ToaKraka
Dislikes you
No bio...
User ID: 108
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
10d ago
That law was part of the jury charge as well. See p. 16 of the PDF.
Incorrect (in this state).
NJ Statutes tit. 39 ch. 4 § 105:
Amber, or yellow, when shown alone following green[,] means traffic[ is] to stop before entering the intersection or nearest crosswalk, unless when the amber appears the vehicle or street car is so close to the intersection that with suitable brakes it cannot be stopped in safety.
Nothing is said about exiting the intersection before the light turns red.
§ 67:
No vehicle or street car shall be permitted by the owner or driver thereof to so occupy a street as to interfere with or interrupt the passage of other street cars or vehicles, nor shall the driver of a vehicle or street car drive such vehicle or street car into an intersection if preceding traffic prevents immediate clearance of the intersection.
That means a motorist must exit the intersection before any other light turns green, not before his light turns red. A traffic signal normally will have an all-red clearance interval of two or three seconds, so the difference between these two definitions is far from negligible.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
10d ago
I wasn't aware there were states which didn't require the driver to stop at a yellow.
Both New Jersey and Wisconsin require a motorist approaching a yellow light to stop if he can do so safely. However, this overview of state laws appears to indicate that there are quite a few states that do not have this requirement.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
10d ago
Let's say you're walking to your workplace or your university class or your school and you see, purposely avoiding anything like a bumper sticker or T-shirt that makes any more clearly identifiable statement or symbol:
- A man or woman with dyed blue hair
- A man or woman with a mohawk
These appearance choices are not ugly (in my personal aesthetic opinion), but unfortunately at this point they are strongly linked to objectionable opinions, so I am forced to assume that the person has those opinions.
- A man or woman with a septum piercing
- A man wearing sagging pants that show his underwear
This appearance choice is both ugly (in my personal aesthetic opinion) and linked to objectionable opinions.
- A man wearing suspenders
- A man wearing no suspenders, no belt, and wearing tight pants (this was me in high school)
- A woman wearing suspenders
A somewhat weird person who likes outdated fashion and refuses to bow to modern sensibilities
- A man with golden teeth
A person with dental hygiene bad enough that he lost an entire tooth
- A white man or woman with dreadlocks
This appearance choice is ugly (in my personal aesthetic opinion) but not linked to objectionable opinions.
- A man chewing tobacco
- A woman chewing tobacco
An addict
Or perhaps we could change the context of how you're seeing this person. Let's say you work at a gas station or other commonly-visited public-facing third place and you see people:
I think this example is too location-specific to be useful.
The jury was perfectly entitled to conclude that a non-negligent driver (1) would have stopped at the yellow light rather than trying to get through it or (2) would have tried to avoid hitting Christopher by braking rather than by swerving without braking.
Entering an intersection on a yellow light is legal (in this state). But failing to brake when you have a yellow light and someone else illegally runs a red light in front of you may count as negligence.
Also, in this case, Russell specifically admitted that he didn't even consider whether he could safely stop at the yellow light.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
10d ago
-
Russell, driving a work van on a road with posted speed of 55 mi/h (90 km/h), approaches a green traffic light from the southwest. The light turns yellow, but Russell thinks he can get past it before it turns red, so he does not stop. Christopher, sitting in a work truck at the same intersection's northwest traffic light, sees the lights starting to change and decides to enter the intersection early, while he still has a red light. Russell attempts to swerve his van around Christopher's truck (without braking), but the van collides with the truck anyway (hard enough to spin the truck around by 180 degrees) and thence careens into Jasmine's car, which is in the process of stopping at the northeast traffic light. Three of Jasmine's limbs are broken in the crash. Accordingly, she sues Russell and Christopher for causing her injuries through negligence. The jury decides that (1) the injuries are worth 3.5 M$ and (2) Russell bears 60 percent of the fault (2.1 M$) and Christopher 40 percent (1.4 M$).
