Lead melting is not difficult. The brass case you can just collect used ones.
The primer would be harder to make (you can buy them online ofc) but with access to fireworks it is possible with no knowledge of chemistry and no realistic risk of losing body parts.
The guy who killed Shinzo Abe didn't need any of these things and still shot him.
How about blasting caps? Those are integrated into modern brass cartridges, and I think making them that way would require more precision than you'd be able to achieve with simple hand tools and an anvil.
19th century revolvers tended to require separate blasting caps, but you still had to buy them even if you could make the bullets.
Tiny objects are harder to regulate. Many drugs are illegal but are still easily accessible due to their small size and transportability.
The correct action at this point in a society that wanted to keep guns legal but better regulated would be regulation of barrels. They are the only item left that are truly difficult to make in quantity and hide easily.
You can re-use the shells, so all you need to do is cast the bullet, which is really easy, then load the gunpowder into the shells and use a simple machine to crimp the bullet on, and you're done. There's lots of off-the-shelf hardware to do it that is pretty common throughout the US.
Many people already load and reload their own bullets in the US because it is significantly cheaper. Good brass can be used many times over and loading equipment consists of an arbor press and some dies. Regulation would make getting it harder and more expensive, but all you would be doing is creating an ammunition black market that funds criminal enterprise with a supply still too large to do much in hampering gun crime.
Responsible gun owners and hunter who practice regularly would be harmed the most because they use tons of ammo. Criminals won't because they might only shoot a few bullets in their life and usually from close range.
They didn't care about Tesla they wanted to "hurt" Musk
Musks net worth is about $270 billion more today compared to when the protests began. Does this look like winning?
Conveniently you left out Musk's DOGE effort to take a chainsaw to the federal bureaucracy that people were protesting. And those protest did have the effect of making Elon unpopular enough that the administration didn't want to keep him around.
I didn't leave it out, it doesn't matter to my point. I refute the part about "winning" because clearly the protest did nothing to Musk it only had severe negative effects on thousands of other people.
He left his position as planned from the beginning, the protest had zero effect on what he did trough DOGE.
You are moving the goal post. I never said DOGE did achieve anything.
You said the protest lead to him no longer be part of the administration which is factually incorrect. His position was limited from the start and he left as planned.
It is accurate to state that we don’t know if the protests had any influence on how things went down with DOGE. It is equally accurate to state that we don’t know if they didn’t have any influence on it. It is not accurate to state that he left as planned since the announcements of the USG change by the minute and don’t mean a thing.
I never made such statements, I refuted the parent posts statement that the protest against musk "won" that's all I did before the goal post moving replies came talking about DOGE.
Elon Musk's role in DOGE was limited because he was designated as a "special government employee", a federal employment category defined under 18 U.S.C. § 202 that restricts service to no more than 130 days in any 365-day period.
This was publicly know back in February. The exact date wasn't know since it was not public when he because such a "special government employee".
It turns out they started counting days straight from the inauguration date or rather the Executive Order 14158 (Creation of DOGE) date which was on the same day.
It is totally accurate to say he left as planned and thus also totally accurate to say that one of the statements above claiming the protest "won" by pushing him out of the administration is factually incorrect.
To claim that his role at DOGE was clear is incorrect. Musk’s position was unclear.
Even the DOGE was opaque and its status unclear. Having him with a black eye and chainsaw organising anything was madness. Even Trump eventually saw it.
They protested un-elected president Musk who will stay in power forever.
Then he left his position exactly like communicated from the very start and people now think that they won, even tho they only annoyed tesla dealership employees and tesla owners.
Many things do, mostly people on Twitter seem to get under his skin quite a lot lol.
If the goal was to "trigger" him I don't think the protests succeed in any meaningful way. Innocent Tesla owner where the primary victims followed by share holder, (damaged) property owners and people affected by insurances premiums due to the vandalism.
And then of course there are still a handful of people in jail for crimes committed in relation to the Tesla protest. Arguably not victims but still a negative effects that clear outweigh any perceived positive effect it all had on Musk.
The article seems deliberately misleading for example the "F-5s, which the U.S. Air Force retired out of service in 1990" is of course still in use in the Navy and Marine as well as in China, South Korea, Iran, Brazil and probably other countries.
Also the F-35 is an always was highly controversial in Switzerland from the very first day it was publicly considered that was around 2017.
In 2020 the people voted in favor of the F-35 with 50.1% support. So the reality is that any and all reasons to stop or delay the purchase of these jets will be uses by the parties that opposed the purchase, it has little to nothing to do with the so called "trade war".
This assumes that people involuntarily paid for the last 60 years or so but they didn't. USAID was paid for by money printing and more debt making not by taxes.
If you want volunteer to chip in they would first need to pay of the debt causes by USAID over the last 60+ years.
Also lets be real here, no one in their right mind would donate to USAID. There are near unlimited way to donate money for good causes and very specific ones, where you can see results. If your goal is to have your money be efficiently used to help people you would never give it to the government. Any other organization that isn't straight up a scam, will be more efficient than the gov.
This is pointless math instead of bad math. 0.1% isn't the issue, the issue is that it isn't actually paid by taxes, it is instead paid by money printing. It's not 0.1% of peoples taxable income going to USAID, it's billions in additional debt that is "funding" USAID.
The actual true cost to the people for the additional debt is hard to measure and likely hits a different generation that the people who created most of USAID.
Instead of saying people payed 0.1% to fund USAID you should say they made at least that much additional debt every year.
You could not spend 0.1% more than you earn over the course of like 60 years but USAID did that for everyone.
You can get one that's only visible under UV light, but given the topic here it might be relevant to know that these are much harder to remove and also if they age they may become visible under normal light and/or stop fluoresced under UV light.
> Instead, use a range negation, like [^%] if you know the % character won’t show up. It doesn’t hurt to be a little more explicit.
This is absolutely horrible, pattern are fairly readable if they follow the syntax logic. Matching "everything but that random character that will not appear" is absurd.
Also the idea that a . (dot) behaves arbitrary in different languages shows a sever lack up understanding about regex syntax. Ofc you can't write a proper pattern if you don't know which syntax is used. If anything you would force override the behavior of the . (dot) with the appropriate flag to ensure it works the same with different compatible regex engines.
Agreed, I wanted to write the whole article off after that suggestion. That is such a terrible anti pattern that would confuse everyone who looked at it, even people with decades of experience.
The guy who killed Shinzo Abe didn't need any of these things and still shot him.