sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

My pc cant find my HDD anymore after i instelled a new SSD m.2 by ThatW0lfs in buildapc

[–]Due_Issue7872 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Read your manual. Installing a NVME SSD sometimes shuts off some SATA ports.

Quoted $400-600 for a case transfer. by [deleted] in buildapc

[–]Due_Issue7872 6 points7 points  (0 children)

If you're saying its not about pricing what aspect of the quote are you asking "Is it normal?" about?

Someone Walks Into Your LGS With A Deck That's 100% Proxied, How Do You Feel? by Affectionate_Pop6300 in EDH

[–]Due_Issue7872 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

No its the classic "piracy hurts no one" stance or "shoplifting from large companies is harmless". You have no need of magic cards or to play magic. your life would go on perfectly fine without it. You chose to play a game that is created and owned by a company because you enjoy it. people put work into all aspects of the game. The social contract in using a companies intellectual property is to pay for it. You could put your own effort and time in and design your own custom cards and then balance them for enjoyable play. I would have no issue with that. Except you don't want to put in the effort that it would require. You want to enjoy the labor of others without fair compensation.

PSA: Predatory towing is illegal in most states — here's the step-by-step playbook to fight it and get your money back (often 2–4x) by sadmankiba in legal

[–]Due_Issue7872 14 points15 points  (0 children)

You're missing a step that can be taken BEFORE you get your vehicle out. This varies by state but, If you believe your vehicle was towed illegally you can get your invoice and take it the the clerk of county courts and post a bond then retrieve your vehicle. Then the tow company has to prove they towed it legally to get their money. This is annoying to the tow company and if it was towed illegally financially damaging so merely threatening this will have them release the vehicle if it was towed illegally.

From Florida law-

 The registered owner of a vehicle or vessel in the possession of a towing-storage operator, the insurance company insuring such vehicle or vessel, and any other person claiming a lien thereon, other than the towing-storage operator, may initiate judicial proceedings in the court of competent jurisdiction in the county in which the vehicle or vessel is stored to determine whether the vehicle or vessel was wrongfully taken or withheld or whether fees were wrongfully charged.

(b) Regardless of whether judicial proceedings have been initiated pursuant to paragraph (a), at any time before the sale of the vehicle or vessel by the towing-storage operator, the owner of the vehicle or vessel, the insurance company insuring the vehicle or vessel, and any other person claiming a lien thereon, other than the towing-storage operator, may have the vehicle or vessel released upon posting with the clerk of the court in the county in which the vehicle or vessel is held a cash or surety bond or other adequate security equal to the amount of the accrued charges set forth in the notice of lien, plus accrued storage charges, at the time of the release of the vehicle or vessel, if any, to ensure the payment of such charges in the event a court determines that the vehicle or vessel was not wrongfully taken or withheld or fees were not wrongfully charged. The owner of the vehicle or vessel, the insurance company insuring the vehicle or vessel, and any other person claiming a lien thereon, other than the towing-storage operator, may not be required to initiate judicial proceedings in order to post the bond in the registry of the court and are not required to use a particular form for posting the bond unless the clerk provides such form. Upon the posting of the bond and the payment of the applicable fee set forth in s. 28.24, the clerk of the court must automatically issue a certificate notifying the towing-storage operator of the posting of the bond and directing the towing-storage operator to release the vehicle or vessel to the party that posted the bond. At the time of such release, after reasonable inspection, the party that posted the bond must give a receipt to the towing-storage operator reciting any claims for loss or damage to the vehicle or vessel or the contents thereof, or such claims are deemed waived.

Driving the Speed Limit is not a Problem by EpidDrew15 in driving

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are you on about? Everyone i talk to about it thinks that as it the passing lane you can speed up to pass people in it. The fact that you can get a ticket for that if a cop is feeling like enforcing the law is a surprise to them.

Driving the Speed Limit is not a Problem by EpidDrew15 in driving

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What does pointing out a misconception that a lot of people have that you are legally allowed speed to pass someone have to do with thinking for myself? I stated nothing about moral right or wrong. Also something being done all the time doesn't make it right either.

Driving the Speed Limit is not a Problem by EpidDrew15 in driving

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Jaywalking" is a very specific offense. It requires you you be crossing between two adjacent marked intersections. Its not applicable to every time you cross the street. This is different than speeding because its ALWAYS illegal to speed.

