sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
No bio...
User ID: 636
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
26d ago
It's not so much that they're "adjusted" as it is that the lights are higher up to begin with. Thus, unless they're angled much further down than they would be on a normal car (which is impossible if you want to illuminate the same distance simply due to how high off the ground they are), they're going to project a brighter light into any car lower than those headlights.
This is still not adding up.
If the light is higher off the ground and you want it to illuminate as far down the road as a light lower to the ground, it must be angled lower. If you raise the light and keep the angle constant, you will illuminate further down the road.
If the light is adjusted to keep the distance illuminated constant, I suspect that it would only be shining into vehicles at very short distances, and since you are not usually approaching vehicles head on and the lights have limited side spread, this shouldn't even be an issue. There's something else going on here.
So you have a grand total of... six to choose from
How many hatchbacks does a man need?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
27d ago
Yes, that's true. I'm assuming that he doesn't live out in the sticks, but perhaps I'm wrong.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
27d ago
now (where you can't buy a non-lifted hatchback).
Sure you can, it's called a Prius. Or a civic hatchback.
If you're sitting higher up relative to the road, your headlights will be adjusted up (relative to a lower vehicle) so that you can see further out. Thus, if you're in an CUV, your lights are going to be aimed from the factory such that you'll blind anyone in lower vehicles.
This i don't find totally convincing. Why do they need to be adjusted so you can see further out? Obviously you can always aim the headlights higher to see further (and that's what high beams do, partially), but that can't be legal.
At this point I'm a lot more aggressive about not turning my brights off when I see an oncoming car (unless I see the telltale flicker of them turning theirs off, naturally), because if they don't turn them off I'm blind when they pass.
Why are you driving with your brights on?
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
27d ago
The thing that drives me up the wall these days is headlights that shine directly into opposing traffic. I don't know what the fuck is going on recently but probably about every tenth car is blinding me at night.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
27d ago
It's OK, AI will surely fix this.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
27d ago
The viable plan to ending birthright citizenship is to reexamine the legal definition of natural born citizen in light of earlier British jurisprudence which
There's no need to have motivated semantic arguments about what is a "natural birth" and what isn't (what about those born via Cesarean section??) because it's totally irrelevant to the constitutional language. The fourteenth amendment is extremely clear and unambiguous:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
28d ago
I'll take the other end of the imminent musk imprisonment bet.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
29d ago
There's a place where kids undergo strenuous training from a young age. It's South Korea, and it's universally considered a terrible place to grow up, most of all by South Koreans themselves. Thanks but no thanks, let's let kids actually have a childhood.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
The Indian immigrants are mostly men and based on the Canadian posts they can't really find any women to marry. So I don't think there's a lot of anchor babying going around.
'Amidst the houses' is the suburb. If there's a zone for housing and a zone for commercial, then the housing bit is the suburb, from the perspective of the residents.
Are you American? This isn't really how Americans conceive of suburbs. The typical American suburb is a small town that's predominantly residential, but it still has a shopping mall or main street. A town that's predominantly a bedroom community with people commuting to work in the big city is a suburb, not just the residential zone of that town.
Edit: even within rio rancho (which is not in Albuquerque, it's its own town) there are commercial areas, such as they are, sandwiched between residential areas:
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
Suburbs have all those things, the problem is that you can't build any of that stuff amidst houses (except parks and maybe schools).
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
I doubt it. Greencard wait time for indians is something like fifty years.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
The car in front of you as you posted this.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
Which time period are you talking about (I don't think you actually mean Old English)? After Shakespeare you've got Donne, Milton, Pope, Burns, and then the Romantics (who I think need no defense). I don't think there's really a time period without a great poet.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
I am usually pretty good at going to a bar or party where I know nobody or only a couple of people and talking to a bunch of people.
You are typical-minding if you think this describes everyone. This is basically a nightmare scenario for me, and I am actually overall reasonably well adjusted (no, seriously, guys).
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
I don't think I've ever met or known anyone who I know to be extroverted by that definition.
