|
|
Post by foggyisback on Mar 28, 2024 2:28:05 GMT -5
Lieberman was good in his day, but after the 2000 election he became beholden to lobbyists and slipped over to the dark side.
He paved the way for Manchinema to do what they did. The irony of a man who prevented the public option from being part of Obamacare dying after a fall is not lost on me.
While I feel sorry for his fam, forget the Jewish phrase. May his memory be a condemnation of all that is wrong with government.
|
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Mar 28, 2024 6:03:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Mar 28, 2024 6:26:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Mar 28, 2024 6:40:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Mar 28, 2024 7:33:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Mar 28, 2024 7:40:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Mar 28, 2024 8:00:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Mar 28, 2024 8:07:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Mar 28, 2024 8:20:04 GMT -5
Man of the people 😄
|
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Mar 28, 2024 10:10:51 GMT -5
Eh.... There's several Engineers saying that there are deflection solutions where you put stuff around the pylon to deflect the ship before it hits the pylon. If you hit the pylon, yeah, no bridge can withstand the weight but a lot of people are pointing to a Florida incident a few decades ago that was basically the same issue and how when it was rebuilt, it came with these deflections installed. It may be fair to ask whether such deflection solutions could've been installed in this case and whether it might have been prudent to do so given the mass of ships moving through the area. That said, a lot of people and the OP are treating this like a maintenance issue which it absolutely is not. My issue here is the claim that "no bridge is designed for this" - a deflection system is specifically a design feature specifically for this scenario. |
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Mar 28, 2024 10:48:19 GMT -5
Eh.... There's several Engineers saying that there are deflection solutions where you put stuff around the pylon to deflect the ship before it hits the pylon. If you hit the pylon, yeah, no bridge can withstand the weight but a lot of people are pointing to a Florida incident a few decades ago that was basically the same issue and how when it was rebuilt, it came with these deflections installed. It may be fair to ask whether such deflection solutions could've been installed in this case and whether it might have been prudent to do so given the mass of ships moving through the area. That said, a lot of people and the OP are treating this like a maintenance issue which it absolutely is not. My issue here is the claim that "no bridge is designed for this" - a deflection system is specifically a design feature specifically for this scenario. The Sunshine Skyway Bridge connecting St. Petersburg to Sarasota was hit twice in less than four months in 1980. I was in college at nearby USF. The original bridge was TWO spans going across Tampa Bay - nineteen miles in all. The first collision killed 23 Coast Guard members when its ship sank. The second crash was during a bad storm and took out a 100-foot section of the southbound span, including a Greyhound bus with 33 people aboard (two other people also lost their lives). The new bridge, which opened in 1987, has underwater concrete "dolphins" that are designed to protect the trusses. www.jacksonville.com/picture-gallery/news/state/2019/05/08/photos-sunshine-skyway-bridge-disaster/809810007/ |
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Mar 28, 2024 10:51:33 GMT -5
We have seven main bridges in my city that cross the St. Johns River or its tributary. It helps when your mayor used to do TV news.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Mar 28, 2024 10:57:24 GMT -5
Good article The Anti-Abortion Endgame That Erin Hawley Admitted to the Supreme Court Somewhat lost in the debate around abortion pills and oral arguments that took place at the Supreme Court in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine on Tuesday was one deeply uncomfortable truth: The very notion of what it means to practice emergency medicine is in dispute, with anti-abortion doctors insisting upon a right to refuse treatment for any patient who doesn’t meet their test of moral purity. Indeed, the right asserted is that in the absence of certainty about which patients are morally pure, the doctors want to deny medication to all patients, nationwide. In public, the plaintiffs in this case—a group of doctors and dentists seeking to ban medication abortion—have long claimed they object to ending “unborn life” by finishing an “incomplete or failed” abortion at the hospital. But in court, they went much further. Their lawyer, Erin Hawley, admitted at oral argument that her clients don’t merely oppose terminating a pregnancy—they are pursuing the right to turn away a patient whose pregnancy has already been terminated. Indeed, they appear to want to deny even emergency care to patients whose fetus is no longer “alive,” on the grounds that the patient used an abortion drug earlier in the process. And they aim to deploy this broad fear of “complicity” against the FDA, to demand a nationwide prohibition on the abortion pill to ensure that they need never again see (and be forced to turn away) patients who’ve previously taken it. This is not a theory of being “complicit” in ending life. It is a theory that doctors can pick and choose their patients based on the “moral distress” they might feel in helping them. It should come as no surprise that the same judge who tried to ban mifepristone in this case, Matthew Kacsmaryk, has also attempted to legalize anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in health care nationwide. This is the ballgame: weaponize subjective religious beliefs against secular society to degrade the quality of care for everyone. If you can’t persuade Americans to adopt hardcore evangelical views, exploit the legal system to coerce them into it anyway... slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/abortion-ban-erin-hawley-supreme-court.html |
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Mar 28, 2024 11:24:56 GMT -5
The football won.
