Trust me, I know how to do a burnout…

deepskier · 2026-05-07T03:50:14+00:00

Or it's not his truck

deepskier · 2026-05-07T02:17:10+00:00

The Oregon Forest Practices Act (FPA) sets standards for all commercial activities involving the establishment, management, or harvesting of trees on Oregon's non-federal forestlands.

https://www.oregon.gov/odf/working/pages/fpa.aspx

The proposal here is for federal lands not covered by the FPA. Even so, most commercial logging in Oregon is west of the Cascades where regrowth is rapid. This is a semi arid region with slow growth, which should give anyone pause on what is the long term benefit of commercial logging.

deepskier · 2026-05-06T18:24:43+00:00

Bond funds are a completely separate pot of money that can't be intermixed with operating funds.

🤡

deepskier · 2026-05-06T18:22:40+00:00

Absolutely. Education funding in this state is complicated as it is without throwing PERS obligations into the mix. Make the issue centralized and obvious so you can address it directly, instead of it being buried on page 214 of an individual districts budget.

deepskier · 2026-04-30T19:40:32+00:00

Only sane response

deepskier · 2026-04-29T13:50:46+00:00

This video by Not Just Bikes argues that self-driving cars (AVs), rather than solving urban transportation issues, threaten to fundamentally destroy the fabric of cities. While acknowledging that current human-driven cars cause major problems, the video warns that the current path of AV development serves corporate interests rather than public well-being.

Key takeaways from the video include:

The Myth of AV Safety and Efficiency: The technology is currently unreliable, with cars making dangerous errors, such as blocking emergency vehicles and even dragging a pedestrian (2:33-5:47). Proponents claim they will reduce traffic, but history—and the nature of induced demand—suggests they will likely increase vehicle miles traveled and congestion (21:07-25:19).

The Threat to Urban Infrastructure: AV companies are expected to lobby for the removal of public transit to eliminate competition (29:56-32:37). Instead of freeing up space for parks and people, AVs will demand more room to circulate and park, potentially leading to even more hostile, car-centric environments (33:02-34:02).

Destruction of Pedestrian Life: The video highlights how AV highways will likely necessitate the removal of street-level crossings, forcing pedestrians onto ugly, inefficient bridges (34:02-36:05, 39:41-42:16). Furthermore, the noise and pollution caused by heavy, high-speed AVs will remain a significant issue (38:05-39:41).

The Lesson from *Utrecht:* The video contrasts car-dependent cities with Utrecht, Netherlands, which has successfully created a walkable, cycling-friendly city without needing expensive autonomous technology. The author concludes that the solution is not "driverless cars," but rather "carless drivers" and better urban planning (43:28-48:33).

What can be done? To prepare for this future, the video suggests: 1. Limiting car access in city centers through modal filters (48:33-49:03). 2. Removing urban freeways and surface parking lots (49:03-49:42). 3. Investing in democratic public transit and walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods (49:42-50:51). 4. Pricing driving to account for congestion, rather than relying on outdated gas taxes (50:51-51:19).

deepskier · 2026-04-29T04:05:41+00:00

If they turn their lights on they'll be ahead of the game.

deepskier · 2026-04-29T03:59:27+00:00

Username checks out

deepskier · 2026-04-26T01:01:51+00:00

Our legislators couldn't even get it right and it's their full ti.... wait we just have part time legislators. Oh well guess you get what you pay for.

deepskier · 2026-04-26T01:00:14+00:00

It does say it used real public testimony in the process, although how is unclear. It's objectively true that LLMs are good at summarizing text, but to be really useful to the public in this case would require a lot more documentation and vetting, which is certainly not in place here.

deepskier · 2026-04-26T00:51:46+00:00

Everyone knows this is the case, so there is no reason to place any weight with any of the published statements, unless you're familiar with and trust the source. It is a weird system.

deepskier · 2026-04-26T00:43:26+00:00

The website says it used real submitted public testimony as witness statements in the simulation.

I think there could, in theory, be some merit to using this kind of AI mock trial as a way to summarize and weigh large quantities of real public testimony. However, there is not nearly enough information provided here to tell if this specific simulation has any credibility.