-
Russell argues that the jury's decision to assign more fault to him than to Christopher is unsupportable by the evidence presented at trial, since Christopher broke the law (by running the red light) and Russell did not (by attempting to get through the intersection on a yellow light). But the trial judge rejects this argument, and the appeals panel affirms. Under state law as distilled in the charge issued by the trial judge to the jury, a driver approaching a yellow light "is obligated to exercise reasonable care, which includes making reasonable observations for traffic traveling on an intersecting street".* Therefore, the jury was perfectly entitled to conclude that a non-negligent driver (1) would have stopped at the yellow light rather than trying to get through it or (2) would have tried to avoid hitting Christopher by braking rather than by swerving without braking.
*See also the following model jury charges, which unlike this case-specific charge have been approved by a statewide committee: general duty of motorist; duty of motorist to make observations; and duty of motorist proceeding past stop sign.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
10d ago
Quote from 4chan's /k/ (weapons) board:
>look up cambodian air force
>zero combat aircraft, just junk that would barely qualify for trainers
>look up thai air force
>oh f—
Expect this [image of 13 Thai F-16s flying in formation] to be a common sight in the skies above Phnom Penh.
Design your dream house in OpenSCAD, print a 1/64 model of it, and put your favorite 1/64 die-cast car in the driveway.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
10d ago
Cambodia and Thailand are fighting over disputed borders. Apparently, the International Court of Justice already ruled sixty years ago, and again ten years ago, that Cambodia is in the right, but Thailand has ignored those rulings.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
12d ago
Where in the English-speaking world are you where "dicksucker" is more idiomatic than "cocksucker"?
"Cocksucker" is an idiomatic insult that usually is not a synonym of "sucker of penises". "Dicksucker", in contrast, has no idiomatic meaning, and therefore can be used as a synonym of "sucker of penises".
You could always just self-host a wiki with the same software that Wikipedia uses. (Other options include Tiddlywiki, Dokuwiki, and Wiki.js.)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
14d ago
I’m not seeing the problem with Francophone. Vicky 3 starts in 1830, right? [At that time, t]hey’ve been doing business in French for longer than the U.S. has existed.
IMO, allowing Corsicans to have two different languages is unreasonable when other cultures do not get such an opportunity. It enables gamey behavior like playing as Germany, releasing the country of Corsica as a puppet, and granting to it both French land and Italian land. And it makes Corsicans more accepted by the French govt. than they should be.
For an analogous situation, look at the Ashkenazi culture. Realistically, Ashkenazi should speak German as well as Yiddish. But a comment in the game files explicitly notes that the German-Speaking trait was not given to the Ashkenazi in the game because it would increase their acceptance to an unrealistic degree.
Speaking of which—how likely is it that a pro/anti-slavery culture which has triggered a civil war actually would enact the relevant policy? I would expect it to be near 100%, which is presumably why Paradox hardcoded it. And are there other hardcoded war→policies?
Normally, the USA will be in the middle of enacting Slavery Banned, the CSA will secede rolled back to Legacy Slavery through the normal secession mechanic, and then the events will immediately force the USA into Slavery Banned and the CSA into Slave Trade. If the forced law changes are removed: It is possible but unlikely that a CSA politician with the Slaver ideology will enact Slave Trade. (Note that the Pro-Slavery ideology espoused by the CSA's Landowners interest group likes Slave Trade no more strongly than it likes Legacy Slavery, so without a special Slaver leader it will not go all the way to Slave Trade.) And it is possible but unlikely that the USA's in-progress natural law change to Slavery Banned will fail, causing it to keep Legacy Slavery.
Likewise, I imagine that a pro-slavery USA could enact Slave Trade, and then a seceding FSA could roll back only to Legacy Slavery rather than going all the way to Slavery Banned. But that's just speculation, as I haven't actually seen it happen.
If there are any other forced law changes, I haven't noticed them.
You’re going to have to explain what “incorporation” is supposed to represent if you want commentary on those.
Essentially, Victoria's "incorporated states" are the same as Europa Universalis's "core provinces" and Crusader Kings's "de jure subject titles". The people in incorporated states have to pay taxes, but also can vote and receive the benefits of govt. policies like schools and hospitals.
In the words of Wikipedia: "American territories are under American sovereignty and may be treated as part of the U.S. proper in some ways and not others (i.e., territories belong to, but are not considered part of the U.S.). Unincorporated territories in particular are not considered to be integral parts of the U.S., and the Constitution of the United States applies only partially in those territories."
