ToaKraka
Dislikes you
No bio...
User ID: 108
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
6d ago
-
A company owns a nine-acre (four-hectare) piece of land (comprising three lots) that straddles the boundary between two municipalities, Allentown and Bethlehem. (This Google Maps link shows the location. This screenshot of the county's GIS map shows the municipal boundary.) The company wants to build a complex of four apartment buildings on the land. On this piece of land, Bethlehem's zone allows apartment buildings, but Allentown's zone does not, so the company is getting all the zoning approvals through Bethlehem.
-
More specifically, Bethlehem's zone allows an apartment building to be built only if there is a commercial use on its first floor, but this requirement is waived if the apartment building faces a "local street" rather than an "arterial street". The company asks the Bethlehem zoning board to rule that all four buildings in the complex count as facing North Wahneta Street in Allentown, which is a local street, even though building 4, when considered individually, actually faces West Broad Street in Bethlehem, which is an arterial street. Bolstering this argument, the complex's main entrance will be on North Wahneta Street, while there will be a fence blocking access from West Broad Street.
-
The Bethlehem zoning officer recommends that the petition be rejected, but the Bethlehem zoning board approves it anyway. Since the piece of land counts as a "corner lot" (indeed, it adjoins five different streets), the zoning code allows the company to choose whichever street it wants as the street that the entire lot faces, without considering individual buildings. And judicial precedent states that a zoning board can acknowledge the existence of land in a different municipality without being guilty of exercising its jurisdiction outside its own borders.* The Bethlehem government appeals**, along with several disgruntled single-family-residential neighbors who don't want to live next to an apartment complex, but the trial court affirms.
-
The appeals panel reverses. (1) Under the unique circumstances of this case, the Bethlehem zoning board actually is exercising its jurisdiction outside its own borders, because it is giving the nod to an apartment building that "faces" an Allentown street and sits partially on Allentown land but would be forbidden in Allentown's zone, enabling an end run around Allentown's zoning code. And (2) the designation of building 4 as facing a street that actually lies behind building 4 would run afoul of other parts of Bethlehem's zoning code (e. g., a prohibition on putting an apartment building's parking lot between the building and its front lot line), which the zoning board completely overlooked. Finally, even if those first two points were not valid, (3) there is not even any evidence in the record that North Wahneta Street counts as a local street under Bethlehem's zoning code in the first place! Therefore, building 4 must be considered to face West Broad Street in Bethlehem, not North Wahneta Street in Allentown.
*In that case: A company owned a 43-acre (17-hectare) piece of land straddling the boundary between two municipalities, Cheltenham and Springfield. Cheltenham's zoning code required a 100-foot (30-meter) setback from the property line. The Cheltenham govt. argued that this setback should also apply to the municipal boundary in the middle of the piece of land, but the Cheltenham zoning board rejected this argument**, and the trial court and the appeals panel affirmed. "Hamilton Hills is clearly distinguishable because it pertained to [whether a developer could count open space in one municipality toward another municipality's open-space requirement], not setback provisions. The zoning board simply found that the municipal boundary line was not a property line for measuring setbacks. In so concluding, the zoning board did not exert any control over land located in another municipality."
**Yes, in each of these two cases the government and the zoning board of the same municipality were opponents. Apparently, a zoning board is considered a quasi-judicial entity that is independent of the government that appointed all of its members.
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
6d ago
Quote from the opinion:
Respondents object to the inclusion of “future persons” in the class, arguing that “‘future persons’—i.e., persons who have not yet been conceived—lack either standing or capacity to sue”. As petitioners note, the fact that a policy will continue to harm future class members is relevant to numerosity.
Including future class members is no bar to class certification. Although the future class member children in this case have yet to be born, as soon as they are born, they will join the class and their claims will be ripe. In other cases involving children, the fact that some of the potential future class members had not yet been born was not a bar to certification.
Finally, more children will continuously populate the class as they are born, and, where “an influx of future members will continue to populate the class... at indeterminate points in the future, joinder becomes not merely impracticable but effectively impossible”.
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.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
3d ago
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
−10,000 social-credit points for hurting the feelings of the Chinese people.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
2d ago
Goshdarn whippersnappers… they used to have RESPECT for proper punctuation⋮ back in my day the teacher would hit the back of your hand with a ruler if you put spaces inside your ellipses⋱
He killed the guy simply by hacking his leg? That's unexpected.
