domain:streamable.com
As a responsible, frugal, young, male driver witnessing the Decline of America, I would be utterly fucked without UMPD coverage, which is extremely valuable and necessary so I don't have to empty my emergency fund every time someone's juvenile delinquent runs a red light; but Collision and Comprehensive are just plain negative-value since their premiums have to be high enough to include the amortized cost of said delinquent replacing his own car also. (Before you ask: Liability is its own thing; I don't mind paying for that.)
I've contacted 5+ insurers trying to purchase an auto insurance package that includes UMPD without Collision, and they all alleged that Alabama bans the sale of UMPD-without-Collision. Most also claimed that Alabama is nearly unique in this.
However, I couldn't find any such law on the books, or any historic arguments/rationale behind the (alleged) Alabama status quo.
What the fuck am I missing? And what due diligence should I do before I start trying to get my state rep to fix this shit?
EDIT: to be clear, my vehicle is not financed; I am the unencumbered owner. Insurers are happy to sell me an Auto insurance plan that has neither UMPD nor Collision ("Liability-only", or Liability+UMBI if I want my hospital OOP covered), which would be significantly cheaper. But having such a plan screwed me over last time.
And if it were just 1 insurance company that said "uhh it's state law or whatever", I'd easily write it off as just a lazy, poorly-trained T1 rep lying to get the customer looking for something they don't sell off the phone (and blaming "the government" has a nicer ring than blaming "company policy" or "our underwriters" anyway.)
In fact, that's what I did assume, for the first few companies I called... but by the time I got to the sixth, and they all gave the same answer in perfectly clear terms (*sans the actual citation), and several of the reps elaborated that Alabama was somehow special (USAA rep said there's only "one or two states where that has been the case"), I had to concede that they might not just be bullshitting me.
UPDATE: just got this nonsensical reply from the Alabama Department of Insurance Consumer Affairs division:
> Is there any law or regulation in Alabama that forbids insurers from offering UMPD coverage outside of a Collision policy? If so, what is the citation?
>
> I ask because I have tried to buy UMPD coverage from 6 different insurers so far (USAA, Progressive, GEICO, State Farm, Liberty Mutual, and AAA), and every one has claimed that Alabama law forbids them from offering UMPD outside of a full Collision policy. Most of them additionally claimed that Alabama was an extremely strange case, and that they are allowed to sell UMPD without full Collision just about everywhere else in the country.Alabama law does not explicitly forbid insurers from offering Uninsured Motorist Property Damage (UMPD) coverage outside of a Collision policy. However, the law does require insurers to offer [UMBI] coverage as part of any auto liability policy, which includes Collision coverage. This means that while insurers can offer UMPD coverage separately, it must be part of the Collision policy, which is a type of liability coverage that covers damages to your own vehicle.
Current draft of a response:
Thank you for the reply!
I don't quite understand your reply, though; it seems to contradict itself:
> "Alabama law does not explicitly forbid insurers from offering Uninsured Motorist Property Damage (UMPD) coverage outside of a Collision policy."
> "while insurers can offer UMPD coverage separately, it must be part of the Collision policy, which is a type of liability coverage that covers damages to your own vehicle."Could you confirm what specific law or regulation is behind the second point there?
Why, exactly, is it illegal for Alabama auto insurers to sell me UMPD (which I want) if I don't also buy a Collision policy (which I do not want)?
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
3d ago
In fact thé worst gerrymanders in terms of the difference between popular vote percentages and congressional results are in Oregon and Illinois, a complication for the ‘evil republicans’ narrative.
That's not an especially good metric (though people understandably like to focus on it because it's legible); crucially, it is also not correct. MA, for example, saw Republicans get a little over a third of presidential votes* but precisely zero seats. In Iowa, Democrats got 43% of the presidential vote, but zero seats. Astute observers will note that neither of these states are actually gerrymandered, which perhaps illustrates why that metric is suboptimal.
The metric people who study gerrymandering have converged on for measuring partisan bias is performance relative to other maps that could have been drawn. In MA, for example, it would be very difficult to draw a map where the GOP got a third of the seats simply because of how Republican voters are distributed around the state. Iowa could potentially be better, but not by much.
