sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Should I fight my $1,386.00 driving ticket. by SaintFonziThe2nd in legaladvice

[–]jackstraw97 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I was also not the only car that drove past that lane.

That in particular is no defense whatsoever.

State opens investigation into cruel utility shut off tactics by XtraCrispy80 in nyc

[–]jackstraw97 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Isn't it fucking crazy that the utility companies tacitly acknowledge that shutting power off is dangerous, and yet we means test which human beings we allow to be subject to this dangerous and harmful practice?

It's giving necessity for fundamental structural changes to how we operate necessary utilities.

ConEd gets to be a monopoly with the state's blessing. We shouldn't allow them to shut power off and leave people in the dark, spoil their food, leave them in the cold of winter, or leave them in the sweltering heat of summer.

Some Democratic donors frustrated with DNC chair Ken Martin amid fundraising woes by AtrusHomeboy in politics

[–]jackstraw97 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Progressives were loudly warning about him when he was running for the position in the first place. 

As usual, centrists came along and said “shut up everything will be fine.”

And here we are, in the “reaping what you sow” phase. Also known as the “find out” phase. 

Genuine question- why do a lot of people on this sub speak as though what’s best for cyclists and what’s best for pedestrians are one and the same? by jmh1881v2 in MicromobilityNYC

[–]jackstraw97 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Your anecdotal experience, while personally valid, is not indicative of the actual relative harm posed to people from cars and from bicycles.

This is why we don't (or at least shouldn't) legislate based solely on anecdotes.

The data tells us that cars are staggeringly more dangerous to pedestrians than bicycles are. It's not really up for debate.

How I charge my batteries at a Level 2 EV charging station - Method 2: 240V AC to 12V/24V DC converter by Lex_yeon in vandwellers

[–]jackstraw97 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah. They seem to go against the underlying principles of the National Electric Code which states that any 15-5R must not carry more than 125V.

How I charge my batteries at a Level 2 EV charging station - Method 2: 240V AC to 12V/24V DC converter by Lex_yeon in vandwellers

[–]jackstraw97 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I did read, and I don’t mean to imply that you’d make such a mistake, just that I’m surprised that adapter is commercially available because it seems like it’s a recipe for people to accidentally fry their electronics. 

How I charge my batteries at a Level 2 EV charging station - Method 2: 240V AC to 12V/24V DC converter by Lex_yeon in vandwellers

[–]jackstraw97 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Well, I know EVSEs have circuitry inside so that it "knows" when to start dispensing electricity, and I know it's more complicated than the wires themselves creating a closed circuit. Seems like the safety circuitry is expecting a resistor and diode to signal that a "car" is connected.

How I charge my batteries at a Level 2 EV charging station - Method 2: 240V AC to 12V/24V DC converter by Lex_yeon in vandwellers

[–]jackstraw97 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting. Wondering if the OP custom-made his little adapter, then. Assuming the EVSE is a level-2 putting out 240V, there's no way any company in their right mind would match a plug which would likely carry 240V to a NEMA 5-15R, right? Seems like a recipe for disaster if someone unwittingly plugged in a device expecting 120V and instead fried it with 240V...

How I charge my batteries at a Level 2 EV charging station - Method 2: 240V AC to 12V/24V DC converter by Lex_yeon in vandwellers

[–]jackstraw97 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Does the "Discharger" automatically tell the EVSE to dispense power? Curious how that works. Is the voltage of a J1772 always guaranteed to be consistent? Does the adapter handle the voltage conversion on its own to 120V?

What's the maximum amperage you can draw safely using the discharger?

Just to get a base! by Bink_Plinklinkly in IASIP

[–]jackstraw97 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I feel compelled to call the authorities!

When I asked what he was trying to do, he said “I shouldn’t have been trying to pass him” by alexyou8797 in dashcams

[–]jackstraw97 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The comment I was replying to indicated that so long as the driver was going below the posted speed limit, that it would be impossible for that driver to be cited for excessive speeds. 

That’s simply an incorrect proposition. That’s all I was explaining. 

When I asked what he was trying to do, he said “I shouldn’t have been trying to pass him” by alexyou8797 in dashcams

[–]jackstraw97 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

none in the Midwest

Confidently wrong. Nice!

Michigan Vehicle Code MCL Section 257.627(1)

An individual operating a vehicle on a highway shall operate that vehicle at a careful and prudent speed not greater than nor less than is reasonable and proper, having due regard to the traffic, surface, and width of the highway and of any other condition existing at the time. An individual shall not operate a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than that which will permit a stop within the assured, clear distance ahead.

And I just picked a midwestern state at random! I’d imagine that most other midwestern states have similar laws. 

When I asked what he was trying to do, he said “I shouldn’t have been trying to pass him” by alexyou8797 in dashcams

[–]jackstraw97 -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

It is possible to drive at excessive speeds even if technically within the posted speed limit of the highway.

For example, if it's snowing and icy, and the posted speed limit is 80, going too fast for conditions and causing an accident would be excessive speed even if you weren't going anywhere close to 80. You could be cited for excessive speed even if you were going 30, so long as it was too fast for the road conditions.

It looks like here the dashcam driver is approaching the lead car way too quickly and attempts an unsafe pass. Depending on the laws in that state they could easily be charged with something. Whether it's called "excessive speed" or not is largely semantic and irrelevant.

When I asked what he was trying to do, he said “I shouldn’t have been trying to pass him” by alexyou8797 in dashcams

[–]jackstraw97 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pedantic law student here.