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
15d ago
@fmac thinks that you (plural) would be interested in the following summary of the several mods that I've written for Victoria 3. I am inclined to think that this comment is both too narcissistic and too niche to be interesting, but whatever. Maybe I'm a bad judge and you'll find this comment more interesting than this week's court-opinion summary, which seems to have fallen rather flat.
In an effort to make this comment less narcissistic, I will emphasize that you do not need to be a 1337 h@xx0r to mod this game. It's just editing plaintext files, not compiling code like some other games.
Premise: In the vanilla game, slaves are created from poor people in countries with the Debt Slavery law, and thence are exported to countries with the Slave Trade law.
Problem: It makes no sense that countries with Slave Trade do not enslave their own low-acceptance (i. e., discriminated-against) people.
Solution: In a mod that I have written, a country with Slave Trade now will enslave its own low-acceptance people (using the same logic that the vanilla game uses to re-enslave recently-freed people when slavery is abolished and then reinstated).
Premise: In the vanilla game, a colonizing AI country will spread its focus across up to five different colonies, depending on how much population it has. Colony growth also is capped, so focusing on a single colony is detrimental.
Problem: I don't see any reason for these mechanics. Splitting focus between multiple colonies only increases the chance that multiple countries will split a colonial state, which I dislike. And what's wrong with rushing a single colony?
Solution: In a mod that I have written, a colonizing AI country now will focus on only a single colony, and the cap on colony growth is removed.
Premise: In the vanilla game, the AI will never incorporate a state that contains fewer than 100,000 people.
Problem: I'm not really a big fan of this limitation. Yes, the sparsely-populated territories of northern Canada and northern Australia are legally "unincorporated" even in year 2025. But Rhode Island barely had reached a population of 100,000 in the time period of Victoria 3. Am I really supposed to believe that Rhode Island should not have been incorporated until after year 1830?
Solution: In a mod that I have written, the minimum population for incorporating a state is set to 1—i. e., effectively removed.
Premise: In the vanilla game, several different fonts are used—Garamond, Open Sans, Noto Serif, a custom font called Paradox Victorian, et cetera.
Problem: I dislike seeing a zillion different random fonts.
Solution: In a mod that I have written, the game uses only Open Sans.
Premise: In the vanilla game, in order to avoid losing its "civilized" status (as opposed to "uncivilized", like China and Egypt), the Ottoman Empire must complete four of seven available missions. One of those missions, "Tanzimat: Urbanization", requires that 75 percent of the Ottoman Empire's states be both incorporated and urbanized.
Problem: This doesn't make much sense to me. What's wrong with having unincorporated states?
Solution: In a mod that I have written, "Tanzimat: Urbanization" requires that 75 percent of the Ottoman Empire's incorporated states be urbanized.
Premise: In the vanilla game, an AI country will incorporate a state if a culture that calls that state region a homeland shares a trait (whether a heritage trait indicating race or a cultural trait indicating a non-race characteristic) with a primary culture of that country.
Problem: Under this criterion, both a fascist Britain with the Ethnostate law and an open-minded Britain with the Multiculturalism law will incorporate all European states and all Anglophone states (including the black ones in the Caribbean), with no regard for whether the cultures living there are actually accepted. That doesn't make any sense.
Solution: In a mod that I have written: The AI incorporation logic is disabled. Instead, a country (whether AI or human) will automatically incorporate a state if a culture that calls that state a homeland is accepted under that country's current laws, and will automatically disincorporate a state if no culture that calls that state a homeland is accepted under that country's current laws.
Premise: In the vanilla game, most countries start with all or nearly all of their states incorporated. It is generally expected that a country will have most of its states incorporated.
Premise: In the vanilla game, once a civilized country has acquired a bunch of land in Africa, it can organize that land into a "colonial administration" country, which is created with all its states incorporated.
