Care First Form 2012-2019: Fill & Download for Free

Q: The Second Amendment was created over 200 years ago. Why is it in any way relevant today?As an analogy.As a designer or engineer, you can look at a machine, and sometimes you just can’t tell what a part does. Maybe it does nothing—this happens. Some idiot creates a completely useless part, or the design process left an orphaned part.And maybe it’s actually creating a small problem. Maybe it seizes the machine. Makes vibrate-y noise.The naive go-getter says, “Let’s take it out right now!”The wise man knows better. “We could take it out. Maybe we shouldn’t. Let’s look more carefully first.”The machine was made as a whole, and blindly removing a part may cause even more undesirable operation. Maybe. But you certainly don’t assume it’s useless and then remove the part in every machine on a production line just to “see what happens.” That’s not process-driven. It’s ad hoc. It’s the way to surely cause problems.You go slow enough. You try to figure out what it does. You make a calculated decision. You test. In the absence of time pressure, you try to avoid making a really stupid, short-sighted decision.The problem we have with the Second Amendment is pretty similar. A lot of people perceive it as a useless do-nothing part that’s — only recently — causing a lot of problems.The only people who ask questions like this are consistently unable to describe what the Second Amendment says, why it was adopted, and who it applies to.They can’t explain what the part was supposed to do (even though the instruction manual clearly explains its purpose). But they want to remove it?“Ugh, history. I don’t want to actually learn stuff…”Fine. I don’t want this to be an American History lesson.This is Venezuela.In June 2012, Venezuela announced a ban on private gun ownership,[1][1][1][1] ostensibly, to combat the 18,000 murders that occurred every year. That’s how civil rights infringements happen: always in the name of general “public safety.”Of course, military and police were allowed to keep their weapons. Again, for public safety….But sane people would never perceive this as inherently safe. They perceive it as, well, very dangerous. Concentrating power into the hands of the elite always has been.Flash forward to 2017, 2018, and 2019. The Venezuelan government is literally and intentionally starving its own citizens.And also, just plain murdering them. Sometimes there’s kidnapping and then murdering. And maybe murdering their families too. The point is, there’s a whole lot of killing. And abuse. And theft. And rape. And violence.And soon it will be going into year four of this chaos. And there’s not a damn thing that the law-abiding people of Venezuela can do about it.Now, it’s not full-on totalitarian.Except for the 10,000 or so people the death squads have killed.Two years ago, a Venezuelan friend of mine in NYC took a month off work to help his family flee to Spain. Before it was too late. And there is always the risk that borders and travel are going to get locked down even further.Venezuelans are angry. So, you end up with these mass protests, where — surprise! —maybe several dozen people are going to be murdered by the military yet again.The people tried to “vote in” a new president, which failed. This led to a procedural disaster. Venezuela now has two people claiming to president.The president on the left has constitutional authority. But he has no guns and no armed supporters.The president-dictator on the right has no lawful authority. But he has the guns and is still able to pay his armed military.The president on the right is interfering with the president on the left. Kidnapping people. Killing them. Sending away foreign relief aid for Venezuelan people — and confiscating some of it for his own armed soldiers.And again, here’s not a damn thing Venezuelans can do about it.Now, I hate to link to Fox News. I really do. But the article actually puts the narrative together in a coherent way:Venezuelans regret gun ban, 'a declaration of war against an unarmed population'And it is not just Venezuela. Hong Kong is boiling over…Okay. I lied. Here’s a fast version of an American History lesson.The Second Amendment takes a very loooong view of history, and represents several centuries of the common man being ruled over by very armed, aggressive men, who often deprived those common people of any means of self defense so that they would be easier to control. And exploit.This narrative cuts across cultures and continents through all of recorded human history.The structure of political power in the United States involves a distribution of power across levels of government, branches of government, and restrictions on action. We do this because it creates a strong government, but one that can’t get too powerful, too quickly. Almost 250 years ago, the Founding Fathers had discovered “anti-fragility.”With the First Amendment, the Founders tried to take religious and speech issues out of the federal government’s powers. The federal government simply wasn’t being created to “touch” any of those things. That was not its purpose.The Second Amendment is very similar. The federal government was never meant to be in a position that it could “ban” weapons. That was not its purpose. Instead, the people, through their state and local governments, would have to regulate the use of weapons. If they wanted to. Many already did.Someone asked a while back whether libertarians think the government wants to kill people. The answer is no, but yes. It depends: who's running the government?Liberals and progressives tend to see society as inherently stable, and think that we should disrupt any institution which appears problematic to their goals at this moment. Conservatives (and libertarians to some extent) know that societal stability can be lost rather easily.Things can always get worse. Even America's history shows we've taken some dark paths — and even worse ones were plotted, yet avoided. It only takes some people who think they have really good ideas and that everyone else must follow those ideas. And that forcing people to obey — at gunpoint — is an effective means of ensuring compliance. Usually, these people are small in number. But when government offices, and police departments, and military units are stacked with enough people who think this… once those people have concentrated power and disarmed everyone else, the die is cast.Machiavelli wrote that being disarmed brings with it contempt and dominance by the person who is armed. And so it goes. Bit by bit, the rights and grievances of the unarmed people being ruled over become an annoyance, until the people will not willingly submit. And it only takes a very few people in government who think that violence is a good solution. Then, we will repeat all of the lessons that our ancestors already learned for us.When conservatives look at who pushes gun control, we see the following groups:politiciansvery wealthy businessmen“social activists” funded and organized by the abovelow-information activist-followers who genuinely like pro-caring social causesConservatives look at this. And say, “Yes, you are dangerous. You have not learned from history. You are the reason the Second Amendment exists.”Parts. Just because you’re not using a part, doesn’t mean it’s not useful.This Second Amendment-part is there for a reason. Even if it got quite rusty during most of the 20th century.If you believe in democratic-style government, where the power is ultimately vested in the people, you should believe in what Blackstone called a natural right of self defense. It is the people’s ultimate safety switch when democracy goes off the rails. Not just politically, but also to protect the community, family, and home.Footnotes[1] Venezuela bans private gun owners[1] Venezuela bans private gun owners[1] Venezuela bans private gun owners[1] Venezuela bans private gun owners

