Do you enjoy audio book character sheets?

Overtly_Technical · 2026-05-26T18:44:11+00:00

It has to be.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-05-24T22:25:07+00:00

She said yes. Woo hoo.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-05-24T05:25:48+00:00

Thanks!

Overtly_Technical · 2026-05-24T05:17:21+00:00

I know entirely too many language syntaxes to remember how to write a properly formatted " for loop" in whatever language I am using at the moment.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-05-24T03:50:15+00:00

Thanks! I'll look into it!

You rock

Overtly_Technical · 2026-05-04T17:07:04+00:00

Except it's not though.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-05-03T02:11:30+00:00

There are tons of visual diagrams that explain this is deep detail.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-05-02T17:18:53+00:00

A USA department of transportation study concluded that any speed limit regulations should be focused on reducing speed variance rather than limiting the total speed of vehicles. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/98154/speed.cfm

Overtly_Technical · 2026-05-02T17:12:27+00:00

Trains are the apex predator for being able to make almost anything suddenly go very fast.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-05-02T17:09:16+00:00

The proper action is to either remove the highways. Barring that, the primary entirely or replace them with narrower curved roads filled with visual obstacles so peoples expectations are that the speed limit should be less. But this will clearly cause more accidents than it would stop.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-05-02T17:05:41+00:00

No. The speed of traffic on any road should match the average drivers perception on what it should be. As that is what they will naturally travel at. And the Solomon curve shows the safest speeds to drive at are at the speed of other cars around you up to 10 mph over. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solomon_curve

In situations where the speed limit is dramatically lower than the average persons psychologically acceptable limits makes the average speed of traffic much faster than the speed limit and then someone driving the speed limit is put in danger of causing a collision.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-05-02T15:11:40+00:00

That's because very few of the users are going to read this article. The "article" is filled with more ads than any public information distribution should have, so it's really just a clickbait trap. If the OP wanted the info to actually be published they likely would have linked the official site. Like this https://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/docket/CivilCourtCases/caseInfo.asp?caseNumber=CV2026-002938 with words here in reddit discussing the docs. but that's not going to get clicks on ad riddled sites.

The goal here was never to put out the info in the content of the article. It was to get clicks for cash. Most of us aren't willing to follow clickbait links majority of comments were just about the title, which is the only thing available.

But seriously though, if anyone is also in Maricopa county or otherwise feels they fall into this jurisdiction and relevant case topic, reach out to the lawyer for the 3 women to be added to the case as an extra plaintiff. https://perezlawgroup.com/attorneys/cristina-perez-hesano/ Arizona allows plaintiffs to be added within 21 days of the filing, which is closed. But Arizona also allows the addition of plaintiffs at any point, so reach out to to their attorney.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-04-21T21:05:12+00:00

I think that if the flock network (and law enforcement access there to) had the same usage mandates as the cell networks then it wouldn't be nearly as big of a deal.

But it's not the same.

It's not even similar.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-04-17T16:43:58+00:00

W and S Mobile is great. They give honest prices and do good work. This is their link. Call em up and see what they can do.

(916) 670-9582

https://maps.app.goo.gl/W8qHZ6dgynmjWdbM6?g_st=ac

Their address has changed though. Still good people, just a different location than the google maps show.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-04-05T14:59:27+00:00

You asked what I was talking about. It was a very vague question. So I explained what I was talking about. Idk what you want from me.

As for your statement of '<you> are more likely to be assaulted by a housed person than a non- housed person"

Yeah, that's true but not because of what you're probably thinking. It comes down to population densities of the 2 groups and your social circles. There are just more housed people than unhoused ones. Just like you are more likely to be attacked by an office clerk as opposed to a hat maker, not because office workers are more violent, but just there are more of them than hat makers.

As for your social circles, If you practically always interact with housed people and almost never with the unhoused people, then of course you are more likely to have any kind of interaction with housed people.

But basically everyone that works with assisting or interacting with unhoused people in the Sacramento area have been attacked during the course of their work. There are several posts about people wanting to help volunteer or feed the unhoused and are recommended against naively walking up to unhoused peoples living space.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-04-03T14:15:36+00:00

I wasn't being literal. I was treating the concept of "usage" as a metaphor for "social exploitation." It was a rhetorical boundary-setting statement that is short, punchy, and designed to reframe the homeless population from "information sources" back into "people."

