Are you suggesting stones suffer psychological effects?
eksb
joined 11 months ago
They probably know that if they put corn starch on Stonehenge they'll be in jail for a few days and get community service, but if they put spray paint on a billionaire's yacht, they'd get shot.
You can sync messages from phone to phone. https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360007059752-Backup-and-Restore-Messages#android_transfer
There is no reason why the message sync that works from phone to phone could not be implemented on the desktop client as well.
I feel for the hundreds of engineers at Microsoft who have been yelling about these security issues since day one, but cannot say "I told you so" because they'd get fired.
To be clear, it is four times that pedestrians have to cross, not four times that drivers are encouraged to not slow down. Drivers are not explicitly encouraged to not slow down, but the point of the diverging diamond is to make drivers not have to slow down.
This is expensive to address because you have to separate cyclists out to the right before the right car lane splits for right turns before the crossover. And then you have to build a bridge or tunnel for cyclists and pedestrians. On each side.
Really, any road busy enough to justify a diverging diamond probably already needed separated bike lanes. But in America (motto: "If you aren't in a car, you don't matter"), there almost certainly was not any cycling infrastructure there before.
There is one of these near me. Their solution for pedestrians is to make them cross the high speed outer lanes four times (where drivers are encouraged to not slow down). Their solution for cyclists is take the lane and pray or get off and do what the pedestrians have to do.
Edited for clarity: pedestrians cross four times, not drivers are encouraged to not slow down four times.
Diverging diamonds are great if your only consideration is car throughput.
If you are considering people walking or riding bicycles, they are shit.
Get an A/V receiver, a computer monitor or dumb TV, and speakers. Then you can get a Roku streaming player and it cannot show you anything when you do not have its input selected on the receiver.
Even an inexpensive pair of bookshelf speakers placed on either side of the TV will sound better than built-in TV speakers. Add a center speaker and a subwoofer drastically improved sound.
Non-4k AV receivers are dirt cheap used.
Apparently everybody before 1800 was a bad parent.
view more: next ›
That is not the entire point of SCOTUS. That is not even in the constitution; it is a power the court gave itself in Marbury v. Madison.
Most SCOTUS decisions are judging appeals against federal law (including the constitution). Occasionally they rule a federal law unconstitutional, but not usually.