Vanth

most engineers actually doing the road design 'assume' drivers are mostly rational actors and are not overtly defensive in their design. Instead, they wait until crash data collected after the fact forces the issue.

This is absolutely wild to me. I'm an engineer, mechanical background, related to traffic in the air rather than on roads, and we have SO MANY REMINDERS pushing the idea of proactive safety measures and mistake-proofing any potential safety hazards. From industry standards to regulatory body and customer requirements, to internal procedures, backed by tools and specific courses in engineering coursework. Folks would be in jail if they acted like this, like, "yeah, that plane door might fly open if some idiot goes at it the wrong way but *shrug, we'll tweak the design once someone actually does it and kills a planeload of people.

I think because it's so car-centric lots of people have to be able to drive to hold a job or go to school. So it's seen almost more like a "right". Compared to my friends in London or Sydney were the view seems much more that proficiency should be worked towards and licensure earned.

There is probably some parallel to gun culture, though that actually is a "right" here. A person who has no business around weapons can still buy enough to kit a small army. Beat their spouse? Meh, they can still own guns. Road rage? Psh, that's no reason to pull their drivers license or their guns.

Also, I was 13 when I got a license to drive. My state had the lowest age I am aware of for kids who lived in rural areas and didn't have school bus service so they could drive themselves to school. So yeah, 13 years old and I drove a car from home into the city of 300k people to get to my school. The only accident I have ever been responsible for was wiping out a mailbox when I slid on some ice. Motorcycle license at 15 years old after a short written test and riding the bike about six city blocks. I'm technically a successful example of the low age limits and I think it was fucking stupid.

I wonder what the field of study is called that prepares people for this kind of traffic management/design job and whether is includes average driver/distracted driver/lowest common denominator design considerations. Putting new concrete barriers out without bright paint and reflectors surprises me; people driving their cars right up on them does not.

When my hometown put in their first traffic circle, they incorporated a pedestrian tunnel under one of the entry/exit points. Within the first two weeks, a driver got confused going around the circle for the first time, went over the edge, and dropped their car 8+ feet into the pedestrian tunnel. Fortunately, there were no pedestrians in the tunnel at the time and the driver was ok. They added a guardrail along that edge of the circle.

There were also people going the opposite direction around the circle from the intended flow. And drivers ping ponging between lanes as they went around the circle unsure what lane they should be in, including a cop car I personally witnessed doing it multiple days in a row. And cars that would just plow straight through the middle of the circle until they packed it with brick planters, flowers, and an art installation.

Even if 99.9% of drivers are attentive and safe, 0.1% is a lot of chaos and accidents. I would hope designing for that 0.1% gets a disproportionally weighty amount of attention.

Yeah, that's how convection and radiation work. Do I notice it? No. Do I care? No. It's hot as balls with or without the neighbors house next door, I'll be running fans and the a/c regardless.

If you're asking for the engineering of it all, you're looking for study materials from Heat Transfer courses, keywords: convection, radiation, R-value.

In Texas, murder applies when the person

Intentionally or knowingly cause the death of another person [or] Intend to cause serious bodily injury and commit an act clearly dangerous to human life that results in death

While manslaughter means

if they recklessly cause the death of another person. Unlike murder, manslaughter does not require intent to kill or cause serious injury. It focuses on reckless behavior that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death.

Sure reads like those charges should bump from manslaughter to murder.

Promoted twice since I last saw my boss in person. I asked him if would see any issue himself or for the company if I relocated myself back across the country closer to family; he was confused as to why I even asked.

He's not even a particularly good boss in most ways, but tons of people want to work for him because he stays the fuck out of their way.

I hum it off and on for literally years. Pretty sure I have hummed a bar of "my milkshake brings the boys to the yard" in public dozens if not hundreds of times.

I don't know any lyrics beyond that hook and I couldn't even tell you the artist/group. If I stopped to think why that song, it might bother me. So I don't think about it.

I need someone more insightful than me to explain how Trump and team could see this is a good idea for them. Obviously they're doing it to line their own pockets, yada yada, but there are 925 days left for Trump in office and this will collapse long before then.

I must not be smart enough (Dumb enough? Jaded enough? Flat out evil enough?) to put myself in their sweaty, ass-smelling shoes to understand why.

Edit: Duh. I think ToastedCoconuts and Hegar nailed it. Mid-terms.

Also how I water some of my plant, setting them in a pan of water to soak up from the bottom rather than water from above down onto the topsoil.

My aunt, age 65+, calls it "butt chugging" instead of the more common "bottom watering". I had the pleasure of seeing her use the term in front of her two adult gay sons this past weekend. Valiant efforts made to keep their faces straight.

On, no. Someone let the smoke out! The smoke is supposed to stay on the inside.

Didn't expect such a real answer.

The legit app I pay real money for was non-functional yesterday so I sailed the seas for a stream of Mexico v Ecuador and made the mistake of glancing at the chat as I went to mute the annoying "pop" sound from each new post. Sweet bebe jeebus that was a horrible half second.

Microsoft earlier this year announced a voluntary retirement program offering buyouts to employees level 67 and below in the US who had 70 or more years of age and service. About 7% of Microsoft's 125,000 US workforce, or nearly 9,000 employees, was eligible.

Weirdly written. Does that mean 7% of their employees were 70 years or older? Or that age + work years greater than 70 means eligible, like I'm 50 and worked t MS for 20 years, 50+20=70 so meet eligibility. Must be that one. "Level 67 and below" is also useless formation to someone who doesn't know MS levels.