It wouldn’t surprise me, but I haven’t heard anything like that. Tough production schedules are a great way to cause incidents.

You’re lining up for a strawman. I very clearly stated that fault was with the owners and management for not enforcing safe operating procedures.
I disagreed that the gap in regulation was likely because of safe storage quantities, and more likely because of a failure to enforce safe operating practices.

Don’t make it out to be like I’m saying nothing could have been done to save these people’s lives.
I’m saying expecting an explosives manufacturer to have less than what’s used in a typical charge onsite at any moment is unrealistic, as is storing reasonable quantities such that catastrophe is impossible. Any storage and manufacturing practices that could give you those guarantees would also require a rigorous training process and strong safety culture with well defined and enforced procedures and safeguards.

theoretical customers that for some reason are warehousing unsafe quantities

What, in your mind, is a reasonable and safe quantity of explosives to warehouse for the manufacture of bombs?
By their nature, bombs contain an unsafe quantity of explosives. Safety comes from handling, not saying you can only have half of a 500lb bomb at a time.

I didn’t say it was impossible, just unrealistic. The cost increase for producing in batches smaller than what can cause a problem aren’t worth it if you afterwards just put it in the same pile. Customers aren’t going to want to take delivery as dozens of small shipments spread out over months, but in batches determined by how fast they use it and how much buffer they need. They’re certainly not going to want that rate slowed down by the factory having other customers.

The place where regulatory oversight is missing is in making sure that management isn’t pushing workers to work unsafely, or even letting them if they try.

So I looked into it, briefly, and it looks like that incident was a different company who rented space in their complex.
That isn’t better for them now, but there’s a difference between negligence and renting to the negligent.

So, they do. Unfortunately, there aren’t realistic safety precautions that can be taken that don’t have some risk of catastrophic failure if you’re dealing with the manufacturing and storage of explosives. Even small quantities are destructive enough to be dangerous to store.
Ultimately safe storage comes down to human operational concerns. Missing or unenforced regulations relating to working hours, training, training compliance, or handling safety concerns would be my guess rather than storage conditions.

A lot of explosions at similar facilities had significant warning, unfortunately. While the detonation itself tends to be instant, they usually have rules about how densely explosives are packed, fire control systems, and systems to maximize the time between problem and disaster.

They probably knew something was wrong and that it was bad, but not how bad.

Most specifically, it’s to provide a framework so that small changes are orderly and big changes deliberate.
Laws provide a framework that tries to resist change to the maximum degree possible, with the benefit that it’s generally agreeable enough to enough people that it’s preferable to the danger and force involved in not having them.

Eeeh. First, “mad tyrant” is a bit of a stretch. The crown was, by the standards of the time, much more lax with the colonies than other territories. More of a “late onset bipolar disorder constitutional monarch acting under advisement of qualified ministers”. Breaking away to try “not monarchy” and implement much of what we now consider modern government was by no means wrong, but it’s not quite the clear cut battle against evil the founding narrative describes.

Second, that was 250 years ago. Just about the only lingering effect is the slogan which has some inspirational qualities.

The bigger thing is that the military hasn’t fought against a technological equal in decades, and has never fought an asymmetrical war against a technological equal. If the opponent is close to technological parity, they use overwhelming force to remove that parity, and then fight from there. They can’t do that against the US, because they need those resources as well. Additionally, most of our defensive strategy relies on it being impossible to attack us in a reasonable way. The only force that can get here has to be small and sneaky. In a civil war situation, a significant number of military facilities are basically inside cities. They have defenses, but not the way they do in an overseas base. And being in cities, a significant number of pretty important sites are inside the areas that are currently being designated as hostile.
All the people doing the boring logistics and paperwork that drives most of the US military have to commute through the dangerous areas. Most of their families live nearby.

You do know that Puerto Rico has voted to stay, right? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proposed_political_status_for_Puerto_Rico

They’re Americans in the way that they’re fully enfranchised US citizens in every way.

Up until the 1960s they had the same legal status as residents of Washington DC. The only reason it hasn’t changed is because they’ve consistently asked for it not to.

Are you hoping Puerto Rican terrorists killing mainlanders will cause Puerto Ricans to vote for independence?

I shit you not, they’re saying he was against trump because he had his trump/pence sign hanging on his fence visible in proximity to a stop sign.
Also, some people have pointed out that a “T Sanford” is a donor to the “BLUE ORIGIN LLC PAC”, which is obviously a democratic PAC, and not the lobbying group for the private space flight company Blue Origin LLC, who coincidentally has a Tommy Sanford as their sales director. Because people never have the same name.