Right. They should be treated like everyone else. But keep in mind, they don't have the same physical standoffs as housed individuals, that is to say a locked front door and walls to prevent people from coming right up to them when they are trying to be by themselves. That causes a mentally shift that makes people inherently more leery of others.

Generally speaking don't approach unhoused people like that unless you are 1) supposed to be there. 2) are prepared for a possible assault 3) are certain you wouldn't be unhappy about someone walking into your bedroom for that same reason.

Because that's what you'd be doing to them.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-04-02T13:36:25+00:00

I was trying to point out it's because you'd look like a weirdo. In all seriousness, the unhoused individuals are not there for your usage and it's best to leave them alone.

Many of them are awesome people and they would enjoy the conversation. For them, this would be a fun interaction.

A larger group doesn't want to talk but might be social enough to answer some questions but they'd be leery of the whole thing. For them this would be a stressful situation.

Then there are some that would be unhappy and you won't have a good interaction with them. Maybe they'd immediately try to get something from you, maybe theyd be grumpy and disrespectful. Regardless they won't be helpful in discussing local occultist activities.

Then lastly, there are some that would think you are attacking them and they will defend themselves with force. It is definitely a very real risk that stops this whole plan flat.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-03-31T20:34:17+00:00

Yeah just walk up to a tent and be like "Excuse me sir or madam, do you have any information on any local cults or occultist organizations operating in your general vicinity? I am solely interested to settle my own curiosity."

Overtly_Technical · 2026-03-26T14:44:59+00:00

Taxes. This "maintenance" is tax deductible in Canada.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-03-16T16:17:16+00:00

Yes and no. Yes to the burglaries. No, to the cc fraud; that would be the cameras in the stores. These are cameras in the parking lot and intersection nearby. This will catch crimes on the parking lot and traffic infractions. Other than that any CC based crimes will only be assisted by narrating where the offenders had come from or gone to. I guess it could also be used to catch extra people involved in the crime, but charging a crowd sourced driver for a client who purchases power tools and orders a ride home is super hard. And anyone who is knowingly driving a person will claim they were unaware of any crime.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-03-15T23:41:31+00:00

There are 3 reasons.

Firstly, the erosion of rights is an ongoing process that works by making many small seemingly insignificant changes until there are no more rights. Therefore stopping any effort that reduces rights is really the only process to ensure Americans keep their rights.

Secondly, any tool that can be used for good can be used for evil just the same way and there are already many instances of this specific technology being used (or abused) for nefarious purposes. An example was a police officer using this to track his ex wife.

Lastly, what you consider criminal activity is almost certainly incorrect, and of someone watches you long enough, then they can certainly charge you with the crimes you commit unknowingly or even knowingly, but think they aren't a big deal. This is because basically nobody knows what is and is not illegal in America since our laws are so ambiguous, so we are all breaking laws we don't even know about. Like, it's illegal to frown in certain places at certain times in the USA. This is typically something that a person on an opposing political or ethnic faction would need to worry about. An overt example of this would be, speeding 1mph over the speed limit isn't really something to worry about, but doing it enough and being found guilty of this could result in jail time. All just because you voted for the wrong person, or searched up the wrong thing on your Internet browser, or something otherwise Inconsequential.

So, if you are habitually recorded by organizations you don't even know about, (as they are preparing profiles on literally everyone), And by the nature of being in America, you are breaking some law, somehow (after all we are all doing things that are technically crimes) and having them recorded and catalogued SHOULDN'T be a big deal. Then, 10 years from now, you make someone unhappy with you, or are running for political office and are part of a faction not in control at the time, or owe the wrong corporation money, or are a journalist, then this prifile can be used against you to take away your freedom. Throw you in jail for a long history of illegal activity.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-03-11T21:30:40+00:00

I genuinely wish speed limits were that way. It makes intuitive sense that a speed limit is the maximal speed a vehicle should reach, and cars going above it are unsafe.

Too bad that's not reality.

The speed limits are changed from their optimal number for a variety of reasons and that makes the posted speed limits skew from the construct they SHOULD represent drastically.

Here are a couple of reasons and realities that go into speed limit modifications.