Just a few days ago I read a court opinion where somebody died from being slashed in the face. He didn't bleed out; rather, an air bubble got into his blood vessels and he died of a heart attack. <del>(I unfortunately don't have the link on hand.)</del><ins>Link</ins>
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
20d ago
A culture-war-adjacent court opinion that @The_Nybbler may find entertaining:
-
An 80-year-old man applies for a permit to buy a rifle. The permit is denied, solely because he was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric hospital for four days forty years ago. He applies for expungement of the records of that commitment, so that he can get the permit.
-
The judge denies the application for expungement.
T.B.'s problematic interaction with LifeStream staff raised questions in the court's mind about T.B.'s "candor to the [c]ourt and fundamental issues that are here."
[T.B.] told the people [at LifeStream] that he was suffering from anxiety and depression. And he said he did that because that’s what he thought he had to say in order to get this appointment so that he could get the evaluation. And a concern to me is that he was not particularly honest with these folks about why he wanted this evaluation.
In that vein, the judge took issue with T.B.'s dismissive characterization of the nature of his hospitalization at Ancora versus the hospital record—namely, that after questioning the staff released him.
In the report it says, "unable to contain on open unit; violent outbursts; threatening; severely agitated; threatening others; yelling; demanding; attempted to strangle his wife at home; violent outbursts; tried to tear side rails off of the [bed]". So, this is not a man who showed up at Ancora mildly agitated or upset, but was described by the doctors down there as threatening behavior, so agitated they couldn't talk to him and violent outbursts towards the people on the staff there.
Regarding his present condition, the court noted that despite the medical reports stating he was stable, T.B. exhibited signs of memory problems and a lack of awareness regarding his own medication regimen.
[T.B.] doesn’t even know what medication he’s taking for his [d]iabetes or for his high cholesterol situation or his [h]yperlipidemia. And that, to me, speaks volumes about not that he’s dangerous to the public safety, but why would we give an 80-year-old man, who can’t even be responsible for his own health, access to a firearm that he wants to use for target practice with his friends. You know, is he going to forget to put the safety on the firearm when he isn’t at the range doing target practice? Is he going to forget to secure it in his home so that people who come to visit don’t have access to it? That’s what’s really of concern to this court.
- The appeals panel affirms. "The trial court reasonably determined that defendant failed to meet his burden to demonstrate the expungement was in the public interest." No second amendment for him!
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
20d ago
-
Keith allegedly sustains injuries from a car crash in which Carlos is at fault. Keith sues Carlos for damages.
-
In federal court, Carlos files for bankruptcy. In state court, Carlos moves to stay (pause) Keith's lawsuit, since Keith's claim must be disposed of as part of the bankruptcy case. Keith opposes the motion, arguing that, since Keith is seeking only Carlos's insurance coverage of 200 k$, and nothing from Carlos's actual funds (which now are part of the bankruptcy estate), Carlos's bankruptcy case will not be affected by Keith's lawsuit. The trial judge accepts Keith's explanation and denies the motion for stay. Likewise, the bankruptcy judge lifts the automatic bankruptcy stay that applies to all demands for payment made against Carlos, solely for purposes of Keith's lawsuit, and explicitly up to a limit of 200 k$. So the lawsuit continues in state court.
-
At trial in state court, the jury finds that Carlos is liable to Keith, not just for 200 k$, but for 1.6 M$! Carlos moves to limit the damages award to 200 k$, in accordance with the prior agreement. But the trial judge rejects this argument, claiming that any limits on the verdict are the province of the bankruptcy judge, not of the trial judge.
-
By this time, Carlos's bankruptcy case has been completed and closed. Keith goes back to the federal bankruptcy judge and moves that Carlos's bankruptcy case be reopened so that the entirety of Carlos's new 1.6-M$ debt to Keith can be ruled nondischargeable. But the bankruptcy judge rejects this argument. Having agreed that he would not seek more than 200 k$, Keith now is estopped from reneging on that agreement.
-
With the bankruptcy judge's opinion in front of him, the state trial judge acknowledges that Carlos need not pay more than 200 k$ to Keith, but still refuses to modify the jury's damages award. Rather, the trial judge thinks that the official damages number should remain listed as 1.6 M$, and Carlos should first pay the 200 k$ and then submit a separate application to discharge the extra 1.4 M$. Carlos does so, but still appeals this rigmarole.
