He’s a senator, so prepared to be shocked.

Blow up the system by bringing in a person who will install an even worse system. Smart move.

The journalist DID get the correct type of gun. The title is not written by the journalist and is the only place revolver is used.

And the way you say, “what other basic facts have they misrepresented” makes it seem like you think this was an intentional thing to skew the story. Only gun nerds will care about that detail, so the editor/copy person who actually wrote the headline likely did no research at all and just used what normal people think of as a generic term for a gun. The point is that the type of gun is not important. Just like if the person had said the officer was wearing a cotton shirt under his uniform when it was actually a poly-cotton blend, it’s not 100% accurate but it doesn’t change the point.

Where did I say none of the facts need to be correct? Nowhere, that’s where.

The important stuff needs to be clear, but the type of gun is not nearly as important as the fact the guy was restrained on the ground with a gun (any type of gun) to his head. Other facts that are more important than the type of gun are what led up to the events, whether the guy was still armed but only restrained, the color of the individuals in question, etc. The type of gun is so far down the list of details that need to be correct that I wouldn’t even expect it to be mentioned other than “gun.”

Also, even more important is the fact the story had the correct type of gun, only the title (not written by the journalist) is incorrect.

I don’t think it is an important distinction at all. The point of the news article is that an officer pointed a very lethal weapon at a person’s head while that person was restrained and (apparently the correct term is) supine. Does it really matter if the pull force for the gun to discharge or fire or whatever the preferred term is happens to be 5lbs vs 8lbs (made up numbers because I’m not a gun nerd who knows those things)? The point is exactly what you talk about in your third paragraph, not what you talk about in the first two.

It’s a distinction without meaningful difference. Yes, a revolver is very different from a semi-auto pistol. Yay, congrats on being factually correct. Are they both lethal devices that can misfire/accidentally fire/easily be fired with a trigger pull? Because THAT is the point of the article.

Local delivery vans is the most logical use of EVs I can think of.

1. Predictable range usage each day and likely within 200 miles per day.

2. Ability to charge overnight at home base each day.

3. Low maintenance for vehicles that normally experience heavy wear and tear.

4. Space for battery storage.

5. No need for high performance, which heavy batteries impact.

At first I thought you were making a three fifths compromise joke.

I agree. As long as I can get the same items in-game relatively easily, then I’m fine with someone else spending money to make their game more enjoyable. I have more than enough wake stones and port crystals or whatever to make my game enjoyable without having to grind to get them, so I don’t care if someone else skips the minor steps I put in for them.

The same team made Dangerous Driving and Danger Zone 1&2. The first is like the race mode of B3, and the second is like the crash simulator mode. Unfortunately, they are separate games, and neither are as polished nor do they have the good sound track.

The moderators let Trump speak for nearly 43 minutes, while only allowing Harris to speak for 37 minutes. It’s almost like they were 15% more biased for Trump.

Except we all know that letting Trump talk is the best way to make Trump lose, so maybe they WERE sabotaging him. /s

You are making my point for me. When did he send that tweet? Was it before or after he went from a nobody to a somebody?

The biggest difference between things you say are identical is that when Trump said something, people actually listened. The only reason this guy is no longer a nobody is because people didn’t listen when he talked. He had to do it himself, because nobody was listening to a nobody.

But yeah, congrats on recognizing his current status now. It’s super relevant to the point at hand.

Trump is directing an audience of his supporters to fight, while this is a nobody tweeting at an entire country letting them know they are free to assassinate him. I actually do see a difference.

Burnout 3: Takedown was my favorite. I had so much fun playing that game both solo and with my friends online. Burnout: Paradise never captured the same feeling for me, though.

So the judge’s reasoning is that the motive isn’t provable, even though there is evidence for the motive? Motive isn’t necessary for conviction, just an additional point in the prosecution. This is wild.

The schools I went to as a kid in the early 80s had paved playgrounds. Skinned knees were just a daily thing.

Man I’d love to see videos of that wave.

I was a kid when Lee Iacocca took over, but all I remember is his name was EVERYWHERE. I didn’t know who he was or what he did, but I knew his name. One of his big newsworthy things was taking the $1 salary, which to a young person sounded wild and revolutionary (I have no idea how new that idea was back then). And the minivan was definitely revolutionary. I can still remember my dad buying our first minivan (it was the Astro instead of the Caravan) and thinking it was the coolest thing ever. The Caravan was the trailblazer for the new style.

Not low enough.

It’s difficult for you to follow that 5 is higher than 4 and that Pro is better than non-Pro? Seriously?