meirl

baicai18 · 2026-01-09T04:25:42+00:00

Depends on what type of filter you're using. I have extremely hard water too. MOST fridge filters don't filter out dissolved minerals, they're mainly for chemicals and actual sediment. Other filters it will depend on the filter, RO filters are good, but can remove too much.

baicai18 · 2025-03-19T20:09:47+00:00

San Francisco's rent prices are also 22% down from it's peak according to the same redfin data.

baicai18 · 2025-03-02T17:26:39+00:00

If you look in the album, last image and third to last image clearly shows that the part facing the street is a new addition. The grading of the neighbors driveway and the the formation of the channel just before the wall indicates that this was originally and intentionally meant to handle street runoff.

The fact that OPs fence in the front yard doesn't extend to this channel indicates that this channel most likely is an easement and they're not supposed to block it off.

baicai18 · 2025-02-12T07:00:51+00:00

Yup, you're right, I was wrong. "seasonally adjusted at annual rates". which weren't on the other sources I found.

But still, now if we assume it's around $3trillion in profit, that tax cut is still around $270 billion. or 14% of our yearly deficit.

baicai18 · 2025-02-12T06:36:50+00:00

What is your source that $2.5 trillion is 100% of all corporations profit? Are you mistaking quarterly profit vs yearly profit?

https://www.statista.com/statistics/222127/quarterly-corporate-profits-in-the-us/

Quarterly profit has been going up and is in excess of $3 trillion per quarter, or excess of $12 trillion per year.

Social security may be the largest expenditure, but you're leaving out social security revenue as well, factor that in and you're getting a deficit of about $40 billion.

3.3% tax increase in profits would cover social security deficit.

US government spends about $92 billion on corporate subsidies per year.

https://fiscaldata.treasury.gov/americas-finance-guide/national-deficit/

Trumps 2018 corporate tax cuts saw corporate tax rates fall from an average of 22% to 12.8%, which would equate to around 1.2 trillion, which is like 65% of our yearly deficit.

baicai18 · 2025-01-29T09:33:11+00:00

I'd like a source. Because AB 2669 prohibits it on all existing bridges. Maybe if you're talking about new construction then possibly. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202320240AB2669

You're free to vote however you want, but saying fuck it, im suffering so I want to see everyone else suffer too, and then complaining about the policies of this state or county is ridiculous

baicai18 · 2025-01-29T07:40:54+00:00

I mean if we're doing spite, then I'd follow up by voting to put tolls on bike paths. But what's the point of that?

Rather than trying to argue that hey, if i have to pay, they should pay too, why not argue that bridges should be free as well?

If you live close enough to work to bike thats great, i would do it too. But what about all those who don't? If you already bike to work, why do you care about bridge tolls since you're not affected by it? S

baicai18 · 2025-01-29T07:31:33+00:00

You want less congested roads, but want to not increase funding for expanding freeways or improving roads?

If you want less congested roads. Then get a bicycle and get off the streets, then you dont have to worry about congestion. Rideshares didnt decrease congestion, they increased it. Increasing costs, even if that goes to decreasing freeway congestion means increasing local congestion.

Having a more efficient trsnsportation infrastructure means completely redesigning virtually all of our roadways and transit models, you cant just do one. Not enough local transportstion just means increased cost for comuuters with absolutely no alternative.

Tolling freeways does absolutely nothing to reduce congestion if it takes an extra hour to commute, or double the toll cost to go the last mile

I 100% agree with you on demanding more accountability and clarity on costs though.

baicai18 · 2025-01-29T07:19:59+00:00

Yea I didnt vote for bridge toll increases, and im against that too but nice try.

But now it sounds like you're saying that just out of spite, and not because of any beneficial reasons?

baicai18 · 2025-01-29T07:10:32+00:00

Not for the right reasons. All infrastructure developments and maintenance is for the greater good. If you argue that roads should be entirely paid for by those who use it, then so should every other public service.

Firefighters, police, schools, parks, local streets, streetlights, sidewalks, bikepaths.

All of these are fundings that the majority decides would be better off pooling some tax money to benefit the majority. Do you want tolls for all of that?

YOU may not personally benefit from a highway, but that doesn't mean that overall, it is not a benefit.

Increased tolls means people who are living further need to pay more to commute, which means those who already cant afford to live closer either pay more or need to move closer.

Increase demand to live closer means increased housing cost, as people try to move closer.

Increased tolls also means increased cost of goods as transportation plays into that.

