I gotta say, it’s wild behaviour to come into a vehicle appreciation post and call them toasters hahaha.
Your bike is an egg timer, but if you’re passionate about egg timers then so be it, enjoy that countdown. When you find yourself in an artisanal grandfather clock festival, keep the egg timer in your pannier.
Likely situations where a person will be okay this month so they send another $20 or so and maybe a few months down the line, they are the one that needs a bit of help.
It’s like the proverb, “it takes a village”, only commoditized.
Ah see if only I had your genius those years back. I do still have that Blackberry, maybe I’ll get a new battery and set it up again.
To my surprise, you’re right. Brigades letting buildings burn didn’t happen - at least not by company decree.
The most I’d ever looked into it was to see what those plaques looked like. I appreciate you countering the idea, it led me to an interesting read of this correction article that seems a great summary of what really occurred.
Primarily it seems they all just worked together for reasons that, after reading them, are painfully obvious and I can’t believe I hadn’t considered even the first one.
More recent writers have more firmly rebutted the notion of letting uninsured buildings burn. In 1996, an insurance company history referenced, in 1702, “the first of many recorded examples” of insurance fire brigades working together to fight fires. The insuring fire office recompensated the other offices whose men who had assisted.
The “erroneous myth”, is said to have originated only in the 1920s.
Originally writing in 1692-3, Daniel Defoe noted that the firemen were “very active and diligent” in helping to put out fires, “whether in houses insured or not insured”.
Only two occasions have been reported (in 1871 & 1895), though, where insurance companies threatened the authorities that they would cease attending fires in uninsured properties.
With no reward, no water, and no insurance interest in a burning building, it is not difficult to envisage firemen standing back on occasion, jeering and generally interfering with rival brigades fighting a fire in which they did have an interest. Or, alternatively, simply packing up and going home. Arguably, therefore, the legend of insurance fire brigades letting uninsured buildings burn originated in the first half of the 18th century.
It’s pretty obvious Krommidas has met an unfortunate fate. This law on the books about assuming an individual dead only after being missing for three years is surely meant for when a husband goes out for cigarettes, not when all the worldly possessions of a person training for a triathlon are left waiting by the water.
The judge’s Ballotpedia is lacking recent information, but in 2017 he ran in an election under the republican banner so just based on that, it’s not surprising to me he chose to follow the letter of the law here as doing so will ultimately benefit the republicans on the ballot come November.
I did this with a Blackberry a while ago, but it destroyed the battery after a year unfortunately.
Might be fine if the charging could be stopped and resumed at a lower point. Maybe even a dumb solution like one of those holiday light timers to only charge for a couple hours a day would work. Damn, I should have done that.
Edit - Turns out, this just isn’t true. Thanks to Teft for the correction. Details in another comment.
Once upon a time fire brigades were private entities operated by insurance companies. When they heard of a fire nearby, they’d roll up and only take action if the plaque on the building had their company name on it. Domestic authorities these days certainly resemble that behaviour.
I’m unsure we are talking about the same comment. The misinformation is the claim the Gates foundation is continuing to fund Kurzgesagt, when that clearly isn’t the case. This incorrect information is veiled by beginning the statement with the truth of the 2015 grant.
Insofar as the reputational damage Kurzgesagt has incurred, I’m not sure there’s much meat on that bone. Sure, you might believe they have fallen from grace or some such, but as I pointed out in another comment here, we can’t just connect everything under the sun and say ‘group A is bad because groups B through Y are all next to one another and with group Z doing all those injustices, group A is complicit in those crimes’.
To me, the question of whether Kurzgesagt is a Gates mouthpiece is pretty cut and dry. A few reasons for this, but the most glaring is simply that the money didn’t keep coming, and it wasn’t much money to begin with. I wouldn’t be going out of my way to talk up my employer to clients if my last bonus was a decade ago and didn’t even cover my rent for the month I got it.
Thank you for linking that video and doing what you can to share these conflict free sources you hold in such esteem.
Sorry, I didn’t think the word ‘continued’ would have needed underlining for anyone that could read what I wrote.
Using a piece of factual information to prop up false information within the same sentence is how false narratives take hold.
They accepted, and continue to accept a great amount of money from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
It’s interesting how any false narrative starts with a granule of truth.
