Yes, it's legal in much of the US. Many states require a permit for concealed carry, but not for open carry. WalMart has signs at the front of the store "requesting" people not to open carry, but apparently not prohibiting it.
Skydancer
joined 1 year ago
Slow down there - you're making some rather large assumptions about why they have guns. Sure, some people have guns for "self defense" (some for valid reasons, others because racism). Others have them for hunting. Sometimes they're inherited and have sentimental value.
Edit: Also, kids aren't the only reason not to keep them loaded. Keeping guns and ammo separately secured introduces enough of a delay to reduce the risk of suicide, for example.
The opposite headline would have been more true. This ruling DOES disenfranchise those very same voters for state and local elections.
They won't get to vote on little things like who draws the voting districts, who runs the elections, who certifies (or refuses to certify) the elections. Same for who decides on school book bans, policing priorities, medicaid expansion, or mask bans.
This may be a smaller loss than expected, but painting it as a win is disingenuous.
Easy. You either set it up as a nonprofit (still not great in terms of incentives) or, better, as a consumers (or members) cooperative.
Alternatively, you don't - you modify the incentives. Agency sets a one time, lifetime membership fee. Every failed match they set you up with refunds you a percentage of the balance.
Detailed example:
Let's assume it's a $1000 membership, 5% refund.
First match works out? They keep the $1000 First match fails? You get $50 back. Second fails? You get another $47.50 (2% of the remaining $950) By match #45, you've been refunded 90% and they're still holding less than $100.
Why it works:
This strongly incentivizes the agency to make the best possible match as quickly as possible. Users aren't incentivized to join fraudulently because they'll never get more out than they put in. The agency has no reason to create fake profiles, since a bad match costs them money.
Where it (arguably) fails:
-
This incentive structure is designed for long-term, monamorous relationships. It fails to account for poly relationships. People using it for short term hook-ups would settle over time into #2 below.
-
After a certain number of bad matches, it's not worth it to the agency to put any effort into making a good match. Since they make the most money on early matches, their incentive is to connect the most "desirable" candidates with new members. People with more failed matches will most likely be connected to ... other people with more failed matches.
Arguably, this is a feature not a bug. For new members, it means they don't get spammed by long-time members that are hard to get along with or not actually looking for a long term relationship. For the ones that the early match algorithms didn't work put for, it means they'll at least get exposed to different groups of people over time - including others that failed to match for similar reasons as themselves.
- Even if the user never makes a successful match and gives up, the agency still gets paid. An alternate strategy for the agency could be to make the worst possible matches so members give up early and they keep more of the membership fee.
This would not do wonders for their reputation and is probably not a good long term strategy for them - at least on the early matches. After a certain number of failures though, it might be an effective way to cut losses.
Which is again, not what they're suggesting. This article was about putting the panels above the road
Pornography is ~~close to~~ full sex work
FTFY
Dems don't even need to come up with a plan - the Venezuelan opposition just showed them what to do.
Unfortunately, Venezuela also provided a roadmap to the Repubs. In the end, it may come down to exactly what you said: combat.
view more: next ›
Don't forget /auto, for things that get automatically mounted when you first access them (autofs)