I'm guessing this judge considers the telephone to be an example of negligent design as well. After all, the phone company doesn't record every phone call I make and disconnect me if I mention an illegal drug.

I like to do things just off the top of the hour, since top of the hour is when many maintenance crons run. If you're running a modern cron daemon, you can rewrite that as:

3 1-23/6 * * * docker container restart lemmy-lemmy-1

https://crontab.guru/#3_1/6___*

My city recently did 15mph for neighborhood residential roads and 20mph for the wider through roads connecting to them. I feel much safer now when walking and biking in the neighborhood. The roads here were never intended for cars to be parked up and down both sides.

The "prankster" was kicked out by security the day before and was actively avoiding areas with security on the day of the event. It's unreasonable to expect someone being attacked not to defend themselves. It's victim blaming to even imply the shooter did anything wrong here.

You're not a reasonable person though, a reasonable person would be afraid of someone approaching babbling incoherently, would back off and tell them to get away, then react with a fight or flight response if they continued to advance. That's what someone relying on their ability to reason things out would do. That's what this guy did. He had a gun, the attacker wouldn't stop advancing when he retreated. He shot. Self defense.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're unaware of violent crime that does not involve guns? Lets put the gun aside for a moment and analyze whether or not the guy felt afraid. If someone walks up to you in the manner this guy did, you get afraid. It's WHAT THE PERPETRATOR WANTED THE GUY TO DO! He even said that he kept approaching because the guy wasn't reacting the way he wanted. He was escalating the threat to get a reaction. If the guy didn't have a gun he would have swung instead of shooting when backing away clearly wasn't working. Fight or Flight is called a "reaction" for a reason. It's not a fully conscious process. This "prankster" only did what he did because he was so large and intimidating that he knew he didn't have to fear physical reprisal for his obvious assaults.

Holy crap, are you a social media "prankster" or something? I don't know how you can feel so vehemently the wrong way about something unless you're actually doing it.

Your very own quote applies here, the guy kept approaching a fleeing individual, that's a "reasonable apprehension of imminent injury or offensive contact". Someone much bigger than you running you down is not "safe".

Well, I guess you aren't a reasonable person.

This isn't just "someone annoying him", the harasser is a 6'5" dude who walked up to within inches of the shooter, then when the shooter told him to get back and started backing away himself, continued to close the distance. This is open and shut self defense, you don't get to hunt someone down like that, staying in their personal space, and expect them to not feel threatened. YOU would feel threatened and if you're telling me otherwise, I have a friend named Billy Bob who'd like to stand silently in your personal space for the remainder of the year.

I subscribe to !newcommunities@lemmy.world which helps. Other than that I look for mentions of other communities in comments, similar to how I used to on reddit.

You can hear James' voice in some of the more heinous quotes :(