IANAL but isn’t this issue of responsibility obviously determined based on the liability waiver that gun range attendees sign? I’d be pretty shocked if gun ranges don’t include personal injury and wrongful death clauses in their liability waiver.

You know that a building is not the same as clothing, right?

I can’t really imagine a context except for this very common context which completely negates my point

Well said!

Right. In other words, we didn’t evolve from chimps.

Thanks for the correction, you’re right, although I would push back that readers wouldn’t confuse this with a news article. It looks like a news article from a news organization to me, and since they apparently did change the title after all, I think they would effectively agree that it is still a news article even if you call it a “live blog”.

You are quite clearly missing the point, I kindly suggest that you read the other comments more carefully.

Apologies for the bluntness but that is absolute nonsense. I just took a look at the article on my phone: ZERO clear indication that this is any sort of “liveblog” whatever that’s supposed to mean. It’s from a news organization, it’s not clearly marked as an editorial, the url and menu clearly mark it as “news”, and the screenshot literally says “this article”.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/12/charlie-kirk-suspect-washington-utah

His overall point seems to be that, because intellectual property consists of several things with distinctions among them, the use of a categorical term is incorrect. This seems flawed, as all categories are defined as such. The only problem OP has here is a lack of familiarity with those individual components, i.e. to know that trade secret is different than copyright/trademark. I don’t see how getting rid of the term IP would help to educate people on those differences.

Why is a news organization publishing things that look like news articles but which have none of the elements of rigour that is expected of news organizations? Seems like something we should firmly reject.

What’s the difference?

Pray tell, how is Deuteronomy 23 not a racist text? If you think the Abrahamic tradition has always been one of inclusion and transcendence of ethnic differences, boy you couldn’t be more wrong.

Reported for personal attacks. Do you have an actual argument for your claim or will you just be resorting to ad hominem?

The scenario you’ve described sounds far superior to the reality we’re living in now due to Trump’s presidency. The things you’re talking about are happening already, but now with the complicity of the state. Trump in power is worse than his most extreme fanatics getting riled up.

I mean, is Stellantis really American? Genuine question, as my understanding is that their ownership is primarily French/Italian.

Your statistical math only makes sense if the individuals you spoke to were uniformly sampled from China’s population. I’m willing to bet they weren’tsmf that there may be a sampling bias here. May I ask in what circumstances you heard these n=5 opinions?

It may not have the same ring to it but if you think about it for more than two seconds you may realize that it has the same meaning :-)

I don’t really follow your train of thought. People would have been just as aware (if not more, due to the prevalence of multigenerational households) of this in the past as they are now, no?

Yeah guys! It’s very important that we learn nothing from history and that we ignore the signs of fascism rearing its head once more. /s

Having a boss is a good indicator that it’s a hierarchy though, friend ;-)

Cool. People don’t reliably act rationally, though.