So once again, what would be the point for an auto handgun? You just said it's the wrong weapon for suppression. A 17 round mag fired in single rounds in quick succession would keep an opposing foe's head down longer than a 17 round mag in auto fire single trigger pull. Even pulling double tap style firing requires training/practice to keep both bullets accurate or else even that's wasteful
Most gun designs that included N-round burst have eventually abandoned it because full auto with operator in control of burst length turns out to be superior, while at the same time the mechanism needed to force the burst is an extra point of failure and negatively affects trigger pull .
Most recently, it was Russia dropping 2-round burst on AK-12 after experience with it in Ukraine. M4 is another famous historical example.
I don't think you even know what a "chain gun" is. Where did you get this information from, reddit and video games?
Chainguns are a type of autocannon. Heavy, light and general purpose machine guns, like the M2 Browning, M249 SAW, Maxim, Been Gun, MG3, etc... none of these are chain guns. They aren't even all belt fed, which I guess is what you meant to say because I think that's the videogame midwit lingo. They are nonetheless universally accepted as being very valuable in combat.
AIUI, chainguns are any externally electrically-actuated automatic weapons, including both single-barrelled and rotary designs, some of which are autocannons, and some of which are lighter (machine guns).
But, yeah, it makes more sense if GP intended to refer to belt-fed weapons, not actual chainguns.
Machine pistols have been sold for the purpose of being personal protection weapons for people who would only be lightly trained on the use of a handgun. Spray and pray is all you're going to get out of the user anyway.
Machine pistols require far MORE training to use compared to a standard pistol. They are downright dangerous to use without proper training, both for the user and the people around them.
I don't know where to begin on this other than to say handling a full-auto handgun is far worse for untrained personnel than a semi-auto handgun. It's even a challenge for highly-trained personnel.
Additionally, the very long history of machine pistols would indicate the form-factor is a poor fit for the application of any full-auto fire.
This is the primary reason that personal defense weapons (PDWs) were developed in the first place.
I could see that as being a useful role for a VIP protection team where you might not be able to carry larger guns for whatever reason but still want to designate some team members to suppress a potential attacker
Full auto is just going to run through your ammo at the expense of accuracy, reliability, and maintenance time and costs. Nobody is going to be providing covering fire with a fully-auto machine pistol, the ammo capacity just isn't big enough (and then think about cooling and mechanism reliability when putting more than a dozen through a handgun). These things are for raids and assassinations, where collateral damage isn't a big deal but taking out the target is.
That's nice "just so" theory, but is contradicted by the reality that the US Secret Service has been known to use concealed Uzi's, and presumably similar compact full auto weapons, in bodyguard roles.
someguydave is correct. Compact automatic weapons make sense for highly trained body guards protecting VIPs when discretion is considered important.
Compact automatic weapons still usually have either a stock (even the smallest Uzis do), or some other way to stabilize the gun while firing - e.g. the sling is used for this purpose with some MP5K variants.
IMO the most compelling machine pistols are those with small light weight folding stocks, not entirely unlike what what the Uzi had. Machine pistols could only be the optimal weapon if anything bigger wasn't an option, but my main point is that automatic weapons are considered relevant to VIP protection by the trained experts, contrary to the musings of internet commenters.
You have it backwards. The fact that after the special condition of a crash it still allows the data to be deleted is an issue. Sure, deleting of normal data is fine, but it clearly detected a crash and did not mark the file in the special crash mode as do not delete is mind boggling. Everyone knows that in a crash detection mode that the data is very important. Not having code to ensure data retention is the laziest at best way of doing things or malevolently designed at worst. Tesla and its leadership do not deserve at best as our default choice.
How handling an automobile crash not as a special case is the weird part. Even in the <$50 dashcams from Amazon there is a feature to mark a recording as locked so the auto delete logic does not touch the locked file. Some of them even have automatic collision detection which locks the file for you.
How Tesla could say that detecting a collision and not locking all/any of the data is normal is just insane.
Do all of the views necessarily translate 1:1 to the number of people that believe it? Some people watch just to see what kooky nonsense people are falling for.
