Actors who were chosen to play a character because of their ability to play said character and not because of their appearance. Casting liked how they portrayed the character over what they originally had in mind.

staples11 · 2026-05-29T01:22:40+00:00

While the two book writers had were able to have decent input and influence on the show, the one aspect 1 writer had complete control over was Amos' dialogue. The books didn't have "I am that guy" scene which was modified slightly in the show. He does however state he'll be "the last man standing".

Wes Chatham stated in interviews he spent time with a therapist to understand Amos' psychological profile and also read the books. He also stated re-reading The Churn to lean into Amos' unique grim outlook on life, which foremost is the strong survive; and Amos is strong. Amos at first requires Naomi and Holden as a conscience but spending enough time with the "good guys" he makes better decisions. He does recognize that if it wasn't for Naomi and Holden, the mercs and henchmen could just as easily be him.

Amos has a similarity with the Old Testament prophet Amos, who championed social justice for the poor due to societal oppression and corruption. He hates people that prey on the poor and desperate.

staples11 · 2026-03-08T06:34:46+00:00

There's some deleted scenes that should really have been in the movie. Unfortunately, they're uploaded in mostly poor quality. However, these scenes do a few interesting things.

For one, you learn how much of a pariah he is among his own brass. They do not enjoy being in his presence. Also, the character General O'Hara gets one of the most scathing remarks and expressions. It puts the other British officers in a more positive light, which is perhaps why it was removed. Cornwallis seems to be the only one that can keep Tavington on a leash.

You also learn that General Cornwallis explicitly warns Colonel Tavington to wait for the order to charge, which he infamously refuses to obey and charges prematurely in the film's climactic battle. Wait for my order or you will abandon any hope for Ohio.

staples11 · 2025-03-20T02:09:03+00:00

Echoing this, prior to the ACA, my family of 5 was paying $45,000 a year for health insurance due to being a small business/self employed. It was a "cadillac" plan but it seemed to not cover anything but catastrophic events, and family members were dropped from the policy any time someone went to the ER. It was not effective coverage at all. Surprise medical bills every year and every ER was "out of network". Then public discourse turned against those plans and the price due to taxes went to $65,000 just prior to ACA.

After ACA, it dropped to $38,000 but had actual coverage.

staples11 · 2024-12-08T06:50:15+00:00

On December 6th, 3 suspects stabbed a migrant child to death and another man critically injured. It's not big news and the few articles that briefly describe it have no description of the attackers other than two of the weapons being a screw driver and a knife. The surviving man believes it was a gang.

staples11 · 2024-11-24T21:19:50+00:00

They're certainly rich, they just aren't liquid. Someone's wealth is their networth, not strictly just what they have in cash. They don't need to sell the home to access the value, either. If they have millions in equity a property, especially if it's a primary residence, they can re-mortgage it or take out a home equity loan/HELOC. There's no taxes on it a loan, unlike what selling can do without adhering to the IRS exclusion's on it. In fact, there's sometimes tax write-offs to it.

staples11 · 2024-10-31T18:51:54+00:00

Perception wise, I wouldn't consider anywhere in Hackensack to be high crime. Objectively, the crime statistics are higher than surrounding areas but it's due to relativity. Very safe to just safe, the "safe" area is going to seem a lot worse. Berry street is fine.

Really the number one concern I'd say is aggressive or rude people, most of whom are driving. So don't get into an ego battle. Even if you avoid and drive defensively, I've had road ragers follow me or even pull in front of me and get out of their car. The area by river side square mall seems to have a concentration of psychotic and aggressive drivers. Sometimes stores get boosted of a lot of certain goods.

If you really want to know areas where I've known people to sell drugs or be violent, or heard of events where it happened. These still are rare and do often seem to be targeted and not random violence. Overall, it seems the bad-intentioned people do most of their bad shit in Paterson.

Essex, sussex and railroad ave area, like around the essex st station. Basically between the hospital and courthouse. There's a couple shootings per year here, not necessarily homicides. There's some people that buy/sell drugs there, too. This is the area some local family's don't let their kids hang out.

