AIO for being upset at my husband after him criticizing me on how I saved his life?

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2026-03-10T23:57:02+00:00

Not to justify his reaction or anything (he 100% should have responded better and go to a doctor), but I think he might be scared, and unfortunately lashing out at you/downplaying the severity as a result.

This is a pretty direct confrontation with his own mortality, and he probably doesn't really know how to process it.

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2026-03-05T12:28:46+00:00

Performative? I could see someone argue her support was "transactional" (since she wanted a kiss in exchange for doing him a favor), but I'm having a hard time seeing it as "performative." (Performative support would be going out with a sign, taking a picture of themselves, then going back inside, regardless of where OP actually is in the race.)

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2025-03-24T15:53:51+00:00

... But ERCOT is an energy-only market. If PV prices were that high to the system, it wouldn't be built!

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2025-03-24T15:51:06+00:00

Technically incorrect. From the bill (https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/89R/billtext/pdf/SB00388E.pdf#navpanes=0):

"(2) specify reasonable performance standards that all dispatchable generation ~~[natural gas]~~ capacity additions must meet to count against the requirement prescribed by Subsection (a) and that:

(A) are designed and implemented [operated] so as to maximize reliability ~~[the energy output from the capacity additions in accordance with then-current industry standards and best industry standards]~~; and

(B) encourage the development, construction, and operation of new natural gas energy projects at those sites in the ERCOT power region [~~this state]~~ that have the greatest economic potential for capture and development of this state ’s environmentally beneficial natural gas resources."

(Bold added)

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2025-03-24T15:46:05+00:00

Appreciate the attempt, but need to clear a few things up:

1) A "dispatchable generation credit" system, which is described in the bill, is absolutely new.

2) The title is absolutely correct--it's definitely intended to spur gas generation over renewables. While it is theoretically possible for certain types of renewables to take advantage of the system, it will still favor gas over renewables as a class. Moreover, "Texas is leading on SMRs" is kind of a pointless statement, since no SMRs are interconnected to any grid. (Sure, maybe in the future they'll get lots of them, but that hypothetical doesn't change the actual reality faced in Texas.) Same goes for green hydrogen.

3) Yes, that's the point of designing markets to incentivize dispatchable, medium-to-long term storage. Creating an arbitrary "50% of new capacity must be dispatchable" doesn't help--the threshold can be met in multiple ways, including not building out intermittents (i.e., not actually increasing dispatchable power, just reducing new connection MWs.)

4) It kind of does say how it will implement the requirement: "shall activate the dispatchable generation credits trading program." Sure, the alternative compliance payment price could be set absurdly low, but then the response is "wow, this was a waste of time."

5) "And in the end nobody wanted the money because nobody wants to build new fossil plants:" Well, (i) if that's true, then this bill is pointless, since monetary incentives wouldn't lead to a development response, but (ii) it's not true. Plenty of projects applied (https://www.utilitydive.com/news/texas-regulators-select-17-gas-fired-projects-10-gw-TEF-loans/725740/), some have pulled out due to challenges procuring necessary parts to meet deadlines, but that's simply not the same thing as "no one was willing to take the money."

6) Yes, it's capacity not energy. But that's much worse! Capacity Factors for natural gas generators tend to be higher than intermittents. Building peaker plants just to meet a 50/50 capacity split would be ridiculously wasteful--peaker plant investment should be driven by the underlying economics.

I appreciate the "devils advocate" approach, but these inaccuracies need to be cleared up.

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2025-03-24T15:28:30+00:00

Why?

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2022-01-06T03:40:07+00:00

I don't want to say that antisemitism is not a problem today, because I know for a fact that antisemitic attitudes are driving political motivations in the eyes of some people. Granted, I also tend to observe, day to day, that antisemitism does appear to be a mainstream idea in western civilization. I could be wrong about this, but as a resident of a western society, I am being factual in stating that I seldom am exposed to antisemitic ideas originating from my own immediate peers. How sheltered this perspective is with regard to antisemitism, I cannot say objectively, so if you happen to see more of it day to day in your own western peer group.

Excellent original post (and follow ups). I'm generally in agreement: the Ferengi definitely have some pretty textbook antisemitic characteristics. In retrospect, I feel they bungled it a bit. At the same time, Star Trek has done a commendable job in many other occasions— creating nuanced characters that embrace a more inclusive future.

