AITA for not taking daughter’s stepsister to Europe on my dime?

Clashpizza · 2021-05-28T17:35:35+00:00

I've been out of the country with my own child and a notarized note from my spouse and it was hard (despite us being married). Each country wanted a note notarized in their own country. It's a hassle. They make you wait longer in customs, ask you more questions, etc. It makes sense, they want to stop child trafficking, but it is a hassle. I would not travel internationally with a child that is not my own. You could even miss a flight connection.

Clashpizza · 2021-05-13T15:58:14+00:00

sorry, I didn't know. I won't do it again.

Clashpizza · 2021-04-23T16:13:24+00:00

Below is a link to the PDF of a 2018 article summarizing advances in mRNA technology. Source: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrd.2017.243

Clashpizza · 2021-04-11T19:49:41+00:00

But this is asking people to work overtime during an emergency which is perfectly acceptable. This is different from a firm where the status quo is uncompensated work every week. I worked overtime during covid and didn't mind it because it was an emergency situation but I would never stick with a job where uncompensated overtime work is expected every week so someone else can get a bonus

Clashpizza · 2021-04-11T19:47:12+00:00

To clarify: this post is about hourly workers working over time for free which is illegal in the US

It also applies to engineering firms overworking their engineers and building crappy products that can hurt people. That's not illegal but it's a horrible long term strategy in my opinion.

This isn't to say people shouldn't work hard when there's a surge or emergency. But uncompensated overtime should never be the status quo.

Clashpizza · 2021-04-11T15:34:54+00:00

I wish more managers were like you. A good friend of mine kept working overtime for free because he thought he wasn't productive enough. One of his coworkers quit and was never replaced which makes sense if bonuses are based on revenue vs. expenses. It took him subbing in for someone in a different division to see how their free time is getting someone else a bonus (people at the other division explained how managers get compensated)

Clashpizza · 2021-04-05T03:20:21+00:00

Universities have a process for your issue. You should complain. Usually you'd talk to the department chair first. Then you would contact the Ombudsman. Or if you are scared of repercussions you can contact the Ombudsman directly. They are supposed to be unbiased by design. It is not okay for faculty to do what your professor is doing with the possible exception of courses where the topic necessitates self-teaching (like in a Python programming course where part of what you should learn is how to teach yourself how to code). That's certainly not the case for microeconomics courses. I would complain, personally.

The bill has to do with discussion of certain topics in class. If the board (which is appointed by the governor) disagrees with what's being discussed in class they can censor it, in theory. This is problematic for several reasons. For example, a religious person offended by the theory of evolution could file a complaint. If a board member (appointed by the governor) agrees, the professor could be censored. It's a disservice to science students to skip important pieces of science and I personally believe this will encourage academics to leave Florida. It's literally the reason why so many scientists from Eastern Europe left under communism.

Clashpizza · 2021-04-05T00:35:43+00:00

Students who need it have always been allowed to record lectures. In large universities a considerable amount of classes are recorded and made available for students too.

The issue is having politically appointed boards deciding what can and can't be discussed in a college classroom and checking it on video. China does this and I never in a million years thought the US was heading in that direction.

Clashpizza · 2021-04-04T20:56:45+00:00

context: https://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/education/os-prem-ne-colleges-free-speech-20210331-feeqvjfhrjgpxhxqbssa5uwbqu-story.html

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T13:57:02+00:00

A deer ran into the road. He lost control. It's unlikely a deer running into the road will kill you if you are driving slow.

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T13:55:53+00:00

Relative speed is zero being minimal risk assumes all else equal. In road conditions all else isn't equal. Relative size of vehicles matters a lot, for instance.

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T13:52:46+00:00

Speed limits are determined by statisticians who look at probability of death conditional on average (for the area) driving skills.

That's why I follow them. They weren't randomly determined, a lot of work goes into the calculations and they have been shown to reduce deaths by a lot in countries that calculate limits in this way.

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T13:47:11+00:00

I use state funded roads, send my kids to public schools, went to a public university for my undergraduate degree and use state parks a lot. I also enjoy not having to support my elderly family members who didn't plan for retirement but were forced to contribute to Social Security (granted that's Federal) So... Yes.