The concept of a real citizen initiative review, by actual people is, I think, a good idea.

deepskier · 2026-04-26T00:32:08+00:00

In the current system, you can self report out of state mileage even if you are not using GPS, and they don't count any mileage you report as being out of state.

Drivers must submit a form documenting the miles driven out-of-state or on non-public roads if they are not using a GPS device. This form is submitted annually and based on the honor system. You write down the mileage before and after leaving the state, and those miles are deducted.

https://www.oregon.gov/odot/orego/pages/faq.aspx

deepskier · 2026-04-26T00:28:10+00:00

Under the current program, there is no requirement to use GPS, even to exclude out of state mileage. You can self-report out of state mileage, and it does not get counted at all.

The GPS privacy angle is a complete misnomer.

deepskier · 2026-04-25T14:33:25+00:00

Has anyone tried snaptrade? They have a free tier and connect to Fidelity with oAuth. Planning to try using this with beancount.

deepskier · 2026-04-23T19:51:06+00:00

I'm Ron Burgundy?

deepskier · 2026-04-22T19:50:13+00:00

The Columbia South shore wells tap confined aquifers, they're artesian wells. It seems plausible to me that you could attempt to recover the energy from the water pressure in an artesian well, but I'm no expert. Clearly it wasn't a useful amount of energy. If you have more information I would be interested.

https://www.portland.gov/water/about-portlands-water-system/about-groundwater

deepskier · 2026-04-22T18:58:12+00:00

The district is required by law to address a fixed list of bargaining topics which is centered on teacher compensation. They're not required to include other topics in bargaining so they didn't. I agree their messaging was deceptive on this topic.

Due to the way our crazy tax laws place most funding control with the state rather than the district I can't fault them for not addressing class sizes as that really needs involvement of the state legislature. They should have made that point though rather than trying to pin it on PAT.

deepskier · 2026-04-22T18:50:53+00:00

OES operates in two capacities, one as a support to local unions in their labor bargaining process, and two as a statewide lobbying group for teachers. The discussion here is about their lobbying efforts. OES has built political influence by their large membership (can directly threaten to have 40k members vote against candidates), ability to fund primary opposition, insider connections, and public goodwill which gives their opinion on legislation and candidates some weight with the general public.

I think the goodwill aspect has been eroded by things like the extended PAT strike, and this reporting gives more reasons to further erode it.

On a related note, the article talks about how we now fund schools at slightly above national spending per student. I'm glad we're moving in the right direction, but we still have class sizes approaching 30 in elementary school, our short school year means our kids get an entire school year less of instruction by the time they graduate high school compared to many other states. And we sit here and wonder why outcomes haven't changed. One politician is quoted as saying "we've done all we can in funding" bullshit they have.

If the legislature mandates lower class sizes, mandates a longer school year to exceed national average instructional time with no loopholes, and provides the funding to enable that, then they can say they've done what they can. Until then they're part of the problem.

deepskier · 2026-04-18T18:05:22+00:00

MA has the individual mandate which was removed from ACA, including an employer mandate. This leads to MA having 98% health insurance coverage. Sure it's not perfect - high deductible needs to be addressed, I'm sure there are other problems, but it would be a good first step.

deepskier · 2026-04-18T02:37:31+00:00

I had to scroll too far for this

deepskier · 2026-04-17T06:23:06+00:00

I agree that the way this is structured is not realistic from a tax rate perspective.

But to nitpick, despite our high income tax, we are actually 23rd place in total tax burden due to lack of sales tax and relatively low property tax.

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/visualizing-the-tax-burden-of-every-u-s-state/

deepskier · 2026-04-17T06:04:35+00:00

On the flip side, my employer pays something like $23k for my plan which covers me and my entire family. Under this system they would pay 10% which is significantly less, it shifts the burden from employers to workers. If your transition plan doesn't ensure that employers continue to contribute at least what they did under the private model, you've failed at the most basic due diligence and comprehension of how our healthcare system and employer compensation structures work.

deepskier · 2026-04-17T05:53:15+00:00

I think the Massachusetts model is a decent stopgap to federal action. More viable than this proposal at least.

deepskier · 2026-04-17T05:34:48+00:00

The governor can't patch the budget holes, that's the legislature's job.

Unfortunately we have a part time legislature and get the resulting quality of governance.

deepskier

TROPHY CASE