Problem: These two mechanics are completely contrary to the AI incorporation logic (whether vanilla or modded) that I described in the previous section! It makes absolutely ZERO sense that the British and Dutch East India Companies have incorporated all of their states at the start of the campaign, despite having NOTHING in common with the Indian and Indonesian cultures. Also, when the mod that I described in the previous section is enabled, the complete absence of incorporated states in the two aforementioned countries causes some problems.
Solution: In a mod that I have written, if a subject country has zero incorporated states, then it is automatically annexed by its overlord. In a different mod that I have written, the colonial-administration mechanic is disabled.
Premise: In the vanilla game, up to five autosaves will be retained, and any older autosaves will be deleted.
Problem: A campaign of Victoria 3 lasts for a hundred years! If you've set your autosave interval to six months, you will not be able to look back even one decade to see how the world has evolved.
Solution: In a mod that I have written, the autosave limit is set to 99999—i. e., effectively removed.
Premise: In the vanilla game, if a state region is split between multiple states that belong to different countries, a state will receive the unmodified name of the state region (e. g., "Guyana") if it includes a majority of the state region's provinces, and will receive a modified name ("British Guyana") otherwise.
Problem: If one country owns almost all of of a state region and another country owns just one or two provinces (such as a treaty port) in the same state region, it can be difficult to realize that the state is split, because the first state will have an unmodified name and the second state will be very small and unobtrusive.
Solution: In a mod that I have written, the threshold for a state to have an unmodified name is increased from 50 percent to 99.9 percent—i. e., effectively never.
Premise: Several different factors affect an AI country's enthusiasm about the prosecution of a war. In the vanilla game, one of these factors is time. An AI country becomes more interested in ending a war as time passes: −100 when the war starts, increasing quickly to +0 at 10 months, and then increasing gradually to +100 at 110 months.
Problem: The quick increase in peace desire before the 10-month mark (before the battle fronts and the participants' economies have had a chance to get settled) makes sense, but the gradual increase in peace desire after the 10-month mark does not make sense (is duplicative of the factors for angry population, war-ravaged land, and high debt; often causes an AI country to make a white peace when it is on the precipice of victory).
Solution: In a mod that I have written, the gradual increase in peace desire after the 10-month mark is eliminated.
Premise: The USA starts the game with the Legacy Slavery law. In the vanilla game: If the USA experiences a civil war caused by the anti-slavery movement, then the other side becomes the FSA (Free States of America) and enacts Slavery Banned immediately (without going through the normal law-change process); and, if the USA experiences a civil war caused by the pro-slavery movement, then the other side becomes the CSA (Confederate States of America) and enacts Slave Trade immediately.
Problem: These forced law changes are unnecessarily heavy-handed. If the CSA wants to enact Slave Trade or the FSA wants to enact Slavery Banned, then let it; if it doesn't, don't force it.
Solution: In a mod that I have written, the aforementioned forced law changes are eliminated.
Premise: In the vanilla game, some important countries are formed through the "major unification" mechanic. Most prominently, in order to form Germany, Prussia normally declares a "Unification War", which automatically (1) annexes all German members of its sphere of influence and (2) declares war on any non-sphered, non-former-unification-candidate countries that hold German states (i. e., France, but not Austria-Hungary).
Problem: This is disgustingly ahistorical. Historically, Prussia did not attack France for Alsace-Lorraine. Rather, Bismarck tricked France into attacking despite being weak!
Solution: In a mod that I have written, all major unifications are eliminated and must be formed the normal way (by acquiring the required states through means other than a unification war).
Premise: In the vanilla game, different still-uncolonized states in the North American frontier are claimed by different countries, and therefore are not colonizable by other countries. The USA claims Wyoming, Nebraska, and Kansas; Mexico claims Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas; and the Republic of Texas claims New Mexico and Texas; while Nevada, Colorado, and Oklahoma are claimed by no one.
Problem: Historically, Nevada was claimed by Mexico, Colorado was claimed half by the USA and half by Mexico and Texas, Oklahoma was claimed by the USA, and only half of New Mexico was claimed by Texas.