-
The state appeals panel reverses and remands for the trial judge to reduce the official damages number to 200 k$, since the bankruptcy judge's stay was limited only to damages not exceeding 200 k$. (This is in 2025, regarding damages from a car crash that occurred in 2018.)
Fun, mildly interesting—what's the difference?
I think the Hussen case in particular is fairly funny. He submitted oodles of evidence, but the government still refused to believe that his marriage was genuine.
In addition to these two affidavits, Hussen submitted seven affidavits of family members and friends, many of whom had traveled great distances to attend the wedding, stating that the family members and friends had witnessed both the development of Hussen and Houndito’s relationship and the wedding. Hussen also submitted a copy of the signed marriage certificate and Islamic marriage contract, with the latter obligating Houndito’s family to pay a $10,000 dowry; numerous photographs depicting the wedding ceremony and honeymoon; a receipt for payment of more than $4,000 for his purchase of a diamond ring; copies of two plane tickets and a receipt showing that the couple paid more than $300 to fly to Miami for their honeymoon; a receipt showing that the couple paid more than $1,400 to place a four-night reservation at a hotel in Miami; a copy of a lease agreement they signed for an apartment in Virginia, dated three days prior to the wedding; a copy of an automobile insurance card that named both Hussen and Houndito as the policy’s insured; and finally, photos that depicted Hussen’s family meeting Houndito’s family in Ethiopia and the celebration that Hussen’s father hosted in Ethiopia to celebrate their marriage.
The BIA denied Hussen’s motion to reopen, stating that the standard to reopen proceedings to seek adjustment of status based on a marriage entered after the commencement of removal proceedings required Hussen to submit “clear and convincing evidence of the bona fides of the marriage.” While the BIA acknowledged that Hussen had attached photographs of the wedding, honeymoon, and gathering between families, as well as affidavits from friends and family and the couple’s lease agreement, it concluded that this was only “some evidence of the bona fides of [the] marriage” but was “insufficient to establish the bona fides of his marriage by clear and convincing evidence.”
Also, don't forget about the context of past discussions of marriage fraud on this forum (1 2).
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
29d ago
Apparently, the UKGBNI is set to completely decriminalize abortion in England and Wales when performed by the woman (not when performed by a doctor). According to Reuters and BBC, under existing law abortion by a doctor is legal up to 24 weeks and a woman can perform an abortion on herself with prescribed pills up to 10 weeks. In contrast, the new law—approved by 73 percent of the House of Commons—appears to permit abortion right up to the point of birth when it is performed by the woman.
Text of the law (on pages 108–109 of the PDF; part of a much larger bill):
Tonia Antoniazzi, NC1
To move the following Clause—
Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion
For the purposes of the law related to abortion, including sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.
Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would disapply existing criminal law related to abortion from women acting in relation to her own pregnancy at any gestation, removing the threat of investigation, arrest, prosecution, or imprisonment. It would not change any law regarding the provision of abortion services within a healthcare setting, including but not limited to the time limit, telemedicine, the grounds for abortion, or the requirement for two doctors’ approval.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
27d ago
Personally, I find it quite amazing and hilarious that hentai plots can regularly be found lurking in real-life court opinions.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
27d ago
-
In January 2021, a person jaywalks across a road. He is returning to his car from a bakery, carrying "a box of custard cups", so his vision is obscured. He trips over a large pothole (4 ft × 1 ft × 2 in or 1.2 m × 0.3 m × 5 cm) and breaks a hip. Accordingly, he sues the municipal govt.
-
The trial judge dismisses the lawsuit. In a different case, a person sued over a sidewalk that for 18 years had been obviously dangerous and near which the municipal govt. had repeatedly done repair work, and that was sufficient to prove that the municipal govt. had notice of the dangerous condition. However, in this case, the pothole was quite small at first and grew larger only gradually, and it existed for only six years. (Indeed, it was genuinely recognizable as a pothole only for two years, according to Google Street View's photographs.) This is not sufficient evidence for a jury to find that the municipal govt. knew or should have known of the dangerous condition, since nobody reported it until after the accident.
