Freedom of association is in the First Amendment with the other biggies.
If I have a list of people who want to spend $500 to join my weekly poker night club, it’s my Constitutional right to choose whom to let in, assuming I’m not discriminating in a way that has 14th Amendment problems.
> "assuming I’m not discriminating in a way that has 14th Amendment problems"
The Supreme Court decision to ban race-conscious admissions in higher education is based on the 14th Amendment. This law by California is made in light of that decision.
A major contention seems to be if states should have the right to modify or add the list of protected classes that is included for the 14th amendment.
Really need a Constitutional scholar or attorney to chime in, but as far as I understand, you can base admission to a private club on protected characteristics as well. The cases in which you can't are businesses commonly understood to be public access, like restaurants and barber shops and what not that have street fronts. But Augusta National never had to admit women. They caved to public pressure and Master's sponsors withdrawing money, not to the law.
This is, of course, why all boy's schools and all girl's schools can still exist, too. If HBCUs wanted to formally ban white people, I'm sure they'd face some backlash, but I think it would be legal to do that. All-male priesthoods are still normal and common. The Church of Jesus Christ, Latter Day Saints had an all-white priesthood up until 1978 and that was legal, just another case of responding to public pressure.
You're correct. However, there's no mechanism for enforcement, so no one here will have any standing. It's like the laws making it illegal to desecrate an American flag. unenforceable, but sometimes on the books.
Developers don't care about cost of operation, only cost to build. If there weren't efficiency rules in building codes developers would still be building houses with paper walls here for $750K.
Swamp coolers are not effective during at least July-September, when the dewpoint regularly rises to 65°F+ for weeks at a time.
Drier than the south still isn't dry enough when it's 117°F with a dewpoint of 65°F. You'll end up with output temps in the high 80s (or higher), and the output air will be extremely wet.
No, but if the air is saturated with H2O then sweating doesn't work. Swamp coolers are useful up to a point; ideally they bring down the temperature until you don't sweat. If they can't, and saturate the air instead, then they're worse than nothing.
Once it goes beyond alerting, this is going to kill someone.
A driver will be on a 2-lane road (1 lane each way), and attempt to pass the driver in front of them. A car will be coming the other way, and they won't be able to get in front in time.
They'll try to slow and get back in, but the other cars will have filled the space. They'll have nowhere to go.
Perhaps in this example the driver shouldn't have tried to pass in the first place, but removing an "out" from this situation, in which everyone gets to go home to their families, is a horrible idea.
This scenario is terribly specified. If you don't have clear time to pass a car in front of you without going an absurd amount over the posted speed limit, you almost certainly are putting yourself in danger already? I'll go further and say that people that take excess speeds in this scenario are already causing more accidents today, than a limiter would cause in the future.
Edit: I should say I think it would be a bad idea to have the car force you to go slower than 1km over a limit. Having it visually alert that you are speeding, though, seems far more reasonable.
I wholeheartedly disagree. When you’re passing someone on a two-lane highway you should always speed way up to get the hell out of the lane of oncoming traffic.
In general, you shouldn't be passing in a scenario that requires you jumping over ~10mph over the limit. And if you can see oncoming traffic, pretty much at all, you should probably not pass.
If you've passed a car before, it feels pretty clear that minimizing your time spent in the same lane as oncoming traffic is a much bigger priority than minimizing how much you go over the speed limit.
I've passed plenty of cars. Usually, in this scenario, I can exceed their speed by 15+ without even crossing the speed limit. If I had to go 10+ over the overall speed limit to pass them, I almost certainly just setup a situation where I'm either speeding in general to stay ahead of them, or I moved a single car's distance in the line that I was in. Which... seems silly to argue for.
If you are in a place with very flat/straight roads, you can pass while seeing oncoming traffic. I don’t know how it is in Australia (who are known to have some of the flattest straightest roads on earth) but in Nebraska this is definitely feasible.