Solution: In a mod that I have written, Nevada is claimed by Mexico, Colorado is split into two state regions of which one is claimed by the USA and the other is claimed by Mexico and Texas, New Mexico is split into two state regions of which one is claimed by Texas and both are claimed by Mexico, and Oklahoma <del>is claimed by the USA</del><ins>is not claimed by the USA (because that causes problems with premature annexation of the Indian Territory, due to the game's limited mechanics), but instead the state region of Texas is extended through the Oklahoma panhandle (as it historically was prior to 1850) and the Indian Territory is expanded to eliminate all uncolonized land in Oklahoma</ins>.
Premise: In the vanilla game, canals can be built in the state regions of Panama and Sinai, and nowhere else.
Problem: Historically, the USA actually picked Nicaragua for a canal, and switched to Panama only after getting a lower price for the assets of France's bankrupt Panama Canal Company.
Problem: Due to Victoria 3's focus on states rather than on provinces, if Colombia refuses to sell the Panama Canal Zone to a great power that wants to buy it, the great power then receives a claim, not just on the Canal Zone, but on the entire state region of Panama. The same applies to Sinai. This is absolutely nonsensical.
Premise: In the vanilla game, armies can march from Colombia proper to Panama.
Problem: Historically, this was impossible.
Solution: In the same mod (necessary due to limitations of map modding): Panama has been split into three state regions, western, central (Canal Zone), and eastern, and the eastern state is disconnected from Colombia proper in the invisible pathing system. Nicaragua has been split into two state regions, northern and southern (Lake Nicaragua), and the Panama Canal events have been copied-and-pasted for a Nicaragua Canal. [Sinai has been split into two state regions, eastern and western (Canal Zone).](not yet complete)
Premise: After the USA annexes northern Mexico, the annexed states become homelands of the USA's primary cultures. The Yankee culture gets California, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado, while the Dixie culture gets Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
Problem: Historically, California could have been divided into a free north and a slave south. And I find it unfair that Dixie doesn't get a window to the Pacific.
Solution: In the same mod (necessary due to limitations of map modding), California is divided into two state regions, northern and southern, and the southern portion goes to Dixie rather than to Yankee after the Mexican–American War.
Premise: In the vanilla game, the Corsican culture has three traits: European, Francophone, and Italophone.
Problem: Francophone??
Solution: In a mod that I have written, the Francophone trait is removed from the Corsican culture.
The mods can be downloaded here, if anybody cares.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
17d ago
In surveys like this, "household" normally is defined so that 15 unrelated adult occupants of a single house count as 15 one-person households. For example, here is the definition used by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A consumer unit (CU) is the measurement unit collected for the eligible individuals represented in the expenditure reports.
The CU is defined as
all members of a particular housing unit who are related by blood, marriage, adoption, or some other legal arrangement, such as foster children;
a person living alone or sharing a household with others, or living as a roomer in a private home, lodging house, or in permanent living quarters in a hotel or motel, but who makes independent financial decisions; or
two or more unrelated persons living together who pool their income to make joint expenditure decisions.
In publications, and with [Consumer Expenditure] respondents, “household” is occasionally used for simplicity, but nevertheless refers to the CU.
So your link is not useful in this context.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
17d ago
IIRC, you looked pretty smexy when you posted a photograph of yourself (with face censored) with two soon-to-die-by-methanol tourist women. How many dozens of hawt gurlz have you fucked in your 25 years, you tiger? Lord it over this forum of incel chuds.
Slightly more (but still not very) seriously: When are you going to improve your goddamned English punctuation skills?
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
17d ago
Court opinion with map:
-
Within New Jersey, Berkeley Township* contains 41,000 inhabitants. Within Berkeley, the neighborhood of South Seaside Park contains 490 inhabitants. Prior to year 1875, the entire area was a contiguous mass called Dover Township, with South Seaside Park sitting at the tip of a barrier
<del>island</del><ins>peninsula</ins>that was connected directly to the rest of Dover with a bridge. However, over the years, the creation of Berkeley from Dover's land, and the creation of other municipalities from Berkeley's land, caused South Seaside Park to become separated from the rest of Berkeley by a 13-mile (21-kilometer) drive that takes 30 minutes at the best of times, and during summer can be as long as 45 minutes due to beach traffic. -
Under New Jersey law, a neighborhood can secede from its municipality if (1) three-fifths of its registered voters sign a petition requesting secession, and (2) (a) the municipal council grants consent by a two-thirds vote, or (b) the municipal council refuses consent but (i) the refusal is arbitrary or unreasonable, (ii) the refusal is detrimental to the well-being of the neighborhood, and (iii) the secession would not significantly injure the rump municipality. Accordingly, in year 2014, two-thirds of South Seaside Park's registered voters sign such a petition, seeking to secede from Berkeley Township and join Seaside Park Borough, which is South Seaside Park's sole neighbor on the barrier peninsula. The resulting hearings last into year 2019. In year 2020, the Berkeley council finally refuses consent, and the petitioners file a lawsuit, alleging that the refusal met the aforementioned criteria i–iii.