|
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Mar 28, 2024 11:56:12 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Mar 28, 2024 12:17:24 GMT -5
The turdsack doesn't fall far from the cloud of flies. |
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Mar 28, 2024 12:21:22 GMT -5
Legacy Media is a sad fucking mess. |
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Mar 28, 2024 12:26:37 GMT -5
Eh.... There's several Engineers saying that there are deflection solutions where you put stuff around the pylon to deflect the ship before it hits the pylon. If you hit the pylon, yeah, no bridge can withstand the weight but a lot of people are pointing to a Florida incident a few decades ago that was basically the same issue and how when it was rebuilt, it came with these deflections installed. It may be fair to ask whether such deflection solutions could've been installed in this case and whether it might have been prudent to do so given the mass of ships moving through the area. That said, a lot of people and the OP are treating this like a maintenance issue which it absolutely is not. My issue here is the claim that "no bridge is designed for this" - a deflection system is specifically a design feature specifically for this scenario. Given the length of the bridge and the size of the ships passing, is there enough space to make a deflection system that is protective enough for the impact? What I know from engineering (1 year on construction, 1 year electric) is that the deflections zone can't just be some wedged system that deflects or bare the brunt of impact. It has to be wide enough to absorb the impact and deflect off. I don't know the specific dimensions needed, but it doesn't appear to be a massive amount of wiggle room with this bridge. I can be wrong of course. Most likely this bridge was never built to see these massive container ships. It is possible that something could've been added over time, but I don't know if it would be enough for the size of ships we're talking about. 'Something' isn't always enough. |
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Mar 28, 2024 12:30:17 GMT -5
Good article The Anti-Abortion Endgame That Erin Hawley Admitted to the Supreme Court Somewhat lost in the debate around abortion pills and oral arguments that took place at the Supreme Court in FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine on Tuesday was one deeply uncomfortable truth: The very notion of what it means to practice emergency medicine is in dispute, with anti-abortion doctors insisting upon a right to refuse treatment for any patient who doesn’t meet their test of moral purity. Indeed, the right asserted is that in the absence of certainty about which patients are morally pure, the doctors want to deny medication to all patients, nationwide. In public, the plaintiffs in this case—a group of doctors and dentists seeking to ban medication abortion—have long claimed they object to ending “unborn life” by finishing an “incomplete or failed” abortion at the hospital. But in court, they went much further. Their lawyer, Erin Hawley, admitted at oral argument that her clients don’t merely oppose terminating a pregnancy—they are pursuing the right to turn away a patient whose pregnancy has already been terminated. Indeed, they appear to want to deny even emergency care to patients whose fetus is no longer “alive,” on the grounds that the patient used an abortion drug earlier in the process. And they aim to deploy this broad fear of “complicity” against the FDA, to demand a nationwide prohibition on the abortion pill to ensure that they need never again see (and be forced to turn away) patients who’ve previously taken it. This is not a theory of being “complicit” in ending life. It is a theory that doctors can pick and choose their patients based on the “moral distress” they might feel in helping them. It should come as no surprise that the same judge who tried to ban mifepristone in this case, Matthew Kacsmaryk, has also attempted to legalize anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination in health care nationwide. This is the ballgame: weaponize subjective religious beliefs against secular society to degrade the quality of care for everyone. If you can’t persuade Americans to adopt hardcore evangelical views, exploit the legal system to coerce them into it anyway... slate.com/news-and-politics/2024/03/abortion-ban-erin-hawley-supreme-court.htmlThe Hippocratic oath is 'do no harm'. But what these charlatans suggest is selective application. To use their 'religion' as a guide as to who can get help and to force ALL others to adhere to their dogma. These are religious sociopaths and probably shouldn't be in healthcare at all. Leaches and prayer is probably the best they can administer. |
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Mar 28, 2024 12:36:25 GMT -5
