ToaKraka
Dislikes you
User ID: 108
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
57m ago
The censored opinion for today is extremely tame—just a 17-year-old's allegation that her 19-year-old ex-boyfriend distributed their sex video without authorization. I find it quite hilarious that the entire controversy hinged on whether a locker-room joke made to the plaintiff's brother ("Yo, did you see the video of your sister?") was a sly reference to a video that the joker had actually seen (as the trial judge thought) or just a genuine joke that coincidentally happened to land on a sensitive topic (as the appeals panel thought).
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1hr ago
Isn't Oblivion Remastered considered an extremely-low-effort port, abandoned by the developers with most of the bugs left unfixed?
Item 1 of 5
In 2023, California enacted a law allowing (city and county governments to allow) ADUs (accessory dwelling units) to be converted into condominiums that can be bought and sold separate from the lot's principal dwelling. According to the legislators:
The statewide median home price is nearly 800,000 dollars. At that price, only 17 percent of households can afford to purchase the median-priced single-family home. This figure is less than half of the national average, and less than half of the rate at the start of the pandemic.…
…The average size of a single-family home in California is 1860 square feet. By comparison, the average size of an ADU in California is less than one-third of that, at 615 square feet. Presuming a commensurate reduction in price, the purchase of an ADU would be affordable to lower-income households.
According to a news report, the municipality of San Jose now has become the site of the first actual sale of an ADU condominium under this law—750 ft2 of house according to the Zillow page and 2000 ft2 of land (plus a long driveway easement) according to the tax map, for 530 k$. (The property as a whole (principal dwelling plus ADU) is assessed by the county govt. at 715.4 k$ (494.6 for the land and 220.8 for the improvements).)
Item 2 of 5
-
A paraplegic is a “tester” of accessibility under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act): he visits, and then sues, businesses that fail to measure up to the ADA's requirements (the ADAAG, ADA Accessibility Guidelines). His latest target (he testifies that it's his 83rd) is a strip mall. He alleges: (1) Of the property's two accessible parking spaces, one is immediately adjacent to a driveway, with no access aisle for safety; (2) of the property's several curb ramps, one is too steep; (3) the sidewalk in front of the businesses is not sufficiently flat, making it difficult for a wheelchair user to open a business's door without rolling backward into the parking lot; and (4) a different curb ramp often is blocked by parked cars.
-
The paraplegic demands that several changes be made. The trial judge rejects most of them (removal of bollards in the sidewalk, addition of two more accessible parking spaces, reduction of parking-lot slope, etc.): they are not “readily achievable” within the meaning of the ADA, as they would drive out tenants (by exacerbating the property's existing parking shortage), jeopardize the property's grandfathered status under the municipal code (it has only 88 parking spaces rather than the required 104), expose the company to liability (businesses have been sued for not having bollards), etc. The company implements one demanded change voluntarily before the case is even over, moving the accessible parking space without an access aisle to a safer location (right next to the other accessible parking space, so that they share an access aisle). The judge finds that the company must accede to one more demand: changing the too-steep curb ramp from perpendicular (protruding from the sidewalk into the access aisle) to parallel (taking a 3-foot-deep chunk out of the 8.5-foot-deep sidewalk in front of the businesses).
-
The company moves for a new trial, complaining that a parallel curb ramp (1) would be too expensive and too difficult to get permits for and (2) itself would violate the ADA, but the trial judge rejects these arguments. (1) The company has presented insufficient evidence of the expense of the modification or the difficulty of getting permits. (2) The company's expert misread the ADAAG! He looked at the bathroom guidelines, under which door swings cannot encroach into required clear areas. But the sidewalk guidelines have no such provision, so the parallel curb ramp is fine. (The judge's opinion includes helpful diagrams.)
Item 3 of 5
Australian airline Qantas has announced plans for non-stop Sydney–London and Sydney–New York flights, using an Airbus A350 variant specially designed for long range. If these flights enter operation (expected for London in October 2027 and for New York at a later date not yet announced), they will surpass Singapore Airlines' Singapore–New York and Singapore–Newark flights (which use an older variant of the same Airbus plane) as the longest commercial flights in the world.
According to Google Flights, the current non-stop Singapore–New York flight reduces travel duration from 24–21 hours (with a stop in Manila, Hong Kong, San Francisco, etc.) to 19 hours, but boosts price from 1000 dollars to 1500 dollars. These Qantas flights presumably will involve a similar money-for-time trade-off.
