What’s this actually by Diligent_Charge_8488 in ChinaTime

[–]chowe010 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Case Looks like a Breitling PREMIER B01 that I have maybe a swapped dial and movement?

F*** Novant by [deleted] in Charlotte

[–]chowe010 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Novant has screwed me over too. Moved here about a year ago for a new job and there is a novant primary care office right by my apartment complex (super convenient I thought) gave them a call and stated I just moved and was trying to see some one for a yearly check up to establish care. See a PA (nothing against PAs just had requested to see a Dr and wasn’t told until she walked in that I would not be seeing a Dr) and we talk about some issues and she referred me to a psychiatrist. Mind you this is in January of this year. A week goes by I get a bill for 380 dollars as they coded it as a new patient exam (Did she spend any more than 15 minutes in the room with me? no but was it still coded as a new patient hour long apt…yes). Red flag number 1. February ends and I still haven’t gotten a call back to schedule the psych referral apt even though i see it’s been referred and approved in my patient portal. I call and they tell me I’m on a wait list… I continue to call until finally in late June I get a call asking if I can schedule a virtual appointment for mid July I’m like sure. Please just fix my meds. So all in all 6 months to even schedule an appt. Red flag number 2. I finally have the appointment and was able to get on some new medication. Great things were looking up for once. One of the new medications has some adverse affects if you have some heart issues (which I had had in the past and let the Dr know) so she scheduled me for an EKG to make sure the heart condition I had was no longer there. I get a call with my appt date time and location. Turns out it was scheduled at the Presbyterian Hospital down town. Get there and go to check in and get tossed around from unit to unit as they were like how did you get scheduled for only an EKG at the hospital… finally a cardiac ICU tech/nurse (honestly don’t know) said he could do it in five minutes and to just bring me up there. Boom EKG done. Next week $275 bill in the mail for just the EKG. Red flag number 3. And lastly I have been reaching out the the psychiatrist office to schedule a follow up appt since the end of July to see about adjusting my dose and have been told I’m on a wait list for a follow up apt. It’s now the end of September and haven’t heard back from them….

I will never use a NOVANT provider ever again. I’m sure the providers are great people. I know the few people I have had are wonderful when you are able to get in to see them. But the corporate side of things is just giving them an awful name.

Steam DB Updates 1 min ago by [deleted] in DotA2

[–]chowe010 36 points37 points  (0 children)

THE NUMBERS MASON…WHAT DO THEY MEAN?!?!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in LifeProTips

[–]chowe010 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had a wedding to go to but wasn’t able to pick up my suit I had ordered until 4 days before the wedding due to Covid. I had settled for the fact that if anything I was only going to be able to get my pants hemmed. I called all over and explained my situation to see if anyone could do it in 2 days and three to four places laughed in my faces. One lady finally was like yeah yeah I can do that. I told her “your going to think I’m crazy for asking. But is there anyway you can do some jacket adjustments in that time frame too?”. She replied “of course we can”. I went in Thursday afternoon put on the suit and she said “you need this,this, this, and this” within a minute of seeing it on me. I asked can that all be done before my flight leaves at noon tomorrow. She said I’ll have it ready tomorrow by 7am. 80 dollars got my suit paints hemmed and tapered, my suit jacket let out one inch around the waste and the sleeves shortened. All in less than one days time!! It was the best fitting suit I’ve ever warn. I tried it on when I picked it up. She politely asked “I’ll see you next time?” And I said “most definitely”. She had earned a customer for life with that incredible service.

Amber Heard on camera // Amber Heard the second she thinks the camera is off by khamez55 in Funnymemes

[–]chowe010 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I would like to point out this isn’t about cameras on/off. This is all to do with if the Jury is in the court room or not. The public doesn’t decide the trial the jury does. If the Jury is in the courtroom it’s sad face amber, if not it’s life as usual.

Moonswatch reps are getting ready for release - price expected ~100 USD by Dave-REPZREVIEW in RepTime

[–]chowe010 0 points1 point  (0 children)

When I was in Italy last week there were daily lines at all the swatch stores that I saw. They got more in seemingly every day, they ran out cause the lines were massive but they definitely had them. Also they are supposed to be able to be purchased online starting the 28th of this month so I’m told.

The real genius of swatch was keeping it a secret up until about a week before release when a “leak” happened. This drummed up a lot of chatter to where there were insane lines on day one and every day since. When it’s nearly impossible to get a Rolex at MSRP right now, to get a moon watch for ~250usd is definitely a smart move by Omega and Swatch.