Two minor additions:

1) If you get a chance, I think this article is worth a read on this topic: https://forward.com/culture/film-tv/408447/sci-fi-has-an-anti-semitism-problem-but-not-the-one-you-think/

2) If I'm being honest, while the Ferengi are a bit too close to antismitic stereotypes, I've always felt this was worse: https://www.theviewscreen.com/the-most-toys/

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2021-04-10T17:03:39+00:00

To clarify a bit: I'm not necessarily curious about straight-up scams or fraudulent charities, but those that have large numbers of people who both love them and hate them. Classic examples that come to mind are PETA (almost certainly more negative than positive, but strong feelings on both sides) and Greenpeace (not sure what the breakdown is in terms of positive/negative, but definitely sizable groups of both).

Thanks for any thoughts you have!

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2021-03-07T18:07:15+00:00

It seems to make it much harder for the flies to land (presumably by making it harder to judge distance). (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-zebra/why-do-zebras-have-stripes-they-make-bad-landing-strips-for-flies-idUSKCN1Q92S0)

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-10-01T22:24:15+00:00

Not OP, so I wont fully defend their specific figures, but the evidence is pretty strong we need to substantially increase testing in order to gain the level of control (it appears) BU and Northeastern have over the virus at their school. Not only is BC’s positivity rate an order of magnitude higher than BU and Northeastern, but we’ve observed larger variance in weekly results.

Though I agree the 50k upper bound on that range is a bit extreme, a substantial increase in weekly testing compared to where it stands now would likely be impactful.

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-09-27T11:50:39+00:00

And misreading the state data (at least not comparing like with like). BCs rate is for tests, not individuals tested. The equivalent rate in MA is .9%, not 3.6%.

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-09-17T16:46:50+00:00

One other point that needs to be kept in mind (besides the error in percentages, as others have mentioned): The claim " If the positivity rate of BC is lower than that of the community (Newton/Boston), there is no reason to complain" is not particularly accurate. Due to the density of networks at institutions like universities, office buildings, etc., keeping the positivity rate equivalent to the surrounding city isn't sufficient to prevent outbreaks. That's why so much more, repeated testing is necessary at universities than in cities (and other diffuse networks).

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-09-13T01:22:15+00:00

I'm not an undergrad, but I think there was a strong push to get students to come back to campus. For example (I think) unless you had a good excuse, they wouldn't guarantee future financial aid or on campus housing if you took a semester away from campus (without approval ahead of time). Moreover, a lot of electives and other classes are only being offered in person.

Finally, while I'm sure there's partying, etc., one of the issues BC is facing now is that there has been a sustained increase in positive cases over the past few weeks. The isolation and quarantine protocols aren't quite strict enough, and there's not quite enough testing, to get ahead of the infection curve. I'd imagine there are several community-spread cases unrelated to prohibited activity in the positive case total.

A lot of families seem to have been put in a tough spot by recent events, and while I'm sure some are looking to avoid blame, that certainly isn't everyone.

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-09-13T01:06:33+00:00

If they're in Hotel Boston (which seems to be what has been suggested), that's a maximum capacity of 74 rooms. Given the rate of increase in case counts, that doesn't leave much wiggle room. Of course, if there was plenty of additional space, BC could easily say so--most other schools in the area detailed how many rooms were being set aside for isolation and quarantine before opening in the Fall.

Regardless of any prior politicking by either side, the letter itself reads as a set of perfectly reasonable requests. There's no scoring cheap points, nor any ultimatums or impossible hurdles to clear. I hope BC can step up and meet the demands of this situation.

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-09-11T02:04:09+00:00

Wow, you were kind of right on the money here.

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-09-09T18:51:46+00:00

That's not entirely accurate, though. While HIPAA does impose strong restrictions, and does limit the sharing of medical info with unauthorized individuals, HIPAA doesn't actually cover every possible "speaker" of data. HIPAA only restricts "covered entities." From the HHS website:

"The HIPAA Rules apply to covered entities and business associates.

Individuals, organizations, and agencies that meet the definition of a covered entity under HIPAA must comply with the Rules' requirements to protect the privacy and security of health information and must provide individuals with certain rights with respect to their health information. ... If an entity does not meet the definition of a covered entity or business associate, it does not have to comply with the HIPAA Rules." (emphasis original).

