ToaKraka
Dislikes you
No bio...
User ID: 108
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
8d ago
I can't find Virginia's definitions, but here are Pennsylvania's.
A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and intent of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.
A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and intent of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.
This Pennsylvania case seems highly relevant to the situation under discussion.
- A motorist is driving at 55 mi/h on a road whose posted speed limit is 35 mi/h. At a sharp curve, he loses control and hits an oncoming car. He is convicted of reckless driving.
- The appeals panel reverses.
There is no evidence Appellant had any difficulties negotiating the road or came close to colliding with other vehicles prior to encountering the curve that caused him to lose control here. As such, and given that Appellant's speed was not so excessive as to itself create a high risk of accident, which could be imputed to Appellant by default, the evidence of conscious disregard, a key component of the willful and wanton [i. e., reckless] standard, is lacking.
Even when there are other cars on the road, driving at high speed can be merely negligent rather than reckless.
Normally, recklessness involves danger to other people, not just to oneself. Quote from a court opinion that I posted recently:
Recklessness is distinguishable from negligence on the basis that recklessness requires conscious action or inaction which creates a substantial risk of harm to others, whereas negligence suggest unconscious inadvertence.
If nobody else was on the road at that time (on an Interstate highway, unlikely but not impossible), driving at extremely high speeds would be negligent but not reckless (under normal laws, not under this particular unusual law).
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
10d ago
"Due to the federal shutdown", data.census.gov is not responding to queries. You may want to ask again when the shutdown has ended.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
10d ago
Steam's "Controller Layout" settings menu (also applicable to non-Steam games, such as emulators, that you launch through Steam) allows the user to customize deadzones and response curves on a per-game basis in excruciating detail, including deadzone shapes and response curves.
(It does not appear that 8BitDo's "Ultimate Software" settings application has the same granularity of control.)
Amorphous Plus (downloadable as part of the Flashpoint Archive)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
11d ago
be me, Dark Souls 2 fan (though I haven't played it in several years)
enjoy using Heide Spear, which has innate lightning damage, on a character whose dump stats are attunement, intelligence, and faith (which are useful only for magic)
notice that a new wiki has been created for the game
idly check out the page on scaling
mfw lightning damage scales with faith
mfw the meta tryhards say that there are "low returns on melee weapon scaling", so you're supposed to go for weapon upgrades and temporary buffs instead
Maybe I'll start a new playthrough with a character for whom faith is not a dump stat.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
12d ago
the defendent seems to have admitted to brandishing a "black semiautomatic (as opposed to a revolver) handgun"
I don't see any such admission.
You probably have seen the joke that goes something like: "I didn't kill him. And if I did it wasn't intentional. And if it was intentional it wasn't premeditated." IMO, here the defendant (as summarized by the appeals panel; as noted above, I can't access the legal documents, since they're in Pennsylvania and I'm not a lawyer) is only saying: "I didn't point anything at the witnesses. And if I did it wasn't a gun. And if it was a gun it wasn't an operable gun."
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
12d ago
Why would anyone want that???
The advertised purpose is "ultra-portability". Note that the thickness of the Lite 1 is only 16 mm (0.6 inch), versus 35 mm (1.4 inches) for the Lite 2.
Possibly the funniest controller ever is the 8BitDo Lite 1, which has three directional pads and zero analog sticks. Unfortunately, it appears to have been discontinued in favor of the Lite 2, which has two analog sticks as usual.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
12d ago
Mildly interesting court opinion:
-
A woman and her daughter allege the following: In the middle of the night, they are about to get out of their car in front of their house. They look out of the car's window and are terrified to notice a cousin of theirs standing outside the window and pointing what appears to be a pistol at them, with his finger on the trigger. They hear two clicks, but no gunshot occurs. The two alleged victims flee to a nearby alley. By the time they return to their car with a police officer, the cousin has disappeared.
-
The cousin is charged with possessing a gun as a felon, possessing an instrument of crime, assault, and reckless endangerment. A search of his residence turns up no gun. Nevertheless, at a bench trial he is found guilty of all charges and is sentenced to 26 years of prison (with the possibility of parole after 13 years). The appeals panel vacates the conviction of reckless endangerment since there is no proof that the gun was loaded, but affirms the other three convictions, and leaves the 26-year sentence untouched since the trial judge imposed no penalty for the reckless endangerment.