I knew a guy who would talk to someone in a foreign country for perhaps five minutes and subsequently say that they "made a friend". On the other hand, I could count my friends on one hand.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
It's been known to happen.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
Maybe then I can buy a house.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
I was recently chatting with Claude to get a better sense of the course of European architecture after the Romans. As early as the 11th century you start to see beauty in buildings again (st Mark's basilica in Venice, Ely cathedral, San Miniato al Monte), but before that it's truly depressing except in Muslim Spain (the great mosque of Cordoba was built in 785 and expanded in the 10th century, the great mosque of kairouan). It's not all bad (the monastery of Santa maria de Ripoll is decent if not masterful) but it really does seem like the 11th century was a turning point. Basically Christendom was building tremendously dreary stuff until the Romanesque style came about.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
There is nothing good about the number of men not working going from 5% to 14%.
Conversely, I think we'd be much better off with lower female labor participation. Many women who would prefer to stay home with children feel that they need to work, either for money or for social acceptability reasons.
You've got a just so story for why women staying home is good and men staying home is bad, but it's easy to make up the alternate story as well. It might go something like:
We don't need more women staying home and profligately spending the man's paycheck (recall that women spend most of the household's discretionary income). Let them work to understand the value of a dollar. Conversely, many men who would prefer to stay home to raise children feel that they need to work, either for money or social respectability reasons.
I don't expect you'll be convinced by my argument, but you should recognize that yours is also only convincing to those already convinced.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
Okay, but we're not trading off 100% male LFPR vs 0%. The question is about 95% vs 86%. The fact that women don't want to work construction or whatever doesn't tell us which one of those two is better.
Generally fewer to care about female LFPR.
Fewer, except for respecting the freedom of an individual to choose whether they wish to work or not. Perhaps you can argue that women are driven into the workforce despite not wanting to do so, but you must admit that the opposite was happening in the sixties.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
Yes, the total labor force participation is up due to women entering the workforce. It now takes 2 incomes to do what a single income did before. This phenomenon led to the one good idea Elizabeth Warren ever had: "The Two Income Trap". This is not a signal of prosperity, far from it.
The two income trap isn't that women enter the workforce, it's that people live paycheck to paycheck on two incomes rather than one, meaning that there's less slack in the household.
Things are obviously generally not twice as expensive in real terms as they were in the 1960s, though housing is a notable exception. However, the price of housing clearly is being driven by factors other than people having more income.
But men have been leaving the labor force in large numbers. Whereas only 5% of prime age males weren't employed in 1968, today it's nearly 14%. And, of course, this doesn't even reflect the rise of part-time labor.
Okay, but women have been entering the labor force in larger numbers.
By the way, you are equivocating between "employed" and "participating in the labor force". There are not the same concept.
Because U3 only reflects short-term fluctuations in the labor market, and not the disastrous long term changes which have occurred over the last 50 years. And the media reports on U3 but not on the things that matter more.
You've yet to show that it's disastrous, unless all you care about is minmaxing prime age male LFPR.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
Inflation stats account for smaller packages.
sarker
It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing
1mo ago
When we remove hedonic adjustments, inflation is much, much higher than the official numbers. The official numbers also just don't pass the smell test.
It's trivial to change any methodology to get bigger or smaller numbers. The question is if the new number is more meaningful than the old one.
Truflation estimates 26.27% inflation since January 2020. CPI has increased 21.23%. I'll leave it to the reader to decide if CPI is an obviously wrong estimate.
https://truflation.com/marketplace/truflation-us-aggregated
Then we get to "unemployment". It's super fake. The male, prime age employment rate was nearly 95% in 1968. Today, it is just 86%. That's 9% of men age 25-54 who are not employed. But they are not counted as "unemployed" either. It's all fugazi.
Again, why is U3 fugazi just because you can get a bigger number with another methodology? Especially when you're looking at a subgroup analysis. If we look at prime age LFPR for the entire population, it was 70% in 1968 and now it's 84%.
All fats have about nine calories per gram.
Soybean oil: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171411/nutrients
Olive oil: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171413/nutrients
Lard: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/171401/nutrients
More options
Context Copy link