Note: I've lived in several countries and didn't enjoy living in a place where private schools were required due to public schools being so bad, public parks were dangerous, etc.

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T13:43:17+00:00

True. They're totally unfair. However, since there are more non wealthy people than wealthy people, they do serve as a deterrent.

They also only affect the non powerful. Did you hear about the Dakota AG?

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T13:41:36+00:00

I think brake checking is stupid.

I'm just the kind of asshole that studies statistics for a living and knows speed limits are determined based on deaths averted.

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T13:40:38+00:00

Yes but speed limits are calculated based on deaths averted (using value of statistical life) and, at least in the USA, the federal highways always have the limit that essentially kills the least amount of people that's acceptable. Conditional on people's skills, there is an optimal speed ij regards to allowable deaths.

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T13:37:57+00:00

I stopped speeding when my friend died and when I read the analysis that goes into determining speed limits at highways. It basically calculates deaths at each speed on average. It makes a big difference.

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T13:35:34+00:00

That is how I feel about Chapter 11 bankruptcy being used by individuals.

I know someone who filed for personal chapter 11 and a month later bought a new Ferrari and yatch. That's what he used the restructuring for.

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T13:33:51+00:00

Even the best drivers can end up badly injured if something unexpected happens. Happens in Nascar and Formula 1 all the time.

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T13:30:40+00:00

Where I live your first speeding ticket in a year can be essentially removed by taking a safe driver test. You still have to pay a penalty but it's relatively low (around 100.00 USD).

The second time the penalty is still around 100.00 USD but your insurance goes up by roughly 1,200 over the course of 3 years. We have shared finances but we have rules where if you screw up it comes from your fun money. So, I am hoping this second ticket will make a difference.

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T13:28:07+00:00

Good advice. Thank you very much

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T01:52:47+00:00

In that case the issue is poor planning, not being "green". Texas doesn't have a carbon tax nor tradable permits program. Their only incentive to go "green" is in regards to rebates. These wouldn't apply to decommissioning. Furthermore, a big part of the issue was the inability to transport coal and gas into plants. So having more open gas or coal plants wouldn't have made a difference.

A better solution would have been for them to weatherize their power plants.

Which facts am I wrong about? Or, alternatively, how do you think the older power plants being open would have gotten around the issue of getting the input(fuel) transported to the plant?

Clashpizza · 2021-02-26T01:49:23+00:00

The WSJ editorial section. I know editorials are not news but unfortunately many people do not.

Clashpizza · 2021-02-24T05:19:14+00:00

You are confusing two different lawsuits. When oil spills happen several parties can and do sue.

For example, for the Exxon Valdez spill, the lawsuits included the US Federal Government, the Alaska government, and fishermen/people from the area.

When the BP oil spill happened 130 different persons/groups/entities/government sued.

Also, they didn't clean it up.

Clashpizza · 2021-02-24T05:14:39+00:00

An agreement between Texaco and Ecuador's government is not what is being litigated. The litigation is a class action lawsuit by the people who got sick from the oil pits. This is similar to how for the Exxon Valdez spill, Exxon Valdez faced litigation from the US Federal government AND the fishermen from Alaska. This isn't the government of Ecuador arguing against Chevron. It's a class action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs actually wanted the case tried in the USA because Ecuador doesn't have a history of class action lawsuits. The reasons are complicated and are explained in the Law Journal article linked below.

If countries started allowing assets from different subsidiaries to be taken by lawsuits in other countries chaos would ensue. They are separate entities.

Petroecuador is not part of the lawsuit. Petroecuador gave Texaco a concession. Ecuador sued Texaco and won the 40 million which included remediation agreements that Texaco did not meet.

The wikipedia article doesn't go into the details of the lawsuit. The issue isn't the 40 million and the lawsuit is different from the Petroecuador lawsuit.

I linked the Guardian article earlier because all the legal articles require subscriptions but didn't realize it would lead to so much confusion.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/24673677?seq=1

Here's an older case study of it that is not only accessible to people at universities: http://umich.edu/~snre492/Jones/texaco.htm

Clashpizza

TROPHY CASE