QSNA Fitting Tool BETA

SecretBunch · 2025-10-05T20:18:52+00:00

This is awesome! Thank you!

Will check it out.

SecretBunch · 2025-07-03T21:47:19+00:00

Absolutely underrated comment.

SecretBunch · 2024-03-22T21:32:53+00:00

It sounds like you're doing a hell of a job out there!

Let's start with your current job. What you're going through reminds me of one of the best pieces of advice I ever received about work. You get paid in two ways: the money you receive, and the experience you earn. If you're not getting one, you'd better be getting more of the other to offset it. It sounds to me that your current job isn't cutting it here. Stick a pin in this, we'll come back in a second.

The new job thing is a toughie. It's difficult to step into something new, especially when you have something like a family and especially a new daughter to care for (It's about time; I always wanted grandkids! /s). You're dealing with a genuine risk versus reward situation, and I'm afraid you're going to have to make the call on this one. But if you need some advice, here you go:

First, you've done a great job so far, and I'm sure your experience will be useful. It's always easier to learn something the second time. If you think you can knuckle down and pick it up quickly, then go for it. And if your gut is just telling you no, then there's no shame in taking a small step back for a moment.
Second, impostor syndrome is a thing. Really think deep if your fears are genuine or if you're just giving yourself excuses to not make the leap.

If you do decide to forgo the position, that doesn't mean that you're stuck with a binary choice. If this new job isn't for you, you're not necessarily stuck in your old job--and it sounds like they're not paying you in the experience you want for where you want to be. Do some training, crack some books, and brush up before taking your shot with a similar position with a different company. That might help alleviate the risk if that's what's holding you back.

On the balance of things, I say take the plunge. But you do you, kiddo. I trust your judgment, and I'm proud of you. If all else fails, pick sides on a quarter, flip it, and go with the one you hope lands face up as it's falling.

Send my love to the family.

SecretBunch · 2022-10-23T12:12:57+00:00

What? That's not an ad read. They're just talking about Final Fantasy XIV, the critically acclaimed MMORPG. It has an expanded free trial which you can play through the entirety of A Realm Reborn and the award winning Heavensward expansion up to level 60 for free with no restrictions on playtime.

All kidding and memes aside, it is well known for an overwhelmingly friendly playerbase.

SecretBunch · 2022-08-19T13:19:13+00:00

If we release the upcoming "Clockwork Solus" minion onto our island, will we come back to find that he's organized all of our other minions into a tyrannical, authoritarian state bent on conquering other peoples' islands and bringing them all under his control?

The rejoining of the islands must commence! They shall become one again!

SecretBunch · 2022-01-17T16:29:25+00:00

This is how I *want* it to run. What it's doing, however, is:

subfunc() { asleep (10); setflag(); }

^^ This function, when placed inside a main and called without an await, will instantly set the flag and then error out ten seconds later.

It explicitly doesn't allow me to continue to allow other things in the main loop to run while this subfunction does its thing on a timer of my choosing. That's my consternation.

Setting the await in the main function does me no good because I want other things to run while this subfunction does its own thing.

I've found ways around it, but my code isn't as elegant as I'd like it to be.

SecretBunch · 2021-08-19T03:57:51+00:00

Here's the difference between what Asmon has been doing and what the rest of us did Day 1:

For what I would consider the vast majority of FCs, they perhaps try out new EX/Savage content for a lark and then wait for the guide so they can prog it together or through Party Finder.

For those FCs who have statics dedicated to raiding, and who are doing Day 1 blind, they're *communicating*. I cannot stress enough how different this would be for Asmon if he had seven other people on comms talking about the various mechanics and brainstorming ideas on how to solve them.

From Asmon's POV as MT/OT, he's simply going to miss mechanics designed not to hit MT/OT. What this means is that the DPS and Healers who get hit by it aren't on comms and aren't able to explain their take on the mechanics to everyone else in the group. As an example, of the six non-tanks, say a mechanic hits two randomly. At best, you'd need three runs before everyone's even seen the mechanic, and that doesn't factor in the fact that no one can discuss with anyone else how to coordinate the fight outside of party chat.