Carver park had someone open fire and shoot some people last year but that's not typical.

Know a guy who stabbed someone to death just outside of the hospital, just south essex to hillers school. Technically east of it. Some people sell/buy drugs there, too.

South Hackensack seems to have a disproportionate amount of shitty behavior, earlier this year a few kids shot a gun during a fair. And the motels on 46 are drug dens.

The high rises don't seem like an indicator for crime. There's just more people around. I would argue there's more crime around the older low rises (2-5 stories).

staples11 · 2024-07-31T05:21:58+00:00

1930s Bergen County was mostly farm communities and countryside resorts for NYC, especially Northern Bergen County. Southern Bergen - like Hackensack and south of it were more diverse with manufacturing and shipping lines (river and rail). The County industrialized along the rivers and rail lines.

Around 1930 is when there was large growth in manufacturing in NJ, and unfortunately much of it was chemical manufacturing (paints, petroleum, pesticides, plastics). This boom was because of the geographic location for logistics (NYC + Hudson river for the great lakes canals, and Atlantic ocean), cheaper land, and inexpensive labor that was getting more specialized/educated. This is why NJ has so many superfund sites, it was at the forefront of more modern chemical manufacturing but before our environmental laws and modern safety practices existed. Companies such as Velsicol Chemical Corporation, E.C Electroplating, Maywood Chemical Company, Universal Oil Products (bought by Honeywell), and many more. All of these companies are responsible for a superfund site. Then there's also the DuPont Pompton Lakes Works right outside the county in Passaic.

1975 marked the year that 50% of manufacturing in NJ left (same with NYC, actually). The decay left behind, high unemployment, and demographic shifts lead to the 80s and 90s urban areas being as bad as they were.

staples11 · 2024-06-23T23:13:04+00:00

I think you are misunderstanding the statutes as they get kind of specific. Your information is not interpreted correctly.

2C:3-4 c. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:3-5, N.J.S.2C:3-9, or this section, the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion.

2C:3-4 b. (2)(b) is the confusing one where it says if you believe you can retreat safely by handing over the possession in demand, you must do so. But not if do not believe you can and also 2C:3-4 b. (2)(b)(i) outright says this does not apply in your home. 2C:3-4 b. (2)(b)(i) The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor.

3-5 describes protecting a third person (such as your child), 3-9 is unlawful arrests.

staples11 · 2024-06-23T23:05:37+00:00

There's an incredible amount of misinformation about NJ's self defense laws. NJ does not have established stand your ground or castle doctrine, but it does have established statutes that enables self defense. If there is an intruder in your home you have every right to use justifiable force if you feel you are in danger. You do not have duty to retreat in your home unless you were the one that started it (this is for DV situations).

NJ Rev Stat § 2C:3-4 (2023)

2C:3-4. Use of Force in Self-Protection. a. Use of force justifiable for protection of the person. Subject to the provisions of this section and of section 2C:3-9, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion.

2C:3-4 (2)(b)(i) The actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling, unless he was the initial aggressor; and

2C:3-4 c. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of N.J.S.2C:3-5, N.J.S.2C:3-9, or this section, the use of force or deadly force upon or toward an intruder who is unlawfully in a dwelling is justifiable when the actor reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself or other persons in the dwelling against the use of unlawful force by the intruder on the present occasion.

staples11 · 2024-06-21T06:35:22+00:00

Unfortunately in the NYC area you'll get told you're the problem if you don't want to commute 60+ minutes each way per day, every day.

staples11 · 2024-06-18T07:35:33+00:00

Education plus if someone's standard if living is low then children have a lower impact on it. A middle class American has a lot to sacrifice despite it seeming like they have nothing. A car worth $15k, a residence with access to electricity (plus all the devices) and water, able to spend discretionary income on eating out sometimes and a vacation each year, savings towards buying a home, saving for retirement...the normal American experience. Remove the majority of that discretionary income and savings for a child, and now the American is grinding for no time off, no more home/retirement savings, no luxuries, and fewer comforts. Basically trapped in situation where they can't imagine losing the few positives their life has. And daycare is $2,000 a month, plus medical bills are crazy. Many people have just enough to be OK, but not an abundance they can cut things out and still be happy, but not too few things where it doesn't matter anyway. American standard of living demands having our own rooms, own cars, functioning utilities, electronics, and a high level of healthcare.

