That's a lot more bicycles than I saw in 2015! I think this video is probably from one of their car free days that they've been having. Yea, the decision overturning the assault weapons ban opinion has some problems. I'm receptive to the argument that it's a good idea to criticise how a
"...there was a great thread, if you want to go beyond just this easy dunk I included."
Whenever I see these arguments, I have two frequent questions. For one, who is the intended audience for the argument? If it's people that already agree with you, I guess it really doesn't matter how you make the argument as long as you seem to justify it in broad strokes. However, if your aim is to convince people on the fence (or the other side, for that matter), my second question is this: why do you continue to use technical terminology in a way that loudly demonstrates a lack of understanding and therefore negates your argument?
I am not under the illusion that most who oppose gun control reform operate in good faith. However, it would seem to me that your attempt to appeal to someone in the middle is rhetorically negated when your opposition easily dunks on you. In this case, making concessions to "semiautomatic rimfire rifles and semiautomatic center-fire rifles" is as ignorant as saying "I need you to Photoshop this Tiktok." If that phrase were uttered by someone considered knowledgeable about technical matters and digital manipulation techniques, I'd immediately discount anything they have to say on the topic.
Why do we continue to own-goal in this way? Strong arguments can be made without getting mired in technical jargon, especially when that jargon is used, like the term "assault weapon," as a moving target that only leads to a bunch of argumentative cul-de-sacs. Steelmanning their arguments seems a much better approach, and it should start with admitting that lots of gun control regulation is a leaky bucket that doesn't really establish a narrative a lot of gun owners buy into. In fact, regulation like the approved handgun list or the AWB just gives the opposition more ammunition in a deeply unhelpful way. If we can build a facts-based narrative around how the standard of 10-round magazines in CA create a huge burden for mass shooters to be effective, then we make policy based around that. At the moment, you can legally own standard 30-round and drum magazines if you claim you bought them either a) before the AWB went into effect or b) in certain tiny windows (as happened a few years ago) where 30-round magazines were technically legal. This kind of leaky legislation further proves to those that already disagree with us that we don't actually seek to agree, only to oppose.
A couple terms not to use (unless referring to a specific piece of legislation):
1. Semiautomatic. The default for most firearms is semi-automatic and while there are a handful of exceptions, this is equivalent to saying "a car with four wheels." Technically true, but unhelpful.
2. Assault weapon. This is a bit like profanity ("I know it when I see it.") There doesn't seem to be any consensus anywhere about what this is supposed to mean and what an "assault weapon" is meant to do. In my mind, what we're really talking about here is a weapon with the ability to create a high amount of damage in a short amount of time, which is a mix of the ammunition it can fire, the magazine size it can use, the stability and accuracy it can offer, and its effective range. Sure, you can talk about how you can mount a grenade launcher to the front, but that's not really what we're looking at here. If you really want to be rid of "assault weapons," I think you basically ban all rifles outside of manually loaded rifles that take anything larger than .22 or 9mm ammunition (and yes, there are a plethora of other calibers). You can get an AR-15 chambered for .22 or 9mm for target shooting, and you can still fire 5.56 or 7.62 by loading one at a time. I think this is what people mean when they say they want to ban assault weapons, but the major issue here is what to do with the obscene amount of weapons currently in private ownership.
"Mistakes in demand forecasting have been brutal."
You...can't TALK like CHEF...Jon...or...SHATner...because they're the only oNEs...who can pull...it off. (Seriously, is a weird stilted cadence supposed to make your videos more memorable?)
While an interesting thesis, I think it could do more in pointing out how limited a lot of tech manufacturing is to certain countries/companies, and how those companies have coordinated to control prices in display technologies, DRAM, storage, and so on, both in proved (and prosecuted) ways and "we'll all charge $0.10 for SMS" kinds of ways. Outside of CPUs, lots of tech prices have sort of stabilized with some downward pressure (as in flash storage) but not much in other areas. Sure, there's some institutional failures here, but there are also a bunch of regulatory failures to keep these semi-monopolies honest by forcing them to compete with each other.
Still, it's interesting to see how Toyota has adapted and has established a more granular understanding of the pressures against its supply chain. I wonder if this means we'll see a clear effect as a majority of cars we rent in the next several years will be Toyotas or Lexuses...Lexi? Lexi.
Look, you let your kid watch Star Trek growing up and naturally they're going to to speak english from Shatner. There's no way around it.
The guy from the Mustard channel also talks kinda like that, but he doesn't go in for stock photography, and focuses instead on custom 3d models to illustrate his points, so I think I can forgive him easier.
Anyway, isn't it specifically processors that they're talking about? I was under the impression that lots of places, (including the US) can produce them, it's just that very few factories are at the leading process sizes, and so it's hard to go elsewhere unless you want slower chips. I'm generally in favor of industrial policy for processors
"...there was a great thread, if you want to go beyond just this easy dunk I included."