-
In year 2022, the trial judge rules for the petitioners. (i) The members of the municipal council were supposed to be impartial arbiters, but instead they were vociferously opposed to the secession, and even enlisted the municipality's contracted licensed planner to help them argue against it. (ii) "Substantially all" of Berkeley's services are based in the mainland, a zillion miles away from South Seaside Park. Inhabitants of South Seaside Park can't even watch Berkeley's council meetings on their cable-television subscriptions because South Seaside Park has a different cable provider. It would be much more convenient for South Seaside Park's inhabitants if they could get municipal services from Seaside Park Borough instead. (iii) Despite constituting only 1 percent of Berkeley's population, the beachfront community of South Seaside Park contains a whopping 11 percent of Berkeley's taxable property value. So it is true that the secession would cause taxes in the rump Berkeley to rise by 3 percent. But that does not rise to the level of "significant injury" that the law requires, and the calculation of 3 percent does not even take into account the ameliorating facts that (1) secession would let the rump Berkeley save money by ceasing to provide any services to distant South Seaside Park, and (2) South Seaside Park already is completely developed, while rump Berkeley still would have lots of empty land to be built on**, so South Seaside Park's proportion of Berkeley's taxable property value would shrink in the future. Therefore, South Seaside Park must be permitted to secede. The appeals panel affirms in year 2024, and the state supreme court follows suit in year 2025 (linked at the top of this comment).
Note that Seaside Park Borough has not actually agreed to annex South Seaside Park. It would be a hilarious anticlimax if Seaside Park did not agree. Apparently, though, this anticlimax really did happen fifty years ago, after a similar petition-plus-lawsuit rigmarole was won by the father of the leader of the current secession initiative.
**The empty portion of South Seaside Park that is visible on the map is an unbuildable state park. The empty portion of rump Berkeley does have a lot of overlap with New Jersey's protected Pinelands area, but that makes building merely difficult, not impossible.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
17d ago
Add the following code to your custom CSS: button.m-0{display:none;}
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
17d ago
if you use Ublock Origin
This website also has a built-in custom-CSS feature in the settings.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
18d ago
When I expressed interest in having a custom house built, my mother nonjokingly suggested that it might be nice to have a house whose interior looked like a Costco warehouse's, with exposed electrical conduits making diagnosis of problems easy. My design has a "flat" (1:12) roof, but no exposed conduits. Still, the wiring should be easy to access through the suspended ceiling.
The majority party/coalition draws the first straight line that bisects the population of the state.
See also the shortest-splitline algorithm.
The shortest-splitline algorithm for drawing N congressional districts:
(1) Start with the boundary outline of the state.
(2) Let A = ⌈N/2⌉ and B = ⌊N/2⌋.
(3) Among all possible dividing lines that split the state into two parts with population ratio A:B, choose the shortest.
(4) We now have two hemi-states, each to contain a specified number (namely A and B) of districts. Handle them recursively via the same splitting procedure.
pak chooie
I think the typical English onomatopoeia for spitting is "ptooie" or "ptoo". It has a rather childish connotation, though, and I don't think I've ever seen it used for spitting in disgust. In such a situation, a native Anglophone normally would just write "(spits in disgust)".
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
21d ago
−10,000 social-credit points for hurting the feelings of the Chinese people.
There does not appear to be vision-blocking vegetation at this particular intersection.
More options
Context Copy link