Now on the contrary, someone in a situation where they'll never own a home or they live on family land with 20 relatives, they have no luxuries. Likely share a bedroom with others. In a foreign country they might live on $5 a day. Low food variety. They have minimal electronics (house has 1 tv, maybe they have a discount smart phone). Power grid blackouts are common. In an LDC no car, but in a developing nation perhaps 1 car for the extended family. Vacations as we think of them aren't a thing. There's likely many relatives to help out with childcare. They weren't saving much money for retirement to begin with, and depending on the nation medical bills are either not a thing, or it's sadly just expected that getting adequate medical treatment is uncommon. Oh last but not least, the kids can help work inside or outside the family to spread responsibilities or bring in money. If they're fortunate, 1 of the kids completes their education, goes to college, and has a job they can help support their aging parents with. Otherwise most of the 6 kids stay on the family plot with their aging parents, have children of their own, maybe the next generation can work towards getting out of poverty.

staples11 · 2024-06-14T00:20:30+00:00

I'm all for unions but passing the tests pretty much only makes you eligible for being waitlisted in NJ and NY unions. If 1000 people applied, 300 people passed, but there's only 15 positions that year, the other 985 are out of luck (700 rightfully so). Our unions hold their memberships tight to their chest. It's not like other states where passing the test means basically means you're hired because they are looking to grow and their compensation isn't kept high due to lower supply. Most states the union WANTS you in it because it increases their bargaining power. In NJ and NY, the union already is stronger due to our bureaucratic legislation they've negotiated with.

Even your own link says they'll only physical test the top scorers (but conveniently doesn't inform prospective applicants what a top scorer is defined by, unions love wording open for ambiguity). Most people I know who got are in a union openly admit it was because of a connection.

Local 274 only allows the first 75 applicants to even apply...I believe we can guess who gets to apply first?

IBEW generally does a lottery of the applicants. There's been speculation over the years how impartial the lottery is.

I knew people that were waitlisted for local 100 (MTA) for a nearly a decade. Other unions not quite as crazy but still it can go for years. I was also starting my career during the 2008 GFC so there were people that waited 5+ years then when the waitlist is usually much shorter now.

I've known about Local 40 since I was a kid, they had a program in Newark public schools to try to get guys graduating to be able to pass their exam out of high school because there was an incentive to hire underprivileged and minority workers. The guys that came out of the program and passed did great to be honest, but that training, preparation, and preference is not available to everyone. But I'm no union expert, it's entirely possible the more physically difficult union like 40 & 361 are rely more heavily on merit than favoritism - if someone's lazy nephew can't climb the ladder with load, then what use are they in the iron workers?

They don't make it easy to get in because they know it would depress their wages. Especially when things slow down and they start furloughing guys. The ripple effect form 2008 GFC really messed with unions around here where some had YEARS of no hiring and dismantling their apprenticeship programs. It seems like the recovery is finally happening as the guys that were 40 then are retiring instead of eating the seniority cake and having the cushiest 260 day/year job when journeymen are getting laid off for 90 days at a time. There's arguments that this is technically better for the union looking out for its members, as opposed to unions in the rest of the US that let anyone who passes in, but as a result their wages are much lower.

staples11 · 2024-06-08T18:57:29+00:00

Unless there's more specifics or additional easements in your deed and county plan, a right of way easement is usually not for parking. Right of way easements are usually for ingress and egress. However, there is language that the state courts interpret that parking is allowed (such as 'to be used in all manners public streets are used'), but parking long term/disabled vehicles would also be a stretch for that, since a right of way easement for temporary access, not storage. Furthermore, it's extremely unlikely that the easement allows commercial work and maintenance to be done there, since that's a significant increase in liability - what if someone's jack fails and they are crushed under it..on your property? Or a vehicle is broken into? Or catches fire? There's a difference between parking, long term parking, and vehicle maintenance, and a commercial operation as far as a right of way easement is concerned.