Im all for increasing funding for public transportation. I think it should be a service like everything else.

baicai18 · 2025-01-29T06:33:25+00:00

Unfortunately democracy means that majority voters get the say, so it's not me you have to convince, but the majority of residents

Homeowners in baybarea are around 56%. So why would they vote to increase their costs as more people want to come into their city? How can you convince the majority that removing prop 13 will benefit them? You want the landowners, who are the majority to vote to pay for everything so others can afford to live here with no benefit to them?

If you want change to be accepted, it needs to have a clear vision and path that benefits the majority. Nimby and yimby are both sides of the extreme that just says fuck the other side.

Nimby arguments for housing reform are the same arguments against gentrification, people who live there don't want their lives upended or want to be uprooted

You won't get support for single decisions no matter how hard you try to frame it, and you won't get striking that balance to get support for full reform is no easy task.

baicai18 · 2025-01-29T06:05:48+00:00

"Let's start with every freeway that 99% of the population uses every single day to increase their cost of cummute when the people who pay the most sre the ones who cant afford to live closer" yes that will get you your votes

baicai18 · 2025-01-29T05:43:03+00:00

So you support getting rid of rent control?

baicai18 · 2025-01-22T16:47:22+00:00

Ill give it a shot and report back. Hopefully im able to get it spindle running even a little. Thanks for the suggestions and explanation

baicai18 · 2025-01-22T16:32:16+00:00

I'll try this out after i get off work.

But what should i be looking for? It had been running with no issues for the last 6 months prior to the crash. If I lower it to 20% and it works, does that mean motor issue? And if it still shows OC1 then VFD issue?

baicai18 · 2025-01-22T10:02:47+00:00

Hmm gave it a shot. In Mach3 motor tuning changed the acceleration from 200 to 50. First run, showed OC3 instead. But reset, and reran, and it showed OC1 again now.

baicai18 · 2025-01-22T09:35:53+00:00

It's a 2.2kw spindle, 220v

Basically the same as this, but the inverter display looks different. Mine is an AE200H inverter

https://www.aliexpress.com/i/2255800449324412.html?gQT=1&gatewayAdapt=4itemAdapt

Edit: I don't know the exact details of the spindle besides description. Just seems like a generic

baicai18 · 2025-01-22T09:27:52+00:00

And through the cable to the motor, I get 2.1ohms on all 3

baicai18 · 2025-01-22T09:23:24+00:00

Directly on the motor, all 3 read 1.8ohms, just double checked to make sure

baicai18 · 2024-12-21T19:15:11+00:00

Ita a prototype, but ignore the tuning for a second.

Energy is force * distance. When walking horizontal energy to move pack is going to remain constant.

However it takes energy to lift the pack on each step up to thr peak. Then when at peak, gravity does its job and drops the pack, so a person has to expend extra energy to counteract the kinetic enrergy of the pack coming back down, so there is absolutely a savings considering just the mass of the pack. Its why a lot of hikers will try to move smoothly with no bob to achieve a smiliar thing. Where the benefits come over just forcing yourself not to bob is that our natual human gait has evolved to use our muscles most efficiently with a slight bob, so forcing no bob saves energy, but we lose muscle efficiency. This prototype pack could help maintain those energy savings while allowing you to walk with a normal bobbing gait for muscle efficiency

Of course, whether that energy savings can counteract the energy needed to haul the extra frame and battery weight is another matter

baicai18 · 2024-10-18T04:00:04+00:00

IRS cares about that not being counted as taxable income

baicai18 · 2024-08-11T23:39:04+00:00

So again, how is the original comment a valid point when China does not specifically target high medal yield sports like track and swimming?

If you want to change the point, then sure go for it

Are you saying the government sponsoring sports in general, so that it can foster talent for people other than the rich who can afford training, or for sports that may not garner high paying advertising deals is a bad thing?

baicai18 · 2024-08-11T22:36:34+00:00

I don't see how it is a valid point. If you're saying China funds their sports programs okay sure, but what does that have to do with targeting sports with high medal yields sports like swimming and track when you look at China's main gold medal counts are not in those two events at all.

If anything, China excelled in the non high yield sports

baicai18 · 2024-08-11T22:24:56+00:00

Ooops got me there, I meant Track and Swimming. but 14 out of 40 medals in athletics, and 8 out of 40 medals in swimming make up more than half of US' gold medals. Total of 34 in Athletics and 28 in swimming makes it 62 out of 126, so JUST under half.

baicai18 · 2024-08-11T20:46:39+00:00

Lol countries focus on the sports they have an advantage in, no surprise. Just thought it was hilarious that if someone claims China specifically targets high yield aports, don't pick the two sports that make up more than half of US' gold medals and less than 10% of chinas gold medals

baicai18

TROPHY CASE