The mother did not drive him to Kenosha, or across state lines, and she was not involved in acquiring the rifle.

He drove himself to Kenosha. Dominic Black acquired the rifle. It’s unclear whether it was Dominic Black or Rittenhouse who drove him home, but his mother was not in the car. Hours later, his mother drove him to the police station in his home town - not in Kenosha, not in Wisconsin - where he finally surrendered himself.

Frankly, it’s disgusting that even basic facts of this case are so poorly known. I am still seeing claims that Rosenbaum, Huber, and Grosskreutz were black.

A load on the grid is not a problem. We need loads on the grid, or there is no point in even having or improving a grid.

Solar generation is so plentiful now that the market price for generation frequently goes negative: grid operators are charging generators for putting unneeded power on the grid. (The problem is that generators are limited in how quickly they can ramp up production, so they have to maintain a certain output even during surplus, or they won’t be able to meet demand later.)

We don’t need less demand. We need more demand, and more flexible demand. We need to shift away from “supply shaping” - matching the power we produce to what the consumer wants. We need to focus on “demand shaping”: matching the amount of power we use to our ability to produce it. We need to look for ways to use the power we have, when we have it. We need ways to make that “excess” power profitable to produce… Economic losses on solar production are beginning to strangle solar expansion. Why build a solar farm when the power it produces can’t be profitably sold?

We also need to reduce our reliance on “peaker” plants. To do that, we need to artificially inflate the off-peak “base load” so that a higher percentage of our power comes from efficient baseload plants, and less of our total consumption comes from inefficient “peaker” plants. But, at the same time, we need to shift loads to times of day where solar and wind can meet them. We need to be able to better match demand to available supply.

The transportation industry is far worse for ecology. We would be far better off with transportation operating on the electric grid than the oil grid, but the electric grid cannot currently support the demand from both industries.

That’s just the port side elevator between the flight deck and the hangar deck.

As it applies to residence, the concept of “renting” is fundamentally broken and damaging. “Renting” is a commercial activity; “housing” is a human necessity. Combining the two is inherently exploitative, so “ALAB” is a reasonable and apt observation.

Renting is fantastic. You want to build a house or buy a house, or renovate your house, but it takes a few months? You move to a new area, temporary job relocation for a project? You rent. From someone who owns a house. Called a landlord. They are providing the service of making this available for you in an area you want.

A better option in these scenarios is a “land contract”. This is, basically, a rent-to-own scenario. During the initial period, if the occupant withdraws or defaults on the contract, they forfeit any equity they have built, just like a rental.

Unlike a rental, however, there is no annual increase in the rent: the purchase price is fully amortized, and (so long as they maintain the agreement past the initial period), the tenant gains equity with every payment and every increase in market value.

That full amortization / fixed payment is the main reason why landlords don’t currently like land contracts. They want to be able to command a 5-10% price hike every year.

To make land contracts the better option for landlords, we can establish an owner-occupant credit against property taxes. A landlord is a non-occupant owner, and is not entitled to the credit. Under a land contract, the occupant is considered the owner, and eligible for the credit. With a sufficiently high property tax rate on non-occupant investor-owners, a landlord stands to earn a significantly greater return on land contracts or private mortgages than they can earn on renting a given property.

So, Trump named Steve Harvey as his running mate?

ALAB because “renting” residential property is abhorrent behavior.

Owner Occupancy Credit against property taxes. If you live in a house you own, you get a credit. If you own the house and don’t live in it, you pay the full rate. Enact an owner-occupancy credit against property taxes, then increase both the tax rate and the credit until these corporate bagmunchers are no longer a problem.

“But landlords will just raise their rent to cover the increase”. They could try. But, if we raise it high enough, they will be able to make far more money issuing a private mortgage, or offering a land contract, or converting to condominiums, or otherwise getting their tenant’s names on the deed and becoming eligible for the credit.

“But these landlords will be forced to take a risk on these sub prime borrowers.”. They are already taking that risk by renting to them, and the remedy is basically the same: if they can’t make their payments, evict them, take back the house, and offer it to someone else.

The only residential property that should be feasible to rent are the additional units in a duplex, triplex, or quadplex, where the owner of the building lives on site in one of the units. Outside of these small, multifamily homes, “rent” should be a practice found only in commercial or industrial real estate.

You’ve become conditioned to consider a “nudge” to be lane assist helpfully pushing on the steering wheel, to move you toward the center of the lane. Your muscle memory reacts to such a nudge by accepting it, allowing it.

30 years of driving has conditioned me to consider a “nudge” to be an indication that something is pushing on the car, moving me away from where I intend to be. My muscle memory reacts to such a nudge by immediately arresting that push and reversing it.

Ever drive on a construction zone where they’ve started to rip up pavement and half the lane is an inch higher than the other half? Ever change lanes into that lane, and feel the steering fight you or lurch as you cross that lip?