Kurzgesagt was indeed provided $570,000 in 2015. That money was paid out across the following four years.
They have not continued to accept any amount of money from the Gates foundation.
I did a few searches and while I didn’t find that quote from Kurzgesagt’s CEO, I did find the contribution listed from a decade ago on the Gates foundation website. $570,000 paid out over four years. They also gave NPR $2,000,000 the next year.
Since I didn’t find the CEOs quote you’ve mentioned, I can only question the context around it. Would those videos not have been made because the Gates foundation specifically tied the funding to those videos being created? Or would they not have been made because Kurzgesagt didn’t have the money to do so otherwise?
Regardless, Kurzgesagt is a private company and if they wanted to conceal hidden agendas by corporate contributors, they would just keep quiet - not openly acknowledge that they made content with money given to them by some larger organisation.
If we’re going to denounce any group of people that are connected via Bacon’s Law to a disastrous corporate industry, the moral high ground will be unachievable for the entirety of our species.
- E. coli bacteria
- Oil
- Grease
- Suspended solids
- Other unnamed pollutants
“Importantly, the facility has had minimal, if any, adverse effects on the Maumee River or Lake Erie.”
Sure, we’ll admit to some pollution, but just look how big the river is, can’t blame us!
They spent more to redesign their cans than this lawsuit will penalize them in the end.
Morally reprehensible I think you mean, not ironic. Raising livestock for food is not illegal. Dumping wastewater into a river is.
Hyberbole doesn’t help your agenda.
First transatlantic flight a success!
Critic says, “Not sure how this is news, Christopher Columbus got there on a boat half a millenia ago.”
A person just accomplished a long time goal for a good cause and your first response was to dismiss the effort. Must be drowning in party invitations to be so sour.
Indeed. I’m sure there is already language in the terms against driving the vehicles with people in the cargo space. Breaking this could result in some penalty. If the company found, of course.
Unfortunately, if they were to bundle up dozens of these individuals renting trucks on behalf of ICE and were then able to go after the agency itself for this practice of purposefully violating their TOS, the opposition is the government. I wouldn’t put it past the current administration to nationalize U-Haul as punishment in such a situation.
I agree about the punitive damages. There should be life long consequences for everyone involved with ICE.
Oh I wasn’t referring to WeirdGoesPro themselves. I replied to them because they had a similarly circular conversation with MushuChupacabra as I did.
It’s not complicity when a customer uses your product outside the ToS.
I agree. The employment and purposes of the individual renting the trucks were unlikely to have been disclosed while the vehicle was being rented.
… if Uhaul takes no measures to prevent this in the future, then Uhaul is complicit.
I think that falls more to complacency than complicity, but I see your point. As I’ve written in a few other comments here, I’m not sure what ‘measures’ could be implemented by any rental company to prevent undisclosed use of their vehicles.
There are only two routes I can think of to effect this situation. Some reactionary method; barring the listed customer from future rentals if the service becomes aware of the misuse, maybe install dash cameras in some tamper resistant way. Or a preventative method; ending rentals entirely and pivot to a full service moving company.
If you have a suggestion, I would like to hear it - it’s why I asked the question in the first place, and so far haven’t seen an answer to it.
From the NYT article, the driver - with only a probationary license - was released and allowed to go home that night. His father is apparently a police officer.
He then livestreamed, rambling about a hit and run in another town that left two girls dead, and that he wasn’t authorized to talk about it.
Later, thanking the audience he’s accumulated since he was twelve years old:
"And regardless of what happens, if you don’t see me streaming for a little bit, you’ll understand why.”
This type of deranged individual is why protected bicycle lanes should be standard. But I’m sure New Jersey will install some new paint and a ‘share the road’ sign.
Do you have a long commute or take road trips often? I ask because I used to have an hour commute. I enjoyed my car, but to your example, I enjoyed it only when I ‘wore’ it.
After I realised I didn’t enjoy the car when I wasn’t driving it, I realised something else. 90% of it’s life, 85% of my waking life, and 95% of my time away from work, it was just sitting somewhere waiting to driven again - not being ‘worn’. So I sold it and got something much cheaper in every way; to purchase, maintain, insure, refuel, etc.
Once I’d downgraded, it was funny to me how many people I knew were asking me if I were okay, as if I lost the nice car in a divorce or something haha.