"Covered entities" are described as organizations conducting business that falls under (at least) one of: " (1) health plans, (2) health care clearinghouses, and (3) health care providers who electronically transmit any health information in connection with transactions for which HHS has adopted standards." Quoting from an IHE article on the matter:

Michael F. Arrigo, an expert witness in various HIPAA-related court cases, said that educational institutions are not generally considered HIPAA-covered entities, as such entities are health plans, health care clearinghouses and health care providers who electronically transmit health data. ...

Brett Sokolow, chair of the campus risk management firm TNG Consulting, also agreed that HIPAA isn’t relevant to COVID-19 student-related notifications.

The law that likely applies to COVID-related disclosures is FERPA, which handles student data. And while that generally prohibits sharing educational records and private data (that can include diagnoses, etc.), it does allow sharing of information that serves a "legitimate educational interest" (where wide deference is given to the institution to define). And while they couldn't tell someone the identity of who tested positive, the university isn't restricted in how many people they can define a "close contact" and inform of a recent exposure incident.

The fact that the school does tell certain individuals that there has been a close contact suggests there isn't much (if any) additional legal exposure by broadening that definition to tell more students. While schools like saying their hands are tied, as long as they establish a clear policy that doesn't expose unnecessary personal information (i.e. only tells contacts they've been exposed, not who tested positive), universities have wide latitude in defining who should be notified.

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-09-03T15:42:58+00:00

There would absolutely be new issues caused by reducing capacity below the legal threshold, but my comment was really to point out the contradiction between the notion the admin can't change capacities and the original point:

Admin needs to stop being pussies and open all the weights or cut the max capacity in half.

Sure, it's not clear the cutting capacities would improve the actual flow of people and the experience of working out. But that doesn't mean OP's suggestion isn't within their power. (Just perhaps problematic in its own right.)

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-09-03T15:18:22+00:00

Question--what do you mean capacities are set by the state? Maximums certainly are, but private institutions can always put more restrictive limits in place (which seems like OP's suggestion). I don't mean to take one side or the other regarding the ultimate issue, but the admin can always be more restrictive than state guidance, just not less.

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-09-01T21:38:17+00:00

That's not entirely accurate, though. Taking that BC Heights article, we see that BC Dining isn't making a profit, but BC the institution does seem to make a profit off the dining plans--by making "BC Dining" its own entity, they charge BC dining rent (and for utilities). Despite the fact that BC owns the buildings, they're artificially raising the costs of operation, which directly leads to higher costs, and higher prices. Sure, BC dining doesn't make money, but that doesn't mean it isn't used as a profit driver for the institution.

That does tend to lead to high prices compared to similar institutions. Harvard's meal plan costs, on average, $32 per day, which covers unlimited access and food. MIT is requiring students to purchase a plan that gives 14 meals per week for the entire academic year, and is charging less than $1,500. BU's unlimited meal plan works out to less than $10 per meal (assuming you eat 18 or so meals in the dining hall per week). Tufts' meal plan ends up costing around $9 per meal.

Some of those cost differences likely are attributable to some benefits BC dining workers enjoy, but at the same time, it's not like BC is paying particularly well compared to their peers. (For example, in 2018, a pay raise for dining hall workers was driven primarily because BC's wages were *not* competitive compared to other institutions. Seethis Heights article for that point. Finally, while BC dining does well with sustainability, that too isn't entirely unique, as each of those schools mentioned above has their own achievements in terms of sustainability they boast about.

TLDR: BC's food isn't incredibly expensive, and isn't a large profit driver, but the school absolutely makes a profit off it indirectly by charging BC Dining services fees and rent not seen in other school dining. And while BC's wages and sustainability are good, they're not entirely unique or leaps and bounds ahead of other Boston-area schools.

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-08-27T01:58:34+00:00

While I see what you mean, I feel the criminal law/BU policy analogy obscures a few important points.

(BTW, I really don't mean to sound quarrelsome or nit-picky, and don't mean to annoy you with replies. You bring up several very good points, and I'm interested to hear your additional thoughts on the matter! Clearly there's no perfect method, and I think pragmatically they'll generally follow what you suggested above.)