Don't forget that you can be convicted of serious charges in a "he said she said" case, on witness testimony alone, if the jury (or the judge in a bench trial) finds the witnesses more credible than you are "beyond a reasonable doubt"!
Mildly interesting court opinion:
-
While driving around in the middle of winter, a police officer observes a woman crying and yelling as she bangs on the front door of a house while wearing only a bathrobe and a pair of slippers. When the officer stops and inquires, the woman states that her romantic partner pushed her out of the house after an argument. The romantic partner exits the house and talks with the officer. The officer advises the woman of her state-law rights to seek a restraining order or press criminal charges for domestic violence, but the woman refuses to do so.
-
Several minutes later (after, among other things, using her car's computer to review the department's training on domestic violence), the officer returns to the house and talks again with the woman to advise her even further of her rights under state law. The woman still isn't interested in doing anything. However, since the police have been called to this house five times in total, the officer tells another officer to contact a detective for further investigation.
-
Later on the same day, the woman is found dead in the house. The romantic partner pleads guilty to manslaughter. The woman's estate sues the officer for negligence, arguing that the officer was obligated to arrest the romantic partner because there was evidence that the romantic partner had perpetrated domestic violence (pushing, which constitutes the crime of assault) against the woman. The officer moves for summary judgment, arguing that state law grants absolute immunity to liability for any failure to make an arrest. The trial judge denies the motion.
-
The appeals panel reverses. The law says that an officer is obligated to arrest an alleged perpetrator of domestic violence if the alleged victim "exhibits signs of injury". Here, the officer observed no such signs. And, in any event, that domestic-violence law does not override the separate law that grants absolute immunity to liability for failure to make an arrest, which applies in all cases where the officer acts in good faith. The woman's estate will not be getting any damages.
Not-so-fun fact: While both the federal government and the New Jersey government allow random members of the public to access all the documents in a case docket online, it appears that the Pennsylvania government does not! Rather, electronic access to Pennsylvania judicial documents is restricted to lawyers and case participants "for legal and security reasons", and members of the public must request documents manually by submitting a form to the court clerk.
Microsoft has a convenient list of controller manufacturers that are sufficiently high-quality to be trusted with the official Xbox license.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
14d ago
If your doctor's office uses an app, it's probably Healow. I'm not even aware of another one.
Mine uses Medical Brain.
[Mercatus Center] economist Kevin Erdmann
Erdmann and Scott Sumner have successfully convinced me that their contrarian theory of the 2008 crisis [free 70-page report, Amazon book] is probably correct:
Quote from the linked report:
In the standard view of the housing and business cycle of the 2000s, there are at least eight interconnected assumptions:
(4) The boom was fed by deregulation of banking, pressure from government regulators, or both, which led banks to make too many mortgage loans.
We will show that these assumptions are unwarranted. Lending during the housing boom was mostly directed toward affluent households.
I prefer the theory advanced by American Enterprise Institute economist Peter Wallison (free 90-page report (p. 441), Amazon book).
Quote from the linked report:
Before the enactment of the GSE Act in 1992, and HUD’s adoption of a policy thereafter to reduce underwriting standards, the GSEs followed conservative underwriting practices. For example, in a random review by Fannie Mae of 25,804 loans from October 1988 to January 1992, over 78 percent had LTV ratios of 80 percent or less, while only 5.75 percent had LTV ratios of 91 to 95 percent. High-risk lending was confined primarily to FHA (which was controlled by HUD) and specialized subprime lenders who often sold the mortgages they originated to FHA. What caused these conservative standards to decline? The Commission majority, echoing Chairman Bernanke, seems to believe that the impetus was competition among the banks, irresponsibility among originators, and the desire for profit. The majority’s report offers no other explanation.
However, there is no difficulty finding the source of the reductions in mortgage underwriting standards for Fannie and Freddie, or for the originators for whom they were the buyers. HUD made clear in numerous statements that its policy—in order to make credit available to low-income borrowers—was specifically intended to reduce underwriting standards. The GSE Act enabled HUD to put Fannie and Freddie into competition with FHA, and vice versa, creating what became a contest to lower mortgage standards. As the Fannie Mae Foundation noted in a 2000 report: “FHA loans constituted the largest share of Countrywide’s [subprime lending] activity, until Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac began accepting loans with higher LTVs [loan-to-value ratios] and greater underwriting flexibilities.”
