First of all, I’m talking about gun ownership in general. Not necessarily about these specific people and their community.

Secondly, unless you have the stats to show that not a single hunting license was sold to anyone with a Chula Vista address, you’re just making a pointless generalization. Sure, it might be very uncommon, but out of around 280,000 people there I think it’s pretty likely that someone there goes hunting.

Finally, that applies to target shooting and such as well, different guns for different types of shooting.

I can see it adding up a lot faster than you might think.

Hypothetically, let’s say you have 2 or 3 people in your family who are avid hunters, lots of people go hunting with their spouses and/or children. And each of you have, let’s say, a deer rifle, a shotgun for turkey and waterfowl, and a .22 for small game. So off the bat that’s about 6-9 guns.

And maybe you started your kid off with a .410 or a 20 gauge shotgun and a smaller .22 rifle for them to learn the fundamentals when they were younger, and when they got older you got a 12ga and a more appropriately-sized rifle for them to use, so there’s another couple guns.

And maybe some of you have different guns for different purposes, maybe you prefer a semi auto shotgun for waterfowl and a pump for upland hunting for whatever reason, or if you live in the suburbs you might be limited to shotgun slugs and straight walled rifle cartridges in the areas you can hunt closer to home so maybe you have a gun that meets those requirements and then another rifle for when you can go hunting in the mountains.

So you can pretty reasonably have a dozen or so guns in your household from just having a couple people who like to go hunting before you even start talking about carry or home defense guns, dedicated range/target shooting guns, or collecting them, etc.

I work for my county, I have coworkers who are proud that they don’t vote and don’t follow politics

WE. WORK. FOR. THE. GOVERNMENT! Go up the food chain from us a couple steps and our boss’, boss’, boss’ boss or something along those lines is an elected official! You’re basically passing up an opportunity to choose who your boss is, and those elections often end up happening on off years when there’s no presidential or other big election going on and even less people turn out to vote, so your vote really counts.

We’ll it would be harder to pick some Democrats from this neighborhood and a bunch of Republicans from that neighborhood if the district size is only one neighborhood

Also it would allow for more specific representation. Using myself as an example, my district is basically my county plus a couple small parts of some neighboring counties. One end of the county is pretty rural, the other half butts up against a major city and pretty much just bleeds right into it. We have some ridiculously wealthy old money areas, and we have some that look like they were plucked from a movie about gang violence. There’s a few towns here that I’ve legitimately never even had to drive through. It’s kind of insane that all of these different areas are being represented by the same person, we have very different and sometimes conflicting concerns. And if I needed to go to my representatives office for any reason, I’d have to drive about an hour to get there because of course she’s set up shop at the far end of the county from me.

Personally, I think the ideal way to draw districts is to kind of have voters do it when they vote. Give them a map, have them select the areas where they live, work, shop, drive through regularly, or have other connections to until they’ve selected an area with a big enough population to be a district. Then feed those maps into a computer and have it average them all together to generate the new district map.

Congress already basically has the power to overturn court rulings. They make laws.

Courts only rule on whether things are or are not in line with those laws.

This is of course simplified and a bit absurd for humorous effect, but in broad strokes this is how things work.

Let’s say there’s a law on the books that says people are not allowed to wear hats. Someone gets arrested for wearing a bandana on their head. They go to court challenging that arrest arguing that bandanas are not hats.

The court hears the arguments from both sides, the guy who was arrested arguing that the law doesn’t apply to bandanas, and the lawyers for the police arguing that the law applies more broadly to other forms of headwear.

The court listens to those arguments, and considers previous similar cases to look for precedent, (like maybe there was a guy who was arrested for having a baseball cap tied to his belt and whether that counted as “wearing” a hat, or someone was arrested for wearing a KFC bucket on his head and whether that met the legal definition of a hat, or someone who was arrested for wrapping a hat around their feet and whether that counted or only if you wore it on your head) Maybe they even consider whether wearing a hat should be considered a form of free speech and whether that law is legal.

And then that ruling establishes further precedent, which will affect how/if that law is applied going forward. If the court has already decided that wearing a bandana doesn’t count as a hat, then it doesn’t make sense to arrest people for it in the future because the court will just throw the case out based on that precedent.

Now whatever the outcome, let’s say Congress doesn’t like what the courts decided. They can pass newer and more specific laws concerning the legality of bandanas and other headgear, maybe even going so far as to add a constitutional amendment to specifically protect or exempt hats or bandanas as free speech.

And then going forward, the courts would need to rule on cases based on that new law or amendment.

So if the court rules that bandanas are ok, then Congress goes and makes a new law specifically banning bandanas and goes through the trouble (for some reason) to amend the constitution to say that bandanas are not free speech, then future arrests based on that would be based on that. You couldn’t retroactively arrest someone for wearing a bandana before it was made illegal, but you could sure arrest them if they do it again.

I was a delivery guy for a local pizzeria once upon a time (and that place still has their own drivers, and even their own delivery vehicles, which is practically unheard of)

And I’m not gonna lie, door dash and such was great for a while because it let me get food delivered from restaurants that otherwise didn’t do delivery.

