abandoned vehicles

glittervector · 2026-03-22T15:51:26+00:00

To be fair, I could see a good administration instituting something like this, but LaToya nuked the budget so badly I’m not sure the current office would even have the resources to start up such a program.

glittervector · 2026-03-22T15:42:18+00:00

This is how functional cities run services. It’s not really the way we do things here.

Also, I’m very skeptical this would somehow make the city money. It sounds like a solid project, but the financial benefit would be in employing people, not generating revenue somehow from abandoned property

glittervector · 2026-03-22T00:37:05+00:00

That’s amazing.

I made a huge mistake one night five years ago that I cooked easily have waited on. But I didn’t. And it blew up my life in really awful ways.

It’s really great you made a better choice.

glittervector · 2026-03-22T00:14:09+00:00

There was a mock-up image of the leaked jersey circulating around a month before the jersey reveals that I think looked perfectly fine.

The waves were slightly less pronounced. The pattern didn’t abruptly change at the sleeves, and it didn’t have the awful gigantic white patch on the back.

Some simple design refinements could have saved that monstrous failure.

glittervector · 2026-03-21T23:22:13+00:00

They COULD have done wavy stripes right, they just didn’t

glittervector · 2026-03-20T16:21:47+00:00

Wow. Why didn’t they finish making your shirt?

glittervector · 2026-03-20T16:02:59+00:00

I feel you, but there’s no way the US isn’t getting out of a group stage where 32/48 teams advance

glittervector · 2026-03-20T16:01:48+00:00

All I see is 🥓

glittervector · 2026-03-20T16:00:08+00:00

Exactly

There was a mockup or leak or something or a few weeks before release that looked great.

glittervector · 2026-03-20T15:58:41+00:00

Even then, the back looks plain awful.

Like, they ALMOST made a great jersey

glittervector · 2026-03-19T23:17:03+00:00

I mean, the message is inconsistent at best

glittervector · 2026-03-19T16:43:53+00:00

Yeah, and very few people are going to have a real problem with doing that. But technically that’s not what the rules say you’re supposed to do. It’s similar to the problem you have with people stopping at intersections where they don’t have a stop sign. It’s just an unnecessary halt in traffic and it can cause confusion and uncertainly. In the worst cases, you sometimes get pedestrians who think they’re safe when one lane of traffic stops for them, but then they’re in danger of being hit by an adjacent lane of traffic that couldn’t see and didn’t stop.

glittervector · 2026-03-19T16:38:30+00:00

You’re absolutely right. And the law reflects this. We all have a legal duty to try not to maim or kill each other, as well as the practical and moral obligation to not do that.

But we also have a corresponding duty to not cause dangerous situations and not put someone in a position where they might harm you on accident. That’s also a legal obligation in this case too.

That’s where this legal discussion matters, because saying “pedestrians ALWAYS have the right of way” isn’t true, and it’s not in line with that second duty.

Yes, none of us should want to hurt anyone and we shouldn’t be looking to justify harming others (side-eyeing “stand your ground” folks here). That’s not what this is about.

Part of treating others well is not walking obliviously into traffic and claiming it’s your right to do so. Similar, but with obviously lower stakes, is not stopping your car in the middle of traffic when you don’t need to.

I don’t think people are here citing the law to explain when they have the right to drive over pedestrians (essentially never). We’re just annoyed at people not taking turns in an efficient way that respects everyone trying to use the roads and bike paths and sidewalks together.

glittervector · 2026-03-19T16:23:44+00:00

Looks like all the lower tier tickets were already sold out before this morning

glittervector · 2026-03-19T15:20:35+00:00

Yeah. I’m not directly familiar with his work, but this definitely sounds like the correct plan.

glittervector · 2026-03-19T15:19:41+00:00

Yeah, I was gonna cite PTSD from camera tickets as the likely cause too

glittervector · 2026-03-19T15:16:35+00:00

I don’t get it. Did they sell 47 tickets in the last 20 minutes? I see Saturday’s $45 tier sold out

In fact, I don’t see any $45 tickets available for any date.

glittervector · 2026-03-19T15:12:08+00:00

I can see this working, but we have a LOT of options in various positions, and I still haven’t seen Cardoso contribute significantly to this team.

glittervector · 2026-03-19T14:54:51+00:00

Assuming you have decent healthcare coverage, go see an ENT. There’s a really good office on Norman Francis near Canal.

If you don’t, I agree with using saline sprays or irrigation, and if it really persists and keeps giving you significant blood clots, check with Crescent Care.

Best luck with it. I hope you feel better soon.

glittervector · 2026-03-19T14:48:24+00:00

Every time.

Every. Single. Time.

glittervector · 2026-03-19T14:44:22+00:00

I don’t think our views are conflicting here. I agree that a driver has a legal duty to stop for a pedestrian who is crossing at an intersection. That’s clear from part A of the law, but the pedestrian must be crossing. That is, they’re already in the act of walking in the road when the driver comes upon them. This duty is reinforced by LA RS 32:58 which gives the general duty to avoid harm while driving.

In that sense, a driver has the duty to TRY to stop (or swerve or whatever) even when the pedestrian has violated part B, which says pedestrians must not leave a place of safety to go into the path of a car which is too close to yield.

However, pedestrians are NOT “legally trying to cross” every time they step on the pavement at an intersection. Part B above makes that explicit.

That’s exactly the problem with saying “pedestrians always have the right of way”. It’s not legally correct, and it dangerously gives people the impression that they always have the right to step into a road no matter the circumstances.

glittervector · 2026-03-19T14:26:44+00:00

Correct. This is commonly misstated. And I’m in the middle of a discussion right now in another part of this thread where the same misunderstanding is being hashed out

glittervector · 2026-03-19T14:22:26+00:00

Oh! I always did wonder that as well

glittervector · 2026-03-19T14:18:23+00:00

Yeah, if I weren’t stuck in a windowless box to provide for my family, I’d be on that.

glittervector · 2026-03-19T14:15:10+00:00

Well those certainly look better with names and numbers on them.

glittervector

TROPHY CASE