One line answer: Everything that average person wished forMost happening decade of my life.I was pursuing my M.Tech from IIT Kharagpur when decade started.Got my first job in 2011 in city I always wished to live,Pune.My first bike in 2012Got my 2nd job in 2012 in field I always wanted to work (Aerospace)Enjoyed the transition of from lower middle class to middle class. Learned the importance of money, saving it, investing it by balancing with bachelor life. :)Foreign trip to UK (1st in my family since our ancestors ;)Marriage in 2014.Constructed house in village. From 450 sq feet to 1500 sq feet (Papa’s dream)1st baby in 2016My first car in 20182nd baby in 2019Ends decade with home purchase in PuneDuring this, I have become more mature, caring (my family used to say this) and of course fat. (from 50’s kgs to 76kg).

First thing you need to realize is that stock is based on buys and sells. No matter what the enthusiasts have to say about what AMD is doing right, none of that really has impact on the stock.Here’s what actually matters to the stock’s price; the opinion of people who actually buy tech stocks. Here’s some real things that affect those opinions; profit. Here’s a leading factor in that profit; market share. What does Intel dominate? Market share. Have they really lost that much market share since Ryzen? Not really. Sure, Intel is slightly down from 2016 in market share but still steadily rising in market share over AMD: x86 computer processors Intel/AMD market share 2012-2019 | StatistaSo quite frankly, it just doesn’t matter if AMD is the better product (which it’s not for many many use cases). What matters is that AMD is around 14% of the mobile market share, roughly 20% of the desktop market share, and almost 0% of the server market share. And honestly; the server market share is probably the most important factor to the stock prices.So I guess the moral of the story is that stock prices simply don’t care about team red fanboys’ opinions.