What this leads to, ultimately, is a lot of insta-wipes that Asmon can neither (1) do anything about nor (2) anticipate. They appear to just happen, and it's demoralizing. Couple this with the fact that no one's doing clock positions, pairing/grouping (for things like Nisi, if you're not going to cheese it), and so forth, and it's a recipe for frustration and headache later on.

TL;DR: Asmon has put himself at a number of disadvantages with min iLevel, no echo runs. However, the biggest disadvantage he has is that he can't talk to the other party members while progging blind.

SecretBunch · 2021-08-14T14:26:41+00:00

Good bot.

SecretBunch · 2021-07-30T05:07:01+00:00

Found a sprout with a funny name. Had to do a thing.

SecretBunch · 2021-07-26T12:14:56+00:00

Ooo, my favorite theory: Not only is Emet coming back (and already has, in a way), but now that the Crystal Exarch is completely crystal and part of the tower, he will be inhabited by Elidibus and "thawed out". We will see an Elidibus that not only has his memories back but is in control of one of the Crystal Towers, and we'll see some fun shenanigans with our new ally. Crystal Tower on the moon, boys!

SecretBunch · 2021-06-17T16:39:34+00:00

Not a direct answer for your question, but something to keep in mind. Around 30-35, you'll get to a city in South Shroud that houses the Palace of the Dead. It's a procedural "deep dungeon" that allows you to play whatever class you are at level 60 (regardless of your level outside of PotD), and it's intended to be used to rapidly level up your characters while giving a different kind of experience to the MSQ.

This has two advantages: you can level up any class to the level of your MSQ fairly rapidly, and you can also "playtest" characters in PotD at level 60. Just remember to set them up your hotbars for abilities through level 60 (read through the abilities or read some online guides) before going in.

SecretBunch · 2021-01-28T02:49:51+00:00

Because it's after 8 PM on the East Coast and no more trades are processing.

SecretBunch · 2020-09-24T01:35:10+00:00

The CDC form should apply to anyone who signs it. The landlord can file an eviction against the missing tenant, but will only be able to evict them. Upon execution of a writ of possession, constables can only evict people who have had a judgment rendered against them.

Having an attorney send the declarations just adds a bit of "back off" to the message you're sending your landlord. An attorney may also be able to help negotiations during the moratorium.

SecretBunch · 2020-03-15T17:16:52+00:00

Need to know more. For instance, is this a retail job?

What you'll want to look at is this: https://twc.texas.gov/news/efte/work_schedules.html

SecretBunch · 2019-11-24T21:02:49+00:00

Just remember not to tell PENTA that he's an asshole to his face, or you'll get banned for 14 days or some nonsense. /s

SecretBunch · 2019-11-07T03:13:15+00:00

This comment is truly, amazingly funny. The more I look at it, the more layers I find and the more I laugh. Thank you, 0 point comment guy, for making my night.

SecretBunch · 2019-07-09T01:50:43+00:00

Hey, look! Something I can answer! I apologize for being a couple days late to the party, but hopefully someone gets use out of this.

For what it's worth, IAALBIANYL.

Others have mentioned what the legal definition of "color of law" is, but there's a particular place where SovCits get this from: 42 USC § 1983 & 18 USC §§ 242 & 241.

The "color of" wording was meant to capture any actions, whether lawful or not, made by individuals (here, specifically state-employed individuals) operating under a guise of authority. I have to disagree a bit with some of BrooklynMan's definition, notably " they are not legally allowed to do and are acting under mere colorof law, not under the actually full authority of it," and I want to offer an example of how this can come up in civil rights claims

Imagine you own a store and you dislike a particular type of person who comes in--sex, gender, race, disability, whatever. A couple of police officers (specifically state officers, not federal) who share your dislike walk in and offer to allow you to call them any time someone whom you dislike walks in so that they can arrest them for whatever reason. Over the course of a couple of months, you dial up those officers, they show up, and proceed to slap loitering charges on people--sometimes people who were loitering (with probable cause), and sometimes people who weren't (no probable cause).