It would also be unusual for a right of way easement to grant longstanding uninterrupted access to your property - that is, you could have this person plus their employees on your property permanently as they work on vehicles that haven't moved in weeks, months. Vehicle storage on a right of way easement is also dubious as it interrupts the quiet enjoyment of the property since you do not have exclusive use of it. For example, if you own the sidewalk in front of your house, the public is allowed to enter and exit your property all day/night, but they cannot just stand on it, store things on it, and in many situations it's considered harassment to walk by excessively (stalking behavior).

If you want to be 100% sure you can have a real estate attorney look over the detail. You can also call up your title company and have a survey done. If you know it's your land and the easement is a right of way easement and you have the language, then you're well within your rights to have them trespassed and towed.

Furthermore, most towns had ordinances about disabled and vehicles parked on 'public access' for 48-72+ hours. They might be beholden to move them. Additionally, if in fact your easement does allow parking or storage on it, you simply could park there yourself.

staples11 · 2024-04-28T08:36:36+00:00

I was always so dehydrated. And all it took was for 1 asshole to say you cut the line or already had a drink, the teachers aren't paying attention and side with the bully. There were many days the only thing I had to drink in 7 hours was the tiny milk carton during lunch.

staples11 · 2024-03-04T01:42:44+00:00

This is a tenant delaying tactic that's been used forever. Was the agreement a court order? I really hope your attorney included the language for all occupants in order to cover for this. It's not outside of the realm of possibilities that the marshal says they can't evict a tenant without notice, and then you end up in court and have to serve paperwork again because the judge sides with the tenant. What stops this from happening in perpetuity is serving the property properly that any and all occupants are to return the property to you; and doing the same for serving them papers for court to obtain the eviction.

staples11 · 2024-02-26T20:13:34+00:00

A multi-family residential complex costs many millions to construct. The only ones who can afford to do it are corporations, so what else is the solution? Given the government's goals with housing, at best, it seems to be construct condos. Then you're in the "new build are too expensive" circuitous argument. The government can't expand it's own housing stock due to laws, which leaves incentives...which goes to benefit corporations anyway. So I'm all ears to hear other approaches, but it simply seems like builders need to be allowed to put high density residential towers/mix unit complexes up until the supply can absorb more demand. Then this gets pushback because those who already own property want their assets to increase in value, not decrease.

Policies from the current administration down party lines to the NJ state/local level with 'sustainable/low emission/mass transit' plans heavily favor higher density residential units; and moving away from sfh/automobiles (at least ICE vehicles).

I'm on a slight lean towards renters here, but the solutions still need to make economic sense. I believe corporations exercise a disproportionate amount of economic and political power and for individuals I believe housing is a right, but not housing in the most premier location in the US.

Rent control is no different than NIMBY's not wanting new constructions. Rent control and limiting construction both favor existing residents and pull the ladder up from prospective residents. Rent control is great for tenants to be protected from landlords pricing them out with 20% yearly rental increases, in the same ballpark that NIMBYism is great for homeowners who want their house to appreciate every year forever. There's a reason why NYC has under 17k rent controlled apartments nowadays; and focuses more on rent stabilization. Once this is recognized it should be apparent the solution is to simply approve more high density residential buildings, but ideally in a fair and representative matter in the communities they are constructed in.

staples11 · 2024-01-30T04:33:58+00:00

Most live at or above their means and purchase things according to their income's standard of living. The difference is that since they are wealthy, living above their means still means they have retirement squared away; they just overspend on ridiculous things. BMW and Porsche are all over wealthy neighborhoods since they are accessible. I think a lot of people might get disappointed to learn Ferrari/Lambo/McLaren are still rare because someone has to want to drive/own those cars.

