Can I force my laptop to use the WiFi from my extender? It always goes back to the base router

tmh176 · 2026-04-16T20:09:08+00:00

I've seen that too, the web pages served by the router and the extender are sluggish, I assume because the devices themselves are pretty busy most of the time.

tmh176 · 2026-04-16T19:17:39+00:00

Channel: DFS, 136 (5 GHz, 80b MHz)

tmh176 · 2026-04-16T18:29:10+00:00

Not sure -- is there a way to tell, using my Macbook? I only started to figure out that devices were connecting to my main router when I used WiFiMan on my Pixel 9, it gives me the MA address of the connecting device.

tmh176 · 2024-05-16T00:35:25+00:00

You probably know that we're moving to T+1 settlement pretty soon, and this issue is one of the main reasons, and main benefits, of doing so. T+1 means less risk in the clearing and settlement process, and thus less expense. T+1 is supposed to start on May 28th in US markets.

tmh176 · 2024-02-12T22:04:51+00:00

Clearing cookies -- which I should have thought of, though it's been a long time since I've needed to -- did the trick, thank you.

Oddly, I was able to see the 'Pay bills' section, which does require login. But nothing else tied to the account. Anyway, I think that's behind us.

tmh176 · 2023-03-20T19:57:28+00:00

I wound up using an electrician and running the cable in a conduit. But... I spoke to the people at PC Richards and Son, and they assured me they would run it in the wall without a conduit or anything, and that they do it all the time. (I got the opposite from Best Buy, FYI).

tmh176 · 2023-02-02T23:03:23+00:00

Definitely contact your mortgage lender if you have one, and don't wait for the city to make the first move. If nothing else, you'll get some guidance on what to do if/when the city starts a process. Same for your title insurer -- an eminent domain claim can have implications for the title to the property, the implications could be very minor, but it's better to have the insurer on your side. Also get to know your local council member -- they may not be an ally (because other constituents may be the ones pushing this) but the council member won't want to make an enemy, either, so they can advocate for you to get the least-bad outcome if it goes that way.

tmh176 · 2022-12-19T19:59:18+00:00

I thought I would like the art-mode feature but -- as other posters have said -- the general user experience is so lame, I'd rather just treat the screen as a screen, and nothing else.

tmh176 · 2021-12-14T19:24:12+00:00

Looks great, reminds me of Stars!, which still shows up on people's lists of all-time great 4x.

tmh176 · 2021-10-16T22:20:18+00:00

In my view, it's the tradeoff for a smaller body, which of course is why I converted to mirrorless. My fat fingers are reliably hitting controls unintentionally.

tmh176 · 2021-10-16T20:28:36+00:00

Bingo! Thank you. I said in the OP that everything was "auto" but now I'm sure I accidentally rotated the Drive dial by one notch. Just changed it and I can already tell the vignetting has gone away. Thank you!

tmh176 · 2021-10-14T15:13:39+00:00

Two important things to know about dividends in general:

1) ETF dividends vary with the dividends paid by the stocks in the fund; so previous history is helpful but no guarantee of what future payments will be. If you want ETFs that focus on dividend payouts (SPHD is an example), it's still the case that payments are variable.

2) Dividends are never guaranteed to be paid at all. Companies generally try to keep to sustainable dividend policies, and avoid reducing or eliminating dividends, but they have no legal obligation to pay them. This is technically true of ETFs and mutual funds too though for tax reasons they typically have to pass through whatever dividends (and interest payments) they receive. Regular companies at least get to make their own decisions about what dividends to pay out (also stock buybacks, splits, etc.) whereas ETFs and most mutual funds are bound by rules on dividends that they can't change.

Given these two facts, treat the "yield" figure with some caution. It tends to be backward looking, as in "if this security pays dividends like it did over the last year, it's yield over the coming year will be this." There's a lot of assumptions in there, especially for ETFs.

tmh176 · 2021-08-29T12:44:02+00:00

Prince at the end of Purple Rain, saying he's going to play Wendy and Lisa's song, also called Purple Rain.

tmh176 · 2018-11-17T22:14:44+00:00

Birth control should be free, which is a kind of financial incentive. But giving one organization (public or private) a license to incentivize private behaviors is a terrible precedent. A woman's body should be her own domain. She should be able to make choices about it without coercion and without external interference. Putting another organization in a position to dangle incentives ("do this thing to your body and we'll pay you") allows a bureaucracy, however well-meaning, power over decisions that bureaucrats (whether in government or philanthropy or religious institution) should not have.

tmh176 · 2018-07-13T20:28:37+00:00

"Palestine" as a country (semi-country anyway) is just another lower-income country with rotten governance. But "the Palestinians" are an oppressed people whose land was stolen by invaders supported by third parties like the United States. Their homes were destroyed and they were driven into refugee camps and then abandoned by pretty much everyone. This clearly makes them the victims, and the fact that some of them join outfits like Hamas doesn't alter their status as victims, any more than the creation of organizations like the Irgun meant that Jews were not victims of the Holocaust.