Eh.... There's several Engineers saying that there are deflection solutions where you put stuff around the pylon to deflect the ship before it hits the pylon. If you hit the pylon, yeah, no bridge can withstand the weight but a lot of people are pointing to a Florida incident a few decades ago that was basically the same issue and how when it was rebuilt, it came with these deflections installed. It may be fair to ask whether such deflection solutions could've been installed in this case and whether it might have been prudent to do so given the mass of ships moving through the area. That said, a lot of people and the OP are treating this like a maintenance issue which it absolutely is not. My issue here is the claim that "no bridge is designed for this" - a deflection system is specifically a design feature specifically for this scenario. Given the length of the bridge and the size of the ships passing, is there enough space to make a deflection system that is protective enough for the impact? What I know from engineering (1 year on construction, 1 year electric) is that the deflections zone can't just be some wedged system that deflects or bare the brunt of impact. It has to be wide enough to absorb the impact and deflect off. I don't know the specific dimensions needed, but it doesn't appear to be a massive amount of wiggle room with this bridge. I can be wrong of course. Most likely this bridge was never built to see these massive container ships. It is possible that something could've been added over time, but I don't know if it would be enough for the size of ships we're talking about. 'Something' isn't always enough. I'm saying it's a fair question. I'm not saying what the answer is. I want to emphasize that there are fair questions that can be asked about the considerations made over the last 50 years about the bridge as the usage in the area has evolved and as knowledge of things like the Tampa incident became known. They are separate from unfair questions that basically want to blame someone for something that wasn't possible. I want to clearly distinguish between those two questions. In the cited tweet, the OP asked an unfair question and was correctly Community Noted for it. The reply, however, veered too far into cutting off what I consider to be fair questions and overstating things. I don't think he intended to - after all the OP was clearly off base - but I wanted to clearly emphasize where he erred and delineate. 'Cause there are valid criticisms worth listening to and valid questions worth asking underneath the noise of ignorant stupidity. I linked an article yesterday by Engineers talking about possible options. And at the end of the day, the question I really want to ask is this: are there other bridges that perhaps should have these deflection systems built? Is this an ongoing risk to other bridges and is it reasonable and viable to account for the risk? |
|
|
|
Post by foggyisback on Mar 28, 2024 13:21:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Mar 28, 2024 13:40:49 GMT -5
Will heads roll?
|
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Mar 28, 2024 13:44:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Mar 28, 2024 13:47:10 GMT -5
So margie recently did that dumb shit she does to capture the Media circus and then pretend that is what politics is about; threatening to oust the speaker. But she doesn't want to own it of course becaause fundamentally she's an intellectually weak turd and spineless coward. No, in the case the speaker is vacated it is the dems fault. Because they would naturally vote against the speaker and possibly because of the slim margin, install a Dem as a speaker.
So no, she will not take the blame for it.
How about not vacating the speaker?
|
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Mar 28, 2024 13:54:22 GMT -5
Given the length of the bridge and the size of the ships passing, is there enough space to make a deflection system that is protective enough for the impact? What I know from engineering (1 year on construction, 1 year electric) is that the deflections zone can't just be some wedged system that deflects or bare the brunt of impact. It has to be wide enough to absorb the impact and deflect off. I don't know the specific dimensions needed, but it doesn't appear to be a massive amount of wiggle room with this bridge. I can be wrong of course. Most likely this bridge was never built to see these massive container ships. It is possible that something could've been added over time, but I don't know if it would be enough for the size of ships we're talking about. 'Something' isn't always enough. I'm saying it's a fair question. I'm not saying what the answer is. I want to emphasize that there are fair questions that can be asked about the considerations made over the last 50 years about the bridge as the usage in the area has evolved and as knowledge of things like the Tampa incident became known. They are separate from unfair questions that basically want to blame someone for something that wasn't possible. I want to clearly distinguish between those two questions. In the cited tweet, the OP asked an unfair question and was correctly Community Noted for it. The reply, however, veered too far into cutting off what I consider to be fair questions and overstating things. I don't think he intended to - after all the OP was clearly off base - but I wanted to clearly emphasize where he erred and delineate. 