-
The appeals panel reverses and remands for trial. Between 2018 and 2019, the municipal govt. made several repairs immediately adjacent to the pothole. And, between 2018 and 2020, the municipal govt. was seeking to get a grant from the state govt. for resurfacing this road, and was actively inspecting the area for problems to be included in that resurfacing project. All this is sufficient for a jury to find that the municipal govt. knew or should have known about the pothole, even though nobody reported it until after the accident.
(The pothole was temporarily patched in March 2021, and was permanently fixed by the resurfacing project in July 2021.)
-
March 2019: A mother notices something strange about her two daughters, 12-year-old "Kelly" and 13-year-old "Taylor". She brings them to the hospital, and is surprised to learn that they are both pregnant. Taylor gives birth a few days later. In police interviews, the daughters do not provide any leads, and deny that the mother's romantic partner is the culprit.
-
June 2019: Kelly gives birth. The police obtain a DNA sample from the romantic partner.
-
September 2019: The DNA test shows that the romantic partner is the father of both babies. The father is arrested and is charged with fifteen felonies, and then is released on his own recognizance (zero bail; this isn't mentioned in the opinion, but is indicated on the docket).
-
March 2021: Taylor gives birth again. Presumably the father made the most of being out on bail.
-
August 2022: The father pleads guilty to three felonies—impregnating Taylor at age 12, impregnating Kelly at age 11, and impregnating Taylor again at age 13. He is sentenced to 25 years in prison (without the possibility of parole).
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
10d ago
IRC § R306 (Flood-Resistant Construction):
Buildings and structures in non-coastal flood-hazard areas [i. e., with waves < 1.5 ft] shall have the lowest floors elevated to or above the base [100-year] flood elevation plus 1 foot.
Buildings and structures erected within coastal flood-hazard areas [with waves ∈ [1.5 ft, 3 ft]] and coastal high-hazard areas [with waves > 3 ft] shall be elevated so that the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural members supporting the lowest floor, with the exception of piling, pile caps, columns, grade beams, and bracing, is elevated to or above the base flood elevation plus 1 foot.
Buildings and structures erected within coastal flood-hazard areas and coastal high-hazard areas shall be supported on pilings or columns.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
20d ago
If you're tired of the unrealistic peace treaties of Crusader Kings, Europa Universalis, Victoria, and Hearts of Iron, one enterprising company has published a board game about the Paris Peace Conference that ended World War One: Versailles 1919. Here are some of the 52 different "issues" that can be resolved as part of the game. (The players are UK, France, USA, and optionally Italy.)
Kurdistan (Middle East, 3 victory points):
-
French mandate: +1 to French empire, −1 to USA happiness, +1 to Middle East unrest, +1 to Balkans unrest
-
UK mandate: +1 to UK empire, −1 to US happiness, +2 to Middle East unrest
-
Independence: +1 to self-determination, −2 to French happiness, +2 to Middle East unrest
-
No Kurdistan: (no effect)
Palestine (Middle East, 4 victory points):
-
UK mandate: +1 to UK empire, +1 to Middle East unrest
-
French mandate: +1 to French empire, −1 to UK happiness, −1 to US happiness, +1 to Middle East unrest
-
Arab state: +1 to self-determination, −2 to UK happiness
-
Zionist state (28 years early!): +1 to UK happiness, +3 to Middle East unrest
Prussia (Europe, 5 victory points):
-
Germany: +1 to industry, −1 to French happiness, +2 to Europe unrest
-
Danzig corridor: +1 to German containment, +1 to Europe unrest
-
Poland: +2 to German containment, +2 to Europe unrest, −1 to US happiness
Slovenia and Croatia (Balkans, 5 victory points):
-
Both independent: +2 to self-determination, +1 to Italy happiness
-
Slovenia independent, Croatia in Yugoslavia: +1 to self-determination, −2 to Italy happiness
-
Both in Yugoslavia: +1 to German containment, −4 to Italy happiness
If unrest in a region gets too high (perhaps due to an event card—Eleutherios Venizelos, Ho Chi Minh, Ibn Saud, etc.), an uprising may cause a settled issue to become unsettled, requiring a new resolution to be agreed to. But keeping troops mobilized to quash unrest will make your people unhappy.