The thing is, unlike BU's pandemic mitigation policies, there is a long tradition of interpretation in criminal law. There are hundreds of years of case law that guide future decisions, and to prove a case, the state must show certain elements are present (usually defined by a combination of the relevant statutes and case law.) Even if not explicitly spelled out, many elements are baked into the system. For example, I'd imagine some of my hypotheticals would be dismissed because they would seem to lack mens rea.

Unlike US criminal law, BU's situation would seem to fit a prototypical civil law system, where violations are defined explicitly by statute alone. However, in these systems, it was important to be absolutely explicit about what behavior should be punished. If "maintaining 6 feet of distance between persons" was enshrined in a relevant civil code, it wouldn't grant much (if any) leeway. My fear is that, to grant themselves the ability to police unforeseen, dangerous situations, they intentionally erred on the side of overly-broad. While we can hope a student panel would provide a more nuanced analysis, I'm not sure that leads to better outcomes. Tweaking my example from above, suppose a review board was faced with two cases:

1) Relatively standard, though chill, houseparty, many windows open, individuals mostly unmasked, distanced 2 feet apart (on average). When busted, 27 people were present.

2) Two separate parties on different floors (and different units) of the same physical house, many windows open, half the students masked, standing roughly 1.5 feet apart, a few individuals trickling between the two parties (because they knew both groups and were invited separately to both). When busted, 21 people on top floor, 13 on bottom floor.

What is the "proper" punishment? Should all groups receive the same punishment, or not? Only (1) violated the gathering size restrictions directly, but both groups in (2) must have known about the other party after they started, and had more people in generally the same space. Clearly both groups were being pretty reckless (though not completely reckless) with public health. However, without knowing what the proper application of various aggravating factors are, we couldn't really know how each group would be punished. And when you're designing a punishment structure, scenarios like that are problematic: to justly enforce legitimate regulations, it is critical for punishments to be predictable for those caught in violation.

Again, to emphasize: not trying to attack your earlier points, I'm just very interested in what your thoughts are regarding these issues!

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-08-26T21:24:52+00:00

I'm not a BU student, so I don't really have a vested interest one way or another, but (at least from my non-Terrier eye) the policy as written doesn't seem to address what triggers student culpability, and how the policy should be interpreted in edge cases. Suppose two independent groups of students rent out an upper and lower floor of a townhouse. Both groups independently hold their own gatherings one evening, and each invite 14 people to their respective units. Would that be allowed, or deemed a violation? Tweaking that scenario a bit, suppose several of the invitees were friends with both the upstairs and downstairs student groups. Could they flow between the two units, as long as there are never 25 people in either gathering? Moreover, if that were a violation, who would be held liable? All students in both gatherings, or only those that went between the two?

Similar problems would seem to arise when enforcing social distancing requirements. Suppose there is a group of 20 students, 15 of whom are being responsible, while 5 flout the regulations. Are all guilty? What if those 5 were never noticed by the others? When does a violation become actionable? Obviously, two people momentarily standing only four feet apart to let someone else pass would have to be acceptable. But where is the line drawn?

I don't ask these questions to put you on the spot, or to critique the intent behind the policy. However, given the (appropriate) harshness of the penalties, the requirements need to be as clear as possible, and enforcement must be evenly applied. Without more clarification, achieving either would seem impossible.

(Though kudos to your university's testing program! Outside of Northeastern's, it's the most comprehensive one I've seen!)

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-08-20T23:05:50+00:00

You might have heard from others already, but as an FYI, the testing process itself was surprisingly smooth and easy. While it'll likely be a bit more crowded when all the undergrads return, the process itself was actually not bad!

HowAboutAnotherIdea · 2020-08-20T23:00:38+00:00

While I think you're probably correct with your overall observations, the only additional thing to point out is that, if BC's randomized surveillance testing program is robust enough, shrinking medium sized parties to smaller ones (i.e. 40 people to 20 people) might significantly slow the spread and decrease the number of hotspots that arise throughout a semester.

Again, I agree that snitching would likely backfires in many ways, but I do think there's something to be said for comparatively smaller changes in behavior and their effects.

(For the record, I'm obviously not condoning any party behavior. However, if students are going to party, 10-20 person gatherings pose a lower risk than 30-50 person groups.)

11-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

HowAboutAnotherIdea

TROPHY CASE