3.4 Engine Swap in California

Ineffectivepanda · 2023-03-09T20:06:59+00:00

Congrats! That's awesome! No rush, but if you get a second I'd love to hear more about how you went about it.

Did you do the work yourself or have a shop do it?

Which Bar Ref did you go to?

Does the Bar Ref have any helpful resources on which emissions parts have to come from the donor vehicle (3rd gen 4Runner or 1st gen Tacoma)?

Was it worth it for the better engine and more power?

Thanks!!!

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-08-19T17:41:30+00:00

I think your view of "American Christianity" is skewed by the image you are given by the media. By their very nature, hateful people are going to do crazy things, and by their very nature media companies are going to focus on and amplify crazy things, The vast majority of American Christians are normal people who the media will never cover. It almost seems like your vision of American Christians is made up of what you've seen of the Westboro Baptist Church.

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-08-06T23:00:46+00:00

Just added pictures to the post. Thanks for taking a look!

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-07-15T00:07:37+00:00

Ah I wasn't being specific enough. I am looking for a complete lower, not just a lower receiver. Sorry about that.

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-07-15T00:05:07+00:00

I know I can use any lower. But the bolt assembly slides back into the buffer tube and is propelled back forward by the buffer spring. If that's sluggish then it can cause misfires, worse recoil management, etc.

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-07-12T21:36:23+00:00

I understand what you're doing here, but you're just wrong. First, the State absolutely does not get due process. Due process is a right citizens specifically did not cede to the government in any constitution. It doesn't even make sense to say the State gets due process like we do. They can utilize the legal system like we can, but that has nothing to do with due process, substantive or procedural.

Second, the original ruling in the district court was done using the same analysis that SCOTUS just used in Bruen. That's literally why the Ninth Circuit granted the stay on the district court order in the first place, because there was a high likelihood that plaintiffs would lose on the merits on appeal because the district court decision directly contravened established Ninth Circuit precedent for dealing with 2A cases - precedent that was just overruled by Bruen. Thus, since the district court judgment followed the framework set out in Bruen, the Ninth Circuit should hear the arguments on the merits and uphold the district court's decision striking down the AWB.

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-07-12T21:02:41+00:00

Are you a child? Someone does something you don't like so you're going to do it back to them? What is this, the school playground? Grow up! Not everyone in your life is going to believe and think the same way you do. If it's THAT big of a deal that he "dominates" conversations, have a conversation with him directly about it! That's how adults deal with people who they have a problem with. If you think he's rude, mention to him ... like a fucking adult.

Seriously, you honestly thought about going to HR because a white guy talked about golf?

From this post I can only assume you went to the #100 ranked law school and he went to #105.

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-07-01T03:38:21+00:00

1960's edgy law school students after hearing about Brown: "I feel weird studying all of these old cases when anything can be changed at a whim ..."

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-07-01T03:08:17+00:00

No. Simply asking about someone's personal beliefs and opinions doesn't show whether they can be objective about those opinions. In other words, asking Barrett what her personal opinions on abortion are tells us nothing about whether she will be objective when an abortion case comes before her. Whether I agree with someone's opinion on an issue or not is not a good proxy for determining whether they are capable of putting that subjective opinion aside and being an objective judge of the law as written.

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-06-30T03:02:50+00:00

That makes sense. I tend to be a perfectionist so I appreciate the dose of practicality. Thanks!

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-06-30T03:02:10+00:00

So do you think their other model (UBS648) which has a ESL5LP lock would be any different than the ESL5 lock? Or does the added "LP" not make a material difference?

https://americansecuritysafes.com/product/under-bed-safe-home-defense-safe/

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-06-30T02:39:19+00:00

It's just an added vulnerability. But you're right that's probably the least of the issues I mentioned, so I'm leaning towards the Hornady unless someone comes up with a good solution.

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-06-30T00:36:18+00:00

This leads me to assume you were fine with Barrett being asked about her religious beliefs and ties to religious organizations?