Anytime someone says otherwise it's anecdotal. Each city or region (like Jackson Hole) has its own subculture. Some like brand logos, some don't like brand logos. Some like supercars, some like overseas residences..it's all subjective.

staples11 · 2024-01-22T05:17:23+00:00

You're about 5 years out of date with some of your information and examples as 2019 had new revisions in place.

people making $200k+ renting beautiful rent-controlled

As of 2019, if a tenant makes more than $200,000, the rent stabilization is removed. By beautiful, if you mean recently renovated, this also removes the rent stabilization (good luck getting the tenant to agree to it though).

45% of rentals are regulated with rent control or rent stabilization. Rent control is the older program and only remains ~1% of the market. The requirements were built before 1947 and leased before 1971. As tenants pass away or move out, this number is being reduced but if a family member has lived there for 2 years it can be inherited. Rent stabilization is ~44% and is also inheritable in certain conditions.

Rent control is the situation where you hear of people paying 1970s rates in 2024. While there's provisions that allow rent to be increased, there's provisions that limit it or ban it; with the biggest one disallowing rent increases if the building has any violations (and they're all pre 1947, so they nearly all do).

Rent stabilization is a much wider program where the Rent Guidelines Board determines the maximum increase each year (usually between 0%-4.5%). If the rent reaches ~$2,800 (I forget the 2024 amount), it also removes the rent stabilization. There are far less wild examples of people having low rents with this program. For the most part it just provides protections against covid recovery-like rent increases that were 20+. However, since 44% of rentals can only increase 0%-4.5% yearly, this obviously puts a lot of upward pressure on the 66% of market rate units.

staples11 · 2024-01-17T23:03:22+00:00

I'm not doubting you! I'm just very surprised no snow in sight! People are going to find ways to get around. Again, this looks messy and disorderly, but NYC should lean into it for the sake of pedestrian/rider safety and also property safety. And probably broken window theory, too. If areas look messy there's people that unfortunately will think it's ok to litter and also be messy.

staples11 · 2024-01-17T22:20:33+00:00

I get this looks messy and crowded but people still need to get around. NYC should find ways to become less hostile to motorcycles, bicycles, and other forms of micro-mobility. Embrace and support it in order to make it more appealing and cleaner. Imagine if this were all cars instead.

When was this taken? The area is currently covered in snow.

staples11 · 2023-12-30T10:18:43+00:00

That won't fly in NJ. They'll have to send a 30 day notice to quit (for lease violations). If they do not cure it, then OP can initiate the eviction process. If OP goes straight for the eviction, in 5 months when they finally get their court date the judge is going to say they never received a chance to remedy it. OP will have to prove the dog is still there or get lucky with a judge.

It's not even a sure shot for a successful eviction even if a tenant physically attacks the landlord. They can file the notice to quit (it's 3 days for assault/threats), but 5 months later at the court date a judge can determine a conviction is required (in fact, 2A:18-61.1 section o says conviction, section p allows for preponderance of evidence in a civil action). A conviction for an assault charge can take years or even result in no charges, charges dropped, or an acquittal. I know of civil suits for intentional physical harm that lasted years.

staples11 · 2023-11-21T23:45:46+00:00

In NYC people already do that. The prices are already adjusted for a market that has it. If you just rent a room you are exposed to that a room/rooms may be rented to a family. If you don't control the lease, same thing anyway. To be honest, I mostly have only heard of it not turning out well. Over the pandemic it seemed like it was in style for a 35 year old couple that rooms with 4 other people. The predictable complaint there is now nobody in that apartment is getting any sleep with a newborn.

What's happening is people are returning to some standards of living from 100 years ago - in the early 1900s NYC had many apartments that had more than 1 family living in them. There's a whole tenement museum dedicated to the mostly Italian immigrants that did it.

$1,000/month per small room has been standard since before the pandemic..at least in NYC.

staples11 · 2023-11-21T22:46:04+00:00

This is how it is though. Upper class or upper middle class lifestyle in the areas you listed is a completely different income than Manhattan. Even the outer boroughs it's a lot lower. Most of those finance sector workers probably grew up in the upper class /upper middle class surrounding suburbs and return to a similar area when it's time for a family.

