rockstarmode

False.

Source

Section 3, article 3: SPEAKERS IN HELMETS

The Coach-to-Player system allows a member of the coaching staff in the bench area or the coaches’ booth to communicate to a designated offensive or defensive player with a speaker in his helmet. The communication begins once a game official has signaled a down to be over and is cut off when the play clock reaches 15 seconds or the ball is snapped, whichever occurs first.

The headsets are active between plays, and have one way communication with one player on each side. Typically this is the quarterback on offense and a team captain/play caller on defense. These players wear special helmets typically marked with a green dot on the back.

The refs or other officials cut off communication when the play clock reaches 15 seconds, preventing the kind of real-time communication you suggest.

6'3" 200lbs is about right for a fit male. I imagine her muscularity plus future stuff like diet and augmentation would make that realistic for a female.

I'm not saying it's a safe idea, getting caught is expensive.

What're your chances of getting caught if you fly out in the middle of a national forest, hours from the nearest highway? Honest question, I'm not aware of how this is enforced.

A counterpoint would be hunting without a proper tag (poaching) I hunt in the middle of nowhere fairly regularly, but I encounter game wardens at least once a season, so enforcement in my area is pretty good.

Noncompliance is also a way to go, just a thought.

You cannot introduce a human structure to manage water more efficiently than nature

If you actually believe this then there's nothing anyone can say to help you.

If a naturally occuring spring runs directly into a wide flat area in the middle of the Mojave desert, then it doesn't naturally reabsorb into the ground as the hard pack just makes it sit on the surface. Since the water is shallow and sitting on the surface, it evaporates instead of being used to water native plants or support native animals.

The golf course in question is not a dam, it's putting the already available water to use more efficiently. Growing non-native grass, but also native plant species, and providing native insects and animals a way to utilize that water before it would have otherwise evaporated.

Dams destroy native ecosystems by flooding and displacing them, or removing available water downstream. The golf course in question does none of those things.

"Nature is perfect and humans are capable of nothing but destroying it" is a great take BTW. You could have saved a few people some time by leading with that.

You must be trolling.

Birds, insects, and reptiles are common even in the desert. A species can be native to an ecosystem or region, without naturally occuring in an small locality.

If humans manage water more efficiently than nature would have in this locality, it stands to reason that the resulting local ecosystem would be able to attract and support more native wildlife.

This is observable and provable for golf courses which manage their resources with a focus on limiting their natural resource use and increasing local biodiversity.

You just hate golf courses, which is fine, but you sound pretty uninformed.

waspy

President Biden is Catholic, not Protestant

Golf courses aren't just grass, they plant all sorts of other vegetation, much of it native. This supports native wildlife that wouldn't otherwise be there.

Have you ever actually been to a responsibly managed golf course? Many in the southwest US are run this way, and tons more are moving in that direction to reduce water use.

I'm going to get all kinds of negative votes for speaking up here. I'm not attempting to defend the various positions I outline below, just to explain why the gun folks see the current situation as the least bad alternative. If gun people in the US actually had their way the laws would be MUCH more permissive than they already are.

Again, I'm not attempting to defend the various positions, only to lend some context (and in the case of domestic abuse, to correct) the talking points above.

If the second amendment is explicitly designed to allow normal citizens to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, then allowing that same government to compile a registry of gun ownership makes no sense. Registration inevitably leads to confiscation, see Australia and New Zealand for recent examples.

(Note; It's highly suspect that non-military ownership of small arms could effectively fight the US military. Years of attrition in Afghanistan might be the counterpoint here.)

The CDC was examining gun violence statistics in the past, but then ventured outside of the realm of science and into political speech. Most gun people are ok with making science based recommendations determined by facts. But they're worried that a government entity funded for the purpose of science but controlled by unelected anti-gun bureaucrats will push policy based on politics.

(Note: Any gun policy has some base in science, the question is whether the policy controls the science, or whether science leads the way. Counterpoint: national COVID policy was marginally effective at great cost, both in lives lost and economically)

There are measures to keep "known" domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing firearms. If "known" means "convicted" or under indictment, then those folks are legally prohibited from firearm ownership or possession. This was recently confirmed by a notoriously pro-gun Supreme Court in United States v. Rahimi, by an overwhelming 8-1 majority. Even a restraining order for domestic violence is enough to prohibit purchase or possession.

(Note: enforcement of gun confiscation from prohibited persons is spotty at best, but it's arguable that this is a problem with policing as the laws are already on the books. The counterpoint here would be the ability in many states to conduct private party transfers without the involvement of a licenced firearms dealer or the requisite background check)

I'm talking about millions of occurrences of this edge case a day.

I'm not sure what you're trying to fight. I said multiple times that we should continue to encourage and expand our use of electric vehicles. But to blindly fanboy electric cars without being able to honestly admit that we have some improvements to make just makes you stupid and smug.