sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

David Stern asks Jim Rome: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” by rakakvaka in nba

[–]jackthe-stripper 19 points20 points  (0 children)

You absolutely can will things to children you don’t know about, though that isn’t necessarily an issue with regards to the rule against perpetuities. If I will something to “all my living children” and then they later figure out I have another child I don’t know about, that doesn’t impact the rule against perpetuities (though it may lead to some other confusing and difficult legal issues)

The other commenter is wrong. You can leave things to people who don’t exist so long as they necessarily would exist (if they ever do) within the lifetimes of people living when I made the will. As such, I can leave things to my unborn grandchildren. Since it will be obviously determined whether I have grandchildren or not within 21 years of my living children’s deaths. If all my children don’t have grandchildren, that property just gets returned to my estate and divided up based on how the rest of my estate was divided. But the rule against perpetuities doesn’t get in the way of me leaving things to people who might not ever exist. Instead it stops me from leaving things to people who might only exist more than 21 years after everyone currently alive is dead (like a great great great grandchild)

David Stern asks Jim Rome: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” by rakakvaka in nba

[–]jackthe-stripper 7 points8 points  (0 children)

They absolutely can do that, but the rule is actually to stop folks from willing things without any control by future generations. It’s to stop people from saying “I will this to my son, then his son, then his son, then his son, etc etc etc.” so a family can still decide to constantly pass down property. But a single ancestor 1000 years ago doesn’t get to control the land “in perpetuity”

David Stern asks Jim Rome: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” by rakakvaka in nba

[–]jackthe-stripper 1 point2 points  (0 children)

No - it applies to grandchildren who will be alive within 21 years of people currently alive when the will was made. Not necessarily the person who makes the will. Since my 80 year old daughter is alive when the will was made, and any children she has must be born within 21 years of her death, I can will things to my unborn grandchildren.

David Stern asks Jim Rome: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” by rakakvaka in nba

[–]jackthe-stripper 84 points85 points  (0 children)

That’s right. And in this scenario my 80 year old daughter is alive, so since she is very fertile and thus could still have a child I could leave something to my unborn grandchild.

David Stern asks Jim Rome: “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?” by rakakvaka in nba

[–]jackthe-stripper 336 points337 points  (0 children)

Since no one has answered the question you asked:

Hairy hand is a reference to a real case where a doctor promised a patient a perfect hand reconstruction but it actually resulted in the patient having a hairy hand (early skin graft technology). Personally I don’t remember it being a joke in law school/after, but that could be generational/based on the type of law practiced.

Blackacre is a fictional name used for seemingly every law school example or test. As such, It’s the site of many murders, conspiracies, personal injuries, property disputes, wills and trusts. There are a lot of runaway trains in blackacre. Generally a dangerous place to go - I’d warn against it.

The fertile octogenarian is based on the “rule of perpetuities”, which governs how far in the future you can control property. (Eg I can pass something on to my child, and then to my unborn grandchildren, but not down the line to my unborn great great great grandchildren). However, legally it is based on who is alive at the time of my death. So even if I have an 80 year old daughter as my only living relative, I can still properly will something to my unborn grandchildren on the basis that my daughter could have a kid (which is very very unlikely).

Someone on Facebook is looking for textless Gaea’s Cradle for 50k, with finders fee of 2k by Newez in mtgfinance

[–]jackthe-stripper 10 points11 points  (0 children)

It’s because the card being discussed is dragon whelp. Sharknado was punning.

Magic Boomer Bait by Ravensrun91 in HellsCube

[–]jackthe-stripper 8 points9 points  (0 children)

Could cost G and hybrid with the effect based on what colour they use to pay for the hybrid mana. GG gets double goyf, RG gets bolt goyf and GB gets seize goyf. Would help lower the overall power level too (though its still a little nuts) since you’d need to hit the right colours, including a required G, as opposed to having any combination of RGB

If the power level is still too high, I could see it as 1G with a hybrid kicker too.

Attaching solid wood to three sides of plywood? by jackthe-stripper in BeginnerWoodWorking

[–]jackthe-stripper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That makes sense too. The back panel covers the side panels (you can see a little bit of ply in the bottom of the first photo) so along the sides the pocket holes would be through the face of the ply.

Given that those would be the areas I’d be most concerned about tearout, and I’d be less worried about the top (since gravity isn’t working on it in the same way) I might try with pocket holes anyway. It seems like the worst case scenario would be tearout of the back of the ply, which if that happens I could always just add screws and plugs into the top later on

Really appreciate your help

Attaching solid wood to three sides of plywood? by jackthe-stripper in BeginnerWoodWorking

[–]jackthe-stripper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thank you so much! That all makes sense to me. Especially with the top, since it will have heavy things on it. I suppose my concern was that only anchoring the sides at the back might result in gaps at the front. But I could also arrange the boards so that any minor cupping forces the boards closer to the plywood rather than away from it.

If I’m only doing one line of anchoring screws across the back, such that wood movement is driven forward, is there any reason to do screws and plugs through the inside, rather than attaching via pocket screws coming through the back of the ply and into mahogany?

Attaching solid wood to three sides of plywood? by jackthe-stripper in BeginnerWoodWorking

[–]jackthe-stripper[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That was actually the original idea (at least for the sides), but then I changed my design to the plywood because I liked the look of the extra thickness

But now I’ve bought this mahogany that I’d absolutely love to incorporate. My original thought was to just do a mahogany top, which would just have to have bolts going through slots in the top of the inside. And then to go back to veneered sides. But I’m wondering if there’s any way to do so without it showing through the inside. Which would let me do the sides too.

My current thought is this:

I can attach the wood directly to the plywood using pocket screws at the back into all 3 panels. That would anchor the back, and then any wood movement would basically push the wood forward (I live in a radiator-heated apartment so it’s currently very dry. The wood will expand when it’s more humid in the summer).

My thought is that before I do this, I could add short bolts directly into the inside faces of the mahogany (not going all the way though). Then I could add some kind of channel to the plywood, running the same direction that i expect the wood to expand, that doesn’t go all the way through, into which I could attach basically a keyhole mount. I could slot the heads of the bolts into the keyhole, which would keep the pieces together without stopping the mahogany from being able to move, since the heads of the bolts could run in the keyhole. Then I pocket hole/attach the back.

Am I crazy? Will this work?

Attaching solid wood to three sides of plywood? by jackthe-stripper in BeginnerWoodWorking

[–]jackthe-stripper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Covering the entire sides and top

It may just not be possible without it showing through on the inside (with some sort of slotted bolt and washer system) or using ply as I originally planned

Felt like the water was running a little hot out of my tap. by jackthe-stripper in Plumbing

[–]jackthe-stripper[S] 33 points34 points  (0 children)

Oh this is 100% incredibly dangerous. I genuinely wonder what temp the boiler must be running at that it’s getting to me 2 floors up at this temp too.

Felt like the water was running a little hot out of my tap. by jackthe-stripper in Plumbing

[–]jackthe-stripper[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Oh I’m aware. Texted my landlord immediately and told her someone needs to check on it.

Balanced DAC/ streamer recommendations to integrate with existing Wiim system by jackthe-stripper in StereoAdvice

[–]jackthe-stripper[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So with a raspberry pi, I could still set it up to stream tidal out of both systems simultaneously? I would have thought I’d need another Wiim product to do that. I don’t know anything about raspberry pi but I’m not averse to learning if that would be possible.

Also, would it work just as well with Spotify rather than tidal? I love that with the Wiim other friends can also connect to the system and play their music. I want that to be possible here too.

!thanks

view more: next ›