Fair that I can't say you should never do so. I'd stand by it as a general safe rule, though? If the road is that long and straight, I'd imagine it also has a rather high base speed limit already.
Definitely on a twisty and/or hilly road you don’t want to pass if you can see above or around. But there are lots of places in the country where you pass if you can see the oncoming cars are far enough away. And you are usually passing a truck or RV going 40 so it’s not that hard.
However, I’m so glad I live in an urban area now where such driving skills aren’t really needed much anymore. I’d defer to people living in rural areas that do this many times a day.
Agreed that it can be subjective and can/does happen often. I further agree with you that you are most often to want to pass if someone is doing 40 and the limit is 50+. In those cases, we wouldn't be in the scenario offered in this thread, as you often don't even have to speed to execute that pass.
That said, I underline again that I think a system that impacts throttle at merely 1 over the limit would be a bad idea.
Yes. And if you're pulled over for speeding way up, I have never heard of a traffic cop who will ticket you.
Some online study aids for passing start with "increase your speed so you may finish the pass quickly" and end with "maintain a safe passing speed until you have created sufficient distance to resume a safe cruising speed." Others recommend a full 10mph speed difference to keep the passing time short.
I've known people to get a ticket in this exact scenario. Speeding is not allowed just to pass and will often times get you hit with a reckless driving charge, as well. Especially so if you go 10+ over the limit.
Now, if you mean someone that went less than 5 over the limit, I'm back in agreement with you. But, that is within the realm of speed that probably won't get you pulled over even when not passing?
I think the whole thing is quite subjective and certainly in part the subjection would depend on that particular officer's mood on that particular time on that particular day at that particular place.
The subjective assessment would be along the lines of differentiating between "driver slowly and casually accelerated to 10 mph over the limit, passed the car with a wide berth, and merged back with a large buffer" versus "driver suddenly accelerated from 10 mph below the speed limit to 3 above, spitefully passed closely to another car before dangerously cutting 2 feet in front of them"
I think most officers have been driving long enough to tell if someone is driving like a dick or cruising at 10 mph over and being chill. The latter will still get you a ticket, sure, but the likelihood of getting excoriated by them is less than say, 5 mph over the limit and you're tailgating and cutting people off. Some of those things maybe the cop can't legally write you up for, but the cop will see, can tell, and will make sure that you'll get written up for some thing or another. And hey that's a good thing, nobody likes a douchey driver.
If you casually and slowly accelerated to 10 over, passed with a large berth, and then presumably dropped back to speed; this was not a rapidly executed pass and I question if you should have even done it?
You are right that they have discretion. So, yeah, it is subjective. People online get way too defensive of aggressive driving. Seemingly without realizing they are describing aggressive behavior. And if you are at all worried you will have to exceed the posted limit to successfully overtake another vehicle, make no mistake you are driving aggressively.
If this is common where you are, you are near some pretty bad drivers? Passing on a two lane road is something that you pretty much should only do if the lead car is below the speed limit.
Half half the drivers on the road are worse than median. And road rage is a very real thing. Being passed triggers road rage like you wouldn't believe sometimes.
Yes, even when they're going under the speed limit.
Funny framing of it, but that isn't necessarily how the median works. Consider, what are the median number of fingers on a person's hand? How many people have less than the median number of fingers? :D
Is a fair point that it could be more common than I'd expect. I remember being a teenage driver and we were quite bad. Would love to see data on this.
The normal way I hear it stated is "half of X are worse than average". But an average would not work with that statement in a pedantic environment. HN is a pedantic environment.
"On a distribution curve of driver skill, half of the drivers will be of lower skill than the driver at the median of the data set. Unless there's an even number of entries, in which case there is no median driver, just an inferred skill value based on the values to either side of the middle of the data set."
Before I finish typing this, I want to make it clear that I'm just having fun with the numbers/math/language here.