Whenever I see these arguments, I have two frequent questions. For one, who is the intended audience for the argument? If it's people that already agree with you, I guess it really doesn't matter how you make the argument as long as you seem to justify it in broad strokes. However, if your aim is to convince people on the fence (or the other side, for that matter), my second question is this: why do you continue to use technical terminology in a way that loudly demonstrates a lack of understanding and therefore negates your argument?
I am not under the illusion that most who oppose gun control reform operate in good faith. However, it would seem to me that your attempt to appeal to someone in the middle is rhetorically negated when your opposition easily dunks on you. In this case, making concessions to "semiautomatic rimfire rifles and semiautomatic center-fire rifles" is as ignorant as saying "I need you to Photoshop this Tiktok." If that phrase were uttered by someone considered knowledgeable about technical matters and digital manipulation techniques, I'd immediately discount anything they have to say on the topic.
Why do we continue to own-goal in this way? Strong arguments can be made without getting mired in technical jargon, especially when that jargon is used, like the term "assault weapon," as a moving target that only leads to a bunch of argumentative cul-de-sacs. Steelmanning their arguments seems a much better approach, and it should start with admitting that lots of gun control regulation is a leaky bucket that doesn't really establish a narrative a lot of gun owners buy into. In fact, regulation like the approved handgun list or the AWB just gives the opposition more ammunition in a deeply unhelpful way. If we can build a facts-based narrative around how the standard of 10-round magazines in CA create a huge burden for mass shooters to be effective, then we make policy based around that. At the moment, you can legally own standard 30-round and drum magazines if you claim you bought them either a) before the AWB went into effect or b) in certain tiny windows (as happened a few years ago) where 30-round magazines were technically legal. This kind of leaky legislation further proves to those that already disagree with us that we don't actually seek to agree, only to oppose.
A couple terms not to use (unless referring to a specific piece of legislation):
1. Semiautomatic. The default for most firearms is semi-automatic and while there are a handful of exceptions, this is equivalent to saying "a car with four wheels." Technically true, but unhelpful.
2. Assault weapon. This is a bit like profanity ("I know it when I see it.") There doesn't seem to be any consensus anywhere about what this is supposed to mean and what an "assault weapon" is meant to do. In my mind, what we're really talking about here is a weapon with the ability to create a high amount of damage in a short amount of time, which is a mix of the ammunition it can fire, the magazine size it can use, the stability and accuracy it can offer, and its effective range. Sure, you can talk about how you can mount a grenade launcher to the front, but that's not really what we're looking at here. If you really want to be rid of "assault weapons," I think you basically ban all rifles outside of manually loaded rifles that take anything larger than .22 or 9mm ammunition (and yes, there are a plethora of other calibers). You can get an AR-15 chambered for .22 or 9mm for target shooting, and you can still fire 5.56 or 7.62 by loading one at a time. I think this is what people mean when they say they want to ban assault weapons, but the major issue here is what to do with the obscene amount of weapons currently in private ownership.
"Mistakes in demand forecasting have been brutal."
You...can't TALK like CHEF...Jon...or...SHATner...because they're the only oNEs...who can pull...it off. (Seriously, is a weird stilted cadence supposed to make your videos more memorable?)
While an interesting thesis, I think it could do more in pointing out how limited a lot of tech manufacturing is to certain countries/companies, and how those companies have coordinated to control prices in display technologies, DRAM, storage, and so on, both in proved (and prosecuted) ways and "we'll all charge $0.10 for SMS" kinds of ways. Outside of CPUs, lots of tech prices have sort of stabilized with some downward pressure (as in flash storage) but not much in other areas. Sure, there's some institutional failures here, but there are also a bunch of regulatory failures to keep these semi-monopolies honest by forcing them to compete with each other.
Still, it's interesting to see how Toyota has adapted and has established a more granular understanding of the pressures against its supply chain. I wonder if this means we'll see a clear effect as a majority of cars we rent in the next several years will be Toyotas or Lexuses...Lexi? Lexi.
Look, you let your kid watch Star Trek growing up and naturally they're going to to speak english from Shatner. There's no way around it.
The guy from the Mustard channel also talks kinda like that, but he doesn't go in for stock photography, and focuses instead on custom 3d models to illustrate his points, so I think I can forgive him easier.
Anyway, isn't it specifically processors that they're talking about? I was under the impression that lots of places, (including the US) can produce them, it's just that very few factories are at the leading process sizes, and so it's hard to go elsewhere unless you want slower chips. I'm generally in favor of industrial policy for processors
https://noahpinion.substack.com/p/hexapodia-ii-industrial-policy
Specifically, Intel becoming a contract manufacturer for those who want to diversify the location of their manufacturing
https://stratechery.com/2020/chips-and-geopolitics/
And this appears to be what's happening, although, getting back around to cost, who knows if it'll actually drive down price.