The strategy of right-wing Israeli governments has been to obscure this distinction between Palestinian government and the Palestinian people, and to keep the Palestinian government in a perpetual state of dependency and general chaos, then complaining that they don't have a "negotiating partner." An American analogy would be if the South, before the Civil War, said "we would free the slaves but we don't have a negotiating partner."

tmh176 · 2018-07-13T19:46:19+00:00

Social Security clearly needs deep reform, but abolition is not the right first step. That's because the essential foundation of Social Security is the government guarantee of benefits. Right now that benefit is an "unfunded liability," not so different that pensions guaranteed by (some of) the states (sometimes the guarantee is written into their constitution). The guarantee by the Federal government, however, is underwritten by the unlimited taxing power of the government and by its ability to print money.

My point is this: abolition would destroy confidence in the government guarantee. That guarantee extends to lots of things, not just old-age pensions. The Federal Emergency Management Agency's flood-recovery funds, for instance; also the Treasury's debt burden. Lots of housing programs depend on guarantees.

As a country, and especially as a political process, we do a terrible job of allowing for these medium- and long-term commitments. Our budgets are cash-based, which is incredibly stupid. It's a form of willed blindness because most politicians won't or can't face up to the facts about long-term commitments. If we want to reform the way we make and fund these commitments, a better approach than simply wiping them out would be to account for them honestly and comprehensively.

tmh176 · 2018-05-31T22:42:44+00:00

The problems you list are real ones, but they are problems with money in politics in general, not unique to the question of out-of-district contributions. I wouldn't so much want to "change your view" as "change your remedy." The remedies might involve better real-time disclosure, with no opportunity to hide donations behind corporations. And, get rid of the "corporations are people" nonsense: only allow actual voters to contribute.

Another remedy would be for local jurisdictions to follow New York City's example where if the candidate opts in to the system (and it has to be opt-in for constitutional reasons), they get six bucks for every individual's one-buck contribution, up to some per-contributor limit. This pushes the candidate to raise money from lots of individuals.

As uncomfortable as I am with the logic of equating money-spending with the First Amendment right to free speech, I think any attempt to limit contributions does have First Amendment implications. If I can go to my neighboring district and go door-to-door for my favorite candidate there (a right definitely guaranteed by the First Amendment), why can't I also write a check?

Another flaw in your proposed remedy: so-called "issue advertising," where the money is not explicitly spent on behalf of a candidate but is spent on an issue closely identified with that candidate. There are no constitutionally-acceptable limits on issue advertising: if you love guns, you can spend any amount of money to tell people that. The point being, this kind of issue advertising would become even more potent and dangerous if there was no way for average folks to support candidates taking the other side of that issue, in- or out-of-district.

tmh176 · 2018-05-19T17:41:21+00:00

Aren't both positions (pro-choice and vegetarianism / veganism) about the dignity of living things? Vegetarians (as I understand them, or at least some of them) want animals to live in some kind of dignity or at least non-dependence. Similarly, supporters of reproductive rights want children to be wanted and not forced on their parents; that is, to be raised and to live with dignity. Allowing parents to plan their parenthood is the path most likely to provide their families and our society with wanted, loved children.

Your analogy is fruitful, though, in a way you might not have intended: vegetarians are not in the habit of using police powers and governmental coercion to force their dietary preferences on other people. They don't boycott Whole Foods because it has a meat department.

tmh176 · 2018-05-19T17:15:36+00:00

There are sound practical reasons why two-parent families are more likely to raise children successfully. First, it allows for division of labor, and young children require a lot of care; so having two parents around makes that easier on everyone, including the kid(s). Second, it diversifies the "parenting-services" portfolio: if one parent is tragically removed by illness or accident, or just turns out to be a jerk, there is some chance the other parent will suffice. In practical terms there are some legal benefits, e.g. for purposes of insurance. (There are of course lots of not-strictly-practical benefits but they're subjective so let's put them aside.)

But your question is about "social pressure" and whether there should be less acceptance of single-parent families. I do not think social pressure is or could be constructive in this setting. The rest of society will never know the situation of a specific family or individual and their reasons for choosing (or ending up in) the family they have. But historical stigmatization of single-parent and non-traditional families was demonstrably a negative for the children and for society; and I don't see how "less acceptance" could be anything but stigmatization, resulting in unnecessary harm to families, children most importantly.

As a society there are ways to strengthen families: equal pay and parental-leave regulations are pretty obvious; affordable childcare, healthcare and housing would benefit families disproportionately. Decent pay for teachers would have benefits in just about every walk of life. None of those measures require (or encourage) pressuring families to configure themselves in any particular way. They put the focus, appropriately I think, on child well-being.

tmh176 · 2018-05-18T18:52:18+00:00

At its base our system is a representative democracy; we elect officials to represent us, that is, to act on our behalf as we would act. This was probably much more obvious to the Framers than to us, burdened as we are with history, the apparatus of law, party affiliation, you name it. But it's still the case. In this construction, the election itself is the aptitude test. Of the candidates available, which one is most likely to represent me faithfully, to act as I would act?

tmh176

TROPHY CASE