HUD’s policy was highly successful in achieving the goals it sought. In 1989, only one in 230 homebuyers bought a home with a downpayment of 3 percent or less, but by 2003 one in seven buyers was providing a downpayment at that level, and by 2007 the number was less than one in three. The gradual increase in LTVs and CLTVs (first and second loans combined to produce a lower downpayment) under HUD’s policies is shown in Figure 4. Note the date (1992) when HUD began to have some influence over the downpayments that the GSEs would accept.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
15d ago
This appears to be an accidental comment in place of an edit.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
15d ago
You forgot to mention that it's from the developer of Battle Brothers, an acclaimed game in the low-tech end of the same genre. (Unlike those of Battle Brothers, the characters of Menace do have legs.)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
17d ago
Interesting tactical puzzle game: Tactical Nexus
If Into the Breach can be considered a degenerate version of X-Com, then Tactical Nexus can be considered a degenerate version of Into the Breach. But "degenerate" in this context is not necessarily pejorative.
The goal is to beat towers full of static enemies. As enemies are defeated, the player obtains experience, attack, defense, health, and keys. Multiplicative upgrades to experience and health are rare and valuable. When the player character levels up, he can upgrade his attack or defense, or he can get keys. The player must strategize regarding the order in which the enemies should be defeated and the items should be obtained. Depending on how well the player does in beating a tower, he can unlock medals that can be used to make other towers easier.
The first two of the game's eight "chapters" are provided for free. The developer claims that the full game can satisfy a player for ten thousand hours, and that even the free parts are good for one thousand hours.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
18d ago
Hephaestus is disabled in the lore, though.
Hephaestus is described in mythological sources as "lame" (chōlos) and "halting" (ēpedanos). He was depicted with curved feet, an impairment he had either from birth or as a result of his fall from Olympus. In vase paintings, Hephaestus is sometimes shown bent over his anvil, hard at work on a metal creation, and sometimes his feet are curved back-to-front: Hephaistos amphigyēeis. He walked with the aid of a stick. The Argonaut Palaimonius, "son of Hephaestus" (i.e. a bronze-smith), also had a mobility impairment. Other "sons of Hephaestus" were the Cabeiri on the island of Samothrace, who were identified with the crab (karkinos) by the lexicographer Hesychius. The adjective karkinopous ("crab-footed") signified "lame", according to Detienne and Vernant. The Cabeiri were also physically disabled.
In some myths, Hephaestus built himself a "wheeled chair" or chariot with which to move around, thus helping support his mobility while demonstrating his skill to the other gods. In the Iliad 18.371, it is stated that Hephaestus built twenty bronze-wheeled tripods to assist him in moving around.
Diocletian’s Price Edict
Fun fact: One well-regarded Dungeons & Dragons offshoot, ACKS (the Adventurer Conqueror King System), uses this document as a basis for some of its economics.
How ACKS Prices Were Set
To correctly set the relational price of any given good or service in ACKS, we needed a historical price for the good, and the historical price for wheat, extracted from the same time and place. Otherwise we'd just have Cargo Cult prices [as in D&D and other offshoots of it].
Fortunately, while developing ACKS II, we were able to find an English translation of all of the known fragments of the Edictum de Pretiis Rerum Venalium, better known as the Edict on Maximum Prices. Issued in 301 AD by Emperor Diocletian, the Edict sets the maximum price for hundreds of goods and services in denarii.
What makes the Edict so useful for ACKS is that it is set in the time period that the Auran Empire campaign emulates, Late Antiquity. By knowing how much a Diocletian denarius was worth in ACKS, we were able to use the Edict to establish historical prices for the huge number of goods and services that it covers. Since ACKS prices were benchmarked against wheat, where 1 quarter of wheat costs 4 GP [gold pieces], we were able to use the price of wheat in the Edict to work out the value of the denarii.