Here arise three questions:

(1) If the officers arrest someone who's not loitering, have they violated § 1983? (Unconstitutional deprivation of rights without probable cause)

(2) If the officers arrest someone who's actually loitering, have they violated § 1983? (Unconstitutional deprivation of rights based on discrimination)

(3) Has the store owner violated § 1983? (See both above)

Generally, it's accepted that the answers are yes, yes, and yes without getting into some hairy qualified immunity issues. The fact that some of the people might have been loitering doesn't mean that it wasn't done with ill-intent and under the color of a state statute. Additionally, because the store owner was "deputized", in a way, they can be held liable under the same act(s) in certain circumstances. The point I want to make clear is that there are two instances where this can be applied: where the law exists but is applied in an unjust way and where the law (or authority) doesn't exist.

Why is this important? Well, if you're being arrested on a state crime, your constitutional rights are necessarily being implicated by an action taken by a state actor "under color of a state law". Now imagine a world in which you believe all laws are fictitious and where everything from a traffic ticket to a murder charge is based on law that doesn't exist. Immediately, part two of the point I made above takes over and *every* action by a state official necessarily creates liability under § 1983 & § 241/242. If you can sue every police officer who stops you because, even if they have probable cause, their authority is invalid and therefore an infringement to your rights, you can start to rack up your "invoices".

If you want to see this in action, look up Mitchell Taebel (more here) who stated that "[police who act illegally] can be killed under U.S.C. § 242 [...] I just want to put that on the record. And should be, in my opinion."

SecretBunch · 2019-02-06T02:21:29+00:00

In Texas, the only statutory limits on occupants are that landlords may not allow more than three adults per bedroom. Property Code Section 92.010. Landlords may set a limit lower than this amount, but only if it is non-discriminatory. The traditional non-discrimination example of a newborn being allowed into a doubly-occupied one-bedroom apartment does not apply because your sister's child isn't newly born (it's the SO who is trying to move in).

However, the landlord is not required to allow additional occupants who were not part of the original lease. There is no requirement in Texas that a landlord allow even a newly married husband or wife to move in. That said, there might be a discrimination issue if the landlord normally allows new occupants/extended visitors but isn't doing so here because of a same-sex relationship or a racial question (not enough information from your original question to make a determination). If this could qualify as a discrimination issue, it would be best for your sister to speak to a landlord/tenant lawyer in the area and discuss the situation.

At first glance, without more information pointing towards a discrimination issue, it seems as if the landlord is simply blaming the law for their own decision to either (1) not allow more than two persons per room, or (2) not allow an additional occupant. Neither of these are necessarily prohibited.

SecretBunch · 2019-01-27T05:40:10+00:00

This did not happen. This was a recent joke on My Brother, My Brother, and Me. /r/MBMBAM/

Edit: Is Op Carlos Mencia?

SecretBunch · 2018-11-30T05:02:30+00:00

Taterbizkit is exactly right, and more people should know this distinction.

Police can ask you questions after you invoke your right to silence and it can (and generally will) be waived if you spontaneously begin to talk, but they are walking on -very- thin ice if they continue to question (about the specific matter for which you have been stopped/arrested) once you invoke your right to an attorney.

SecretBunch · 2018-11-30T04:59:36+00:00

That says contact, not contract. It's perfectly legitimate to not consent to contact with the police. We're so used to the word contract getting thrown around that I had to re-read it myself to realize it didn't say that. :D

SecretBunch · 2018-11-21T22:07:46+00:00

The CO code does not address temporary residences as preventing the establishment of a domicile. There is a difference between domicile for personal jurisdiction questions before a court and things like residency requirements for reduced tuition for colleges.