The same company has also published board games in the same vein for negotiations during (not after) the War of the Sixth Coalition (UK, Austria, Russia, and France) and World War Two (UK, USA, and USSR). These two games have slightly more military action. (Which is more important—achieving your long-term diplomatic goals, or actually defeating the enemy in the short term?) All three of these games have solitaire/bot rules.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
13d ago
Some marriage-fraud cases:
Plaintiff Sotir Libarov is a Bulgarian citizen. After entering the United States legally, Libarov married Elizabeth Alonso Hernandez, a lawful permanent resident. On March 15, 2016, Libarov applied to become a lawful permanent resident based on that marriage. USCIS issued a Notice of Intent to Deny Libarov’s application in March 2022, concluding that Libarov and Hernandez had entered into a sham marriage for immigration purposes. In the Notice, USCIS explained that Hernandez said under oath that the marriage was arranged by an acquaintance and that she “was offered $10,000 to enter a fraudulent marriage” with Libarov. USCIS ultimately denied Libarov’s application for permanent resident status on June 15, 2022.
Jin Yin Zhou, a Chinese citizen, married a US citizen in 1996. In 1997, Zhou entered the United States as a conditional permanent resident, ostensibly to live with her husband in New York. But, not long after her arrival, Zhou began living with her boyfriend in Kentucky and had three children with him. Zhou never lived with her husband and eventually divorced him in 2001. Throughout her immigration proceedings, Zhou concealed these facts repeatedly, including when she submitted a petition to remove the conditions of her residence and when she applied for naturalization. Eventually, United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) officials discovered Zhou’s marriage fraud and recommended to the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) that she be placed in removal proceedings.
On January 15, 2014, Ansar Hassen Hussen, a native and citizen of Ethiopia, was admitted to the United States on a B-2 visitor visa which authorized him to remain in this country for six months. However, he has never left.
In June 2014, Hussen applied for asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), claiming that he had twice been imprisoned and beaten for belonging to a minority political party in Ethiopia. An immigration judge (IJ), however, found Hussen’s account implausible and rejected his application, and the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed, agreeing that material aspects of Hussen’s story did not add up. Hussen filed a petition for review.
While that petition was pending, Hussen married a US citizen, who then filed an I-130 application for an immigrant visa on his behalf. Hussen then filed a motion with the BIA to reopen his proceedings so that he could seek an adjustment of status based on his marriage. He attached affidavits, photographs, receipts for items like a diamond engagement ring, an Islamic marriage contract, and a lease agreement showing that the couple jointly rented an apartment in Virginia. The BIA, however, denied Hussen’s motion to reopen, concluding that Hussen’s evidence was “insufficient” because he failed to provide “clear and convincing evidence of the bona fides of [his] marriage”. From the BIA’s denial of his motion to reopen, Hussen filed a second petition for review.
While Hussen’s second petition for review was pending, he filed another motion with the BIA to reopen the proceedings and to reconsider its denial of his earlier motion to reopen. He attached evidence showing that his wife was pregnant, that they were living together, and that they shared a joint bank account. The BIA denied Hussen’s motion for reconsideration and second motion to reopen, and Hussen filed a third petition for review.
For the reasons that follow: we deny Hussen’s first petition; we grant his second petition, vacate the BIA’s order denying Hussen’s motion to reopen, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion; and we deny his third petition as moot.
In October 2013, Plaintiff Roberto Martinez Olivera filed a Form I-130, Petition for Alien Relative, on Givovich’s behalf, and Plaintiff Nicole Givovich correspondingly filed a Form I-485, Application to Register Permanent Residence or Adjust Status. After interviewing Givovich and Martinez Olivera regarding the petitions in January 2014, USCIS investigated the bona fides of Givovich’s prior marriage with Doroteo Caldera Rodriguez. On April 9, 2014, USCIS Immigration Officers interviewed Mr. Caldera Rodriguez, and he provided a written sworn statement (translated from Spanish to English) in which he stated that he had married Givovich “as a favor so she could obtain her legal residency”. Specifically, he explained that he and Givovich had met when they were taking English classes and were friends for about two years before getting married. He said that Givovich had asked him to marry her to help her obtain her residency status. Mr. Caldera Rodriguez stated that he and Givovich never lived together and were never intimate.
