“Falsehood flies, and truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived, it is too late; the jest is over, and the tale hath had its effect: […] like a physician, who hath found out an infallible medicine, after the patient is dead.” —Jonathan Swift

  • 136 Posts
  • 223 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 25th, 2024

help-circle
  • Here’s what a 7.62x63 (“.30-06”) does to level III armor (think basic rifle protection, the kind that would actually stop the round that hit Kirk). This particular one is a large, very conspicuous plate of steel 8.5 mm thick and weighing 4 kg. You don’t just slot this in under your shirt and look totally normal. If Kirk had done the lowest-profile possible thing and duct-taped the plate around his torso, you would still notice it under his clothing.

    And it would have to have been hard armor, i.e. a rigid plate. Soft armor 1) wouldn’t have stopped that round (that’d be more like a step down to level IIIA on the high end) and 2) would’ve embedded the round rather than ricocheting it.


  • Firstly, the burden of proof says it’s their job to demonstrate that Kirk was wearing a bulletproof vest in the first place (let alone that the bullet struck him in it first), not yours to debunk it. We’ve really lost sight of how important this is in recent years.

    • There’s zero evidence Kirk was wearing body armor whatsoever.
    • I don’t think we’ve ever seen evidence of Kirk wearing body armor to debates elsewhere.
    • A bullet would’ve left at minimum a noticeable tear in Kirk’s clothing.
    • Neither journalists nor investigators mention anything about this even though there’s zero compelling reason for them not to and, for journalists, incentives to do so.
    • The round was 7.62x63 mm fired from a bolt-action rifle.
    • If that round strikes body armor, in order for it to stop (let alone ricochet rather than embed), the armor needs to be so thick that you cannot hide it under civilian clothing like Kirk’s. The armor would’ve been readily visible to everybody in attendance. Light armor Kirk realistically could’ve been wearing would be a non-factor.
    • Even if this magically happened, the improbably fucked-up physics required for a bullet to bounce from the torso into the cartoid artery seem vanishingly unlikely at best and implausible at worst.

    While much of this just shows extreme unlikelihood, the thickness of the alleged body armor is impossible to reconcile with the round and the weapon it was fired from.






  • They struggled to deliver their ambitious mainline Linux phone on time during Covid yes, but they eventually delivered.

    And for the people who requested refunds who waited months if not never received them? Despite them moving back their timeline literal years with repeated delays? I don’t care what challenges they faced; they knowingly took people’s money and refused to give it back to them when they couldn’t deliver. It’s their responsibility to be prepared for challenges. And in some extreme edge case where they couldn’t have been prepared, it’s their responsibility to be transparent about that to the people who gave them over a million dollars (let alone purchased the product after the Kickstarter was finished). I suppose too that the pandemic affected Purism in January 2019 when they were supposed to deliver their product?

    The fact that they did is a huge win for the mobile Linux ecosystem becoming a real contender just when we need it.

    The Librem 5 is not a contender for shit. It’s so overpriced that it can only be successfully marketed to people who care so deeply about their privacy that they’re willing to use an inconvenient mobile OS, get completely boned on hardware specs, and deal with a company notorious for fucking over its customers. Purism’s behavior is a fucking embarrassment to the Linux ecosystem.

    NXP i.MX family debuted in 2013; Intel i7 family in 2008. Their phone uses a 2017 i.MX 8M Quad, the same year they crowdfunded their phone.

    That CPU is based on the ARM Cortex-A53 and Cortex-M4, launched in 2012 and 2009, respectively.

    2017 i7 computers are equally not from 2008…

    When I say “2013”, I’m not talking about the debut year of i.MX. I’m talking about the fact that you can compare this phone side-by-side with a Galaxy S4 or S5. 3 GB of RAM, 32 GB of eMMC storage, a 720 x 1440p IPS display, no NFC, USB 3.0, an 8/13 MP front/back camera (which they inexplicably call “Mpx”; good job, guys), 802.11n Wi-Fi, no waterproofing, and a shitty-ass i.MX 8M CPU. I still remember watching a trailer for the Librem 5’s continuing development, and as they were scrolling through a web browser, it was noticeably stuttering. This was years and years ago; I can’t even imagine it today.

    It still today remains one of the best ARM processors with open source drivers without an integrated baseband. It means basically any flavour of Linux can install on the device, with a significant layer of protection from carrier conduited attacks. Other modules have similar tradeoffs between performance and interoperability/security.

    I do not give even the slightest inkling of a shit try to confirm or deny this, so I’m just going to assume it’s 100% true, because it’s not relevant to the point that the spec is absolute trash and being sold for $800. If you are not absolutely married to privacy, this is not a sellable product in 2025.

    Want better specs? We either need SoC companies to release more of their drivers open source, or more people to patiently reverse engineer closed source ones.

    Actually, if I want better specs, I’m just going to go out and buy a phone that isn’t from Purism. It really sucks that it’s not open, private hardware, but Purism is such a scummy company that so wantonly fucks over their customers that I wouldn’t touch the Librem 5 even if I could justify spending $800 for that spec just for privacy’s sake.








  • TheTechnician27@lemmy.worldtoLemmy Shitpost@lemmy.worldpunishment
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    102
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    27 days ago

    It’s both because:

    1. Successful murder does more actual harm, and thus if you weigh not just intent but actual harm, you get a more severe punishment (think, for example, of felony murder, where the perpetrators don’t necessarily intend to kill anyone but someone does die as a result of them committing a felony).
    2. Treating murder more harshly than attempted murder gives someone attempting murder a practical incentive not to follow through and finish the job.