Even that statement doesn't really work outside of fully unique values across a specific distribution. Take samples where you have many duplicates, and you can easily have the vast majority of values flat out be the average/median when you have some distributions. Is why I picked average number of fingers. The VAST majority of counts there are the same value. The outliers being dwarfed to insignificance both high and low.
There is nothing passive aggressive about speeding up when being passed. The previous behavior of going too slow is what was passive aggressive; but once that driver accelerates, they have disrobed themselves of all pretence of passivity.
That might be true but only if we know their motives, which we usually don’t. One could argue that any driver isn’t passive aggressive because they are actively driving their vehicle. However part of the passive aggressive definition includes intentionally making mistakes in response to others demands. All of that being said, the difference is subtle and probably not worth arguing in this context.
> Eg: the person you are trying to pass, passive-aggressively speeds up.
Happens all the time to me. It's usually people in big trucks who get angy that a car dares to pass them. They'll go up over 80mph in a 45mph zone if you don't (or can't) finish the pass, or give up. And if you give up, they'll brake check you for your audacity.
Having your controls start misbehaving while accelerating, or loud beeping (which is currently reserved for "you're about to hit something" while driving) is asking for a driver to lose control.
Here's a protip for dealing with impulsive / aggressive big truck drivers.
Big trucks go max 30 mph uphill. It's their achilles heel.
Cool your jets let them cuck you and be in front of you going slow all they want. When that big hill comes up, with that sweet passing lane, just pedal to the floor.
Now, if you get in front of them, or any car, and have the balls, and it's hilly country, you do this. Imagine they're tailgating you hard. You're going down a big hill. Put your gas pedal to the floor, downhill, You're max-accelerating. BUT .. ... LIGHTLY touch your brake pedal. Brake lights on. The tailgater will now back off because brake lights, as you rocket ahead at maximum acceleration. Aha! The tailgater catches onto the ploy and puts their pedal the floor as well. Now they too max-accelerate. Now you're at the bottom of the hill. Now you let go completely of the gas pedal, and the brake. You are now going uphill and you are slowing down quite aggressively, just from the uphill consuming momentum.... ... BUT your brake lights are now OFF! Thusly: you have maximally accelerated while braking, and maximally braked while accelerating. This will melt in anger the mind of any aggressive tailgator and they will either back off believing you're a total psycho, or shoot you (also believing you're a psycho). But it is a lesson in non-impulsive tactics & strategy versus impulsive driving. Patient strategy wins every time.
The big trucks I'm referring to are a Dodge Ram, or Ford 250, etc. They have more than enough power to do hills.
Shitty semi drivers are thankfully super rare, if you drive normally. AKA, I've never had a semi driver get annoyed at me. Might help that their CDL can be pulled regardless of who's at fault in an accident if the DOT thinks they could have de-escalated the scenario.
I think your tactic is too much of an escalation. Prefer Morse code on the brake light: it will make them think, wonder who or what you are, get less angry.
This is probably not what anyone who reads this title is expecting it to be.
On the other hand, there's a project on iOS, "Rubyist", that embeds mRuby and lets you actually write, parse, and execute ruby code within your app. It even has some hooks for calling into some iOS APIs (Widget APIs, most notably). It's a fun idea, but might be a dead project. https://rubyist.app
I wish there was a canonical Xcode project getting mRuby imported into an iOS/Mac app, so anyone could use it as a starting point for their ideas. I dunno, maybe one is out there and I just haven't found it?
Profit does not rise proportionally with costs as reliability increases (i.e. it costs a lot of money to make it more reliable, but you don't get to charge substantially more). The electric company monopoly does not have incentives to spend money to be more reliable. All the downsides of widespread power outage are externalized onto the customers.
Have you ever been to the American West? It's nearly all suburban. You would literally have to raze what's there and start over if you wanted to be able to efficiently transport people with public transport.
(Not suggesting there's something wrong with that, per se. But good luck getting someone's who just in it for the money to go above and beyond.)
reply