USCIS ultimately denied the I-130 visa petition in April 2023. USCIS explained that the two sworn statements of Mr. Caldera Rodriguez, and the corroborating statements of Ms. Trejo, Ms. Munoz, and Mr. Rojas, provided substantial and probative evidence that Plaintiff Givovich had “entered into marriage with Mr. Caldera Rodriguez for the purpose of evading immigration laws”.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
25d ago
Look closely at the comments. The moderator imposed a ban, not on BurdensomeCount, but on the poster of a filtered reply to BurdensomeCount that you can't read.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
29d ago
The transcript of the debate appears to support your uncharitable description. Antoniazzi:
Although abortion is available in England and Wales under conditions set by the Abortion Act 1967, the law underpinning it, which dates back to 1861—the Offences Against the Person Act—means that outside those conditions, abortion remains a criminal offence carrying a maximum life sentence. Originally passed by an all-male Parliament elected by men alone, this Victorian law is increasingly used against vulnerable women and girls. Since 2020, more than 100 women have been criminally investigated, six have faced court, and one has been sent to prison. The women affected are often acutely vulnerable. Victims of domestic abuse and violence, human trafficking and sexual exploitation; girls under the age of 18; and women who have suffered miscarriage or stillbirth, or have given birth prematurely, have faced invasive and prolonged criminal investigations that cause long-term harm.
The fact is that new clause 1 would take women out of the criminal justice system, and that is what has to happen and has to change now. There is no way that these women should be facing what they are facing.
I implore colleagues not to lose sight of the moral imperative here: namely, vulnerable women being dragged from hospital bed to police cell on suspicion of ending their own pregnancies. This is urgent. We know that multiple women are still in the system awaiting a decision, accused of breaking this law. They cannot afford to wait.
We have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to put an end to this in a simple and secure manner. This is the right change at the right time, so I implore colleagues who want to protect women and abortion services to vote for new clause 1. Let us ensure that not a single desperate woman is ever again subject to traumatic criminal investigation at the worst moments of their lives.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
27d ago
Particularly hilarious is that the father's three sentences were run concurrently, rather than consecutively—so he did not receive any extra penalty for the third pregnancy (or, indeed, for the second one).
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
18d ago
Are you implying that masturbation (1) feels significantly better than 99% of other experiences, (2) puts you in an incapacitated stupor for 1–3 hours, and (3) can be performed as many times per day as you want, just like a real drug can be taken? If so, I think you're exaggerating a little too much.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
10d ago
This statistics-laden article is applicable to Duolicious, a free (gratis and libre) dating website recently developed by a 4channer.
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
19d ago
Is Texas just requiring the same sort of "age verification" that's existed since the '90s (the website asks "are you 18?" and you click "yes")?
No. This new law effectively requires adults to upload their driver's licenses for age verification.
HB 1181 requires a covered entity to “use reasonable age verification methods to verify that an individual attempting to access the material is 18 years of age or older”. To verify age, a covered entity must require visitors to “comply with a commercial age verification system” that uses “government-issued identification” or “a commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data”. The entity may perform verification itself or through a third-party service.
(I don't know what "a commercially reasonable method that relies on public or private transactional data" would be.)
ToaKraka
Dislikes you
18d ago
I don't even know what I don't know about building
You may want to buy a copy of the Architectural Graphic Standards for Residential Construction. It's a bit pricey, but absolutely comprehensive in terms of design.
Highly relevant is the International Residential Code. This link leads to the 2024 version. Your jurisdiction probably uses an older version, but you may still want to tell your builder to obey parts of the newest version. In particular, ch. 11 (Energy Efficiency) has undergone major changes recently, such as §§ N1102.1.3 (Insulation and Fenestration Criteria: R-Value Alternative) and N1108.1 (Additional Efficiency Requirements). Appendices NE (Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure) and NG (Energy Efficiency Stretch Code) may also be of interest to you.
International Property Maintenance Code § 404.5 (Overcrowding) also has some handy guidelines for design, and ICC A117.1 (Accessible and Usable Buildings and Facilities) ch. 11 (Dwelling Units and Sleeping Units) has information on the different levels of accessibility that you may want to meet in order to facilitate "aging in place".
t. in the process of getting a two-bedroom custom house built for 220 k$
Real punctuation:
Hyphen-minus: -
Ersatz em dash: --
Mental illness:
Hyphen: ‐
Minus sign: −
En dash: –
Em dash: —
t. sufficiently mentally ill to use everything but the hyphen
More options
Context Copy link