'Cause there are valid criticisms worth listening to and valid questions worth asking underneath the noise of ignorant stupidity. I linked an article yesterday by Engineers talking about possible options. And at the end of the day, the question I really want to ask is this: are there other bridges that perhaps should have these deflection systems built? Is this an ongoing risk to other bridges and is it reasonable and viable to account for the risk? I'm sure there are opportunities here to add some kind of protective remedy. I would be very surprised if they just cloned the existing bridge and that's that. As for the most important question - I'm sure there are other bridges and hopefully this will lead to some serious discussions and investments to address that. I don't think most people had massive container ships in mind when they started constructing these bridges and like with everything, you have to plan ahead. Unfortunately there has been no political apatite to keep that in mind. In fact there has not been any serious discussion to even corporations split the difference. This shit gets barely addressed when bad stuff happens and tax payers are usually on the hook for what corporations and government refused to keep up with. I remember that massive outage a while back that essentially shut down the west coast. That was due to lack of investments by the utility companies. And then we had Texas. I'm not sure how the bridge falls under any of this, but the instance they started accepting massive container ships I think someone should have started the conversation on how the corporations using our infrastructure also have to help pay for its improvements. But again, point taken. Hopefully something good comes out of this. |
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Mar 28, 2024 13:56:37 GMT -5
And will be first to talk about how they themselves helped fund projects in their backyards. |
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Mar 28, 2024 14:30:59 GMT -5
So margie recently did that dumb shit she does to capture the Media circus and then pretend that is what politics is about; threatening to oust the speaker. But she doesn't want to own it of course becaause fundamentally she's an intellectually weak turd and spineless coward. No, in the case the speaker is vacated it is the dems fault. Because they would naturally vote against the speaker and possibly because of the slim margin, install a Dem as a speaker. So no, she will not take the blame for it. How about not vacating the speaker? She's going to vote against her own resolution, isn't she? |
|
|
|
Post by mrobvious on Mar 28, 2024 14:56:11 GMT -5
So margie recently did that dumb shit she does to capture the Media circus and then pretend that is what politics is about; threatening to oust the speaker. But she doesn't want to own it of course becaause fundamentally she's an intellectually weak turd and spineless coward. No, in the case the speaker is vacated it is the dems fault. Because they would naturally vote against the speaker and possibly because of the slim margin, install a Dem as a speaker. So no, she will not take the blame for it. How about not vacating the speaker? She's going to vote against her own resolution, isn't she? I have no idea. Shes a fucking moron so anything is possible. Her district really doesn't require anything more. |
|
|
|
Post by LA_Randy on Mar 28, 2024 17:42:18 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by forgottenlord on Mar 28, 2024 18:26:53 GMT -5
My Manager really sucks at his job. Like nice guy, works as an effective barrier to the stupidity further up, stays out of our way.... but boy is he bad. I actually went over his head once to fight for one of my coworkers 'cause it was clear she was about to leave unless she got a raise and I knew he didn't have the spine to fight for it - it worked.
But the one that's annoying me right now is that we got our annual raises. Now, I know this company. I know that this company generally gives 3-4% raises annually if you're not actively on a salary adjustment plan of some form. And I know I'm not. And considering the world in general talks about 2% raises, I feel quite happy that I'm normally getting raises in that range. And I know that there's no promotion coming* so my expectation is a 3-4% raise
So he sits me down and says "yeah, it was a tough year for the company so there wasn't a lot of money for raises so I could only get you {bloody ADD kicks in}"
Now, every fucking quarterly presentation, the company is gloating about how great a year it has been so to tell me it's a tough year is fucking two faced. Which I point out.
Get the letter today confirming the amount effective Apr 1. Pull out the calculator. 3.5%
Uh huh. He's really bad at his job.
* BTW: I want to rant about the promotion thing. I've inquired about a promotion and I'm fully expecting the answer is "sorry, you are at the maximum for a single team lead and would need to consider being a multi-team architect" which I would 100% understand and accept. That's a career move. Do I want that career move? No. If this is the cap, this is the cap. It's a perfectly reasonable cap. It is perfectly reasonable to say that we are paying people more who impact the capabilities of multiple products not just their own.
What do I get. "Oh, yeah, so apparently you need to have lots of exposure and yadda yadda and if you keep working at it, we can get you that promotion"
Problem: I'm on 5 cross-team committees and am the primary presenter on one and was co-organizer of a former one. I'm well known throughout the organization (at least the Engineering side). Multiple VPs have met with me 1:1 at various times. So basically, he's saying that what I need to do is the same shit I've been doing for 4 years and he thinks that'll get me promoted. Nope, pretty sure that's not the reason.
|
|
