I really wish EV manufacturers would get around to targeting fleet pickups. Generic, bare-bones, featureless trucks.

Lordstown Motors got done in partially by its own management, partially by a short seller making an ass-ton of money by screwing them over. It had little to do with fleet customers.

The only way a manager should be taking any portion of any tips from a customer is if they are the sole worker serving that customer. They are not entitled to tips earned by subordinates, even if those subordinates have a tip sharing arrangement.

Yellow means stop if you can... do so safely.

If you're going to fast to make a normal turn at the light, you're too close to that intersection to stop safely, and you should proceed without braking.

More's the pity.

You're assuming you know how long it lasts, as does everyone else on the road. That is an exceptionally poor assumption. You can't make that assumption simply because you set the timing on your traffic light to 12 seconds of yellow. To make that assumption, every driver who sees your traffic light must not have ever seen any traffic light with a shorter yellow. One driver whose home town used 3-second yellow lights and red light cameras is not going to know you use 12-second yellows, and he's going to slam on his brakes as soon as they come on. Your 12-second drivers behind him are going to be forced to panic stop because of him.

If his home town used 3-second yellows without traffic cameras, without excessive enforcement, he's going to roll through anyway. He's not going to slam on his brakes

What? No. It has nothing to do with the timing. You could give 12 seconds yellow lights, plenty enough time to get through, but as soon as you put up a camera, some jackass is still going to come to a complete stop rather than risk the possibility of a camera catching them "running" a red light.

It has nothing to do with the timing of the lights, and everything to do with the psychology of people being recorded.

He’s going to blow a red light? And you think that’s a better situation than him not blowing it?

Correct.

After the yellow, there is a period of 2-4 seconds where all lights in every direction are red, before cross traffic is given a green. Our 3-second (no camera) driver completes his journey through the intersection during this "red all-ball" stage.

This is a property of the distribution of light timings across a territory,

That is exactly what I said. I went further, and reminded you that traffic light timings are not universal. They differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Generally not by much, occasionally by a lot.

In my country I believe all traffic lights have approximately three seconds.

Your country is the exception, then, and not the rule. Generally, yellow light duration is supposed to be calculated from the greater of the posted speed limit, or actual, observed speeds. 3 seconds is not adequate for an intersection 45mph or greater.

and is still not something to do with red-light cameras.

Where cameras are largely absent, drivers tend to favor "reasonable effort" to comply with the yellow. The "reasonable effort" driver will only brake for a fresh yellow light if they can complete a normal stop; they will not initiate hard, "panic" braking. The additional "red all-ball" signal stage provides ample protection. No additional danger arises from a "reasonable effort" driver choosing to proceed instead of introducing the unnecessary hazards of "panic" braking.

Where cameras are present, drives tend to favor "strict compliance", braking hard and dangerously to ensure they don't cross the stop bar during the red and risk a citation. The "red all-ball" stage is superfluous to this driver.

"Panic" braking introduces a risk of control loss from loss of traction, as well as excess wear and tear on tires, wheels, brakes, suspension and steering components. "Panic braking" poses considerably higher risks than a "reasonable effort" approach to yellow-light compliance.

This claims to be his story. I haven't verified it, but I have no reason not to believe it. Basically, UHC tortured his mother for years through denial of care, then they did the same to him.

I would note that he is 26 years old: He likely just aged out of his parents' health insurance policy, and I would guess that he can't get decent coverage on his own due to his pre-existing condition.

Edit: This has since been described as impersonation. While there is certainly a truth to it, it is not the truth.

Stockbridge Damper.

Basically, it keeps the pole from vibrating like a guitar string. The chains are there in case the supporting rod breaks; they keep the heavy weight from going through your windshield.

If it’s a legitimate assault, the male body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.

Jury Nullification arises from the constitution's guarantee of the right to a jury trial. This guarantee creates one of a few constitutional obligations on the individual: The obligation to judge your peer, as a layperson.

The judge has a slightly different duty, due to "Separation of Powers". The judge is charged with enforcing legislated law. The judge is not permitted to evaluate whether that law should or should not exist; the judge must presume that the law is valid unless it conflicts with a superior law, such as the constitution. This is why the judge must treat nullification as a secret: They violate the separation of powers as soon as they tell the jury they are free to ignore legislated law.

You, the juror, are not subject to the separation of powers. As a member of "We The People", the Constitution derives its powers from you, not the other way around. Your duty, as a juror, is to provide the accused with their right to be judged by a jury of their peers.

Your obligation arises from the Constitution, and to the accused. Where legislated law conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution supersedes the legislated law. Where you, as a layperson, believes that the legislated law does not adequately address the circumstances of the accused, you are not just "allowed" to find the accused not guilty; you are morally obligated to do so.

You will be asked if you hold any beliefs that would prevent you from rendering a judgement solely on the basis of the law, which would make you ineligible to serve on a jury. The constitution is law. My beliefs arise from the constitution, and I hold no beliefs that would prevent me from rendering a judgment on the basis of anything other than the law. I can honestly answer "No".

If jurors can ultimately do whatever they want, what stops them from using nullification all the time?

We don't actually know how often juries nullify. It is impossible to distinguish between an acquittal on the basis of "Reasonable Doubt" and an acquittal on the basis of "This law did not envision this defendant's specific circumstances".

Return the dignity of work ...

... by paying them what they're fucking worth, asshole.

Caption: Taylor Swift, wearing a black turtleneck, holding her dinner.

"How large of a gap can a forklift jump?"

Looks like Little John and Robin Hood

Every member of the military needs to be reminded that they are obligated to disobey illegal orders. They can be criminally charged for obeying an unlawful order.

Every member of the military needs to be reminded that the Posse Comitatus act prohibits the military from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities.

And every member of the military needs to be reminded that immigration is a law enforcement issue, not a military issue.

You know, if you just kill everyone, there will be nobody left to accuse you of supporting atrocities.

Bezos is right. Double of nothing is... nothing.

We should spend the next year blanketing NY with information about jury nullification.