The Edict tells us that 1 modius kastrensis (“k. mod.”) of wheat sold for 100 denarii. The modius is a unit of dry measure equivalent to 8.73 liters. The modius kastrensis is equal to 1.5 modii, hence 12.93 liters. 12.93 liters of wheat weighs 22.15 lb. Since a quarter of wheat is 480 lb, there are (480/22.15 =) 21.67 k. mod. per quarter. Therefore the price of a quarter of wheat, under the Edict, is (100 denarii / k. mod.) × (21.67 k. mod. / quarter) = 2166.33 denarii. We have established that 1 quarter of wheat is worth 4 GP. Therefore 4 GP/quarter = 2166 denarii/quarter; and 1 GP = 541.58 denarii.
With this conversion rate established, we are able to establish wheat-relative prices for all the various goods and services extracted from the Edict and convert them into denominations of GP, SP, and CP. However, as we did so, we discovered that just because a price is in the Edict doesn't necessarily mean it's the proper price for ACKS. For one thing, the Edict itself was a price fixing statute, and governments have a long history of getting price controls very wrong. Diocletian might have been—for all we know—as bad at pricing goods and services as the typical RPG. In addition, the very particular conditions means that some prices might be peculiar to that place and time. From time to time, we even encountered prices in the Edict that were mathematically impossible—goods selling for less than their cost of production, for instance. In such cases we have revised the prices based on other research. Finally, we must also note that certain adventuring equipment in ACKS II are simply not priced historically. In particular:
While the medium and heavy armors are correctly priced, padded and leather armor are too expensive relative to historical norms. Padded armor should probably be 2–5 GP while leather armor should be no more than 5 GP. For simplicity we standardized at 10 GP = 1 AC = 1 stone.
Grappling hooks and other climbing gear do not seem to have been in wide use during Late Antiquity. Their use in naval warfare (with grappling ballistae) is notable enough that the ancient historians go out of their way to mention it. We have retained them in ACKS II, but raised the price to reflect that they are a specialized technology not otherwise in use.
Healing herbs with the potent efficacy of those found in ACKS II are simply fantasy. No poultice of comfrey or woundwort had anywhere near the curative power we have assigned them. However, healing herbs with a realistic level of efficacy would have almost no discernable game effect. Therefore we have magnified the efficacy of healing herbs to a playable (albeit fantastical) level, and increased their cost to an ahistorical level to compensate. If verisimilitude is a worry, assume the healing herbs are rare, fragile, and hard-to-find varietals of the real-world herbs.
Lanterns of the sort described in the Adventuring Equipment section did not exist in Late Antiquity. However, they probably would have existed in a Late Antiquity in which legionaries had to enter dungeons to fight monsters. Therefore we have included them in the game but at an ahistorical high cost. The same is true for adventurer's harnesses, disguise kits, thieves' tools, and other adventuring equipment. All of these items were well within the capabilities of the ancients.
The carts and wagons that existed in Late Antiquity were relatively primitive in the construction of their harnesses, yokes, and wheels. Rather than force adventurers to endlessly deal with broken axles, oxen choking on poor harness[*], and so on, we have included vehicles more appropriate for a later era and raised the price accordingly. You can simulate historical carts and wagons by applying some of the cost reduction and penalties from the scavenged equipment tables.
*A different well-regarded tabletop RPG, GURPS (the Generic Universal Roleplaying System), claims that this is a misconception:
Breast-Strap Harness
TL0
This is a rope or leather harness that wraps around the animal’s chest. Initial research suggested that this and other early harnesses rode up and choked horses wearing them. Recent reconstructions have shown this to be incorrect. The real drawback is that, on horses, these harnesses appear to be inefficient when used to pull plows or drag loads on the ground (again, halve the pulling divisor), as opposed to when pulling wagons.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
18d ago
Is it the shadowing on her face making her features too angular?
This, IMO.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
19d ago
if the reason why the property is worth $2.9M instead of $3.5M is that the grocery store owner has an interest in the property too
This is incorrect. Valuation as of 1994 means the price that a hypothetical buyer would have paid to buy the properties in 1994. However, buying the properties does not include canceling the grocery store's lease early. Rather, that would be a separate action after purchase. The grocery-store company terminated its lease voluntarily in 1999, so nothing is being taken from it in this condemnation action.
How bad were their property values in 2018?
