swim

Just because you’re not wrong doesn’t mean you’re right. “Spray and pray” is the lowest form of divine intervention. - Laws of Murphy, 69:420

How a gun “works” is that a thick-walled chamber houses the cartridge, so that as the powder ignited within rapidly expands (deflagration) there is nowhere for it to go besides violently propelling the projectile into the barrel. If there is no chamber, the thin walls of the cartidge are the path of least resistence, and the bullet likely stays put as the gases escape from cracks in the casing.

So no, while this wouldn’t be “safe” (eye damage comes to mind), there would not be enough energy to significantly wound a human by striking a round’s primer without a chamber.

No barrel makes the whole round detonate. The bullet is ineffective, the “gun” explode :(

autististic

Repeating patterns, checks out

“Did you think I was gonna mug you?” came from the girl, not 2A bro

I’m familiar with every large “delivery app” service, and none involve a situation where the driver fronts their personal money. That’s ridiculous. The app service gives the driver a credit card for situations where in-person payment is required.

I think you’re about to cook them.

The trial, which will take place at Kyoto University Hospital from September to August 2025, will treat 30 males aged 30-64 who are missing at least one molar.

I think it could very well be dissolving at least a coating. I would use more dilute IPA. 👍

Believe it or not, there have been well-reasoned, aptly articulated arguments against capitalism delivered by earnest, enlightened people (and members of every class), delivered chiefly out of compassion for their fellow man, for over 200 years.

Anti-capitalism sentiment is in no way a transient sensation. It’s clear from your comments you aren’t well-read on the subject, and I don’t mean that as an insult; with some even-keeled reading of relevant works rather than knee-jerk dismissal of all criticism of capitalism as people looking for something to “blame for their woes,” you will undoubtedly have a better grasp on the world and your own position in it.

This is it, folks

Also, I can barely eat 6 spiders in one sitting.

6 orders of spiders, maybe.

We’ve all made the embarrassing mistake of ordering 6 orders of spiders, thinking it was 6 individual spiders, and succumbing to a ego belly encumbered with as many as 36 spiders for sake of seeming ignorant of how spider restaurants work. And since it’s usually a mistake made on nascent visits in unfamiliar cultural territory, we’re already acting inured to the strangeness of eating raw spiders, so it’s often a double-whammy.

Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?

Who, Plop?

Prosecution, but yeah. Persecute this shithead

Which flower tho

I haven’t encountered that and it’s upsetting and dumb.

I bet myself I would find the word “smarmy” somewhere here. Agreed

That’s the mistake you’ve been making that I pointed out: they were never challenging the fact that knowing employment law will protect your job when protesting. They were challenging a conflation of the law with company policy.

No one in this discussion thinks the Constitution will protect them from termination when the company has employment law on their side, they’re insisting against (what seemed to be your) assertions that acting against company policy was a matter of criminal law.

E: They said “It is […] legal to voice political opinions, even on company time, even on company platforms, and it is also legal for the company to fire the people doing so.” And you replied "That’s the misinformation that caused these people their jobs. Stop spreading it. You’re wrong, and dangerously misinforming others about US laws. You cannot voice political opinions at work if the company has a policy against the practice." They weren’t spreading misinformation, man. You, however, are using words like “you cannot” about company policy, like a bootlicker.

Trespassing is against the law, yep. Doesn’t look like anybody was disputing that or ignorant of anything you’re talking about. The person above was correctly making a needed distinction; “the law” has been conflated with “company policy.”