the USA. And it aligns with what my formal teachers/hearing friends in deaf families have told me.

I won't live and die by that but from my experience deaf people are super welcoming.