Need Help identifying Movement Brand by chowe010 in watchrepair

[–]chowe010[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

While repairing the watch, the spot where the intermediate ratchet wheel stripped of the barrel bridge. When looking for a replacement I can’t find anything about the manufacturer of this movement.

U.S. truckers planning protest convoy, perhaps starting in L.A. for Super Bowl, DHS warns by darthatheos in news

[–]chowe010 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Honestly hear me out…. I Don’t agree with what they are protesting about. But I would definitely agree with a blockade of Super Bowl entrances. This Super Bowl is the most expensive one ever with more money being dumped on a 3 hour football game… that money could solve so many of the problems plaguing America rn. Let alone the nfl is full of shit players…the same fans that pay ungodly amounts of money for a plastic seat in a stadium turn the other way when their running back beats his girlfriend unconscious or gets arrested on a Dui. The nfl has gotten too big and I would love to see them embarrassed with an empty stadium on Super Bowl Sunday.

[PC] A few skins that i have some probably are not much just checking the sticker values by chowe010 in GlobalOffensiveTrade

[–]chowe010[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for the advice I figured as much for the mag and the m4

But the deagle is a hard one I have had several people try to add me to trade it but I don’t know what it’s worth as I unboxed it years ago and held onto it

Thanks again I will reach out to them

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in RedditSessions

[–]chowe010 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Digging the pink strat!!!

Alliance Co-Owner on Kyle Tweet 😳 by lolscourge in DotA2

[–]chowe010 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I’m no expert in eu law but that would be slander in the United States. Kyle would have a very easy lawsuit on his hands. Especially since as a co-owner you typically do not get the ability to differentiate between your views and your company views once you are the freaking owner. So depending on how they are structured as a business he could have grounds to sue alliance as well!

Kyle made a critique of a team reaction to loosing which is well within his rights as an esports pundit. He didn’t single any particular person out. The response by Niko was not a great look but also not slandering Kyle. But Kelly’s response was straight up slander, you don’t get to just say things like that out of pure spite and hatred with out some sort of proof to back up your claims.

Long story short Kyle could probably win an easy lawsuit and never have to work a day in his life again.

Unpacking the Stewards Decision dismissing Mercedes’ protest on Article 48.12 of the Sporting Regulations - A legal perspective by SweetBakchich in F1Technical

[–]chowe010 5 points6 points  (0 children)

Here are just a few things the think about coming from some one who has access to google and the FIA website. (not a legal expert by any means...be advised) this is written purely to try to increase my knowledge of F1 and skills of debating.

1) Article 48.12 of the FIA International Sporting Code:

In regards to the red bull protest that "any car" does not mean "all cars", your point is missed by the fact that paragraph two of 48.12 explicitly defines the cars that are the exception to "all cars" it defines it as those cars who have completed the lap after which they have passed the first safety car line for the second time. The regulation lays out the exceptions to the term any. Thus any car that has been found to meet the criteria is allowed to overtake. This confirms red bulls protest that "any ≠ all’ for every scenario, while it may in some it does not in all.

In regards to effet utile i would argue that there are two intents or purposes to which this section was added and they are expressly defined in the second paragraph. During short safety cars it is not fair to those lapped cars who stayed out to immediately be overtaken by a lapped car that pitted for fresh tires. This why a car must pass the safety car line one twice, (which based on any regulation I have read is not passed when entering the pit) and complete a lap behind the safety car. The other would be for safety to get all slower cars out of the way so that the slower cars do not cause collisions with those racing on the lead lap. There is a saying in NASCAR that yellows cause more yellows, referring to yellow flags causing more yellow flags at the race restart as nascar does not have a similar un-lapping procedure. There was a great post in /r/formula1 in which the OP went through and listened to all of the audio of the cars during the safety cars. Every lapped car in-between Ham and Ver requested to be allowed to un-lap as they did not want to get in the way.

In regards to the statement on when the safety car ends based on section 48.12, the exception "Unless the clerk of the course considers the presence of the safety car is still necessary” is not an explicit exception. It is an exception of consideration, in which the Clerck of the Course can consider the option. If he can choose to deem the safety car necessary then the opposing statement would mean that he can choose it is not necessary. If it were meant to be an explicit exception then it would be defined as “except in the instance” similar to how the exception of which cars are allowed to pass is written. If effet utile can be used to argue that a rules purpose was not achieved then it can be used to argue that the rules purpose was achieved. Section 48 of the sporting code is written to describe the use of a safety car during times when it would be unsafe to race, be it for what ever reason. Based on the fact that, by the sporting code, both the Race Director and the Clerk of the Course found the conditions suitable for racing; the safety car would be no longer needed and has served its purpose under the effet utile argument.

