ToaKraka
Dislikes you
User ID: 108
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
7hr ago
What type of attention do women deserve and want? I want to imagine the internet is more egalitarian now and just being a woman online (an egirl?) isn’t enough to warrant any special treatment or attention.
LOL. Compare:
(1) An attractive woman goes to a mall, supermarket, or big-box store and basks in the knowledge that she is turning the heads of a dozen men by simply existing near them.
(2) A person claiming to be a woman (of unspecified, but implicitly not low, attractiveness) goes to a forum of mostly-male autists and basks in the knowledge that she is turning the heads of a hundred men by simply claiming to exist near them in cyberspace.
But maybe I'm just engaging in the typical-mind fallacy, and expounding on these topics despite being totally unqualified to discuss them.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
7hr ago
The other comment can be interpreted as a joke with two meanings.
In the misty past, it was the default assumption that all users of the Internet were ugly men, and any user claiming otherwise without providing proof was a liar—a person shrewd enough to assume a convincing false persona in order to gain social clout in online spaces. (A long-dead shorthand phrase related to this phenomenon is "tits or GTFO"—i. e., the identity of an Internet poster as female cannot be confirmed without a photograph in which the subject exposes herself while holding a piece of paper with a timestamp.)
In modern times, this assumption has greatly weakened. (In particular, the "rationalist" community has been accused of being too trusting and incapable of simulating the thought processes of liars.) But it has not totally disappeared. So, in the opinion of the other commenter, if you are actually a woman you will get the deserved attention that you want, and if you are an ugly man pretending to be a woman you will get the undeserved attention that you want from this website's "quokka" denizens (positive reinforcement for your evil trolling).
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
11hr ago
Give in to the temptation. Rewrite the entire book with proper punctuation.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
14hr ago
Hooters (or adjacent-type restaurant) owner
Fun fact: Hooters declared bankruptcy just a year ago.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
In the US, the Bureau of Labor Statistics conducts the Consumer Expenditure Survey, which can be used as the framework for a very detailed budget. For example, the table "Cross-tabulated—Size of consumer unit by income before taxes—Two people—2023–2024" provides the following numbers, broken down into dozens of categories and subcategories.
| Annual income range (k$) | Average annual income (k$) | Average annual expenses (k$) |
|---|---|---|
| (−∞, ∞) | 109 | 81 |
| (−∞, 15) | 7 | 40 |
| [15, 30) | 23 | 42 |
| [30, 40) | 35 | 48 |
| [40, 50) | 45 | 52 |
| [50, 70) | 60 | 64 |
| [70, 100) | 84 | 73 |
| [100, 150) | 122 | 88 |
| [150, ∞) | 267 | 142 |
Additionally, the IRS and the DOJ collaborate on estimating the cost of housing and utilities across the country on a county-by-county basis.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
You are supposed to pick a standard of living and develop your long-term budget accordingly. The subreddit's standard terms are "leanFIRE" for being a "miserable tightwad" and "fatFIRE" or "chubbyFIRE" for living large.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
Just include the URL in plaintext! (Though you'll need to go back to your custom-CSS page if you want to actually use it. And you'll probably want to decrease the font size.)
.user-name[href$="ToaKraka"]::after{content:" [Friday Fun Thread spammer: https://www.themotte.org/post/3802/friday-fun-thread-for-june-12/452296?context=8#context]";font-size:0.7em;}
Protip: If you're still missing the ability to "tag" other users that some unofficial browser extensions allegedly provided on Reddit, then you can replicate it by using this website's custom-CSS feature! For example:
.user-name[href$="ToaKraka"]::after{content:" [Friday Fun Thread spammer]";}
Replicate this CSS in order to add whatever custom text you want after a person's username.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
My suspicion is that the address rules are to prevent people from renting them out.
No, the consultant confirmed at a meeting (again, attended by only two interested citizens including me) that it was just poorly worded and would be fixed to refer to secondary unit designators. There's already a separate provision that bans an ADU from (1) being inhabited if the owner lives neither in the ADU nor in the principal building, or (2) being a bed-and-breakfast or a short-term rental.
Municipalities don't want to approve them so they can be used as a back door to allowing multi-family in neighborhoods zoned for single family.
The zone in question already will allow three-story apartment buildings by right under the draft code (up from just duplexes under the current code).
I suspect that the concern about the restaurants is more aesthetic than traffic-related.