It isn't mentioned in the appeals panel's opinion, but the original 2018 condemnation complaint indicates that the municipal government made an offer of just 0.92 M$, on the basis of an appraisal.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
19d ago
Whoops, my mistake.
Without considering the ACME contract rent, the arbitrator determined "the market rent[]" for the ACME building was $4.00 per square foot. He then considered the ACME contract rate, finding "[a]ny reasonable buyer would certainly consider the financial impact of this lease in determining what it would be willing to pay for the subject site. To suggest that the ACME lease can be ignored in determining its market rent is manifestly unreasonable." Factoring in the contract rent, the arbitrator found the market rent for the ACME building was $2.00 per square foot.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
19d ago
Robits are strong, and I’m not even sure which beam weapons have recoil.
Mobile suits also use rocket launchers one-handed. The Zaku Marine's is pistol-sized, while the RX-78-2 Gundam's is long-arm-sized and braced against the shoulder.
If one has more than two arms, how many of them have to be used to qualify as a rifle?
A few mobile suits, such as the The-O and the Advanced Hazel, have extra "sub-arms". But these extra arms typically are very short and unsuited for supporting a long weapon in collaboration with the two primary arms.
I propose that the deciding factor is whether or not there’s a stock (or brace; ATF be damned) behind the grip.
Yes, I forgot about this when I made the original comment. Here's one definition.
Long Arm: All kinds of long arms—guns fired either one- or two-handed and with the help of a shoulder stock. This includes: muzzle-loading muskets; muzzle-loading rifles; breech-loading single-shot or double-barreled rifles; bolt-, lever-, or pump-action rifles; semiautomatic rifles; assault rifles; single- or double- barreled shotguns; bolt-, lever-, or pump-action shotguns; semiautomatic shotguns; full-automatic shotguns; submachine guns; belt- or magazine-fed handheld light machine guns; grenade launchers; and gyroc carbines or support weapons. It also applies for any handgun, including a revolver, semiautomatic pistol, or machine pistol, that is fitted with a shoulder stock. All guns capable of full-automatic fire are best used with the Burst-Fire technique in that fire mode.
Pistol: All kinds of handguns—guns fired either one- or two-handed, but without the support of a shoulder stock. This includes muzzle-loading pistols, derringers, revolvers, semiautomatic pistols, stockless sawn-off shotguns (“shot pistols”), flare pistols, and gyroc pistols, as well as machine pistols without stock. The last are best used with the Burst-Fire technique in that fire mode.
But the mobile suits in question use beam "rifles" without any shoulder or waist bracing even when they do deign to use two hands.
“Declaring the property blighted” has got to be one of the cooler turns of phrase for city bureaucrats.
The Supreme Court agrees with you.
Public safety, public health, morality, peace and quiet, law and order—these are some of the more conspicuous examples of the traditional application of the police power to municipal affairs. Yet they merely illustrate the scope of the power, and do not delimit it. Miserable and disreputable housing conditions may do more than spread disease and crime and immorality. They may also suffocate the spirit by reducing the people who live there to the status of cattle. They may indeed make living an almost insufferable burden. They may also be an ugly sore, a blight on the community which robs it of charm, which makes it a place from which men turn. The misery of housing may despoil a community as an open sewer may ruin a river.
We do not sit to determine whether a particular housing project is or is not desirable. The concept of the public welfare is broad and inclusive. The values it represents are spiritual as well as physical, aesthetic as well as monetary. It is within the power of the legislature to determine that the community should be beautiful as well as healthy, spacious as well as clean, well balanced as well as carefully patrolled. In the present case, the Congress and its authorized agencies have made determinations that take into account a wide variety of values. It is not for us to reappraise them. If those who govern the District of Columbia decide that the Nation's Capital should be beautiful as well as sanitary, there is nothing in the Fifth Amendment that stands in the way.
Mildly interesting court opinion:
-
In year 1988, a married couple purchases a shopping center and an adjacent vacant lot. The shopping center's "anchor tenant" is a grocery store whose below-market lease of 0.77 $/ft2 was signed in 1962 and can be extended all the way to 2012, but the other tenants pay rent at the market rate.
