I learned to shoot before I learned to ride a bike, and I think almost everyone who unintentionally discharges a firearm into another person should be criminally charged.

• If you can’t consistently avoid pointing guns at people you don’t intend to kill, you have no business handling a gun.
• If you can’t consistently avoid touching the trigger when you aren’t prepared to shoot or dry-fire, you have no business handling a gun.
• If you can’t or won’t ensure a gun is unloaded before any further administrative (non-shooting) handling, you have no business handling a gun.
• If you’re drunk, you have no business handling a gun.
• If you’re going to argue about whether “nearly an entire bottle of white wine” makes you drunk, you have no business handling a gun.

It’s a weapon designed to kill things. Treat it like one.

An average man drinking a whole bottle of wine in 3 hours is at about the 0.8% BAC limit for driving in the USA. Handling firearms is also a hazardous activity requiring good judgment, situational awareness, and coordination.

What is wrong with people.

Several studies have found that women prefer men their own age or slightly older, and men prefer women in their early 20s regardless of their own age. It’s not hard to explain that with evolutionary biology, as that’s when women are most likely to successfully bear children.

Of course evolutionary biology can explain behaviors like rape and dueling, which are serious crimes in modern societies.

Your “very young” might mean younger than early 20s though, and we do have a crime for that most places if the number gets low enough.

I would be surprised if the problem is localized to just one country.

The thing that bothers me is that in 2024, polling found a majority of Americans favored Trump on immigration and trusted him more than Harris to do a good job on the issue.

When I guessed what Trump was going to do about immigration, it looked a whole lot like what he’s actually doing. It wasn’t especially hard to guess because he said what he intended to do. While that’s not a guarantee with a habitual liar, he did have a record of attempting to keep campaign promises.

What the hell were people who trusted him on immigration in 2024 and don’t like what he’s doing in 2026 expecting?

As the Star Tribune noted, “[h]omicide is defined as a death that occurs at the hands of another person” — as opposed to death by natural causes or suicide, for example — “and does not necessarily mean the person died from a criminal act.”

I don’t think this was ever in question, even by the most rabid fascists who celebrated it.

There is a risk Google could tamper with the app for specific users if they’re installing it from Google Play. I think it’s likely security researchers would discover that if it was widespread, but there’s a chance Google could do it undetected if they targeted it selectively enough.

People who are concerned about this can download the APK directly from Signal and check its signature before installation.

Signal uses reproducible builds for its Android client, and I think for desktop as well. That means it’s possible to verify that a particular Signal package is built from the open source Signal codebase. I don’t have to trust Signal because I can check or build it myself.

If I don’t have extreme security needs, I don’t even have to check. Signal has a high enough profile that I can be confident other people have checked, likely many other people who are more skilled at auditing cryptographic code than I am.

Trusting the server isn’t necessary because the encryption is applied by the sender’s client and removed by the recipient’s client.

A different Wallet/Pay implementation is a possible outcome, but I’m thinking of a bigger picture where Android phones are more like PCs: no non-unlockable bootloaders, no remote attestation anywhere, barriers to root detection at the OS level, third-party ROMs encouraged.

The early days of Android were like that. I wonder if things had developed along that path, would we have a paradise for power users? A security nightmare for mainstream users? Both? Neither?

I wonder what an alternate history where Google chose not to become evil would look like.

What if they had looked at Microsoft’s Palladium proposal and thought, as pretty much everyone outside institutional IT departments did that locked devices with remote attestation was a nightmare scenario best forgotten, refused to build it, and made an effort to prevent anyone else from doing so on top of Android? Safetynet didn’t appear until 5-6 years after Android launched to the public. What if it never did? Android already had enough momentum by that point I don’t think the financial sector could refuse to be on it no matter what risk management said.

Masks are better than nothing if the wearer is sick, but respirators are far superior. Disposable N95 and FFP2 “masks” are respirators.

My dad has cast his own lead bullets. The equipment to do it is inexpensive and commercially available, and it’s easy to come by scrap lead. It’s common for hobbyists to add tin and antimony to adjust the hardness.

Copper has a much higher melting point than lead, so it would be more difficult and dangerous to attempt to cast it with hobbyist-grade equipment. I’m not sure if casting copper would produce good bullets; a quick web search suggests copper bullets are made by machining or cold swaging. It would certainly be possible to make bullets from round ropper rods by machining them with a hobbyist-grade lathe, but it would be time-consuming.

I grew up somewhere hunting was an important part of the local culture, and I learned to hunt at a young age. We often chose copper bullets rather than lead for performance reasons. A ban on lead bullets would not make hunting meaningfully harder. Copper costs more, but if ammunition cost has a significant impact on someone’s ability to hunt, they’re doing it wrong.

A ban on lead practice ammunition would have a significant impact, but the article does not discuss that.

I hold the (possibly mistaken) belief that someone who can program everything from a web browser to a screensaver can, if they so choose, be a good sysadmin.

I also believe programmers usually don’t choose to be good sysadmins, viewing such work as an annoyance to spend as little effort on as they can get away with, which is what it looks like jwz has done here. Someone with his experience should be self-aware enough to understand who is to blame when that’s what they’re doing.

I wonder how many people have company email addresses there.

It’s a bar/nightclub. Most employees at bars don’t use email as part of their work. It would be unusual (though maybe on-brand for jwz) for bartenders to have company email addresses, for example.

Given his background, I’m certain he can do a good job of being his own IT admin if he wants to. He seems to want some of the benefits of that while having Google do the parts he doesn’t like.

Google, on the other hand seems to want to drop features that I think it intended to encourage people to migrate from ISP email accounts to Gmail 20 years ago and now sees as cruft and/or security concerns.

He does have his own mail server according to the post. He doesn’t want to store the mail long-term, filter spam, host a web mail client, or support employees setting up native mail clients.

The whole @gmail.com thing also opens up potential regulatory issues depending on the details of the business.

It’s a bar.

I’m probably missing some big detail, but I don’t get why he has his current setup to begin with.

The post makes it sound like he has a bunch of automation he likely wrote himself on incoming mail, but he wants Google to do some messy parts (spam filtering, archiving, providing a nice client). Google has no reason to want to continue doing that for him and the handful of other people doing something similar.

He’s being a bit whiny here. He was having employees use Gmail as a client for his self-hosted POP mail, which is a niche use case that likely has a brittle implementation and doesn’t make any money for Google. Gmail offers a paid product for this kind of use case, but it won’t integrate with the rest of his (likely custom) automation. He wants to self-host parts of the system and have Google do the messy bits, but he’s not their customer and probably isn’t a very good product either.

He then complains that to self-host IMAP:

My server is now responsible for storing all of their messages, including all of their spam. It is a vast amount of data. I will have to implement quotas.

It’s 2025 and that’s a silly claim. A 12Tb HDD costs the same as a couple bottles of booze, and it’s not hard to write a script that clears out spam after 30 days. The other complaints are basically UX.

Normally saying a small business owner should self-host IMAP and write scripts would be a bit unreasonable, but this is JWZ.

Depends on whether you want to convince people of your position, or you’re just explaining your own choice. The latter is fine, but the former won’t happen without better sources.