No, a government official confirmed at the same meeting that it was traffic-related. Specifically, he doesn't want to see a repeat of a particular drivethrough elsewhere in the municipality that consistently backs up into the street during mornings. (He said something like, "I don't know how PennDOT approved that highway occupancy permit.") And he expects the traffic numbers that I cited to be applicable more to a fast-food restaurant in a commercial zone than to a "neighborhood" fast-food restaurant that would actually be built in a residential zone.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
Apparently, this is a series going all the way back to year 1987.
My result is "No-Apologies Right". Hilariously, when I clicked on it something apparently broke on the server, revealing that the page actually was written in Markdown!
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
-
Good: I said to myself, she said to herself
-
Bad: I said to herself, she said to myself
Surefire method of ingratiating yourself with a new community that you haven't even moved into yet: <del>Complain</del><ins>Submit feedback</ins> to the government about draft zoning changes
I would like to express the following concerns regarding the draft zoning ordinance that has been posted on the municipality's website.
Section ███ item ███ of the draft text says: "[An accessory dwelling unit shall not have a separate house number from the primary dwelling unit.]" Why? This is in direct opposition to 2024 IZC (International Zoning Code) section 903.2 item 3, which says: "An ADU shall have a separate house number from the primary dwelling unit." The IZC is far from the end-all and be-all of zoning, but I would like to see a rationale for this difference.
Alternatively (depending on the actual intent behind this provision), perhaps this provision should be reworded to say something like: "[An accessory dwelling unit shall not have a separate house number from the primary dwelling unit], but shall have a separate secondary address unit designator approved by the United States Postal Service, such as 'building 2', 'unit 2', 'side', or 'rear'." (I recognize that the municipal council has recently discussed some confusion that has resulted from "rear" addresses, and a proliferation of ADUs in the rears of lots would exacerbate that problem. But that's the fault of shipping-company employees for failing to understand the USPS's approved secondary unit designators, not the fault of the municipality.)
Attachment 2 of the draft text says that, in zone R-B:
"[Sit-down] restaurant excluding live entertainment" and "[non-drive-through] take-out restaurant" are permitted by right;
"[Sit-down] restaurant with live entertainment" is permitted only by special exception; and
"Drive-through restaurant" is not permitted at all.
However, an NJDOT (New Jersey Department of Transportation) document (attached to this message; the numbers probably are copied-and-pasted from an authoritative, but paywalled, ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) document) gives the following numbers for trips generated (per 1000 ft^2 on the weekend).
"High-turnover sit-down restaurant": 18.46 trips per hour, 142.64 trips per day
"Fast-food restaurant without drive-through window": 54.60 trips per hour, 696.00 trips per day
"Fast-food restaurant with drive-through window": 55.15 trips per hour, 616.12 trips per day
That is, according to NJDOT (and probably ITE), take-out restaurants generate basically the same amount of traffic—three to five times as much as sit-down restaurants—regardless of whether they have drive-through windows. Therefore, in my opinion, the zoning ordinance should treat drive-through and non-drive-through take-out restaurants the same—in zone R-B, either permitted only by special exception, or not permitted at all.
When the consultant exported the PDF of the draft map from whatever drawing program it is using, it failed to embed its fancy fonts into the file. This causes the PDF to not display correctly in certain PDF readers.
Thank you.
[ToaKraka]
Allegedly, though, I was one of only two people to provide any comments at all.
Two hilarious topics in one PDF!
(1) (a) Buy a single lot large enough to contain three or four houses. (b) Build a tiny house—400 ft2, two occupants. (b) Upgrade to a small house on the same lot—800 ft2, five occupants. Retain the tiny house as an ADU (accessory dwelling unit) on the same lot. (c) Upgrade once more to a normal-size house on the same lot—1600 ft2, ten occupants. Retain the small house as an ADU, and subdivide off the tiny house as a separate lot.
(2) The IZC (International Zoning Code) prescribes a minimum of two off-street parking stalls per dwelling unit. That obviously is a bit low for the modern age. However, providing a parking space for every single occupant may be an overcorrection. (a) The IZC starts requiring the installation of a three-foot-tall buffer when you reach five parking spaces in a single lot. (b) High proportions of impervious area to total area may cause drainage problems. The IZC fails to address this topic, while the IGCC (International Green Construction Code) requires a hydrologic calculation much more complicated than "impervious area ÷ total area". (c) According to environmental organizations, impervious area above 10 percent in a watershed (i. e., including roads rather than just lots) causes damage to water quality, and a watershed with impervious area above 25 percent is basically dead.
