Don't have a problem with that phrase in a vacuum but in context of this discussion I find it highly problematic. Who decides the standard? Which standards actually matter?
I guess I see information (esp with regards to video tutorials/demos) as agnostic. If you're reading a tutorial online, there's no telling whether the person who wrote it was completely naked while doing so. Does the information change simply because you thought they should at least throw a robe on before trying to share info? As long as she's sharing good info, I don't see why it matters what she's wearing. And no, I cannot see what issue other people have other than a difference in taste (which, again, has no bearing whatsoever on whether what she's sharing is factual and helpful or not...).
I think the reason OP listed "sexism, slutshaming" separately is because they're separate issues. The downvotes are coming from your erroneous conflation of the two (and possibly being perceived as purposeful conflation to strawman the argument).
That said, I think the slutshaming you pointed out is just as damaging as what's going on in Wu's case. Who gives a shit if @sexyengineer is wearing a speedo in all of his tutorials? The point is the information and if he's not sharing bad info I don't see the problem other than the fact that you and I have differences in taste.
But again, that literally has nothing to do with filming in court and only whether or not the judge should've recused themself...
Where in "Akins also argues that the district court erred by granting the motions todismiss and for summary judgment filed by the defendants and by denying his ownmotion for partial summary judgment" is there anything about filming anyone?
It's literally linked in the article in full. It's only like 5 pages long. Very clear and obvious that this case had nothing to do with whether you could or couldn't film a public official in public...
Yeah, the ruling wasn't at all about his filming of police officers, it was about whether or not the judge should have recused themself..(?) I'm very confused as to how you could say "Eighth Circuit: Citizens do not have a right to film public officials in public" after the only sentence having to do with filming public officials in public was "Akins also alleged that the defendants violated his rights by removing videos he had posted on the CPD Facebook page, by ordering him to stop filming the filing of acitizen complaint in the CPD lobby, and by posting in the police department a flyer with information about him"
But again, the judgement wasn't at all about him filming public officials, only about whether or not the judge should've presided over the case.
Hopefully this will at least get you to look for modern, home defense rounds and then come to your old conclusions about 5.56 and dry wall... I'm not trying to prove you wrong here, just trying to get you to do some research about modern 5.56/.223 and really just modern ballistic advancement in general.
"The hypothesis turned out to be correct: V-Max bullets started fragmenting within the first sheet of drywall and completely blew to pieces on their way out of the second sheet, leaving dramatic craters." http://how-i-did-it.org/drywall/results.html
I think this is a good time to maybe do some research into whether your complaints are valid or not before making them... You clearly aren't seeing that the point, in fact, does not stand...
Not trying to sound rude at all, but you should actually read the link...
Relevant excerpts:
"Tests 1-6: Bare gelatin, heavy clothing, automobile sheet metal, wallboard, plywood, and vehicle windshield safety glass, were shot a distance of 10 feet from the muzzle."
"Tests 7-13: All involved shots through heavy clothing, safety glass and bare gelatin at 50 to 100 yards, concluding with internal walls, external walls and body armor at 10 feet."
"The Bureau’s research also suggests that common household barriers such as wallboard, plywood, internal and external walls are also better attacked with pistol rounds, or larger caliber battle rifles, if the objective is to "dig out" or neutralize people employing such object as cover or concealment."
"If an operator misses the intended target, the .223 will generally have less wounding potential than some pistol rounds after passing through a wall or similar structure."
Really unsure as to how you could possibly have come to that conclusion after reading the link....
Edit: now that I think about it, people unfamiliar with ballistic testing might not know that gelatin is almost always used to find out data about efficacy downrange regardless of what other things are being tested, so I can kinda see how you might take my comment at face value and feel that it was immediately contradicted if you didn't read the entire summary (which is a bit long).
FBI decided that, "[i]n every test, with the exception of soft body armor, which none of the SMG fired rounds defeated, the .223 penetrated less on average than any of the pistol bullets...".
Right, but that's only for attempted suicide and it doesn't mean they aren't kept AFTER. I was looking for a citation that suggests involuntary stays are shorter than a month on average, saying that there is a minimum of 3 days in some cases doesn't give me an answer to that.
Really confused as to why you were downvoted as you were the person being asked what IC stood for...
Pretty sure it's because they assumed IC was Individual Contributor but to downvote the "least common answer" is weird seeing as how, in this case, it's the source...
IANAL, but in the US, he'd be Trespassing if someone from the company asked him to leave and he didn't (which seems to be the case here). In some jurisdictions, DA/SAs will bump it up to Breaking and Entering so long as that statute allows to charge based on "remaining" in a conveyance rather than "entering" one.
It definitely should not have been requested of them, but it's possible laws were broken.
