You can bring them back with no issue. It has never been an issue, just a regulatory prohibition on selling them.

Have you met Lemmy? There’s a reason it will never truly take off no matter how shitty Reddit gets; it’s the people.

Yeah, but to say a Mach 3 cruise missile isn’t high speed because it isn’t hypersonic is missing the point.

Just because hypersonic are reported on frequently as a catchy headline doesn’t mean they are functional weapons that any given country could go out and buy on the open market. They are very much in the test/development stage and only in reach for the top global super powers. No, it’s not as fast as the vaporwave buzzwords and if we’re doing our procurement from the ACE Combat DLC marketplace then sure, but for context, the US still relies primarily on the Tomahawk which flies at M.74, the same as a C-17. This absolutely is a high speed cruise missile.

“The missile were delivered on the back of an Indian air force Boeing C-17 Globemaster III, images showed“

…right below a picture of them being downloaded from an IL-76.

Shit that was learned the hard way three generations ago and is now forgotten for $600 Alex.

It would probably be easier for them to mess with it and not affect themselves than it is with GPS and Galileo.

It’s not a conspiracy or even hidden. The media shows what they want to show. They showed this shooting until they achieved their goals and stopped showing it. It is absolutely possible that each major media corporation did exactly what they wanted for their own goals at the time, no coordination needed, just that most of them are politically similar so their goals were fairly close. Shootings where attention promotes left leaning ideology are kept in the spotlight so long as they generate attention, any time that a right leaning narrative pops up they instantly drop all coverage. This isn’t a crazy conspiracy, it is a simple fact. Vegas resulted in Trump banning bump stocks; it succeeded and then was forgotten for whatever the next useful headline was that popped up.

The bump stock ban was enacted in 2018 which marked the end of coverage for the shooting. It wasn’t passed, it was dictated by arbitrary fiat. After it passed continued discussion could have had a negative impact, especially due to the investigation deliberately refusing to determine if they were actually used or not.

You hear about mass shootings (random public ones that are committed to generate news stories, not ones where it’s crime, usually gang related, with multiple people shot due to poor aim) when the media wants to leverage it for a specific angle. Shootings that play into the desired narrative linger for a very long time, shootings that go against the desired narrative disappear in a few hours to a few days. It has nothing to do with how many people were killed or what questions have or have not been answered; it is simply a function of how much it works towards the desired narrative.

The desired outcome of a gun ban was achieved and the fact that there are still unanswered questions means that continued discussion hurts the desired narrative, so it isn’t discussed. Not only has it “served its purpose” but bringing it up now could have a negative effect for those that control the media so the media never brings it up. No, we don’t know why he did it, we don’t even know for sure if he actually used bump stocks, but none of that matters; the headlines got the immediate response they were designed to get and then they moved onto other headlines before questions outside of their narrative were asked.

I have one on my pocket knife that goes with me almost everywhere.

I’ve had people ask me to write reference letters and need to decline. It was super awkward but I just couldn’t put my name to one.

Songs and albums that I’ve listened to for years have disappeared from my Apple Music subscription. I swapped completely to a paid service and never looked back until they removed things I could listen to last month.

So your pathological need to lie for political bias so strong that you get mad at summary bots for not adding nonexistent changes to news stories? Got it.

Cool, so your entire post was calling out the bot for not including a word that doesn’t appear anywhere in the article and isn’t correct for describing what is stated in the article. Got it. Not really sure what you’re getting at here, are you mad at the bot for not lying to make it fit your views on the conflict? 300 isn’t the “unintended” figure, it is the total figure. It’s also an average for a wildly varying number across the last several months. Any way you look at it though it doesn’t represent only “unintended” deaths because that is literally not what the article says.

Yeah, the article doesn’t specify 300 civilian deaths, it’s all encompassing. Casualties also includes injuries, not just deaths.

Where does it say 300 “unintended” casualties a day? The only reference I can find in the article is an average of 300 a day total.

The Su-57 is vaporware. They aren’t actually that stealth and Russia can’t even make enough for a single squadron for themselves.

It’s not separating them out to groups because it’s a fun thing to do, it’s a literal function of how rights work. Negative rights are things they can’t take away and positive rights are things they have to give you. Both positive and negative rights can be absolute rights, but whether or not they are something that can’t be taken or must be given is important in how they are implemented in any system of government.

Think of it this way, any negative right can become a positive right if someone gives it to you. A positive right can’t exist without it.

The 2nd Amendment states that you have the right to keep and bear arms. This means that you can own and utilize a gun for self defense, which is a negative right. It can be made a positive right if the government provides everyone with a a gun for this purpose, but the right to self defense is different from the right to be given the means to accomplish it. Meanwhile the right to vote is something that can’t exist without the government providing it. For $20 I can make a gun with supplies from Home Depot. With $1,000,000 I can’t vote without an existing government system.

Abortion is a function of the right of bodily autonomy and freedom of religion. It’s not the right to have the government “un-pregnant” you on demand, but the right to decide what biological functions you wish to perform. The primary argument against it is based in religious morality, which violates the 1st Amendment’s separation of church and state. The government cannot establish an official religion and impose a specific religious doctrine on you. Since it is something that require you to seek it out and implement it is a negative right.

The real reason abortion is such a delicate political issue is that its true morality is based in religion. If you believe that the soul (a religious concept) begins at or before conception, it is murder which makes it inherently evil. If you believe that the soul becomes a person at viability or birth, it is simply a regulatory restriction like a highway having a speed limit of 60 vs 65 mph. The inability of either side to acknowledge that personal religious beliefs determine whether or not it is literal murder makes a lot of the back and forth shouting an exercise in futility. At the end of the day “Congress make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting its free exercise.” Saying you can’t do something because someone else’s religion forbids it is a direct violation of that, but ignoring that to some people it is literally murder makes it harder to have honest debates on it. At least having a basic awareness of why the other side is so rabidly opposed to it is very useful in breaking through the emotional arguments that dominate the discussion over the fundamental factors of what is and is not an actual right.