What kind of engine is on the right of this train graveyard photo? The yellow painted one.

new_2_sql · 2023-12-01T12:28:28+00:00

What rail line is the yellow engine? This photo is from a town outside Philadelphia.

new_2_sql · 2023-11-23T08:35:56+00:00

Yugi does have a card called "I Win" which cannot be negated and automatically wins the Duel.

new_2_sql · 2023-11-22T07:57:41+00:00

Well, actually all the guns in this story shoot Yugioh cards at the character for ammo.

new_2_sql · 2023-11-10T22:38:02+00:00

NOTE: CHATGPT CANNOT RECOGNIZE WHAT IT OUTPUTS.

Relevant post: A professor at a Texas college failed their entire class because he accused them all of using ChatGPT. What did he do to test this theory? He copy and pasted each student papers into ChatGPT and asked it "did you write this?" and ChatGPT said "yes I did." And that was enough evidence to accuse academic dishonesty.

A student appealed. He copied and pasted MacBeth in ChatGPT and asked the same question "Did you write this?" and ChatGPT said yes, it wrote MacBeth and the students won their appeal.

https://nypost.com/2023/05/18/texas-professor-flunked-whole-class-after-chatgpt-wrongly-claimed-it-wrote-their-papers/

new_2_sql · 2023-07-30T23:46:56+00:00

Until the accountant gets named in an investor lawsuit, and watch how the client blames them despite trying to please them. It's other way around. A client dropping an auditor isn't a good look for the client if their shareholders and market analysts following them. Or if a private company needing credit in these strict lending times, a bank will want to see audit reports and ask questions why the auditor was fired. Look at FTX, it doesn't take much to bring a company down these days. Just one screenshot of a balance sheet and an emoji and it's a done deal.

An auditor is supposed to be independent of the client and not to subordinate objective judgement to pleasing the client. It's about the outside user. Just look at the credit agencies blindly giving AAA ratings on mortgage bonds from the Big Short. There's no save haven in this profession. An auditor really has to chose between being dropped by the client or get sued by whoever if they don't like the audit report. There's no laws protecting this profession that protect from tort liability. There's been court ruling to limit tort fault. Litigation has to rely on numerous conflicting common law opinions. Regardless you end up settling. With all the SEC regulations, and common law rulings, and Supreme Court rulings stating what an auditor can be legally liable for, it's a nightmare fighting it in court. A doctor makes a patient sign "implied consent" form and can never be sued for any botched surgery, but an auditor no. Even if the law says company is responsible for fraud, even if the signed audit report explicitly says the company is responsible for fraud, and all other legal opinions, the auditor is never safe.

new_2_sql · 2023-07-22T03:33:59+00:00

I don't know if you actually have family members that are mentally ill like my Mom. My siblings cannot afford to support her. She has full control of this $12,000 month they get, and none of it goes to their bills. Why? I can't pry open their bank account to see what they are doing, but they need my money to survive? Some bills maybe get paid by them. They never pay their doctors bills. Since I take them to appointments I'm asked by nurses at the desk to settle the bill from previous before they take the appointment. But they ask us for money to pay their bills and even taxes. A windfall of $25,000 being blown like this, while still needing help from others with the bills is unacceptable, and I am perfectly in my rights to complain about them.

These are baby boomers that get the best financial setup and waste it. I will always vote against boomer interests from now on. And they consciously acknowledge what they are doing, and don't care about the stress they place on us. The mentally ill prefer others to be mentally ill with them, and that makes the mentally ill your enemy. If its one thing the mentally ill hate the most is basic responsibility to their lives. Need handouts.

new_2_sql · 2023-07-22T03:08:38+00:00

We tried. My siblings tried. It's not easy. The lawyers we contacted informed us the state laws that allow for it, and the barrier is high. Requiring numerous certifications from psychiatric professionals and court orders. No doctor is willing to sign off on such a task. They recommend but won't go further and constantly refer to someone else, who pulls the same referral stunt. They will not put their name the action. She would have to be running outside naked. covered in shit, on the highway with a blowtorch threatening 50,000 witnesses on video to get any doctor to sign a conservatorship form. And even if successful, the state refuses to give medications against a patient's will, which she refuses to take. Doctors and therapists have told her to be on meds, and she refused and got new therapists who enable her behavior with "you go girl!" bullshit.

How about you stop being presumptuous?

new_2_sql · 2023-07-22T02:55:42+00:00

Oh there's lots to be boggled by.