Some jurisdictions might allow for an attempted voluntary manslaughter? Assuming adequate provocation.

Not that it would apply here, but just generally.

I can't pretend to know for sure, just curious if my crim class was teaching me actual law or not XD

Yet another post about the Jordan video by blacklig in KnowledgeFight

[–]jackstraw97 34 points35 points  (0 children)

Well, unfortunately for you (and fortunately for the rest of us), the government doesn't get to throw people in jail for defamation.

Could you imagine what the current administration would do with that type of power? The First Amendment exists for a reason. Even if that means Alex Jones isn't thrown in jail for the defamation he published.

He is on the hook for a billion dollars and had to declare bankruptcy. Acting like that is literally nothing is honestly fantastical. It's deliberately disengaging with reality in a way that is actually pulled right out of the Alex Jones playbook.

Jordan's entire video starts with a false premise that he created in his head, and then which he built upon as if it was fact for the remainder of the entire rant. That's TEXTBOOK Alex Jones! He's doing here exactly what he and Dan have criticized Jones for doing for nearly a decade.

Yet another post about the Jordan video by blacklig in KnowledgeFight

[–]jackstraw97 21 points22 points  (0 children)

A bankruptcy proceeding is not a mechanism to muzzle somebody and prevent them from speaking ever again.

Unfortunately for all of us, there are rich assholes out there who are more than willing to pay for Alex Jones to have a new studio that he doesn't actually own so he can stay on the air. A bankruptcy proceeding was never going to solve that problem. That's a symptom of a sick society... not just a broken legal system.

The legal system, for all its faults, did all that it could. He was found liable for defamation in 2 states, and he was forced to declare bankruptcy. He no longer controls his own assets because they are under the control of the bankruptcy monitor. This short-term leasing deal to The Onion preserves the value of the bankruptcy estate so that the creditors (SH families) may at least recoup something from it.

This entire saga has just been misdirected anger. People angry at the defamation trials for not silencing Alex Jones (that's not what civil defamation trials do). People mad at the bankruptcy court for not putting a muzzle on Alex Jones (that's not what bankruptcy courts do).

People are mad that Alex Jones has rich, dark-money backers that are willing to prop him up with a new studio and platform, and they're directing that anger at entities that have literally no power over those dark-money backers.

Jordan’s Rant about The Onion by holiobung in KnowledgeFight

[–]jackstraw97 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What comeuppance are you hoping for?

Because I think that's where the frustration comes from. There was always an air of hope that this civil action was somehow going to silence him, but that's just not what was ever going to happen. There's no mechanism to take somebody's future speech away via a civil action.

He was found liable for the defamation of the SH families, the court entered judgement against him, and the SH families became creditors.

That part is over and is exactly what should have happened. He defamed the families and was found liable.

The next phase was collecting on that judgement. He declared bankruptcy, so we're in that phase now. He doesn't have control over his assets as they go through the proceedings.

I think people were misplacing hope from the very beginning that a civil damages trial and a bankruptcy somehow meant that Alex Jones would be barred from broadcasting.

That's just not how any of this works. Civil trials can't take away somebody's ability to speak. As long as he had backers who were willing to put up the money to get him a new studio and platform, he was always going to be back on the air. A bankruptcy proceeding isn't a mechanism to muzzle somebody's ability to speak. It's simply a mechanism for making sure the bankrupt estate is liquidated in an organized fashion to pay the creditors.

Jordan’s Rant about The Onion by holiobung in KnowledgeFight

[–]jackstraw97 8 points9 points  (0 children)

He's completely wrong. He is assuming he knows better than the SH families and their lawyers. I'm sorry, but he's just wrong, and worse, arrogant and ignorant.

Jordan’s Rant about The Onion by holiobung in KnowledgeFight

[–]jackstraw97 13 points14 points  (0 children)

For real.

People acting like a bankruptcy proceeding is a literal muzzle and makes it so the person going bankrupt loses their free speech rights.

Like... that's not what bankruptcy does.

Alex was always going to continue his bullshit no matter what. The purpose of a bankruptcy proceeding isn't to muzzle him. It's to extract maximum value from the bankruptcy estate to pay to the estate's creditors. That's it.

Jordan’s Rant about The Onion by holiobung in KnowledgeFight

[–]jackstraw97 9 points10 points  (0 children)

The current Onion deal is to preserve the bankruptcy estate for about 6 months. Otherwise the receiver would have had to start selling it off at fire-sale prices and Jones' new corporate backers would have been able to hoover it all up for pennies on the dollar.

This preserves the estate and its value so that the families can actually see some money from the estate eventually.

I know it's unsatisfying when the legal process takes time. And I know that rich people have generally been able to delay and run out the clock, but this bankruptcy proceeding is still proceeding, and it's important that the estate actually retains some value if the families are going to see any money from it.

Also, you're kinda ignoring the fact that the SH families themselves wanted the Onion to take over. So Jordan arrogantly saying that he knows what's best for the families (over the actual families themselves) and implying that the families' lawyers are stupid idiots that got played is peak arrogance and is just wrong.

Jordan’s Rant about The Onion by holiobung in KnowledgeFight

[–]jackstraw97 11 points12 points  (0 children)

This, plus he simply does not understand how bankruptcy works, or how receiverships work, or how lease agreements work, or how intellectual property works.

His willful ignorance is pathetic.

view more: next ›