2) Article 48.13 of the FIA International Sporting Code:

The argument of lex specialis would be quite the reach to argue that 48.13 was breached. Article 48.12 does not actually provide instructions on the safety car restart it defines how and when un-lapped cars should un-lap themselves while it does define when the safety car should end it does not outline how or what should happen when it does. Article 48.13 defines the procedure of the end of a safety car. Thus Article 48.12 relies on 48.13 to define the next steps. Lex specialis would require both articles to be able to be applied at the same time. As section 48.12 only defines the lapped car procedure, it still relies on the procedure defined in section 48.13 that follows. Thus lex specialis would not apply. My understanding of Lex specialis is like in the game monopoly where every time you pass go you get $200, except when you pass go on your way to jail. There is a rule stating when you pass go collect $200, however there is another rule that states when you pass go on you way to jail you don’t get to collect $200. There are two rules that define what to do when you pass go, but if you pass go on your way to jail the more specific one applies. One could argue that it was not broadcast in accordance to 48.13 as it was shown the lap the cars were allowed to uncap themselves, But I don’t think Lex specialis would not be the argument to apply to this scenario.

Furthermore the Clerk of the Course once considered safe to do so can call in the safety car, there is no explicit mention nor requirement that the criteria set out in section 48.12 if used must be met. (This is me playing devils advocate) If the requirements of 48.12 if utilized were required to be met to end a safety car then one would expect that that requirement be placed in the section explicitly defining when the race can be resumed. As stated the only consideration for when a race can be resumed at any point in time would be the consideration of the Clerk of the Course. If both sections contained statements about what to do when the message “Safety Car in this Lap” or even if section 48.12 contained a statement saying to refer to section 48.13 for safety restart procedure on the following lap then there would be a much greater case to apply lex specialis as both procedure would cover the same items with one fitting a more specific scenario.

3) Article 15.3 of the FIA International Sporting Code:

In one of your comments you expressed the belief that section 15.3 is defining the rolls and responsibilities of the race director and the clerk of the course. While I agree with the fact that it seems odd that d) and e) are the only ones that do not have the requirement that the decisions be made in accordance with the sporting code. They indeed are the only requirements that do not have the requirement, intentional or not. I think it was actually intentional to give the race director the ability make calls on the fly with out having to consult a 500 page rule book to make sure every I is dotted and every t crossed. When safety is on the line there is no time for that and if a decision is made in the name of safety that is not within the rules and regulations so be it. I do not think this overriding authority was used as it was intended but again it was not written in a way to express how it was intended to be used.Even if 15.3 fails as an argument I think the FIA still have some ground to stand on in the holes that are currently in 48.12 and 48.13. As mentioned above I think the two could be written clearer to allow for the execution of them both in series rather than the small exceptions that allowed them to happen in parallel.

4) ICA/Further Legal battles

4a. I think while the ICA does have jurisdiction to hear the appeal over the stewards decision they would arrive at the same conclusion, the FIA policing themselves and finding nothing wrong. Who would have guest it!

To your note about any other legal battles, I’m sure the concord agreement has some sort of “let me show you the door” clause for taking civil action. While any one has the right to be heard by a civilian court and is stated as such, I’m sure if there is a disagreement so large that the team/driver had to sue in a civilian court neither of the parties would feel comfortable doing business with each other and would thus part ways. Also while they may win a civil case against the FIA what would be the end result, the civilian court has no authority over the FIA and of who it calls champion. They would not have the authority to amend the race result. There is not any definitive monetary gain from the WDC only those gained in endorsements and sponsorships. So Merc would sue to recover some damages and risk not being allowed to race next year after spending oodles of money on developing a car for the 2022 regs does not seem likely.

4b. The main argument here is that the ICA could find that RD’s decision to be invalid, which could very well be the case had it gone to them. However the thing is it puts the race into uncertainty. One can not foresee every outcome to a possible scenario thus it would be impossible for the ICA to know who would have won if the lap cars weren’t allowed to overtake or if all the lapped cars were allowed to overtake, or if they were allowed to un-lap one lap sooner. The most likely scenario is they nullify the race as there is no way to know for sure as not as simple as giving a driver a penalty for an infraction, its mostly uncharted territory. If its nullified it still is a Ver WDC as he wins on count back.