Official marketing materials on the topic from Qantas are available on this page. See also the Wikipedia page on the longest non-stop commercial flights.
Item 4 of 5
[Court opinion censored due to mention of child sexual abuse; external link]
Item 5 of 5
New J⁎rsey is the only state in the US that forbids motorists from pumping their own gasoline. Legislative attempts to eliminate this ban regularly die in committee.
Surveys consistently show that New J⁎rseyans actually like this state of affairs. According to the latest one, a whopping 64 percent of NJ residents want to keep gasoline pumps full-service-only. This support holds across all population segments surveyed.
| Segment | Support (%) |
|---|---|
| Affiliation: Democratic | 71 |
| Affiliation: Republican | 62 |
| Affiliation: Independent | 58 |
| Age: 18–30 | 68 |
| Age: 31–44 | 66 |
| Age: 45–64 | 64 |
| Age: 65–∞ | 61 |
| Gender: Woman | 74 |
| Gender: Man | 56 |
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
17hr ago
I wouldn't even have minded a trophy-wife situation where I at least got decent sex out of the deal
500 k$ ÷ (15 a × 365 d/a) = 91 $/d
That's comparable to the cost of legal prostitution in Australia. But, unfortunately, prostitution remains illegal in the Land of the Free™.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
22hr ago
It's hard to get much out of one snapshot like this compared to, say, comparing this against the stats from 2013–2014 and shifting the age groups by 1.
For consumer units of one person in 2013–2014:
| Age (a) | (Food away from home + entertainment) ÷ income before taxes (%) | Food away from home ÷ food (%) |
|---|---|---|
| 0–∞ | 9.5 | 42 |
| 0–24 | 16.2 | 57 |
| 25–34 | 9.7 | 51 |
| 35–44 | 8.2 | 50 |
| 45–54 | 7.8 | 42 |
| 55–64 | 8.6 | 35 |
| 65–74 | 11.8 | 39 |
| 75–∞ | 9.1 | 32 |
0–24 is one I'd like to see broken up further, since that includes every child but also people up to 6 years into adulthood.
These statistics look at consumer units, which are basically the same as households. The definition of "consumer unit" doesn't have an explicit minimum age, which is why I didn't put one here—but you probably can assume that a consumer unit is unlikely to be led by a person younger than 18.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
23hr ago
I feel obligated to point out that a person can share a house with someone who is not his romantic partner.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
23hr ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
23hr ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
1d ago
You have to add two spaces at the end of a line in order to create a line break.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
I think you meant to post this comment in response to Skulldrinker's comment, rather than in response to my comment.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
a minor birth defect (the article doesn't specify what)
It says "a minor heart defect" farther down in the article.
palette
palate
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
the problem has been a fundamental obstacle to my emotional well-being for 5+ years
Just give up. I'm sure you can think of things to do with your time that are more enjoyable than romance.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
4d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
5d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
5d ago
Movie studios will make deals with short-form video apps for the rights to “micro movies”.
Article: The Vertical Revolution: How Microdramas Became a Multi-Billion-Dollar Global Phenomenon
I believe Red Letter Media discussed Quibi in one of its videos. I don't remember which specific video it was, but see also Vertical: An Immersive Theatrical Experience.
Schools will try to teach language in schools not with phonics, but with ebonics, using rap-along content.
Article: Activists demand that Black English be pushed on kids in California preschools
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
5d ago
A biography of one random streamer doesn't seem postworthy. (When Asmongold or Hasan Piker goes trans, then you can @ me.)
IIRC, F1nn5ter used to be sufficiently prominent to make the front page of Reddit on a semi-regular basis, just like Asmongold and Hasan. That's where I learned about this rigmarole.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
6d ago
reduces or destroys
Again:
In the words of Justice Holmes, "while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking".
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
6d ago
They expect Plan D to be the most likely path, and one of the crappier ones.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
6d ago
I assume it's a derogatory use of "pink" to mean "left-wing" (an older meaning of the word, but it checks out).
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
6d ago
The Supreme Court has ruled unanimously that rent control is not an unconstitutional taking because the owner is renting voluntarily. He can just stop renting and sell the property if he wants to.
When a landowner decides to rent his land to tenants, the government may place ceilings on the rents the landowner can charge, or require the landowner to accept tenants he does not like, without automatically having to pay compensation. Such forms of regulation are analyzed by engaging in the "essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries" necessary to determine whether a regulatory taking has occurred. In the words of Justice Holmes, "while property may be regulated to a certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized as a taking".