-
In year 1994 the municipal government declares the two properties blighted. In year 1999 the grocery store terminates its lease. And in year 2018 the municipal government starts condemnation proceedings for the two properties. The couple does not object to the condemnation, but engages in extensive litigation regarding how much money constitutes just compensation for the taking. The couple argues that the proper valuation date is year 1994, and the judge agrees. The parties submit the question of valuation to an arbitrator.
-
The municipal government argues that the grocery store's below-market rent of 0.77 $/ft2 results in valuation of 2.3 M$ for the two properties at issue. The couple argues that the market rent for the grocery store was 8.5 $/ft2 and on that basis the proper valuation of the two properties is 4.8 M$. The arbitrator finds that the grocery store was so "old", "in below average condition", and "grossly substandard in size" that the market rent for the grocery store was 4.0 $/ft2
<ins>—but, when its existing below-market rent is taken into account, the rent for valuation purposes is 2.0 $/ft2</ins>, and the valuation for the two properties is 2.9 M$. -
The couple appeals, arguing that the grocery store's below-market lease was irrelevant and should not have been admitted as evidence. But the appeals panel rejects that argument. The existing lease was "a fact relevant to the determination of what a willing buyer would have paid for the property in 1994".
-
The municipal government also appeals, arguing that the proper valuation date is 2018 rather than 1994. But the appeals panel rejects that argument as well. The law specifically states that the proper valuation date of a condemned property is the earliest of (a) when the condemning government takes possession, (b) when the condemnation proceedings begin, (c) when the condemning government takes action to "substantially affect" the condemnee's use of the property, and (d) when the property is declared blighted. Obviously, item d, which occurred in year 1994, was the earliest of these four events. The municipal government has no one but itself to blame for failing to start the condemnation proceedings until a whopping 24 years after declaring the properties blighted.
Funny excerpt from an otherwise boring court opinion:
Frank and Roseann Carone passed away in August and June 2022, respectively. Jeanie Mayer and Anton Mayer Sr. are their daughter and son-in-law. Plaintiffs Anton Jr. and Francisco are Jeanie's and Anton Sr.'s sons and decedents' grandsons.
On January 31, 2006, decedents executed reciprocal wills in which plaintiffs were named as beneficiaries. With the help of a new attorney, Michael Zimmerman, they drafted several more wills in 2007, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, and 2017. Plaintiffs were named as beneficiaries in the 2007 and 2011 wills.
In 2015, Anton Jr. became estranged from the family, including his sister, his parents, and the decedents, over a scheduling dispute regarding his wedding and his sister's wedding. As a result, neither his parents nor decedents, were invited to his wedding. Decedents were greatly upset by Anton Jr.'s conduct and Roseann asked Zimmerman whether she and Frank could rescind stocks they had gifted Anton Jr. [Anton Jr. was disinherited in the 2015 and 2017 wills.]
In 2019, Francisco's relationship with his parents and sister deteriorated because of his efforts to reconnect with Anton Jr. Francisco was residing in an apartment owned by Frank, which he vacated without providing notice. Decedents expressed their displeasure regarding Francisco's move and his poor relationship with them on several occasions to a few family friends. On June 10, 2019, they asked Zimmerman to draft new wills disinheriting Francisco [in addition to Anton Jr.]. These wills were not signed by decedents until 2021.
Zimmerman testified about his more than four decades of experience as a tax, wills, trusts, and estates attorney. He first met with decedents to plan their estate in 2007. Zimmerman recounted his longstanding relationship with decedents and the counseling he provided in drafting their various wills between 2007 and 2022. His work included drafting eight wills, living trusts, and health care proxies for Frank and performing tax work for him over the years. Zimmerman testified the number of wills decedents asked him to draft was highly unusual. He explained decedents "would have issues with the family and would change percentages. They would continually just change their minds as to who they wanted to give to."
Crosspost from >>>/k/64289538:
beam "rifle"
fired with one hand
This has really annoyed me ever since I noticed it.
-
The GM's beam spray gun kind of looks like a pistol, so I'm okay with seeing it fired with one hand.
-
The RX-78-2 Gundam's beam rifle looks more like a rifle, and probably should be fired with two hands, but it's not quite big enough to damage my suspension of disbelief.
-
The Zeta Gundam's beam rifle is as tall as the fucking mobile suit! For it to be fired with one hand just looks ridiculous.