But I’ve stopped using them, for a few reasons including their shitty business practices

But the straw that broke the camels back in each case that made me delete was them fucking up my order.

And that happens, I’m not particularly mad at the store or the driver, I’ve been there

But the way that these delivery apps handle it is, to me, unacceptable.

When I contacted them, their response was to just issue me a refund.

And to me, what should have happened, is I should have immediately had a replacement sent, expedited as much as possible, at no extra cost.

That’s what we always did when I was a delivery guy, and often with a gift certificate as an apology.

And sure, a refund on top of that would be nice, but really the root issue is that I don’t have the food I ordered. If I order it again, I’m going to the back of the delivery queue, and if I happened to order it when I was low on money I may not even be able to reorder it that day because that refund often takes a couple days to clear.

I once heard Spam described as “everything but the oink”

And so when I describe scrapple, I usually start with that, and then describe scrapple as being “mostly oink”

I’m not too sure about what the version of scrapple you received was, it sounds like some kind of bastardized hash, but scrapple is a common breakfast thing in the Mid-Atlantic/Delaware valley area.

The version I’m familiar with as a Philadelphian, admittedly doesn’t sound a whole lot better on paper, but the actual eating experience sounds a lot more pleasant. It’s basically pork scraps and organ meats simmered down until they’re falling apart and mixed with cornmeal and buckwheat then formed into a mushy loaf, which is then sliced and fried.

You’re not going to identify any particular piece of pork or anything else in it, it’s a pretty uniform grey mush, and the only real texture comes from frying it to give the outside a nice crispiness. Nothing tough or chewy about it, you barely need to chew it, the texture is probably more like polenta (which it kind of is) than anything else you might be familiar with. It also usually doesn’t contain any apple or potatoes.

It’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but if you find yourself near Philly don’t let whatever you were served in the south turn you off from trying actual scrapple.

Parts of Ohio have goetta, which I think is supposed to be pretty similar to scrapple but with oatmeal instead of corn meal.

I’ve also heard of “livermush” and “liver pudding” being served in some parts of the south, which honestly sound like dead-ringers for scrapple to me, though I have some friends from the south who insist that they’re different from and better than scrapple.

I feel like whatever you were served was some southerner trying to recreate something they heard described one time but never actually tried themselves, or just slapping the name on something without knowing that there’s another dish out there with the same name.

I think you’re confusing e85 with 85 octane gas

E85 is 85% ethanol, 15% gas (and e15 is the other way around)

Octane rating is a measure of how much you can compress a fuel before it ignites by itself. Higher octane gas is more resistant to that. (And e85 actually has a pretty high octane rating, usually somewhere north of 100. Regular gas often contains up to 10% ethanol, in part because it boosts the octane rating)

To expand on that a bit, if you compress gas enough, at a certain point it just catches fire on its own. This is actually a big part of how diesel engines work. Diesel is actually pretty hard to ignite, in some cases you can even put out small fires by pouring diesel on it (don’t try this at home) so they rely on getting high enough compression in order to work.

Gasoline is a lot more flammable though, you don’t really need to compress it at all for it to burn. Sure, ideally you probably want a certain compression ratio because something something stoichiometry but gas is more forgiving in that regard. As long as your air-fuel mixture is about right, it’s gonna burn when your spark plug goes off.

In fact, gas is maybe a little too forgiving, if your octane rating is too low and your engine compression is too high (mostly a problem with higher-performance engines) that gas can just kind of go off too early before the spark plug goes off, which causes “engine knock” which will cause damage.

But the other way around, high octane in a lower compression engine, basically does nothing spectacular. It still goes boom when the spark plug goes off and not until then.

I find it pretty weird that you’re obsessing over this so much and have posted about it several times tonight.

Yeah, it’s a bit strange, and it warrants investigation, and as the article says it is being investigated.

But also as someone who has spent a lot of time around water fishing, boating, swimming, etc. there are a whole lot of ways you can get yourself in trouble in or in the water, and I wouldn’t be terribly surprised to learn that it was just plain bad luck.

I’ve never owned a car personally with less than about 150,000 miles on it

My parents did get a brand new Kia sportage during cash for clunkers so pretty close to 0 miles on it

After that, the runner up is my dad’s truck. It’s a '93 forD ranger, and it just hit 100k within the last year (I’m proud to say I was driving when it happened)

He’s the third owner, my grandfather had it until he lost his license and he basically never went anywhere, and I have no idea who had it before him.

For a lot of the time after that my dad also worked less than a mile from home and other than that my mom does most of their driving. They also had 3 cars for much of that time so that further cut into how much use the truck got.

Edit: did a dumb, read this as lowest for some reason

I’m currently somewhere around 220,000 on my '07 4runner, and I believe that’s about the highest I’ve had.

Oh absolutely, I have 0 faith in this administration to do this in any kind of remotely sensible way

But in general, with different people at the helm, I could really get behind more hunting opportunities in national parks as a conservation tool.