Man, it’s crazy how not using the word genocide in April of 2024, not saying it wasn’t a genocide but simply not saying it was while also calling it terrible, is both clearly communicating that she supports killing Palestinians and also super timely and extremely relevant to an attack a year and a half later.

Remember, I’m not saying they wouldn’t do it, just that they wouldn’t line up eyes open to take the fall if it goes sideways.
These are the people who in a very real sense give the government power against popular resistance. They’re not going to agree to commit a crime without at least an assurance that the people they’re doing it for go to the gallows with them.

Hell, the CIA put the name of the law they were violating right in the orders multiple times.

One of the few things I trust the military to do is to have the high ranking officials know what constitutes an illegal order, and to ask for a written order to cover their own asses.

To make it even more WTF, the religions they have the most issue with don’t even have a different diety, just different people saying he told them an updated message on the rules of life.

Israel is required to exist for some interpretations of Armageddon in the Bible. They hate them, but they need Israel to exist because it’s central to moving forward with the end of the world and their gods cleansing of the forces of evil and the ushering in of a new world order.

So keep that fun fact in mind when you hear Christians being really pro Israel.

I wouldn’t say it’s ignoring it. I’m incredulous that DHS would pressure Facebook to cancel an account or something for the same reason I’m not as bothered by it happening: it doesn’t have real consequences.

If the government censors you, it can take your money or your freedom. Not only does it have much higher stakes, it has stakes you can’t get around. You can’t go to a platform that doesn’t mind and keep going.

If the government leans on a company, first of all that’s still government censorship and it’s not legal for the government to get a company to do what it cannot. If the specifics of the behavior are legal, it’s still government censorship and wrong (with aforementioned caveats).
That being said, the consequence of that type of censorship is loss of a social media account. You can find another venue and all they can do is keep asking people to remove the content. If someone refuses or you host overseas, there’s not really anything they can do.

There’s a benefit to society, in my opinion, for people to reject an idea. Refusing to help someone spread a message is about the most passive way to do that.

I’ve worked in the webhosting industry. If someone has a Nazi website and they need tech support, you need to ask yourself if you’re willing to take that support request or if you’re letting your manager know you’re not gonna help that message.
If the employees at a company don’t want to help you and it’s not unjust discrimination, I have a really hard time saying that it’s wrong to tell Nazis to take their website elsewhere.

I’m not aware of the specifics of that group to know how I feel.

My feelings are more born from looking at webhosting and hate/harassment websites. I have a really hard time saying it’s wrong to take down a Nazi website.
I don’t think the government should be able to, because as abhorrent as it is it’s still a political position and protected. But if the people you’re paying to host your shit don’t want anything to do with you and it’s not unjust discrimination, I don’t think society gains anything by forcing them to keep it up.

I also don’t think that applies to monopolies, quasi or defacto.

I think there’s a benefit to telling hateful groups and people they aren’t welcome in civil society. The alternative is to say that there’s no line at which society can tell you to gtfo, and people just need to tolerate you no matter what.
Shunning or deplatforming is how you do that without violence.

The grammar is ambiguous, FYI, of if you meant the censorship done by collective shout or the censorship being done to collective shout.

It doesn’t impact my reply, but I figured I’d let you know. :)

I’m against government censorship in all circumstances outside the cliche “you can’t threaten people or spread injurious falsehoods”.

I’m okay with private entities not giving people a platform if they aren’t a defacto institution. Credit card companies and financial services should be agnostic to which legal businesses they process payments and hold assets for. Much like how shipping companies are agnostic to what’s in your package, beyond what’s necessary to move it safely.
If you’re needed for society to function, I want you to blindly service society, even if people I dislike also get service.

I don’t want to be in a place where every platform needs to accept all participants as valid. There’s plenty of ways to share your viewpoint.

Florida: shithole of shitholes.

My only qualm with that is that if you select an algorithm, it needs to be selected, which means that the people in control of that selection can decide what’s non-partisan in the selection criteria.

I’m more in favor of defining properties that districts must have and then selecting a districting commission by lottery. Make it so you can’t be fired for being on the commission, and pay people 20% over their wage for the time they’re on the commission.

If an algorithm has an outcome that seems flagrantly incorrect, you can’t subpoena it and ask about its reasoning. The courts are already geared towards handling complaints regarding how a commission handled its responsibilities.