By those standards, Texas is on-par to a little worse than Illinois.
And, of course, none of this addresses the elephant in the room, which is how the parties have, on the whole, tried to resolve the problem of gerrymandering. Democrats have repeatedly sought a nationwide solution, while Republicans have preferred a "gerrymandering for me but not for thee" approach.
*Using presidential votes as a proxy for general support is imperfect but better than statewide tally of legislative races because many House races are unopposed.
Skibboleth
It's never 4D Chess
3d ago
If the government is going to give out industrial subsidies, why not get something in return?
In the case of US Steel, the government didn't give out subsidies, it simply demanded a payoff for approving the deal.
More generally, it's not philosophically coherent. If the USG expected to get a stake in exchange for subsidies, the most of the South and Midwest would be government property. The general pattern the US has followed is that it may offer subsidies or very favorable lending terms (which amount to subsidies) for things the government wants to promote, but hasn't insisted on receiving partial ownership. Partly this because Americans (and especially Republicans) have traditionally been averse to state ownership, but also partly because subsidies are not generally conceived of as business investments but the state paying you to do something it wants. The CHIPS Act was not the USG dipping its toes in the market to make a little money, it was promoting the development of domestic chip production.
DradisPing
3d ago
They made the new movies on a crazy timeline. A new movie of the trilogy every two years.
The first final drafts of scripts where due before there was a final cut of the previous movie.
Obviously doing something like that requires careful planning. Naturally they did no planning.
The first movie copied all of the beats of ANH. The second movie is supposed to set up the final conflict of the third movie.
Then Rian Johnson came in for the second and did his own thing. He either ignored or was possibly never aware of some of the things the first movie set up. He killed off The Big Bad / Chessmaster (Snoke) and promoted the Dragon (Kylo Ren) to be the new Big Bad.
Some people liked how it subverted their expectations, but it subverted the arc of the series.
For the third movie they had no villain with a grand plan, no idea where character's stories were supposed to go, and Bob Iger wouldn't budge on the timeline. It had to be out xmas 2019.
sodiummuffin
3d ago
That sounds very much like Let This Grieving Soul Retire!: Woe Is the Weakling Who Leads the Strongest Party, which got an anime adaption last year. It's not cultivation though, just Japanese light-novel/webnovel fantasy.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
3d ago
As far as I can recall, you're correct. The fact that the law necessitates grouping minorities (blacks) into their own districts was started to prevent Southern states from chopping up the districts to give blacks 0 representation, but now it's a net-negative for Dems since it basically forces Dem voters to be inefficiently allocated.
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
3d ago
TheAntipopulist
Formerly Ben___Garrison
3d ago
The other problem for democrats in an all out gerrymandering war is that they simply have fewer seats to eek out. The most gerrymandered states in the union are all blue; red states going tit for tat isn't actually something they can escalate that much against.
This isn't true. This dataset shows 4 different metrics of "fairness", and in every single one of them it's shown that Republicans are doing more gerrymandering today than Dems. Both sides could become even more crappy about this in the future if they wanted to, and we're probably going to see that happen unfortunately. It's not particularly hard to find states where Dems could increase their outcome by a lot, e.g. if they did North Carolina-level gerrymandering in New York it could easily amount to several seats.
ThisIsSin
Liberty has an anti-privilege bias
3d ago
Where else do you think the Kirk x Bones shipping came from?
Gardening or light landscaping.
Raising chickens, if your zoning allows.
DIY home improvement projects that aren't structurally critical. Teach the kids how the permitting systems works (partially serious there).
If you have trees, you can install a small zipline.
Treehouse, or a similar small construction project that they can then manage and maintain. My friend had his kids build a small aquaponics system and they could grow whatever they wanted in it (aside from weed).
Jiro
3d ago
In order to write seriously about religion, you probably have to believe seriously in religion. Given that Mormons are mostly in a small concentrated area of the US I would be unsurprised that a lot higher percentage of Mormons seriously believe than other religions.
self_made_human
amaratvaṃ prāpnuhi, athavā yatamāno mṛtyum āpnuhi
3d ago
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/09/style/westminster-preview-golden-retrievers.html
Very important story. It makes me realize how hard I fell for the little Golden my family got while I'm away in Scotland.