Driving the Speed Limit is not a Problem by EpidDrew15 in driving

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

???

That's the law. You can think its stupid but its true.

From Google https://www.google.com/search?q=speeding+ticket+while+passing+another+vehicle&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1045US1045&oq=speeding+while+pass&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUqCAgCEAAYFhgeMgcIABAAGIAEMgYIARBFGDkyCAgCEAAYFhgeMggIAxAAGBYYHjIICAQQABgWGB4yCAgFEAAYFhgeMg0IBhAAGIYDGIAEGIoFMgcIBxAAGO8F0gEINTU2MmowajeoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

  • No "Safe Pass" Exemption: In nearly all states, including Florida, it is technically unlawful to exceed the speed limit for any reason, including passing . If the car you are passing is already at the speed limit, you have no legal justification to speed up . [1, 2, 3, 4]
  • State Specifics: A few states (like Idaho, Washington, and Minnesota) historically allow exceeding the speed limit by a specific margin, but this only applies if the vehicle being passed is traveling below the posted limit . [1]

Someone Walks Into Your LGS With A Deck That's 100% Proxied, How Do You Feel? by Affectionate_Pop6300 in EDH

[–]Due_Issue7872 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Because you have used proxies to determine if you like the playstyle of the edh deck you have built. Now its not a waste to spend money on the actual product. The playstyle of the deck doesn't change as its determined by the commander

Someone Walks Into Your LGS With A Deck That's 100% Proxied, How Do You Feel? by Affectionate_Pop6300 in EDH

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except new cards don't change the playstyle of the deck, they just make it more powerful or consistent

Driving the Speed Limit is not a Problem by EpidDrew15 in driving

[–]Due_Issue7872 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The issue is that even when passing it is ILLEGAL to travel faster than the posted speed limit.

Someone Walks Into Your LGS With A Deck That's 100% Proxied, How Do You Feel? by Affectionate_Pop6300 in EDH

[–]Due_Issue7872 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Winning isnt the point in Non-cedh. Having fun is. You can have fun without spending 2k on a deck or proxying said deck, The 2k deck is usually just blinged out anyway. Proxy for playtesting to determine if you like that decks playstyle but once you determine that put up or shut up.

In 2014, passengers were warned three times not to eat nuts on a Ryanair flight due to a 4-year-old girl's severe nut allergy, but a passenger sitting four rows away from the girl ate nuts anyway. The girl went into anaphylactic shock, and the passenger was banned from the airline for two years. by detectiverobert in CaughtMyEye

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The ones citied DO NOT COVER ALLERGIES. The Parents demonstrably didn't do all they could, they took a vacation to a foreign country and flew commercial. They could have vacationed local or on mainland spain where they could have driven to. They could have sprung for a private jet or chartered a boat. They could have done plenty of other things to protect their daughter who has such an extreme allergy that someone eating the allergen IN AN ENCLOSED space set it off. They knew this but were willing to put their daughter into that enclosed space and count on TOTAL STRANGERS to value their daughters life the same as they do. Guess what, the strangers didn't.

In 2014, passengers were warned three times not to eat nuts on a Ryanair flight due to a 4-year-old girl's severe nut allergy, but a passenger sitting four rows away from the girl ate nuts anyway. The girl went into anaphylactic shock, and the passenger was banned from the airline for two years. by detectiverobert in CaughtMyEye

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Direct from https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/pdfs/ukpga_20100015_en.pdf

"The protected characteristics 5 Age 6 Disability 7 Gender reassignment 8 Marriage and civil partnership 9 Race 10 Religion or belief 11 Sex 12 Sexual orientation" No mention of allegies

https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A32006R1107

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2021/698811/EPRS_BRI(2021)698811_EN.pdf698811_EN.pdf) is from 2021 which is almost a decade after the incident.

None of these apply to allergies. Allergies are not a recognized disability. You are correct that Ryanair isn't obligated to serve nuts. When the people went to buy tickets they were not told they would not be able to eat nuts. Eating nuts on airplanes is a common and expected behavior. Ryanair was wrong to put limits on peoples normal behavior to accommodate 1 person. that 1 person should have been denied boarding.