The problem isn’t the strength needed to overcome the lane assist. It’s easy to fight it. The problem comes when you know you are well centered in the lane. But, all the sudden, you’re being pushed left or right, and you have to quickly determine whether you’re feeling uneven pavement. Or maybe a tie rod end or a ball joint has some slop in it. Maybe the power steering pump is leaking and running dry. Or, maybe the fucking lane assist thinks a strip of tar in the middle of the lane is a lane marker, and it wants me to cross the centerline.

The problem isn’t whether or not I can take it in a fair fight. The problem is that it throws a punch.

Partial pressure of the gases you breathe is what matters though

Just to clarify, the partial pressure of oxygen in the atmosphere is about 3 PSI. The partial pressure of Nitrogen in the atmosphere is about 10 PSI.

that’s why astronauts could breathe pure oxygen for days during the Mercury/Gemini/Apollo missions and be fine (as long as there’s no fire :/ ).

Fire risk is also related to the partial pressure of the gas. 100% oxygen is not actually a problem, so long as the partial pressure of that oxygen is low. The partial pressure of oxygen in the Apollo 1 capsule was about 16.7 PSI.

Astronauts still use 100% oxygen in space suits pressurized to about 5PSI.

https://www.machinerytrader.com/listings/for-sale/komatsu/d355/construction-equipment

https://woodworkingnut.com/2015/10/30/how-to-make-a-guillotine/

Lane assist seems to agree with you. It is only able to do its job on the highway. Elsewhere, it actively seeks head-on collisions.

We already have the legal mechanism necessary to enact mandatory training.

The militia is “the whole of the people”. Congress is empowered under Article I Section 8 parts 15 and 16 to “prescribe discipline” (read: “training standards”) for the militia. They don’t have the power to mandate training only to those people who choose to keep and bear arms, but they do have the power to mandate training for everyone.

So, let’s have a high school, senior-year class on safe handling. More importantly, let’s have a class on the laws regulating the use of force, so everyone is aware of when we can use force against another, and when force may be used against us.

In my experience, lane assist is pretty good on the highways, and actively terrible everywhere else.

The only “feature” I hated more than lane assist was hill start assist. Chirped my tires, or stalled completely, on every fucking hill.

I’m all for this. I mean, gunpowder is not particularly difficult to manufacture. If the legal sources of ammunition charge $5000 per bullet, I could make a fortune with blackmarket black powder.

(Ok, I’m not actually “all for this”…)

Yeah, an olympic-class quadruped runner is going to have gorilla fists.

I think they would need a hard, form-fitting, elbow-length glove, to move as much force as possible off of the fingers and wrists.

Who pocket carries?

Who carries a pistol unloaded?

Who carries a pistol with a manual safety?

I’m not trying to be insulting. Your points are valid and worthy of consideration. However, the issues you have raised have long since been addressed.

Typically, concealed carriers use “IWB” (“inside waistband”) holsters to keep their handguns at the ready. Not a pocket. It’s actually very easy to draw from an IWB holster.

All modern pistols are specifically designed to be safely carried with a round chambered. Some training doctrine calls for handguns to remain loaded but unchambered. Israeli soldiers carry without a round chambered, but they are the exception. The broad consensus now is that your carry/duty pistol should be loaded, chambered, and ready to fire.

External safeties were common in older pistol models intended for duty use, where the user might be on horseback, and they commonly used a belt holster with a large flap that required both hands to reholster. The thinking was that a safety made sense when the user has the gun in their hand, but their attention was on something other than shooting. For example, if a cavalry officer’s horse were to start bucking, they were trained to immediately thumb on the safety and tend to their mount with pistol still in hand, rather than try to take the time to reholster.

Modern pistols are designed to be used with modern holsters. A modern holster protects the trigger from unintentional discharge. As soon as a carry gun is drawn, it needs to be ready to fire, so very few carry guns actually have manually operated safeties anymore. Modern duty holsters are designed for one-handed reholstering.

The internal safety features of modern handguns are intended to block the striker from hitting the cartridge in case of a mechanical malfunction. They are not intended to prevent firing when the trigger is pulled.

Please, ask reasonable questions and make reasonable observations. This is a serious subject. Please don’t treat it like a joke.

If you’re ever in a position where you need a gun, then it’s already too late to protect yourself

Someone has never heard of concealed carry. Nor have they ever heard something go bump in the night.

Should start a pool.

F

Considering that only 2% is not Hydrogen or Helium

I assume that claim comes from:

The abundance of chemical elements in the universe is dominated by the large amounts of hydrogen and helium which were produced during the Big Bang. Remaining elements, making up only about 2% of the universe

I kind of doubt that hydrogen or helium comprise 98% of the mass of the 48 tons of meteors per day. I kinda suspect that the 48 tons of meteors are comprised almost entirely of “other” elements.