bluGill

Which is why I’m careful. That is why I always reject the “no payments or interest for 6 months” offers stores sometimes have - I “know” they won’t remind me to pay it off in 6 months and then I’m paying more.

A nail is common enough that I refuse that objection.

Barrels are 3d printed. They are single use because the heat and pressure will destroy them, but they work. They also can’t get good rifling patterns so not accurate. This is why a 3D printed gun is always going to be a novelty that is useless, but it is enough to work.

People have 3d printed guns and fired them. They work. Not well, and last I heard they are one shot because plastic can take the heat. Still they do exist.

Basic hand tools can make a ak47. Skill is needed there though.

I’m not quite understanding your question.

3d printers have made guns. They are always bad guns because plastic isn’t great for the purpose. They work and prove the point enough to scare people who know nothing about guns and thus don’t realize why other methods are better and faster.

CNC lathes are very common these days.

Not that you are wrong, but that isn’t hard to teach somebody. Sure they will get a few failed parts, and likely break a few cutters. However all the instructions you need are there, there are plenty of how to machine parts videos on youtube (as always of various quality levels).

bullets are cheap

Not only can you cast bullets, many do cast their own. You can apply much better quality control in our small batch runs at home than a factory will, which will make for more accuracy. A factory could be better, but most people buying factory runs care about cheap and so they won’t be as consistent - most than good enough for hunting or war use (even snipers), but if you are trying to win sharp shooting competitions you need that little extra.

I wouldn’t be against my toilet monitoring my movements. But the data collected needs to be shared with my doctor only - since she could potentially do something useful with it.

No, I’m saying that the ships would like it. Also having used geosynchronous satellite internet I have first hand experience that the lag sucks. Better than nothing, but Starlink has less lag. Probably faster but I don’t know what the latest speeds are. Still geosynchronous covers a lot of area which means you are sharing with a lot of people.

Cruise ships pay a lot for internet because their customers want it. Crew on all ships want it for their breaks.

Starlink isn’t worth it for just the above, but add in rural people on land and it makes sense. Though I understand the astronomers hate it.

I also remember it was cautioned early on that they had limited bandwidth and so focused on rural areas and a backup for cell phones. For rural areas this is better than having to run fiber (rural areas typically didn’t have cable, though they were running fiber close enough to get DSL - better than nothing but very slow)

Fiber without cell towers are pointless. Ships and boats commonly have starlink internet now, because it is so much better than any alternative. Cell towers are needed for fiber to compete.

The pacific has some deep trenches, I don’t think fiber runs across them.

I’d like to see someone setup cell towers across the pacific ocean. I even started dreaming up what it would take/cost - but I soon realized it would never be worth it so I’m not asking for investors. (though probably I should have… Anyone know a VC with money to burn?)

You want it at home. The real value in your of gold is when society collapses it still is a nice metal and so has value. Iron would work to but your house isn’t big enough for your life savings in iron.

I don’t think society will collapse and lacking that scenario gold isn’t a better investment.