Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Oracle, Meta, Nvidia, and yes, Apple, are all in the surveilance sales industry. The tech they produce is irrelevant.

Here’s an idea to reinvent.

Make tech, not surveillance gear.

I guess “mid-size” needs a bit of definition.

I’ve got a Triumph Tiger 800, and love it. Decided against the 1200 because I didn’t really need that much more displacement. I went with the alloy rims, and that meant tires that aren’t meant for the

The vStrom 650 or 800 are both great bikes. By all accounts the 800 hits a sweet spot, except that it’s not actually a “V”.

Convenience features like an automatic clutch defeat the reason I ride. No thanks.

Sounds like you’re close to me, which means that the snow is coming in a few weeks.

I like to pretend I have a ton of hobbies, but mostly I drink and play video games.

I messed with a few browsers (Librefox and others), but ended up on Waterfox because it’s just Firefox…without much extra shit. It’s faster, lighter, and runs all of the Firefox extensions I love.

It was. I’m struggling to find anything that was an actual improvement in the UI. Most of the changes were trivial and change for change’s sake; but some were awful, and none are clearly better.

Mozilla has stopped working on developing and improving their products, and is now entirely focused on adding trendy terms and garbage, to feed money to their C*Os.

If you’re not sure what my point is you’re not informed enough to present a legitimate argument.

Or maybe you didn’t present your point clearly.

Or maybe you’re just wrong.

These are entirely possible scenarios you might want to consider.

The premise of a web business model is that websites must make a profit - either directly or indirectly.

That’s utter bullshit. Some of us are old enough to remember when the web (or for that matter, the pre-web internet) was there for sharing of information, social interaction, and community. Schools, the government, and nonprofits provided hosting for free.

Later on, ISPs started to add hosting as part of their internet service - along with usenet access and an email address. The cost to them was negligible, especially vs. the benefits of being able to say “switch to us and create your own website!”

Nowadays you can run a site from your home PC in a VM, punch a hole through your firewall, and pay a modicum for DDNS to a custom domain for under a hundred bucks a year. If you’re a bigger site with more traffic, maybe you spin it up on AWS and pay ten or twenty bucks a month.

The very idea that “The Web” is a homogeneous, for-profit entity is a profound and fundamental mistake that is made by every money-obsessed organization around - not just the financial rags like Forbes and The Economist, but essentially corporations as well. Take a look at the support site for your favourite product and try to convince yourself that they didn’t just put the minimum required effort in to send customers into the arms of their competitors.

Such bullshit.

“AI is going to fix everything, so we need a new way to make money.”

1. AI is nothing but a delusional and unwanted waste of energy.
2. The web doesn’t need a business model, period. Money-grubbing billionaires are the only ones who need a business model.

Why mention it? Because the media has a DUTY to call out a corrupt government! Because they’re not doing their job!

No discussion in the article about fraud or conflict of interest.

What trend? Lying about being noble while trying to destroy everything in their way?

They’ve been doing that for 25 years now. It’s not a trend, it’s a business model.

There’s still one protest possible.

LEAVE REDDIT!!! GET THE FUCK OFF OF IT! LET IT DIE. MAKE IT DIE!

Same with twitter.

Excuse my sorry Texan ass, but the idea of denying someone gun ownership just because they had a bad breakup or don’t have a social circle is wonk to me.

In signing, the references are saying that “I have known this person for three years and don’t believe them to be a high risk for violence.” One might argue that if you don’t know two people who don’t consider you a risk, you may actually be a risk!

Similarly, the sign-off from partners (current or recent) is in place to protect partners and exes from ending up shot dead. A bad breakup because someone was scared of their partner is probably a good indication that the partner shouldn’t have firearms.

The best part about this is that the licensing and all the other fees probably make it profitable to run, meaning they’re bottle-necking both on purpose and at their own expense.

Nah, the RCMP has its problems but it’s a federal government division, and not in place to make a profit.

I think the difference in both legislation and acceptance thereof is that guns aren’t a right in Canada - they’re a privilege that carries a lot of responsibility.

At the end of the day, firearm offences in Canada have been rising, partly because of our proximity to the USA. The vast majority of intentional gun injuries and fatalities are carried out with guns illegally smuggled across the border. Even with the recent increases though, the rate of firearms-related deaths per 100k in Canada is 2.24, and in the USA it is 10.84. (In Texas, it was 15 and rising as of 2021.)

So the process is arduous, it’s restrictive, ownership is NOT a right, and carrying weapons in public is (mostly) illegal; and consequently, we have 15% of the per-capita fatality rate.

Edit: Just found some accurate stats which shows Texas at 15.60 in 2021, and it’s not even in the top half of the states. Conversely, Massachusetts at 3.40, is the lowest rate in the country and the only state that isn’t more than twice as high as Canada’s rate.

In Canada…

For (most) long guns and shotguns, you need to take a day-long safety course, followed by both a written and practical exam. If you pass that, then you need to submit your application which includes signatures from two references, your partner, and any former partners from the last three years. Then there’s a background check and a 28 day waiting period before they process it. (Also, I understand that the background check is far stricter here.)

If you want to be licensed for restricted firearms (handguns and some long guns), there’s a separate 6-hour course and exams. Most people do the courses and exams back-to-back, so they can apply for restricted weapons at the same time.

Purchase, storage, transport, and use rules are vastly different as well. Restricted firearms can only be used at a licensed range, and to buy one you need to be a member at a range in your province.

Generally speaking, firearms have to be stored empty and locked. Restricted firearms also have to be registered to a specific address, and if you move, you need to fill out the change of location ahead of time and are given a window in which you can move them between houses.

I also didn’t mention that the RCMP licensing division is backed up like crazy, and the courses are usually booked months in advance. You can count on about six months from the time you decide to get your license to the time you legally own your first gun.

I just got my restricted possession and acquisition license in Canada (RPAL), which gives me the ability to own firearms and ammo.

It was fascinating to see just how different Canada and US laws are in this regard; and how much less likely a widespread ‘unrestricted gun rights’ movement is here.