I mean, he has admitted to cheating online. People that know a lot more about chess and statistics than myself say he’s probably cheated more than what he admits to.

Regardless, he comes off as such an asshole that I can’t help but enjoy it every time he gets his ass handed to him.

With what I’ve heard about the train infrastructure in the US, that doesn’t surprise me. Personally, I only ever use a car if I’m travelling into the mountains or transporting a lot of luggage. I never drive if I’m travelling between cities with little luggage, if only because it’s much less of a hassle to just hop on a train and get where I’m going.

If you really don’t have anything better to do than try to get under some strangers skin I feel kind of bad for you. Wishing you the best of luck in working on that.

Why are you being mean? I made a pretty simple point, and you’re wilfully misinterpreting it, and I don’t understand why.

I quite simply said “death threats are not inherently terrorism”, and encouraged people to not misuse the word. You’re acting like I said something completely different. You’re trying to argue against something I’ve never said, and you’re doing it in a pretty unkind way when you’re starting with this “Having a bad day” stuff.

I never said it wasn’t. I see this comment section full of a very un-nuanced and frankly incorrect “death threats are terrorism” sentiment. That’s just wrong.

You say “don’t be thick”, but it seems you didn’t catch the opening sentence where I said that “this case may very well be terrorism”.

Exactly this. People too often compare price and time of “train ride” vs. “flight”, which the flight often wins. You need to compare the full travel, and train travel has a lot less overhead, which means a train travelling 100-200 km/h usually wins on stretches below 500 km.

Stop diluting the word “terrorism” of its meaning. A death threat can be terrorism, and in this case it may very well be terrorism, but often it is not terrorism.

A gang member threatening to kill someone if they snitch isn’t terrorist. A guy threatening to kill someone if they don’t lay off his girl is not terrorist. Someone threatening to kill a person abusing their friend is not a terrorist.

Death threats are not inherently terrorist.

Edit: Are people misunderstanding something about what I’m saying here? I’m not condoning death threats in any way. Threatening someones life is categorically wrong and illegal. I’m just saying that something being wrong and illegal doesn’t make it terrorist. Terrorism involves instilling fear to achieve ideological or political goals, death threats don’t inherrently fulfill that criteria.

Killing someone out of hate is an ideological goal.

In most cases, no. All hate is not ideological hate, and most killings are not ideological either. Most of the violence we see in the world is due to people’s personal relationships with each other, or are the result of some spontaneous fight.

The problem with what you’re doing here is you’re diluting the meaning of the word “terrorism”. You wrote out the definition, but you don’t seem to understand it. The key element is that terrorism is not just instilling fear, but using that fear to obtain political or ideological goals.

If instilling fear is sufficient to make someone a terrorist, any violent criminal or anyone threatening others becomes a terrorist, and the word loses its meaning.

We’ve had a couple cases in Norway in recent years where police were investigated for some thing or other. Based on the evidence I’ve seen, they’re definitely held accountable when they over-step.

To name a specific case (where the cop was found not guilty), there was a huge case when a cop punched a guy in the face while he was on the ground. After several rounds in court, it was decided that he was using reasonable force, because the guy was wrestling him, and he noticed that the guy had a knife on him.

The point is that a policeman punching someone at all became a huge court case with national coverage, so I would say they’re held accountable.

Nordic model lets goo!

As mentioned by others: No matter how it’s weighed, and no matter what it lands on, there’s a 1/6 probability that the other dice will land on the number you need to get seven. The probability of getting seven is independent of the “first” dice.

That isn’t the point. The point is that a single heavily armed guard is enough to deter a hundred people from even trying to fight until they are desperate.

The point is that, even though those hundred people would win a fight, and even if they know it themselves, those hundred people are individuals. Unless they are desperate, none of those individuals are willing to stick their neck out to fight.

We see this in prisons. We saw this under slavery. We saw this in concentration camps. A few armed people are sufficient to suppress lots of unarmed people. Sometimes the unarmed revolt, and when they do, they often succeed if they are willing to take massive casualties. That doesn’t change the fact that they rarely try to revolt in the first place.

You need to roll two dice to get a sum of seven. Consider two fair dice: No matter what the first dice lands on, there’s a 1/6 probability that the second dice lands on the number you need to get a total of seven.

Consider now that one dice is weighted such that it always lands on 6. After you’ve thrown this dice, you throw the second dice, which has a 1/6 chance of landing on 1, so the probability of getting seven is still 1/6.

Of course, the order of the dice being thrown is irrelevant, and the same argument holds no matter how the first dice is weighted. Essentially, the probability of getting seven total is unaffected by the “first” dice, so it’s 1/6 no matter what.

I wasn’t commenting on whether or not anyone was brandishing, but on the fact that it is reasonable to treat someone brandishing a firearm as a lethal threat.

In short: You are justified in shooting someone who is armed and clearly indicates they are about to open fire on you. You don’t need to wait for them to get off a shot before firing back.

In the whole, I’m very glad my country isn’t as heavily armed as the US, and this is one of the reasons. When a bunch of people are walking around with guns, the potential for situations getting out of hand and people getting killed is much larger. It’s enough that someone misunderstands someone else’s intentions, and you can suddenly have people shooting. I would honestly be terrified if everywhere I went there were people that could potentially kill me at a moments notice without even getting close to me.

It’s crazy to see how the other soldiers that aren’t being targeted are just walking calmly by, waiting for their turn.

Might have had a gun that he dropped when getting off the bike. Then again, it would make most sense to have it on a strap, so it looks like he might actually not have had any gun at all. Wouldn’t be the first time.

I was commenting on the general situation of “are you justified in treating someone brandishing a weapon as a lethal threat?”, not the specifics of this situation. I haven’t seen the video, so won’t comment on whether this person specifically was brandishing or not.

I use it to spitball programming ideas, which I’ve found it decent for. I can write something like “I’m building XYZ, and I’m considering structuring my program as A or B. Give me a rundown on pros, cons, and best-practice for the different approaches.”

A lot of what I get back is self-evident or not very relevant, but sometimes I get some angles I hadn’t really considered. Most of all, actually formulating my problems/ideas is a good way for me to get my thought process going. Essentially, I’m “discussing” with it as I would with an inexperienced colleague, just without actually trusting what it tells me.

Yes, I also have a rubber duck on my desk, but he’s usually most helpful when I’m debugging.

Brandishing a weapon is not the same as carrying it. Brandishing is what you do when moving the firearm in a way that indicates you are threatening to shoot. In the worst case, it involves pointing the firearm at someone.

If someone purposely points a firearm at you, you have every right to fire in self defence. At least those were the rules of engagement we were taught regarding interactions with civilians at home when I was in the army.

For prepaid cards, I’m talking about the kind you buy for cash at a store, that aren’t registered to your identity. Essentially an anonymous debit card that can’t be refilled, and can be used online. Don’t know if you have them where you are?