There's probably a worthwhile discussion there, right?
Sanderson, Card, Correia, and Meyer are all Mormons. Now as it happens I don't count Mormons as Christians, but that aside - it is interesting that all these examples are from the same religion. Are Mormons in general punching well above their weight in science fiction and genre spaces?
Tenaz
3d ago
She wrote a vampire romance story where the main characters waited until marriage. In fact the entire story seems to be built on top of resisting the temptation to sleep together before then; Edward's bloodlust an obvious metaphor for actual lust.
There are some other connections--the eternal youthful marriage, the vampires from Rome possibly representing Catholics, the idea that you need to develop and grow as a person as much as you can before becoming immortal--but those are all stretches.
Sanderson's works deal much more explicitly with religion, but I'd argue his most important religious themes are also subtextual. For example, Mistborn has the explicit themes with Sazed, but the entire story is built around the implicit themes--
All the explicit dealings with gods are pretty lackluster in comparison, and arguably not really "religious" at all. The Percy Jackson books had that.
anon_
3d ago
Dirigism with retarded characteristics.
[ With sincere apologies to Deng Xiaoping ]
Corvos
3d ago
Blood+. The main character has multiple love interests (sort of) but the story is both intensely focused on her attachments to the world in general (brothers, father, friends and other more spoilery ones) and an excellent globe-trotting thriller.
MachineElfPaladin
3d ago
I only read part of it, but I believe Beware of Chicken was initially aiming to be something similar. It's not exactly the described trope - rather than "clueless initiate stumbles into a position of being feared/respected" it's "young rising star decides to get out of the game and run a farm but attracts weirdness which he then disarms with his unusual mindset" (with IIRC isekai possession justifying the initial dropout) - but it has a similar theme of people misunderstanding the MC because they don't know what's actually motivating his choices.
I got the impression that as it went on it got more centered on standard cultivation, though.
chooky
3d ago
Sort of... it was ultimately the grandma's misunderstanding of the magic's source/purpose that created the anxieties that led to the magic not working anymore, but it was this abstract anxiety that was the antagonist rather than an outright malevolent force. The only stakes for the magic not working were that the magic was cool and it would be sad for it to not work. To me, actualization/fulfillment is a perfectly good goal for a story.
Corvos
3d ago
Property was cheap, food expensive. A doctor they knew was said to spend an incredible amount of money on food, and we're talking groceries, not dining out.
When my father was growing up, chicken costed as much as steak. And not because steak was cheap! They hadn’t really invented intensive farming.
DradisPing
3d ago
I keep seeing The Vorkorsigan Saga pop up in recommendations.
I gave the Warrior's Apprentice a shot, but Miles spends so much of it moping around the house not doing anything. Can you recommend one of the other books that's friendlier to someone with a short attention span who isn't that interested in hearing about the main character's family members?
The_Nybbler
If you win the rat race you're still a rat. But you're also still a winner.
3d ago
IIRC, Terminator: Sarah Chronicle Chronicles was showing clear signs of being about to be derailed when it was canceled. (That is, they pulled the whole "let's change the setting entirely" thing as a cliffhanger)
CertainlyWorse
No one is coming. It's just you.
3d ago
I don't know how execs don't know what their IP is or how it works. But they repeatedly fail on exploiting it, time and again.
HorthyMiklosKatonaja
3d ago
Gone with the Wind
Atlas Shrugged. Dagny Taggart could be seen as a prototype girlboss.
There's more to it than just geography--why are they mostly concentrated? Anyone who wasn't fully on-board with the religion in the 1840s, and willing to give up everything for it, would have stayed behind when they were kicked out of the state.
The result is possibly the most powerful religious selection effect ever. The only comparable effect I can think of is the early Christian church, when converts understood they faced pretty high odds of being executed for their faith if they converted.
It's also much harder to be a lukewarm Mormon than, say, Catholic. Our doctrine is much newer, our church much smaller, and there's far less room to say basically "sure maybe it's all just metaphorical but I like what it teaches my kids" when the Book of Mormon's very origin must be either literally true and from God, or a deliberate scam. (Arguably, other Christian churches are the same, but at least their "scams" were thousands of years ago.)
More options
Context Copy link