So, in this system, when does government execute this option? Does it execute on everyone and becomes the largest real estate broker in the world and the Tax Day becomes also the day you book movers to move into the next house? And if not, who is going to be moving all the time and who is going to enjoy paying taxes off their $5 houses unmolested? Who gets to buy hovels and resell them to the government at $100M a pop? So many questions need to be answered before we get to implement it.
Though it could also be a case with a HOA, a government employee is much more likely to not give any fucks about local ordinances than the board of HOA, composed of people who are directly affected by violations.
When people are talking about seed oils they rarely mean olive oil, usually it's "canola oil" (considering what "canola" stands for it's insulting not just to one's digestive system but intellect too).
A consulate overseas is more equipped to vet someone from the country where it is located than a USCIS office in New Hampshire. E.g. it has people able to read the documents in the local language and access to the officials who can validate those, it has people able to call or mail local authorities to ask about an applicant's involvement in crime, it has people who can recognize affiliations with local extremist groups etc.
It is actually really bizarre that the USCIS would essentially take the applicant's word without any vetting before this memo.
Depending on the person, they may have spent years or possibly a decade or more in the US before trying to get an AOS. As such, the USCIS is probably a better adjudicator than a consulate.
If someone came in as a child then it's true, and thus there is a discretion. Adults have history in their home country which does not disappear in 10 years or any period of time.
They really don't. Even if you slam brakes and OTB on a bike you will still fly further ahead than a car doing double your speed will travel after applying brakes normally.
This is the insanity of running stop signs on a bike - you can't stop, you cannot swerve nearly as quickly as a car and you will take much more damage when T-boned than a car driver would yet you believe it's safer because:
I think that's just wrong. Bikes stop on a dime (unless going high road-bike speeds), and are much more maneuverable due to their mass and two wheels, and are effectively much more maneuverable because their dimensions make it much easier to avoid objects and fit into the many more spaces than cars can fit in.
In my experience as someone who rides a bike with hydraulic disc brakes and drives frequently, they really don't stop very quickly. I pretty much always am more confident I can stop my car faster. The bike may have a lot less mass but it also has a lot less traction and it's much easier to lock up a wheel and skid instead of stopping quickly, especially in poor conditions/on road paint. I do cycle fairly fast, but this is on a mountain bike on the road, certainly not fast compared to a fit person on a road bike.
I will give you that they're much more maneuverabile and accidents can often be avoided by putting the bike into a space in the road that a car couldn't go into.
Maneuverability of a bike suffers from the same traction issue. At the speed when you can't plant your foot to pivot around bikes need to go much slower than cars in the same corners to not skid out. Check out descends on any road race, bikes are braking to 20-30 mph in sone corners, which cars pass at full speed. Not to mention that a car can skid fairly easily on either axle, while on a bike very few can get out of the rear wheel skid and the front wheel skid is the game over.
> The bike may have a lot less mass but it also has a lot less traction
I've long wondered about that tradeoff: I've heard some (non-physics-aware) people say that heavier cars/trucks stop faster because they have more traction, but obviously there's a big tradeoff in that equation. As a guess, on a moving wheeled vehicle, 1 kg adds forward energy proportional to velocity, and downward energy constant and independent of velocity? And maximizing that tradeoff would seem to be an engineering goal in order to minimize muscle/gas expenditure. (I'm sure it's well-known but I'm too lazy to look up the details.)
That ignores road/tire and air resistance which are proportional to velocity. And I suppose a key question is the degree to which traction depends on vehicle weight: maybe it depends more on tire and road characteristics, for example. Certainly ice or some kind of low-grip tire would be a big factor.
And that ignores locking up the wheel, as you pointed out.
You could just get on a bike and test for yourself your theory. People who ride bikes tell you they are not good at stopping quickly, perhaps you should ask yourself how you became so knowledgeable without riding?
Where did you get this? Humans, like all mammals, are not very efficient at converting chemical energy into mechanical work, definitely less efficient than ICE at 30% COP (aerobic process gives about 20-25% COP and anaerobic is horrible 5-10).
Humans are not metabolically efficient, yes, but on a bicycle the total transport efficiency is more efficient than anything else, and 30% for an ICE car is in ideal, optimal conditions. Real world stop and go driving is likely closer to 15%.
A human on a bicycle is efficient because of mass and that the bicycle itself is a very efficient machine. A cyclist will burn around 30cal/mile of riding. If a gallon of gas has about 31.5k kcal of energy, then that's about 1,000MPGe for a human on a bike. A 200lb person + 20lb bike requires very little energy to overcome rolling resistance compared to a 2000+ lb ICE vehicle that spends the majority of its energy just to move its own mass.
I don't know what "total transport efficiency" is or how is it measured, I just noticed you mentioned 70% of energy wasted by ICE as if humans waste less than that. As for more efficient than anything else in terms of MPG, you might want to check the current MPG record, it's in range of 15K MPG on some hydrogen powered car if memory serves.
Did you read it?
Humans aren’t very efficient movers—until you put us on a bicycle, when we become some of the most energy-efficient land travelers in the animal kingdom. right at the start. It talks about animals only.
"The right to privacy" while being in public is entirely the hallucination of LLMs who drive redditors. "Public" is an antonym to "private" in any thesaurus. "Privacy in public" is an oxymoron.
The fact that there are cameras is fine. But the issue is who owns the data, what is done with it, and what the end goal is. And with Flock cameras, DHS gets backend access and shares that infomation with ICE, for example: https://komonews.com/news/local/redmond-pd-completely-suspen...
I am in favor of traditional traffic cameras, I just don't think analytics and facial recognition systems should be hooked up to them. They should be used for archival purposes, scrubbing back to a date of a crime to get the full picture.
It is not an issue for me, but it's beside the point of the "right to privacy in public". If you want to argue that the law enforcement should not be able to collect public data you need something other than this imaginary right.
>With small/insufficient muscle size, you simply run out of stored glycogen before you get tired cardiovascularly.
You can eat carbs during cardio ("fueling") though it's unlikely an issue doing 600 mins a week. Muscles store 15g of glycogen per 1kg (more for trained athletes) , which amounts to 60 (k)calories. In aerobic process with COP ~ 25% these nicely convert to output energy of 60 kJ. To produce this much output over 90 minutes you need to push power of ~11 watt. Elite athletes have FTP (functional threshold power) around 6 w/kg. It's over the entire body mass, not just muscle, but even if you are pushing 50% body fat, you can be pretty confident you have enough glycogen for 90 min of aerobic exercise at your FTP (also liver holds/can produce on demand quite a lot of glycogen and aerobic process will use fat for energy as well). Even if you do 200 minutes 3 times a week instead of doing 90 minutes every day you can get by staying in under 3 w/kg power zone, which is still greater than most people's FTP (and even fewer people can hold this power over 3 hours).
It works to the point that people used to put up fake cameras when the real surveillance was expensive (CCTV cameras with multichannel VCR type of setup). Also, I am not sure you are aware, but criminals are very constrained during prison time and are limited to committing crimes against other criminals in the prison, leaving citizens alone.
reply