Really I’d like to see predators like wolves reintroduced, but that’s not going to happen anytime soon, and realistically for it to work in the parks around me that I have in mind for this we’d probably need to bulldoze and reforest huge swathes of suburbia to support those predators, so nothing that’s going to happen in a hurry, even if we somehow got the people living there to agree to move or eminent domained their properties (which isn’t going to happen) we’d probably be looking at years if not decades just to replant and regrow the forests.

I live near a national historic park in a suburban area. They have struggled with deer overpopulation since we have basically no predators left in our area.

A few times a year they have sharpshooters doing deer culls after hours, and it’s helped a lot, you see some of those ripple effects where since the deer aren’t eating all the vegetation you’re seeing more and different kinds of plants returning which has brought back populations of other animals that used to be pretty uncommon.

And the deer are generally healthier with less competition from each other, I remember seeing a lot of sickly-looking deer there when I was a kid and I don’t see that as much anymore.

But even though the culls have helped, there’s still a bit of an overpopulation problem, and allowing some hunting could help with that, and maybe eliminate the need to pay sharpshooters for culling. We have other, similar-sized parks in our area where hunting is allowed with few to no issues and in this part of the state you’re basically limited to bows and shotguns which helps to limit how far a stray shot could go.

I wouldn’t want the whole park to be opened to hunting all through hunting season, but I think allowing it in certain parts of the bark on certain days could be very beneficial.

Sorry, but I think the point about local AI not necessarily being evil is the tangent here.

The OP is about motherboard shortages, which is being driven by the big AI companies and is making hardware unaffordable for normal users

The top level reply to that is about how that’s bad because it removes the ability for people to be in control of their own computing

Then someone comes in, saying “yeah, but you can host your own AI so that it’s not evil so not all AI is bad”

Then someone points out that you can only host your AI if you can afford the hardware to do so which, as the OP and the comment you replied to pointed out, is getting really hard to do.

There was a guy I knew back in high school, he was an idiot, and he knew it, he was one of the rare idiots who would actually listen to someone smarter than him if you tried to explain things to him. He leaned fairly conservative to begin with, but when he said some stupid bullshit you could get him to change his mind if you explained why it was stupid.

At some point I heard that he died, turns out that was exaggerated a bit, but he did get a pretty bad head injury, spent some time in a coma, etc. but he is mostly ok

But the next time I ran into him I noticed that he’s just not as willing to hear things out and change his mind anymore, and I can’t help but think that’s the brain damage.

It’s very possible that I’m misremembering, we are talking about a memory from almost 30 years ago from when I was a little kid

There’s also a very real chance that I was simply taught wrong, I wouldn’t exactly say that most of my elementary school teachers were particularly techy and probably not actually keeping up to date on search engines.

From what I could find though (after a quick Google search funnily enough, not really interested in doing any in-depth research) the Google domain was registered September 1997, and the company was officially founded September 1998. I don’t know if google.com actually went live on either of those dates, somewhere in-between or maybe shortly after (it does seem that they were up and running by August 1998 because that’s when the first Google doodle appeared) but in either case my school district usually started school in late August or early September so that timing seems like it would work out to me.

And even if it did launch at the end of the previous school year or over the summer break, summer break is only around 10-12 weeks so we would have been coming back just as Google was taking that top spot (if indeed it did do so that quickly, another search shows a lot of results saying that it didn’t get that big until around 2000, again, not going to fact-check that too closely because I just don’t care that much)

I remember back in like 4th grade when my school was just introducing us to the internet, they told us about the big (I think 6) search engines, which, if I recall, were

Yahoo, AltaVista, hotbot, lycos, ask Jeeves, and northern light

And then they also mentioned Google, which was still pretty new and hadn’t yet cemented its place in the internet yet. But they did say that Google had more results than the others, and that was all we needed to hear as kids and I think we all immediately started using Google almost exclusively.

It passed the house, but it’s very likely going to die in the Senate which has a Republican majority

The problem with EV battery disposal is mostly that there isn’t enough used batteries for companies to want to be involved in recycling them.

Part of that is because, unlike your claim, in a lot of cases they’re having perfectly long long service lives, even exceeding what we thought their lifespans might be (there are exceptions of course, like the early Nissan leafs)

And then other sources of used batteries, like from crashed vehicles, are being being reused more-or-less as-is for things like storage for solar power and home backups, which is preferable to recycling when possible

Eventually we’ll probably hit a critical mass of used batteries full of valuable lithium and such that companies will be clamoring over themselves to start recycling them, and maybe at some point we’ll even reach a point where no more lithium needs to be mined and we’ll be recovering all we need from dead batteries. Basically the whole battery can be recycled these days, its just a matter of building out the infrastructure to do it, and once there are enough batteries waiting to be recycled, someone will see dollar signs and step up to that plate.

And if the prices go up, I end up right back buying 10 year old used cars, so long term nothing really changes for me, personally, except I get to enjoy a couple years of driving a newer car than I’m used to.

And it generally helps increase EV adoption which is an overall good thing.

Not really seeing any downsides here.