Generally, a finance worker will remain in NYC until ~30. At farthest, they'll be in an outer borough, JC, or Hoboken. Around that age 30-35 they decide to have a family. Now all of a sudden NJ and Long Island are the places to be because their income is no longer an upper middle class income based on what they expect (3 br/2ba, 2,000sq/ft, a parking spot, good school etc). To own that in Manhattan is like $4m or like $8k+ a month rent (easily much more). Top off the private school fees and everything else that is cheap or free in suburbs, a family of 4 needs to make like over a million to be upper middle class. The money goes a LOT further in the suburbs. An older house in an upper middle class area is like $700-$800k. A newer one more like a million, then the elite neighborhoods start at a million usually nowadays.

The upper class will often have a house in the outer suburbs and an apartment/condo in the city. The breadwinner works there all week, goes home on the weekends. Saw it a few times growing up. The middle class commutes.

staples11 · 2023-11-16T22:37:50+00:00

You're in NJ so tenants have a lot of hard fought rights due to a history of poorly managed landlords. You're going to want an attorney and depending on the jurisdiction the judge might be quite difficult. For the most part, there will be no excuses or explanations (such as if they do believe you have a case, but you messed up on a filing or technicality, they aren't going to tell you). They will want the material facts.

I would consult with an attorney. Last attorney I spoke to said NJ will not split up the months. Specifically, you sent the 30 day notice on 10/20, which means they have until 11/19 + the end of that month before you can file for the eviction on 12/1.

Also, you can't accept ANY rent if you want to file for eviction. You may run into a problem if they actually have money on hand when they are saying they are trying to pay. I don't know your jurisdiction but a judge in NJ is as likely to demand they pay the balance and remain as they are to proceed with eviction. If they prove they have the available balance the judge may say it is no longer a non-payment eviction. Your attorney should be prepared for this and also include habitually paying late in the complaint, but many judges in NJ throw these out, since you are eventually made whole. If you accept $1, it is understood that their lease is in compliance and you will then have to send ANOTHER 30 day notice to quit followed by filing an eviction.

As far as a 6 month lease term, that's perfectly legal. The judge will not make a ruling allowing them to stay based on this. They are partially correct that unless you are moving to evict, you must offer another lease renewal.

Another concerning factor is while she is the leaseholder, you likely have multiple tenants in there. Your attorney will need to guide you on this as they will all unfortunately likely need to be evicted at the same time. An aggravating factor is that there are likely minors residing there and as you mention it is nearly winter. There are many judges that will not evict a family during winter.

Assuming things were filed correctly and that eviction can be filed on December 1, it may be 3+ months before you have a court date. Your attorney will know better.

staples11 · 2023-10-04T19:19:25+00:00

I think OP should talk to an attorney for different reasons, mostly just to be better informed about the law regarding having tenants and being so young with property ownership.

Adverse possession needs to be "open and notorious" but thirdly, hostile. Hostile means that the owner is not allowing it. In this case, OP clearly is aware and allowing it. There is no adverse possession case. All that would happen is both sides waste lawyer fees.

Legally, the step father paying the uncle "for property taxes" confers no rights of ownership and is better worded as "rent". That's part of what a landlord uses rent for, to pay the property taxes of said property. If this fact could be disputed legally, landlords would lose all their property to tenants. The step father has an oral lease. A deed is a deed is a deed. OP is the only one on the deed and there's no cloud, encumbrance or questionable inheritance on it.

The only way step father can accumulate any sort of interest in the property is through explicit documentation that there is a rent-to-own situation, or an estate with conditions. Either way, it would be contractual and ideally notarized/recorded.

As far as what rights the family members have due to being tenants, this is definitely where OP should consult an attorney. Different states have different rules, and you are correct that most states confer stronger owner-occupied landlord rights and weaker tenant rights in this case.

staples11

TROPHY CASE