EU has reciprocal arrest warrants and other treaties to assist law enforcement.
Though not an equivalent, the US has extradition treaties and various international agreements for surrendering a fugitive to a foreign country
Readit Newsmbs159 commented on GrapheneOS migrates server infrastructure from France privacyguides.org/news/20... · Posted by u/01-_-
mbs159 commented on EU court rules nuclear energy is clean energy weplanet.org/post/eu-cour... · Posted by u/mpweiher
And brown bears are less dangerous than cars because fewer people are killed by them. If you see a car, RUN. They are dangerous. Brown bears, not so much. Go ahead, pat their fur, statistically this is safe.
You generally can't really pet a wild brown bear, since they are not interested in humans and would avoid you. You can't run away from it either, since it can outrun you easily
mbs159 commented on Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah nbcnews.com/news/us-news/... · Posted by u/david927
You could go up to the mic and debate him, there often was a long back-n-forth. I don't think you've seen any long form clips of said debates, saying what you're saying, and you've been misinformed.
I'm absolutely not being disingenuous and you throwing out an insult like that without any elaboration at the current time doesn't bode well on you.
My comment was very rude, I apologize
mbs159 commented on Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah nbcnews.com/news/us-news/... · Posted by u/david927
100%. The US took all that capability and could not win in 20 years of fighting in Afghanistan against such a force. Same in Vietnam.
The US populace is vastly larger and better armed and capable than Afghanistan.
The US military requires a massive economy to function. If it tries to attack itself, those little armed people could stop it, the economy would crash, and the US military would crumble without needed support and supplies.
A final issue is the US troops would lose a lot of soldiers if they were told to go attack fellow citizens. The soldiers would quit, would hesitate, would not want to kill people they view as their own people.
So armed citizenry absolutely have major power against the govt.
Finally, if you were in a country where the govt set out to kill its citizens, would you rather have arms or be completely unarmed?
The US military would be the defending force, though, which would put The People at a disadvantage. Pushing through the defenses of a multi-trillion dollar military with AR-15s seems unlikely. I don't even think that China's armed forces could defeat the US military, let alone civilians armed with AR-15s
All being said, I am no military guru and I could be wrong
mbs159 commented on Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah nbcnews.com/news/us-news/... · Posted by u/david927
Worst take today. The 2nd amendment was the SECOND thing the founders put in for a reason. They just got done fighting a war against the government with WEAPONS OF WAR. It was written specifically to enable fighting against tyrannical government, which is VASTLY worse than all mass shooters combined.
What are the odds of winning against a tyrannical government that has UAVs, nukes, tanks, helicopters and jets?
Dead Comment
mbs159 commented on Charlie Kirk killed at event in Utah nbcnews.com/news/us-news/... · Posted by u/david927
I had a convo about law enforcement's tools with a California detective last month. He was very clear its only a question of resources, and if the federal gov't is motivated to find them, they will.
Guess the government wasn't motivated enough to catch D.B. Cooper
Dead Comment
"Sir, those are just internet memes I've been sharing with a friend of mine"
The whole point of this technique is that with sufficiently low information density the data is not recoverable unless you know what you're looking for, because it's indistinguishable from noise.
> "Sir, those are just internet memes I've been sharing with a friend of mine"
Then it is reasonable to assume that you can just show us these internet memes?
> By the way, a pet peeve of mine right now is that reporters covering court cases never seem to simply paste the link to the online PDF decision/ruling for us all to read right in the story.
I presume that this falls under the same consideration as direct links to science papers in articles that are covering those releases. Far as I can tell, the central tactic for lowering bounce rate and increasing 'engagement' is to link out sparsely, and, ideally, not at all.
I write articles on new research papers, and always provide a direct link to the PDF,; but nearly all major sites fail to do this, even when the paper turns out to be at Arxiv, or otherwise directly available (instead of having been an exclusive preview offered to the publication by the researchers, as often happens at more prominent publications such as Ars and The Register).
In regard to the few publishers that do provide legal PDFs in articles, the solution I see most often is that the publication hosts the PDF itself, keeping the reader in their ecosystem. However, since external PDFs can get revised and taken down, this could also be a countermeasure against that.
When it comes to providing direct links to PDFs of scientific papers, you can often run into paywall issues. Court decisions / rulings on the other hand do not belong to any publishers, so it's a different story