lostinbr

quote:

---

fanning yourself is not going to cool you off with the warm air that you are fanning yourself with

---

I think people who fan themselves with programs are dramatic but this isn’t really true.

5 strikes no swings.. still at the plate :casty:

quote:

---

Yeah, this wont fix anything. They either wont send the Medical crew out for these fake injuries, or they will get the “signal” in a little faster so that they lay down before the ball is spotted!

---

Yeah I don’t really get it either. Reading the rule book, as far as I understand injury timeouts are decided by the officials (not the medical staff). There’s nothing that says the medical staff has to enter the field for an injury. It does say the player must be treated/evaluated before returning to the game, but I haven’t seen anything that says the evaluation has to happen on the field.

So if a player is faking an injury they can just go down, wait for the official to declare an injury timeout, roll around on the ground for a second, then take their sweet time gingerly limping to the sideline.. without being penalized.

Meanwhile a player who is actually injured goes down and either has to walk off the field with an injury before being evaluated, OR the medical staff comes out and the team is penalized.

Maybe there’s something I’m missing, but at face value it appears this will penalize actual injuries while doing nothing for fake injuries. I guess the logic is that injured players tend to be down before the ball is spotted but it’s odd to base it on the medical team entering the field instead of basing it on a player going down. And sometimes officials spot the ball pretty damn quickly during late game situations.

quote:

---

have to factor in the same numbers for the car in front of you

---

Fair (although there are scenarios such as collision in front of you where this isn’t necessarily the case). Pick 100 drivers at random and have the car in front of them lock their brakes. What percentage do you think can avoid accident without swerving into another lane?

What’s more reckless: driving on the wrong side of the road in a no-passing zone with no shoulders or driving too closely behind someone to avoid them when they lock their brakes up?

quote:

---

The only way it’s his fault is if she would have hit him if she didn’t swerve into the other guy.

---

There’s a question of whether he would have been convicted, then there’s a question of whether he logically deserves blame.

Let’s say I walk out into the middle of the interstate and cause the first cars in line to lock up their brakes. There’s a 15-car pileup behind them and someone dies. Am I criminally responsible for that death? I don’t know, probably not. Did I cause the accident? Uhh… yeah.

That’s pretty much where I’m at. Maybe she did it, maybe she didn’t. I have no idea. But there’s so much reasonable doubt everywhere that I don’t see how she gets convicted.

quote:

---

Int’l based Major Oil Co with US assets produces tanker full of crude oil

Int’l based Major Oil CO’s trading company sells / buys contracts (paper) on crude (physical crude in this tanker may be traded multiple times before it finally offloads at final destination).

So, how does “buying from US” take place when U.S. does not own this crude. What is the control on point A (US) to point B (Indonesia) in this crude / tariff transaction.

---

A few things here.. long post ahead (sorry):

First, it doesn’t really matter that the oil company is international. Odds are the company is headquartered in the US anyway, but that doesn’t really matter either. What matters most of the time is the country of origin for the shipment in question.

So if Shell (headquartered in London) produces a tanker worth of crude oil in the US, then sells it to a foreign trading company who loads it onto a foreign-flag tanker and ships it to Indonesia.. it’s still a US export to Indonesia.

Second, these trade deals are generally not as straightforward as “country A agrees to buy $x of [goods] from country B.” That’s how they often get simplified for media purposes but reality can be much more complicated. The deal often has something to do with import quotas.

The import quota is a cap on imports of a specific good such as crude oil or LP gas (using the examples in OP). That quota might apply to all imports or just imports from a specific country. It can also be absolute or tariff-based. With an absolute quota, the government basically says the country can only import x [unit of measure] of a specific good. After that, no more imports. If it’s tariff-based, the government applies a tariff rate to imports once the quota is filled.

So a country’s government can pull some levers to “buy more” from another country by playing with quotas. If Indonesia has a quota on US crude oil set as 5MM bbl/year and raises that quota to 10MM bbl/year, that might get spun as “Indonesia will buy an additional 5 million barrels of crude oil from the US.”

Whether that statement is true or not depends on many factors. If the US is only shipping 2.5MM bbl/year to Indonesia and their quota is set at 5MM bbl/year, increasing the quota by another 5 million barrels probably isn’t going to change much because they aren’t currently reaching the quota anyway

If they are reaching the quota, there are still other factors. If they increase their quota for US crude while simultaneously decreasing baseline tariffs for Saudi crude, the quota change may not have the intended effect as Saudi crude becomes more competitive. If every other country also increases their quotas on US crude at the same time, making US crude oil more expensive in the global market due to higher demand, that’s also going to dampen the effect (although it’s still a net positive for US producers and incentivizes further US investment in O&G operations).

Of course there are other cases where a country might actually make a legitimate commitment to buy a certain amount of US goods. Particularly if it’s a market sector where the country’s government directly controls imports. Defense spending is an obvious example. Oil & gas could fall into this category if there’s a national oil company who owns the refineries.

quote:

---

Deductible and rate increases the next several years.

---

Yeah that’s the shitty part, I agree.

quote:

---

Kids vehicle hit on campus parking lot by another kid, minor damage. Note left. Contacted parent, asked to get quote.

---

So the kid left a note with their parents’ contact info?

I assume you have the identity of the actual driver and their license plate number? I’d file a police report first and then file the claim with your insurance (assuming you have collision). I’d also make a copy of the note and any communications to give to the police when you file the report.

Worse case scenario is that you pay your deductible and move on - which would still be better than just eating it if they ghosted you, unless the damage is super minor or something. Best case scenario is that your insurance goes after their insurance, you get your deductible back, and you get the added satisfaction of winning after they tried to ghost you.

quote:

---

When you're passing cars on a two lane road you have to go faster than the posted speed limit.

---

Well that’s just.. not really true.

quote:

---

Even if passing legally, there's always the possibility that someone turns into the opposing lane from a driveway or side road.

---

Which is exactly why legal passing zones on two-lane roads are placed in specific locations. Visibility for the passing driver is a major factor in whether or not there is a passing zone. Intersections are another factor. Hazards such as driveways are another factor. This is the entire reason we have no-passing zones.

So.. sure - if you’re in a no-passing zone, in an area with limited visibility, cross streets, and/or a lot of driveways, trying to pass a car who is driving at or near the posted speed limit… then yeah, you probably do have to haul arse around them. That’s why it’s reckless.