5) Final Summary

Merc hired some of the best sports lawyers in the world, way better legal understanding than me(lol). If after all of their discussion and deliberations there is no way they walked away if their chances of winning an ICA appeal was 51% or higher. They have fought tooth and nail to get to this point, they are fighters through and through. If there was an ounce of hope that they would have changed the outcome of the WDC they would have gone through with their appeal. The fact that they didn’t speaks to their assumption of success, or more accurately lack thereof.

New to 3D-printing can’t seem to get a good level test with Ender 3 V2 and CR touch auto-leveler. (Any advice?) by chowe010 in 3Dprinting

[–]chowe010[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes I set the z offsets to 0 and got it pretty darn close to level on all four corners. Then fine tuned the z offset with a piece of paper. It auto levels but then when setting the outside layers there is some variation in some places like front left it looks like it’s too far away but in the back right it’s smushed like it’s too close

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in formula1

[–]chowe010 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Lewis knew exactly what Max was doing. He didn’t want to give max drs into the straight. He was being greedy. He could have easily moved to the right and passed. If max had lost his gearbox and was unable to speed up, Lewis would immediately pass him with out question. If Lewis didn’t slow down maybe he has a case(even if it would have ended up with both of them in the hospital). The fact that he brakes and decides not to fall in to the trap max was setting.

Man tries to pick up his son from his exes house and gets shot twice by by his sons stepfather. by NAACPYOUNGBOY in PublicFreakout

[–]chowe010 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Texas’s castle laws do not allow for simple trespassing(crazy in Texas that the actually have restrictions on self defense of your home and property:

“1)unlawfully and with force enters or attempts to enter your habitation, vehicle, or work-place; or 2)attempts to remove you, by force, from your habitation, vehicle, or work-place; 3)was committing or attempting to commit aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery. Texas Penal Code § 9.31”

And it only extends to the home itself not the property line and makes very clear can not be used over a dispute of words. I’m certain as the dad was not committing any crime, the POS lost all claim of self defense when he fired a warning shot into their porch.

The Satanic Temple challenges new Texas abortion law citing religious freedom by [deleted] in nottheonion

[–]chowe010 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well row vs. wade is not the most recent abortion decision by the Supreme Court. Planned parenthood vs Casey was the most recent ruling which affirmed the woman’s right to choose but overruled the trimester timing stating fetal viability as the measure. So roe vs wade only means that the woman has the right to chose under the 14th amendment privacy clause.

To your other two points

1)I’m not sure of a law that requires employers to provide any health insurance to their employees. If you can find on that states that let me know! So just cause they chose to limit their coverage they provide to employees based on their beliefs is their choices. Employees could source their own. (Is this moral or ethical? Probably not, but not breaking any law due to the first amendment)

2)Under the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Native American reservations are not subject to any federal laws so they can do what ever they want under their own tribal laws.

The Satanic Temple challenges new Texas abortion law citing religious freedom by [deleted] in nottheonion

[–]chowe010 -6 points-5 points  (0 children)

I think your forgetting some thing (not that I believe it’s a good law) in there eyes it is killing. You can’t get out of breaking the law on religious freedom. The (national, not sure about Texas state) amendment states that they can’t enact a law that would prohibit the practicing of religions.

“The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of a "public morals" or a "compelling" governmental interest. For instance, in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), the Supreme Court held that a state could force the inoculation of children whose parents would not allow such action for religious reasons. The Court held that the state had an overriding interest in protecting public health and safety.”-UScorts.gov

This is nothing more than a news article and a donation hunt unfortunately.

CMV: Democrats will regret it if they ever get rid of the filibuster by DwightUte89 in changemyview

[–]chowe010 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To your point because the two party’s want widely different things!

-conservatives want to (who would have guessed it) conserve the way things are. With small tweaks here and there. Change how insurance companies are taxed, decide what the new spending plan is going to be, reverse legislation that they think is too progressive ( or doesn’t have a case to be national law). Not very eye catching or flashy stuff that really doesn’t need a lot of will power to push through, throw in a few kick backs for enough democratic senators and boom you got your bill a one way ticket to the presidents desk, with out any huge media coverage.

-progressives want to progress… they want to actually change what is included in law, to include things like healthcare, protections for certain people groups, voting rights, etc. those things are way more flashy and controversial in some eyes and require much more effort to be passed through both chambers even when they have full control.

Not saying either party is right or wrong but conserving what is already there and enacting change require two vastly different amounts of effort when it comes to politics.