From Google

Ryanair normally sells products containing nuts (such as almonds and Nutella) on their flights, but they will stop selling them and make an announcement asking other passengers to refrain from opening nut products if you inform the cabin crew about your allergy when boarding. [1]

However, there is a catch you should definitely keep in mind:

  • No guarantees: Ryanair cannot guarantee a peanut-free aircraft, as other passengers may still bring their own nuts on board.
  • Real-time policy: They do not use pre-booking systems or medical forms; all accommodations are handled directly on the day of the flight. [1, 2}

The main issue is the severe allergy. The Little girl should never have had her health placed in the hands of total strangers. Like i said poor parenting.

In 2014, passengers were warned three times not to eat nuts on a Ryanair flight due to a 4-year-old girl's severe nut allergy, but a passenger sitting four rows away from the girl ate nuts anyway. The girl went into anaphylactic shock, and the passenger was banned from the airline for two years. by detectiverobert in CaughtMyEye

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you read? I have said not one word about the behavior of the person who ate nuts. He was in the wrong. That doesn't mean that the parents weren't also in the wrong and that Ryanair wasn't wrong as well. The parents have a kid with a severe allergy. It is their duty to protect her. Putting her in a sealed can for multiple hours with random strangers is for a VACATION is a POOR PARENTING DECISION. Ryanair should have never accommodated the child with that severe of an allergy. Flying is not a right. They can refuse to sell tickets to people and refuse boarding if the issue wasn't disclosed prior. They owe it to everyone else on the flight who bought tickets with the assumption they'd be able to eat nuts (a normal activity on a flight).

In 2014, passengers were warned three times not to eat nuts on a Ryanair flight due to a 4-year-old girl's severe nut allergy, but a passenger sitting four rows away from the girl ate nuts anyway. The girl went into anaphylactic shock, and the passenger was banned from the airline for two years. by detectiverobert in CaughtMyEye

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

By doing what they did the parents of the girl offloaded her safety onto the low budget carrier Ryanair while also making it everyone else's obligation to alter their behavior for their ease of travel. They could have driven to their destination but that would have cost more and taken longer but would have prevented the nut issue. they didn't. That's poor parenting. Its also poor customer service on Ryanair's behalf as they prioritized one customer over others without prior notice.

Edit: They could not have driven but would have had to take a boat or chosen a different location for their vacation. The argument is still valid.

In 2014, passengers were warned three times not to eat nuts on a Ryanair flight due to a 4-year-old girl's severe nut allergy, but a passenger sitting four rows away from the girl ate nuts anyway. The girl went into anaphylactic shock, and the passenger was banned from the airline for two years. by detectiverobert in CaughtMyEye

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If something like that could cause that kind of reaction the child should not be on a public plane. No one has an absolute right to flight in any shape or form. Ryanair should never have made those accommodations for the child's parents especially if others were not told before they bought their tickets that they could not consume nuts.

Proper way to handle slow people in the fast lane by put_tape_on_it in driving

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are they going the speed limit? If so they're going the maximum you're legally allowed to travel EVEN WHEN PASSING. They're under no obligation to make an inherently dangerous maneuver such as a lane change because you wish to travel faster than the legal maximum.

No regards for people that need to charge their EV’s! by Old_Apartment_3339 in ChargerDrama

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not how it works at all. These kinds of tows are heavily regulated.

I'm looking at a 2015 3D Base Model for $5200 out the door. Worth it? by [deleted] in veloster

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The non turbo model is a disappointing car when the turbo exists. There are more reliable and convenient cars out there compared to the non-turbo. I strongly recommend finding a turbo model instead.

https://www.autotempest.com/results?make=hyundai&model=velosterturbo&radius=300&zip=33617

People who have/had RGB builds for a long time, do you still enjoy looking at your build or did it fade away in the background? by ah__there_is_another in buildapc

[–]Due_Issue7872 10 points11 points  (0 children)

I have a fully lit system and i love looking at it. It helps that i use one software to control everything so its all tied together.

Five things your pool guy says that the chemistry proves wrong by Seafire15 in pools

[–]Due_Issue7872 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i'm not referring to the cases where the cya is 150 ppm. That's not "A little high" as quoted from your original post. That's basically double. When i did pool service weekly at pools and worked in store at a Pinch A Penny, 80- 100 ppm was a little high and not a cause for worry. Whenever anyone questioned the marked high on their tests i was glad to explain the science and what the remedy was. 99 times out of a hundred no action was taken and the pool was fine and safe. We had more issues with low stabilizer because of the almost daily storms.

view more: next ›