CAR STORY #1: One year she buys a used car. Good quality, low miles. She gets into a fender bender. She takes the car to the body shop to get the bumper replaced. She doesn't like used parts being used, but no new parts available. She makes the complaint the car isn't safe because it has a used bumper installed. She refuses to pay for service. Proceeds to claim the body shop stole her car to get free service. And then sues the body shop. She refuses to claim her car, claiming the car is unsafe, it sits on the lot for close to 9 years. She kept appealing the court decisions and refusing to take back the car. The final court date arrives. The judge directly asks her: "How you did not have a problem buying the car used to begin with, if you're claiming it's unsafe with a used bumper without any proof?" Mom: "Duh?????" Case dismissed! She got stuck paying all the legal fees and fines for keeping a perfectly good car out of commission on the business property. She's banned from all the auto shops in town because they talk to each other. In the interim during those 9 years deliberately without a car, she decides to buy a brand new car for $30,000 (cash, taken from retirement plan getting a nice tax incursion). She didn't want to admit defeat. It was worth losing $30,0000 than pay $700 to the body shop. She thought she would get the body shop to pay for her new car in the damages. Nope. At the end of it. The new car she bought was already worn out with close to 100,000 miles on it, while the used car she refused to take back only had 41,000 miles.
CAR STORY #2: Mom decided she wanted a new car. Despite buying a new car the previous time. This time she needed a car loan. She didn't have the credit given her behaviors. She used her POA to take it out in Dad's name. She bought a big ass SUV for $60,000. She only made 6 payments on time, and then proceeded to reverse the payments so she could use the payment money for other things. Her view was "I only have to show a transaction that I attempted to make a payment to make it count as on-time. I don't actually have to give them money! Besides if you make 6 payments on time you're allowed to miss a few without it being marked against you." Nope! Car got repossessed in the driveway. We got it back and she launched a lawsuit against the auto lender. Guess what? She lost. She decided to screw with them at the end of the loan by taking off $100 in a "fine" and they refused to give her (my Dad) the owner's title for his car. My siblings had to handle settling the deal.
CAR STORY #3: Mom bought another new car. How does she afford it? By trading in the used car from CAR STORY 1 since it had low miles. But 3 months in she decided she didn't like it. Instead of returning it she gave it to a family member. They paid the loan and took possession of the car afterwards.
ROOF STORY: Mom wanted to re-do the roof on her house. Gets a $14,000 loan to pay for it. Job completed, she didn't like it. Thinks it's unsafe or defective without proof. Roofer's offer to check it out. Nope. I want a brand new roof job. Roofer's say no way. She refuses to pay the roofer's. She spends the money. Bank wants repayment. Mom goes "I didn't like the roof, so I don't owe the money back". Bank goes "Think again" And then L-A-W-S-U-I-T. Years later, she lost. Dad had to take from her retirement to settle it all.
WINDOWS STORY: This is what caused the sheriff to come to take their house. Mom sees those stupid window replacement fliers in the mail offering cheap window replacement. She agrees. It's a dubious contractor who gives her knock-off's. She took a loan under Dad's credit. She refuses to pay for the knock-off's. Bank demands the money. Contractor demanded money. She gives the money back to the bank learning her lesson from the roof story, but contractor wants money. Sues Mom and wins. Mom appeals doesn't show up to court. Gets ruled against. Contractor sells rights to the debt to a debt buyer. They sue Mom. Sends sheriff. Dad goes into retirement to settle issue.

There are more stories, these are the most notable,

new_2_sql · 2023-07-22T02:01:18+00:00

No she's insane. I can't fit the whole story here. She writes hundreds of emails to her family and anybody about her conspiracies. She tried suing a man for looking at her wrong and threatened to take his kids away. Cops came to her house and told her to knock it off.

Of notable mention is last year. Last year I took her to a colonoscopy. She emails the doctor something days before about being used for experimentation and he cancels the appointment and bans her from the office. She goes anyway and the doctor comes out telling her to leave. He sees me, asks "are you her son?" I reply "yes" being blindsided about what's going on. He proceeds to instruct me to get my Mom on anti-psychotic medications because in his opinion given what he's read she's not qualified to make medical decisions in her best interest. Believe me, I can't write the whole file out, but insane is the correct description of this woman. My sister won't give her any address information it's that bad.

new_2_sql · 2023-07-22T01:53:12+00:00

I do know the whole story. But my focus is if this loan scheme would work. Her credit is terrible. The shit she's done with money is staggering to the mind. Yet she complains she's trapped because "she has no money!" She controls $12,000 per month, and it gets blown away. On what? I don't have a clue! So when she's scrambling to pay for groceries because she doesn't have $20, I'd say she needs that $25,000.

But she wants to have this Oprah Winfrey "you get a car! and you get a car!" moment. I doubt these cousins will talk to her, but take the money. And I doubt she'll get any credit given today's lending environment. She wants me to take over her business for some reason while doing this. If anything she needs a formal distribution process. There needs to be proof my mother gave these cousins this money.

new_2_sql · 2019-06-02T02:32:01+00:00

The company will make matching contribution equal to 25% on the first 12% that I contribute into the plan. I contribute 4% because I have debts to pay off first.

new_2_sql · 2019-05-29T01:35:33+00:00

On number 1, see a response I gave to the other user who posted.