-
And then we reach the Ex-S Gundam's beam smart gun, which isn't any longer than the Zeta Gundam's rifle, but has enough extra heft that it finally needs to be fired with two hands even in-universe.
[Yes, I am aware that a pistol can have a rifled barrel and a long arm can be smoothbore.]
Mildly funny excerpt from a lawsuit:
Since Plaintiff’s promotion in January 2018, the [Division] and/or [the Department's Deputy Director] has never provided him with a written description of his job duties and responsibilities. In contrast, Plaintiff’s predecessor, and all of Plaintiff’s subordinates, have written job descriptions as reflected in their annual Performance Assessment Reviews.
Since Plaintiff’s promotion in January 2018, the [Division] and/or [the Deputy Director] has never provided Plaintiff with a Performance Assessment Review (“PAR”).
[The Department] is required by Civil Service Commission regulations in the New Jersey Administrative Code and the [union] contract to provide employees with PARs on an annual basis. Plaintiff performs PARs for all of his subordinate staff on an annual basis, as required by [Department] policies. On occasions when Plaintiff has been late with any part of the PAR process, [the Department]’s Human Resources staff members have been quick to e-mail him reminders.
Not receiving annual PARs has caused Plaintiff to receive a disadvantageous numerical ranking in the Civil Service Commission computer system. According to the Civil Service Commission website, staff with no PAR on file receive a numerical ranking of “1”, while staff members with good or very good PAR ratings receive a numerical ranking of “4”.
This ranking can prevent Plaintiff from receiving automatic step increases in pay, and puts Plaintiff at a disadvantage when competing for other Civil Service titles, thus further suppressing his earning potential and preventing him from advancing in his career. In fact, Plaintiff has applied unsuccessfully for at least 10 civil service positions within the state government since 2018, and believes that not having PARs on file for his current position negatively affected his chances of obtaining any of those positions.
Only recently, on or about January 10, 2023, did [Supervisor] finally begin the PAR process for Plaintiff by sending Plaintiff a PAR form listing his supposed “job expectations” for Plaintiff to review. Upon review of this document, Plaintiff determined that it contained a completely incorrect and inaccurate list of job duties and responsibilities that are not reflective of the actual job functions he performs as Supervisor of the [Unit].
Plaintiff suspects that [Supervisor] mischaracterized his job duties and responsibilities in the PAR purposefully, as retaliation for pursuing his discrimination claims through the Division on Civil Rights, and as part of a calculated attempt by the [Division] to force him to request a Civil Service “desk audit” alleging that he is working “out-of-title”, rather than pursue his equal pay claims.
If Plaintiff were to file a desk audit request, then any resulting directive from the Civil Service Commission to adjust his title and/or compensation would date back only to the date he filed the desk audit request. By filing a desk audit request, Plaintiff would be giving up his right to pursue equal pay claims and seek backpay for the ongoing pay differential dating back to January 2018.
No PDF is provided because the plaintiff is my father. The complaint was filed in May 2023, but discovery has been repeatedly extended from November 2024 to December 2024, September 2025, and January 2026, so no end is in sight. I am not particularly close to my father (I stumbled across this lawsuit purely on accident by looking up my last name in my state's database of cases), so I have no personal knowledge of the merits of the case. But, as the kids say nowadays, big if true.
To clarify the importance of these missing PARs: The union contract specifies (p. 38) that every employee must be rated on a three-point scale (unsatisfactory, commendable, or exceptional) on an annual basis. Generally, if your rating is at least two, then you get an automatic "step" pay increase of around 4 percent within the "range" assigned to your job (p. 170), on top of any other "across-the-board" increase that may apply (3.5 percent per year in this contract—p. 28). The meaning of a blank PAR is not mentioned in the contract, but apparently it counts as a score of one (or maybe zero, since the complaint describes it as a four-point scale rather than a three-point scale). The plaintiff in this case alleges that his bosses were intentionally depriving him of these regular raises by failing to fill out his annual PARs.
Speed limit is too low → mayor continues to enforce speed limit → convicted speeders get angry and complain to their municipal councilors → municipal councilors change speed limit
Speed limit is too low → mayor stops enforcing speed limit → there are no convicted speeders to get angry → no municipal councilors have any reason to care about the speed limit
More options
Context Copy link