It seemed like a murder case at first, but the forensic evidence pretty sufficiently proved that it was nearly impossible for the accused to have intentionally shot at the victim.

Even if it were an accident, he could have been found guilty of murder for depraved indifference or involuntary manslaughter for gross negligence. Just because a killing is accidental does not mean you have not committed murder or manslaughter.

It was not even a question of intent. If you act with depraved indifference, that is usually the same as malice, which means you can still be convicted of murder.

I do not necessarily disagree with Twitter’s policy that someone who is as newsworthy as Donald Trump essentially is unbannable, but I do wonder if that would have been their policy has Saddam Hussein or Adolf Hitler been prolific twitter posters.

It’s perfectly non-foolish as long as you adhere to normal cyber-security rules, such as:

It’s a pretty far fetched scenario you have envisioned. The idea that a catastrophe will somehow prevent the whole of humanity from remembering grade-school physics is absurd. Even if every piece of technology vanished tomorrow, which is pretty much impossible, humans would still remember how to build simple…

It sounds like a completely contrived scenario where there is no way to accurately predict what would happen.

I have been to warzones where the social order has largely collapsed. Gold still has value. It is a useful commodity that tends to keep its value. Even primitive societies with a sufficient amount of gold have used it as an object of significant trade value. Before the Iron Age, other metals like iron and nickle were…

That is a faulty comparison. Gold is a useful metal whose scarcity is based on our current supply, which is unlikely to dramatically change without radical new technology. Gold has long held value, even before its usefulness exploded with the rise of modern technology. By contrast, a can of beans has very little value…

I suspect that they probably have fortifications further into their territory, like anti-vehicular mines, trenches, pillboxes, serpentines, et cetera. They’re interested in stopping or slowing down a land invasion, not in stopping a single vehicle. The guy was likely able to escape because he was already south of…

I don’t think it would. Trading cards have a two way value. Not only do you spend cash to acquire them but you can sell them to others for cash.

I complained to California Attorney General Kamala Harris several years ago about a similar scheme. Nothing ever came of it as far as I know.

I wrote a letter to Kamala Harris years ago when she was Attorney General asking for action against Perfect World for running a similar loot box system with their California subsidiary, which seemed like it constitutes a lottery (which is illegal under State law).

I understand why you might think that to be the case, but if an object had a constant accelerating force applied to it, it would never reach the speed of light (per special relativity). Of course, there would be some other interesting effects, like everything that was not accelerating around us dramatically…

Unless you are a sniper making a very long distance shot or sending a rocket to the moon, you probably don’t have to take the Coriolis force into consideration in your everyday life.

It may surprise you to learn that most everyday experiences you have with gravity would work just fine with a flat Earth. More esoteric things such as ICBM launches and GPS satellites are not really compatible with flat-earth theory, but the kind of normal interactions an average human has with gravity are. If you…

It’s an implicit assumption. It’s manifest in how Newton derived the law of universal gravitation and used it to explain celestial orbits. He did not start with the assumption that the Earth is flat and everything falls toward the surface. He started with the assumption that most celestial bodies are round and fall…

My point is that if I, as someone who studied physics as an undergraduate and have no real skepticism as to the general shape of the Earth and tend to trust scientists find your argument unconvincing, someone who is as distrustful of the authority of scientists as a flat earther is not going to be at all convinced.

You are making a lot of assumptions. The first assumption you are making is that the entire theory of gravity, as it is understood by physics, is at all relevant to the discussion. If these people believed that our theory of gravity were correct, they would not believe in a flat earth.

From the perspective of what this guy is attempting, there is no practical difference between a round earth and a flat earth when it comes to calculating the effects of gravity. Low altitude ballistic trajectories work just fine assuming constant acceleration orthogonal to the surface of the Earth.