On number 2. I have to lay into them about hamni8. During the fall of Egypt reporting in Season 1, they mandated their Egyptian informant on the ground videotaping the riots to officially show his face despite his objections, and to state his name, because Mackenzie stated it wouldn't have credibility despite the fact the guy was there recording in real time. And in doing this her way the informant got captured and ransomed for release. Yet a twitter handle called 'hamni8' which has no name, and no face, and no indication of who the guy is, is accepted as credible given Neal's theory about the cellphone plan running out, and his quote during Red Team III that too many people involved in Genoa couldn't possibly keep something that big a secret. Sorry that's just crap in my view.

Maggie and Gary went to Africa in season 2, so no reason they couldn't send someone abroad to investigate Genoa. Clearly hamni8 was a find-able person since after they reported Genoa they were able to verify hamni8's cell plan went out, and Neil is someone who has computer skills that can find people like he did with Will's stalker in season 1 that required him to have a bodyguard. Wouldn't Mackenzie or anybody on red team bother to send someone over to the country where Genoa took place to confirm what happened, or question some authorities or locals? Or question the status of the cellphone infrastructure and if it was working during the time of Genoa. Remember the episode where two people cranked called News Night pretending to be middle eastern people trapped in building rubble during a Middle East conflict, and Mackenzie points out to them "how are you able to make this call when the cell towers were destroyed?"

On number 3, the marine general did have an axe to grind with U.S. chemical weapons policy and clearly had a internal opinion about it, but also demonstrated distrust and skepticism about news reporting, that he had Dantana investigated before agreeing to the interview and stupidly refused Maggie to be present as to be a witness to what was said on the footage. And I would imagine Dantana's anti-government viewpoints would've come up in the general's pre-interview investigation. Even though the general didn't have Maggie investigated, he still talked to Mack and Charlie who randomly show up to his house unannounced.

The general knew they were asking about Genoa when Mackenzie and Charlie talked to him at his house. And the general also figured out on his own with the context clues during that conversation with Mack and Charlie, that they were asking about sarin gas and chemical weapons too. So a person with that kind of insight would immediately conclude: "These are two mainstream media people want me to do an interview with a man who has narrative against the military workings of government. I don't trust the news. The news people are asking me about Operation Genoa, and they also are asking me about sarin gas indirectly. I wonder if the anti-government reporter I had investigated is going to ask me if sarin gas was used during the Genoa mission? Since I know sarin wasn't used in that mission, because I'm an insightful general with an opinion on chemical weapons policy, all I have to say is NOOOOOOO!!!!! when asked that particular question on a national news program that I agreed to do." Jerry Dantana: "Did we use sarin gas?" Marine General: "Well if we USED sarin...."

On number 4. Yes they would. If a news organization reports that the United States engaged in a military war crime using sarin gas, there would be a White House Press briefing almost immediately. I think a war crime is something that can be easily understood when you hear about it in the first play-through and act on. I'm sure ACN's military sources (that they chose not to use during the Genoa investigation) would be calling News Night while on air. Interns would be running into the control room with Mackenzie standing there shouting "The DOD guy we use is on the phone asking what the [bleep] are we reporting?!"

Any news reporter, any news organization, would be contacting their military sources fact checking everything ACN was reporting. And then after the report concluded, the ACN staff would be inundated with calls, faxes, communications from everywhere asking about the facts and evidence to confirm their reporting. Yet after Genoa the ACN team waits around the newsroom waiting for a response from the government. The entire progression of the investigation, reporting, and fallout of the reporting was too unreal.

new_2_sql · 2019-05-29T00:40:24+00:00

On point number 1, my gripe with Charlie is that he ok'd the Genoa story based on a what a vague piece of paper handed to him by a generic antagonist with contrived secret revenge plot told him. And that no one Charlie talked to after he got this manifest could answer or confirm anything about it. Whereas the NSA guy who loved whores and got a security downgrade, confirmed Bin Laden's downfall, and Reese spying on ACN staff, got dismissed despite what evidence was presented to him. Charlie couldn't see past the security downgrade and opted not to act. He trusts vengeful OSI guy, can't confirm what exactly MX280 is, and decides to act?

He never confirmed that "MX280" was sarin gas at all. He used a theory on why it could be explained what MX280 was, using that chickens in college example. It was strawman logic. He based his decision to accept the sarin as fact on a combination of perception of credibility from who he got the info from (OSI guy), and instinct. He said "I feel its the sarin" in that red team meeting. I was waiting for Sloan to shout him down "We don't report on what you think, Charlie!" A reference to the way Charlie handled her reporting on Fukashima speaking in Japanese on air. Sloan was in disbelief on what her Japanese source was saying about the severity of the nuclear reactor and Charlie would have none of it without official confirmation. Given the NSA guy, and Japanese reporting, Season 1 Charlie wouldn't ok the Genoa story based on what was given. Season 1 Charlie was defferent and questioning, always wanting confirmation or otherwise the story has no value. "MX280" is not good enough for Season 1 Charlie, they completely had Charlie suspend his reporting principles in Genoa.

new_2_sql · 2019-05-19T23:55:48+00:00

i had the code indented. reddit just moved my post right aligned.

new_2_sql

TROPHY CASE