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
6d ago
Hilariously, this law was watered down from an earlier bill that would have capped the upset price at just 50 percent of the mortgage! (The text isn't clear as to whether it's referring to the first mortgage or to all mortgages combined.) This original version was passed by the legislature, but was vetoed by the governor.
These provisions may operate to force lenders to take large losses on mortgages in default even when the market would enable them to recoup most or all of their investment. In addition to raising legitimate constitutional concerns, such a system could also harm borrowers by restricting access to credit and mortgages in New Jersey, as lenders would be forced to factor these potential losses into their lending decisions. For these reasons, I am recommending that the provision capping the “upset price” be removed from the bill.
Court opinion somewhat relevant to the culture war:
-
According to lawmakers: "New Jersey is consistently in the top three in the nation with the highest foreclosures. Our state also has the widest racial wealth gap in the country. Black and brown wealth is hemorrhaging through the loss of foreclosed property, and the people who live in the community often do not have deep enough pockets to even participate in the foreclosure process." "The current process favors companies that have the money to purchase property at sheriff sales and resell it for a profit." In response to these concerns, the state govt. enacts a law ensuring that, whenever a residential property is foreclosed on, a right of first refusal is granted to the owner, his next of kin, and his tenants (if the owner is an individual rather than a company), and a right of second refusal is granted to certain redevelopment-oriented nonprofits (regardless of the owner's identity). Normally, foreclosure results in an auction starting at an "upset price" (minimum/reserve price) set by the foreclosing lienholder (presumably the lender of the property's first mortgage). However, these two new rights of refusal allow the property to be purchased for the upset price without an auction. The lawmakers say: "This legislation will help to keep property ownership within the community." "This is what equity in systems looks like."
-
However, the new law causes problems because it often results in undervaluation of the property, so that junior lienholders don't get paid back. For example, in one of the cases consolidated here: A residential property with estimated fair market value of at least 680 k$ was foreclosed on. US Bank held a first mortgage for 281 k$, and PNC Bank held a second mortgage for an amount that I can't find in the court documents. US Bank set the upset price at 309 k$. PNC was prepared to bid the auction up to 401 k$, which presumably would suffice to pay off both mortgages. However, instead a nonprofit exercised its right of second refusal and bought the property at the upset price of 309 k$, paying off US Bank's mortgage but leaving PNC with substantially less than what it would have gotten at auction. In PNC's words: "The refusal to recognize other bids results in illegal lien-stripping and the illegal taking of substantial surplus that would have been realized, and the deprivation of PNC's property interest that would have attached to that surplus." (PNC also alleges that the nonprofit is a sham. It was created just a few days before the auction would have taken place, and is not registered as a nonprofit with the state govt. or with the federal IRS.)
-
The trial judge rules that the nonprofits' right of second refusal is an unconstitutional taking without just compensation, and the appeals panel affirms. The federal Supreme Court recently found that it is unconstitutional for the govt. to foreclose on a property for a 200-k$ tax delinquency, sell it at auction for 300 k$, and pocket the extra 100 k$. Likewise, if a property is encumbered with a 300-k$ mortgage, it is unconstitutional for the govt. to let a nonprofit buy it for 200 k$ and magically extinguish the extra 100 k$ of debt owed to a lender. (Nobody has invoked the owner's, next of kin's, and tenants' right of first refusal, so it technically is not at issue in this case. But if the right of first refusal is challenged in the future it presumably will be held unconstitutional under the same rationale.)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
7d ago
I did a lot of writing for AI 2027 and was listed as a co-author. Some of my writing made it into Plan A too, but it was a bit less. The difference is of degree rather than kind, but because of this—and to give me more latitude to discuss it the way I like with less PR blowback—we decided not to put me as a co-author this time. I continue to be proud of having a part in this, small as it may be.
Even if he's not an official coauthor, he did make substantial contributions.
A generic locker-room joke's leading to a restraining order is funny. Repeatedly impregnating your girlfriend's underage daughters (including while out on zero-dollar bail) is funny. Accidentally fingering your daughter because she replaced your wife in the marital bed in the middle of the night is funny. I don't know what else to tell you.
Perhaps you have not sufficiently
<del>desensitized</del><ins>refined</ins>your sensibilities by reading thousands of pieces of (predominantly non-loli) hentai manga and erotic literature.More options
Context Copy link