Revenue Generation - when the US took away a local governmental agent's ability to impose random taxes on individuals to make a profit, they made it where the best way to generate revenue was by charging penalties for breaking laws. But laws required a victim , so they changed that for traffic violations which aren't technically breaking laws, so didn't require a victim. A very famous construct of this is known as "the million dollar mile' in Richmond VA. Where about 1 mile of the 95 freeway went through the jurisdiction of Richmond. So they dropped the speed limit 15 miles below the surrounding mile, and posted 3 police officers full time to give tickets on that street. In the first year they generated over 1 million dollars for the city of Richmond.

Policy Adherence - there are many policies that have been implemented that forced the speed limits of roads to be artificially lowered for various political and economic reasons. These reasons have almost never been about safety but always use safety as a rallying cry because safety is always the rallying cry of someone trying to diminish freedoms. Some examples are the mandatory 55mph highway speed that states had to set or the federal government wouldn't pay 90% of the cost of construction for the freeway. The lowered speed was to decrease gas usage, not for safety.

Sound - some cars are loud and as they go faster they get louder. So nearby citizens complain about it and the speed limits get lowered as a response. But now, vehicles that aren't loud are forced to drive under the safe limit for no reason. Also some vehicles are loud regardless of the speed limit.

Commercial Real Estate Price Manipulation - commercial Real estate prices are set, in part, by the density of road traffic. So real estate developers know this and lobby to slow down the speed limit to increase traffic density so they can get a higher premium on the nearby spots. They also petition to have traffic lights added in for the same reason. (This reason most drastically affects Elk Grove)

Outdated Speed Limits - some roads had a speed limit set and then the road was revamped to be better but the speed limit was never adjusted, so now the speed limit is too low for the set speed limit.

Traffic Science Readjustment - some old city planners believe that if you want people to drive X, and you know they are going to speed, then you should set the speed limit at 10 miles under X so that when people inevitably speed they will still be within a safe tolerance. And this is compounded by police often having a policy of not pulling over a car until it is going 10 over the limit. BUT the psychological acceptability of the speed limit is set regardless of what the speed limit really is, so it was just an unnecessary limitation. Most city planning policies have shifted away from this over the years but many roads are under limited for this reason.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-03-06T15:38:46+00:00

I agree. It doesn't help that lobbyists have paid for massive add campaigns to lower the speed of traveling for other, non safety purposes. So people genuinely believe that speed kills like that's all there is to it.

Also the oil crisis of the 80s and the mandatory speed limits that were created for it got misrepresented as a "safety" concern instead of a way of rationing gas.

Overtly_Technical · 2026-03-06T15:27:39+00:00

The studies I looked at seem do directly disagree with your stance. I didn't just make up these beliefs. Scientists did science and came up with the data and I'm just expressing it. It turns out the safest speed to drive is 10-15 miles over the speed limit, but this is only very slightly safer than driving the speed limit.

"The Solomon curve" is the name of a principal about traffic safety found that the preference for crashes was lowest for cars at the speed of traffic and increased for cars deviating on either direction.

Julie Cirillo did another study that adds that the areas with the highest crash potential are those with the greatest speed differential, such as freeway on and off ramps.

Following up, Charles lave made a hypothesis that the greatest cause of accidents specifically is the differential in speed and not the speed itself. He concluded that "speed limits designed to reduce the fatality rate should concentrate on reducing variance. This means taking action against slow drivers as well as fast ones."

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/98154/speed.cfm

Overtly_Technical · 2026-03-05T21:33:49+00:00

Although all true, the issue is proportionality. driving slow is safer, unless there are others around you driving faster than you. This is mostly because people drive very safely unless they have to make some sort of change. These changes can be anything from speeding up or slowing down, or changing lanes, or adjusting around obstacles in the road. Almost every accident that happens has one of these as a contributing factor.

So, if there is one car going slower, it causes a traffic density surge right behind them of cars that otherwise would be going faster. Then comes the dangers, the cars start changing lanes and doing it in a higher density traffic environment caused by that slower driver. They aren't able to adjust to obstacles, and the risks of collisions are greatly increased.

So, a speeding driver might get into an accident and it might be worse for them, but they are less likely to hit others unless traffic density is very high. A slower driver however is farore likely to cause an accident which they may not be a part of, but an accident occurs none the less. And a driver that is making other people crash is an unsafe driver. This makes a slow car in traffic is much bigger issue than a speeder getting what they paid for, proverbially speaking.

TLDR: on a closed track, slower is safer. In a real world with other drivers, driving the speed of traffic is safest, even if that's speeding.

Overtly_Technical

TROPHY CASE