Pseudo-source (option C2.5: (1) raising the early-retirement age from 62 to 64, (2) raising the full-retirement age from 67 to 70, and (3) thereafter adjusting the full-retirement age so that the ratio of retirement years (life expectancy minus full-retirement age) to working years (full-retirement age minus age 20) remains constant would eliminate only 44 percent of the shortfall)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3d ago
For some reason
Probably because the moderators didn't save this comment from the automatic new-user filter until just now.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
4d ago
You can always add a flair under settings. Of course, people will only see it if they click on your profile, and you’re limited to 100 characters
You're mixing up two different features.
-
Your flair shows up next to your username at all times, but is limited to 100 characters.
-
Your bio has a much higher limit of 1500 characters, but shows up only when someone clicks on your username.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
5d ago
Have you been to any weddings at all for the past 20 years? Or karaoke?
No.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
5d ago
According to Wikipedia, the country was majority-black (as suggested by the name) historically, but became majority-Arab in 2011 when South Sudan seceded and took a lot of blacks with it.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
5d ago
A quick manual scan through the most recent five pages of the all-comments "firehose" page (covering the past six hours of discussion) reveals 50 unique posters just in that small slice.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
5d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
6d ago
The real villain here is the Uniform Commercial Code. It turns out that a consignment agreement isn't a consignment agreement.
Generally, if the consignee under such a consignment arrangement files for bankruptcy relief, the consigned goods are property of the consignee's bankruptcy estate. Accordingly, 11 U.S.C. §362(a)(3) prohibits the consignor from picking up the consigned goods after the filing of the bankruptcy.
The typical consignor is relegated to the status of a general unsecured creditor.
There are numerous requirements and exceptions to the foregoing rules. Many transactions that have often been referred to as "consignments" are not deemed to be consignments for the purposes of the foregoing rules. For example, transactions involving goods "consigned" to auctioneers, goods delivered "on consignment" to what generally everyone knows is a consignment shop, goods "consigned" to a merchant for resale, for any delivery where the aggregate value of the goods is less than $1,000, and goods that were consumer goods (i.e., goods used or bought primarily for use for personal, family or household purposes) in the hands of the "consignor" are definitely not consignments. These transactions are, or may be, "true consignments" (in the usual sense), but the drafters of UCC Article 9 consciously chose not to have Article 9 apply to them. Moreover, if the goods will not be delivered, at least in part, to a merchant for resale, there can be no consignment under Article 9. Similarly excluded are transactions that may be designated as "consignments" but that, in reality, are transactions that secure an obligation (other than the "consignee's" obligation to return the "consigned" goods). When in doubt about whether the Article 9 consignment rules apply, the "consignor" should take all steps necessary both to create and perfect a purchase-money security interest in the "consigned goods."
I would expect Lego sets to fall under the "consumer goods" exception, though.
Presumably this law was written by banks or other creditors.
Prior to the UCC, it was generally held that the consignee's creditors had no claim against the consignor if the consignee's assets were inadequate to satisfy their respective claims. This was so despite the fact that the consignor was not required to record the transaction or to give notice that he retained title to the goods. The basic reason for ruling in the consignor's favor was that title had not passed to the consignee and the creditor could not secure an interest in, or attach, any goods to which the debtor did not have title. This decisional law placed a creditor of the consignee in an unfavorable position, particularly if he had relied on the consignee's possession of consigned goods and failed to ask for proof of ownership. It was difficult for a creditor to discover a consignment because the consignor was not required to give notice in order to protect his interests. For example, if a consignee presented his goods as collateral for a loan, the creditor who relied on the consignee's possession would have no protection if the goods involved were consigned.
This problem did not exist under the 1952 Code, since section 1-201(37), at that time, included all consignments as security interests. Under the present [1962] Code, however, the question of intention is all-important and presents a difficult problem of legal and factual determination.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
6d ago
the typical prostitute does not earn very much (and her job is crazy dangerous, has terrible hours
The numbers will be different in places where prostitution is legal, though. 200 dollars per hour is a lot, though that number obviously does not take into account downtime, the brothel's cut of the revenue (one document indicates that it's 50 percent), etc.
(1) As I said, the specific hostility of "tits or GTFO" is long dead. I personally never saw it first-hand.
(2) I said "of unspecified, but implicitly not low, attractiveness", not "attractive". Lots of men salivate over women who are merely "not unattractive" (three stars out of five) rather than "attractive" (four stars)—and lots of autists are interested in "dorky homeschool girls".
More options
Context Copy link