The text of the statute refers to someone who is "an unlawful user of or addicted to a controlled substance," so alcohol wouldn't count. You're asked on the form to attest that you are not either a current user or addict, so I don't think past use applies either. You just can't both own a gun and do illegal drugs simultaneously, which I guess they think they can prove Hunter did. It's one of those stupid laws that can be enacted selectively to add charges and put people in prison for longer.

I'll be hiking the Pfiffner Traverse in a week with a few friends. We're all strong hikers and each have a couple of high routes under our belts, so the only real liability is conditions. I've never hiked in the Rockies before – does anyone have any tips with respect to dealing with monsoon thunderstorms? How has the bug pressure been lately, given the high snowpack?

I agree with fast scrolling as the cause. All our social media these days emphasize endless new content to the point where it seems almost nobody reads the actual article anymore. I've seen posts on some of the politics subs on Lemmy where it's obvious not a single commenter actually read beyond the headline because they're totally missing some major point.

As to why they feel the need? I don't think it goes beyond validation. People know the sort of one-line comment that will get them a handful of upvotes and agreeing replies, so they rush to be the one to make the joke first. It really becomes a drag after a while when what you're looking for is actual discussion of the article. I find myself spending more time on Tildes than Lemmy because those sorts of low-effort replies are discouraged there.

They definitely shouldn't have flipped out at you about it, but that doesn't mean they were wrong. Vehicles almost never appreciate in value; it just so happens that you accidentally timed the used car market perfectly.

Making it harder to change the constitution is an inherently conservative position. That's basically what conservative means – it's a desire to keep things mostly how they are (or how they used to be, in the supposed "good old days").

Sorry, but that's just not true. California's coastal areas are hugely impacted by moisture blowing in from the Pacific. San Francisco's historical average humidity in August is above 60% and the temperature rarely goes about 80.

If it's rainfall you want, just go a bit further north. Coastal Northern California receives about as much annual precipitation as Seattle. You can find basically any climate you could want in the state – trying to make a blanket statement is pointless.

That's such a nonsensical statement to make about a state the size of California. Just the 3 main coastal cities have vastly different climates, and that's not even getting into the highly varied ecosystems found inland. Are you thinking specifically about the weather in the LA area?