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.

It undercuts their dignity. If people think you’re a joke, they don’t do what you say when you say to do something awful.
We’re dealing with fascists. They’re a violent, angry pack of buffoons. We shouldn’t cater to their feelings.

For reference, see the works Chaplin, and Moe, Larry and Curly.

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.

Management isn’t your friend, but managers are still people. The job is not the person. A good, nice, friendly person can have a job where their work interests aren’t necessarily aligned with yours and still try to do what they can to see that your interests are met.

If they fire me, no manager is going to ask me how I’m holding up or what my plans for the future are

That’s just not true. It’s not universally untrue, but it’s just wrong to default to such an antagonistic view from the outset.

All that to say: it sounds like you’re mainly having difficulty reconciling your thoughts on how you behave towards people with how you behave towards management. If you replace job related words with words like “people” or “person” then the question gets a lot easier.

I had an argument with this person everyone likes and after thinking about it, it was mostly my fault we raised our voices. She raised her voice first but because I wasn’t listening to her because she triggered me.

It’s pretty obvious to me that you apologize. Then ask if they’d be open to a conversation about what you feel could have gone better.
“Hey, do you have a minute? Sorry about how I acted when we were talking the other day. I thought about it and realized that I hadn’t been listening, which wasn’t right of me and made things worse. Would you be open to discussing it now that we have a little distance from it? I’d like to explain myself a bit and share some related concerns that I had, if nows a good time.”

They’re a person. If you feel your wronged them, apologize. If you feel like you want to explain things and offer feedback, just make it clear this isn’t a prerequisite for the apology or anything.

Exactly. If you’re apologizing, apologize. There’s nothing wrong with also asking to have a conversation about what caused the conflict.

“I’m sorry” and "can we talk about what happened?” are both valid, but ultimately aren’t dependent on each other.

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.

I’ve got an alarming quantity. The saving grace is I don’t think I’m strong, say any of the weird shit, post the memes or have delusions about my fighting proficiency. And I’m not bald.

I used to be rather fit and I wrestled in high school. I’m fairly confident I could break free of someone roughly less skilled than me and maybe a hair stronger and flee. I’ve never been in a fight, I’ve been punched while boxing but was too disoriented to get a good hit back (first and only time boxing), and I’ve punched a friend in the face as the culmination to a funny conversation about how he’s never been punched in the face.

Flannel is really comfy, and I want to be the sort of person who goes on more hikes than I have time to.
I have no self delusions in the physical realm.

They’re also just general 4chan Internet weirdo. I take it you’re thinking there’s a particular type of racism libertarians are more prone to? Probably “we don’t need racial discrimination protections, the market will punish it if people care”?

I mean, you’re entirely correct, but there’s also racial politics as in “race relations”. Like “why are we regressing on race based civil liberty protections and seeing an upswing in racial prejudice”.

Racial groups don’t have homogeneous political opinions, but they are often the subject of political opinions.

All that to say: there are many different ways to express a disgustingly inappropriate blend of racial and political opinions in a workplace, and we shouldn’t assume they picked any particular inappropriate way.

Except that with the website example it’s not that they’re ignoring the price or just walking out with the item. It’s that the item was not labeled with a price, nor were they informed of the price. Then, rather than just walking out, they requested the item and it was delivered to them with no attempt to collect payment.

The key part of a website is that the user cannot take something. The site has to give it to them.
A more apt retail analogy might be you go to a website. You see a scooter you like, so you click “I want it!”. The site then asks for your address and a few days later you get a scooter in the mail.
That’s not theft, it’s a free scooter. If the site accused you of theft because you didn’t navigate to an unlinked page they didn’t tell you about to find the prices, or try to figure out payment before requesting, you’d rightly be pretty miffed.

The shoplifting analogy doesn’t work because it’s not shoplifting if the vendor gives it to you knowingly and you never misrepresented the cost or tried to avoid paying. Additionally, taking someone’s property without their permission is explicitly illegal, and we have a subcategory that explicitly spells out how retail fraud works and is illegal.

Under our current system the way to prevent someone from having your thing without paying or meeting some other criteria first is to collect payment or check that criteria before giving it to them.

To allow people to have things on their website freely available to humans but to prevent grabbing and using it for training will require a new law of some sort.

It really does matter if it’s legally binding if you’re talking about content licensing. That’s the whole thing with a licensing agreement: it’s a legal agreement.

The store analogy isn’t quite right. Leaving a store with something you haven’t purchased with the consent of the store is explicitly illegal.
With a website, it’s more like if the “shoplifter” walked in, didn’t request a price sheet, picked up what they wanted and went to the cashier who explicitly gave it to them without payment.

The crux of the issue is that the website is still providing the information even if the requester never agreed or was even presented with the terms.
If your site wants to make access to something conditional then it needs to actually enforce that restriction.

It’s why the current AI training situation is unlikely to be resolved without laws to address it explicitly.

The thing is a robots.txt file doesn’t work as licensing. There’s no legal requirement to fetch the file, and no mechanism to consent or track consent.

This is putting up a sign that says everyone must pay, and then giving it to anyone who asks for free.