bitsplease

joined 2 years ago
[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

At that point though, you may as well start regulating the purchase of lumber, since it sounds like you could just as easily make the printed components in a basic workshop as with a 3d printer

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago

if you actually think that's possible, then I have a challenge for you: make a functioning gun out of cheese

Sounds like something Mythbusters would've taken on back in the day lol

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 4 points 2 years ago

Yeah that could be it, or maybe they're doing the math as literally "is your monthly take home less than the cost of the monthly payments". In which case I could see 180 qualifying, but that isn't how any sane person would define affordability lol

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 15 points 2 years ago

And if you're a pirate, or if you happen to have a lot of Audiobook CDs, or if you have a bunch of books on audible and want to free them, AudiobookShelf is an amazing self hosted solution for Audiobook libraries

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago

At least for me, that was ongoing when I was in elementary school, so I'd still count that as part of "this generation"

Gen Z and younger at least got to not have to worry about that though, you're right

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 years ago

Didn't even have to read the article to know it would be about rolling coal

Hope the idiots get fined to hell and back

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 years ago (3 children)

There must be something wrong with the math that they used here, because I'm familiar with a few of these markets and have a higher salary than what is listed and definetely couldn't buy a house in those markets without it being more expensive than would be responsible - both in terms of down payment and monthly cost

For example, I think you'd need a lot more than 180k to buy a house in LA

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 3 points 2 years ago

For the folks saying this is nothing new and nbd - Id watch the animated version first lol

I don't have any issue with CGI extras in general (plenty of movies have done it well), but this shit is just bad lol

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 years ago

Hell. Even today cats are great for pest control, my cats go nuts if there's a fly in the house until they get it

Granted, a cat leaping across the room constantly to try and get it is way more annoying than the fly itself, but still lol

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 1 points 2 years ago

Aight bud, have a good night lol

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml 2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

I took issue with this because pit bull isn’t a breed either. You used a poor word choice, had it pointed out to you and now you’re getting defensive.

I maintain that there is a world of difference between the grouping of breeds commonly referred to as Pitbull and the grouping of literally every single dog that isn't a purebred. You are correct that "Pitbull" doesn't necessarily refer to a specific breed, and I concede that point, I don't however see how that at all negates my point that targeted regulation of the breeding of dangerous, and cruel (see the Pug) breeds is a good practice, let the people who are far more knowledgeable about canine biology than either of us draw the specific lines of how and when that threshold is passed.

My frustration is that you're getting hung up on terminology while bypassing the actual points being made. I acknowledge (again ,because I already did so in my last comment) that when drafting actual legal documents, precise and correct language will be very important. For internet disucssions, a highly common, well understood shorthand for a group of breeds seems perfectly sufficient.

And if your core point is that perfectly docile breeds might be getting lumped in the "pit bull" category on these dog bite studies, let's run some hypothetical numbers on that. Let's say that half of the dogs reported as pitbulls are not actually belonging to any of the breeds known to have a tendency towards violence - because hey, as you point out, some people are stupid and will completely misreport dog breeds. That still makes them 5x more likely to bite than a mixed dog (per the math in my previous comment). Let's say only 20% of the reports accurately describe the attacking dog as a pitbull. Frankly, that's a ludicrously low assertion for the reporting accuracy, but hey - let's be generous. That still makes them 2x more likely to bite than a mixed dog.

If any of those estimates are the case it certainly raises questions about the safety of German shepards, but that's not really a surprise to anyone who knows the breed. Police and military all over the world don't use them as attack dogs for no reason.

I'm specifically talking about pitbulls, because that's what this thread is about, but I don't have anything against pitbulls specifically - I just think that we should be regulating the breeding of dogs more closely to prevent dangerous or cruel breeds from proliferating unchecked. You're welcome to disagree, but unless you have some study to disprove my core point here, I don't see you changing my mind on this point here anytime soon, and I agree with you that this conversation has gone sour, so I'm signing off.

[–] bitsplease@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 years ago (4 children)

I don't disagree that specific language will need to be used when drafting laws with regards to what breeds (or what traits of which breeds) you'll be regulating the breeding of. Of course it would have to, otherwise any such law is unenforceable - not sure what in my previous comments would make you think otherwise.

In an online discussion though (which is to say, not a court room) I'd argue that you're more derailing the discussion by getting worked up over terminology as opposed to the actual issue.

Do you take issue with how the study were discussing, or the AKC define "pit bull"? Did you even read either study/census to see how they did so before just going "oh they aren't even defining it right so their data is nil". Or did you just decide that your neighbor being an idiot meant the entire scientific community was too?

view more: ‹ prev next ›