Why is it that your stance isn't the wrong one? Apple sells a device that is locked down. You buy it. You then complain that it was locked down, yet you knew this from the off. They do not sell it as a general purpose compute device. It is sold as a thing that runs apps. We don't complain when Playstations will not play Xbox or Switch games.
If you want to hack a device and get it do something other than what it was designed for, then that's the hacker spirit so go for it. But why does that mean we* all have to accept your way when we just want to run apps.
*royal we. i do not use apps as i don't trust any of you app developers to not be shady.
I think there is a big difference due to the requirement of phones to live a normal life. I can't access my banks without the IOS or Android app, which require me to have a phone running one of those two fairly locked down OS's, and on Android custom ROMs frequently not working due to play integrity checks. I need a phone to go to concerts using ticketmaster, I need a phone with a mobile number to receive SMS 2fa codes, I need a phone for TOTP.
I can work around most things but not the banks, therefore a phone is required to live in a modern society, therefore I am required to use either Android or IOS. I am not required to have a PS5 or Xbox. This is the main reason I am so opposed to locking down phone OS's, I only have a choice of IOS or stock Android, and I have to choose one.
The way you have set up your argument suggests you would not use smartphones if they weren't "necessary" to live a normal life. But in that case, your smartphone can simply be one of the many black boxes you use daily, such as, for example, your public transportation or credit cards, which have a literal computer inside of them you never think about. You just create various accounts, install the apps you need, and use the phone as a tool when you are required to. Once its job is done, you tuck it away and you go on about your day.
I was coming from the perspective more of I can't use alternative operating systems on it due to these issues. For example, my laptop came with Windows, I got fed up with one drive and the tracking etc so I put linux on it, which was fine. I cannot do the same with my phone due to especially the banks, I know at least some of mine are unusable if I unlock my bootloader, so something like Lineage is off the table. This is what I mean by I have no choice in it, I have to use IOS or Android.
Probably because you can buy a gaming PC. I don't complain very often about consoles being locked down because it doesn't affect me unless there's some platform exclusive I can't play. If there was a viable alternative to iOS or Android I wouldn't care quite so much about them.
You can't buy a phone with Sailfish or a Linux phone and continue to access your banks that require apps for 3DS that check the play integrity API so compatibility layers like Sailfish has or bluestacks won't work. I'd say the inability to access my money makes it a lot less of an option.
PS3 orig allowed yellow dog linux, and there was only a slight murmur when that feature was removed. to me that's worse as it is obvious it is possible, but only now not possible because vendor took it away compared to never allowing it from the start.
That's because it was there 100% for tax evasion :D
IIRC EU had a rule that "general purpose computers" had a significantly lower tax than "gaming devices" -> let users install Linux on it -> general purpose -> more money for Sony.
But also, it doesn't matter, because it's a different topic. If someone wants A, it doesn't mean they are automatically wrong because they didn't also talk about B and C.
> on my 2011 Mac Mini which Apple stopped allowing upgrades on past macOS 10.13
I know some people feel like Apple is aggressive in this respect, but that's an 8 year old version of a browser. That's like taking off all of the locks on your house, leaving the doors and windows open all while expecting your house to never have uninvited guests.
But Apple is also the one locking Safari to the OS, IE style. Having to buy a new machine to get the latest and secure version of a browser is a pretty heavy requirement.
or use a supported OS (linux, or hilariously probably Windows), or install a still-suppored browser (I'd guess Firefox likely still runs latest on there).
I'd put it on the end user for not updating software on 15 y/o hardware and still expecting the outside world to interact cleanly.
It's a matter of expectations, many laptops that old still work decently enough with a refreshed battery. Funnily enough win10 was released 15 ago, and one can still get support for it for at least another 3 years until 2028, even on the customer license.
Will modern versions of those other browsers still work on an 8 year old OS, or has it been updated where it is no longer compatible? So much effort has been put into hardware rendering, and the mechanisms for the browser to interact with that hardware has changed within those OS versions. Forcing the user to download an older compatible version of the browser to work with the older OS is also tossing away potential security fixes.
> That's like taking off all of the locks on your house, leaving the doors and windows open all while expecting your house to never have uninvited guests.
Depending on where you live (or what websites you visit) it's not unreasonable.
Alice, Lisa, Paula were some of the chips that made the Amiga the Amiga.
reply