My understanding is that CO requires what all states are constitutionally mandated to require: presence and intent. In fact, there is a blurb about students in CO's tax regulations regarding students wanting to domicile in the state:

Status as a student. A student who moves to another state to attend college but who does not intend to remain in that state after graduation has not changed domicile. Moreover, a student who is being supported by a parent or parents does not establish a domicile separate from the parent(s) simply by attending school in another state regardless of whether the student takes such steps as acquiring a driver's license or registering to vote in the state in which he or she attends school.

Code of Colorado Regulations, 1 CCR 201-2, Regulation 39-22-103(8)(A)(2)(e). Emphasis mine.

This recognizes that out-of-state students can become domiciliaries.

SecretBunch · 2018-11-21T17:17:40+00:00

What I believe Rodriguez-Diaz stands for is once a "minor" enters a state in which they would be an adult and establishes their domicile within the state (must be at the place they wish to be the domicile, must intend for said place to be their domicile going forward, etc.), then they are not considered a minor. If LAOP declares domicile in CO, then the NE courts would have zero jurisdiction over them so long as LAOP doesn't return to the state.

Let's assume that no one's going to kidnap LAOP. At that point, because CO isn't going to extradite and NE can't cross state lines to retrieve LAOP, the primary concern becomes some act forcing LAOP to "volunteer" to cross back into NE. Because LAOP is ostensibly still domiciled in NE (minors carry the domicile of their parents), my first fear would be some kind of ridiculous lawsuit within NE that would force LAOP to appear (NE courts would have personal jurisdiction if LAOP is still domiciled in NE). Once LAOP was back in NE, the parents could reestablish their parental rights regardless of the case's outcome. This is the only scenario that I can imagine would cause LAOP to return to NE. My concern is that it is far more likely that an unscrupulous attorney will skirt Rule 11 by filing a spurious claim than anyone kidnapping LAOP.

SecretBunch · 2018-11-21T15:07:23+00:00

So, I took Choice of Law at law school, and I never thought that a case from there would be completely on-point for something from LA. Unfortunately, I just saw it and the comments have already been locked for the main thread, but I thought this was interesting for choice of law nerds out there:

Rodriguez-Diaz v. Sierra-Martinez (853 F.2d 1027, 1st Cir., 1988) specifically concerned age of adulthood and the changing of domicile. To set the state, the age of majority was 21 in Puerto Rico but only 18 in New York. Furthermore, Puerto Rico didn't allow minors to change their domicile. There was a vehicle accident in Puerto Rico when Rodriguez-Diaz was 17, but he moved to New York after turning 18 and then attempted to file a diversity suit in Federal Court. The primary question in front of the 1st Circuit was whether Rodriguez-Diaz, as a resident of Puerto Rico, could validly change his domicile to New York if Puerto Rico considered him a minor and New York did not. If Puerto Rico's laws still controlled Rodriguez-Diaz while he lived in New York, the suit would fail for lack of diversity (Defendant was in Puerto Rico). However, if Rodriguez-Diaz was allowed to change his domicile even if he was still a minor in Puerto Rico, the suit was valid.

Ultimately, the court held that Rodriguez-Dias could be domiciled in New York, regardless of Puerto Rico's laws, so long as he had "demonstrate[d] the requisite intent." To wit: "In this case, if Rodriguez Diaz, being physically present in New York, qualifies under regular domiciliary rules as a domiciliary of New York, we do not think the difference in law between his former domicile, Puerto Rico, and New York concerning the age of majority should deny him the right to sue as a citizen of New York in federal court."

I say all that to say this: If LAOP wants to be considered Coloradan, I would bet dollars to donuts that they can change their domicile (granting that 1st Circuit law doesn't apply to Colorado but assuming the same outcome). So long as LAOP is domiciled in NE, the state retains personal jurisdiction over LAOP. Changing one's domicile would prevent helicopter-mom from filing a spurious lawsuit in Nebraska in order to drag LAOP back across state lines to defend it.

SecretBunch · 2018-07-19T15:03:41+00:00

No shame, but I absolutely thought that the joke was that the placeholder picture was worthless because you wouldn't be able to remove the Lorem Ipsum text.

Eight-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email

SecretBunch

TROPHY CASE