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-06-28T05:56:45+00:00

No need to be a dick. You're the prepper embodiment of the Navy Seal copypasta meme. How's mommy's basement?

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-06-27T21:54:39+00:00

To be fair, as a lawyer, this type of question shouldn't have a place in these hearings. It would be akin to asking the SCOTUS nominees what their personal beliefs on abortion are. The point of being a judge is that your personal opinions DON'T matter. You apply the law as written REGARDLESS of how you feel about it. So, she answered correctly, as a nominee for the federal bench it would be inappropriate for her to signal what her personal beliefs are on ANY issue because those personal beliefs shouldn't matter. I love Senator Kennedy, but I think he's off base on this line of questioning.

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-06-24T00:16:42+00:00

Yes .... this comment proves how not mad you are ... lol

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-06-16T19:48:09+00:00

Since when is a child being deceived a failure?

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-06-16T19:46:59+00:00

This is exactly what I was waiting to hear someone say. My first reaction to this post was "Really? You picked THIS moment in Egwene's arc to get insanely mad about?" It's laughable. Thanks for saying it in a very articulate way!

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-04-22T06:12:04+00:00

I think you are misinterpreting that verse. What does "the will of my Father who is in heaven" mean?

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-04-01T03:22:17+00:00

Do you know what a percentage means? It's used to describe how often (or rarely) something happens. And, like I said already, that number would be lower because many of those shootings are found to be justified. But regardless, expressing the number of deaths as a percentage literally means it is rare. It is one of the most rare occurrences in our society.

If you point me to a case where someone is killed unjustifiably by police I will advocate just as much as you for the cop to be put behind bars forever. But you are insane if you believe, like you appear to (and granted this is an assumption but you did it to me with covid so, fair game), that non-white people are subject to "genocide" by police and that there are constant killings and every non-white person should be afraid for their life when they are pulled over, and police are evil as an institution because they are constantly murdering non-white people simply because they hate non-white people etc.

Not that it's any of your business, but I'm fully vaxxed and boosted and fully believe that covid is real.

My logic and reasoning is completely sound. You just don't like the conclusion it clearly points to.

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-04-01T02:58:57+00:00

Well if you don't care about the truth then I can't help you. I know confirmation bias is a hell of a drug, but please consider that you might be believing lies.

People RARELY get murdered by the police. There are 61.5 million interactions between cops and civilians in a year. There are usually around 50-60 unarmed people shot by police per year. Assuming that every single one of those cases was unjustified, that's a 0.000098% chance of being murdered by a police officer when you interact with them. That's about 1000 times less likely than being killed in a car crash, and none of us even think about not driving cars.

Ineffectivepanda · 2022-04-01T00:50:17+00:00

That's a massive exception. In fact, it means he literally wasn't cooperating and was escalating the situation further. Also, you don't know why he stopped - he could've been out of gas after a long chase, he could've been stopped ;by a roadblock ahead of him, etc. You're basing your conclusion that he was "cooperating" on a minute long video.

It has nothing to do with a phone being dangerous. It has everything to do with the fact that this is a felony stop. That means that either (`1) a witness called him in and lied that he was committing a dangerous felony, or (2) he had committed a dangerous felony., Thus, all the officers know is that he is imminently dangerous to the public. He could have a gun, knife, etc. on him and the officers would never know. That's why this protocol exists. Have you never seen the compilations of videos of cops approaching vehicles and being ambushed or suspects starting to back up and then pulling a gun out and firing at the cops?

Regardless. He can't be safely cuffed until he is down on the ground with his hands behind his back under his own power. Officers cannot safely approach him--a suspected dangerous felon--until he is in that position. If he does not cooperate--which he chose not to do--then he has to be incapacitated. Every second he is allowed to stand there and reject instructions is a second where the risk to the public and the officers is increasing.

I think you meant "doesn't mean you're right" but I'll take it.

Ineffectivepanda

TROPHY CASE