litchralee

There is something refreshing about how the Canadian legal system operates, when it comes to challenges against the government. Compare this to, say, the USA and it's breathtaking how thorough the judge wrote his opinion.

The first observation is that the judge breaks down the judgement into individual sections, some commonplace in American judgements and some not-so-common. A restatements of the relevant background is expected, but a thorough discussion for each piece of evidence/testimony introduced would have American jurists reeling. That level of detail normally is only articulated at appeals-level courts. But maybe that's normal in Canada because appeals are not necessarily automatic like they are in the USA; I understand that Canadian appeals require seeking permission (aka "leave" from the judge) to submit an appeal for the upper-court to hear, or the upper-court must be sufficiently interested to want to hear it at all.

Another difference is apparently the standard for "mootness". In the USA, stemming from the Case and Controversy clause in the federal constitution, judicial power is foreclosed when fully adjudicating the case at hand would not actually yield any different result. Whereas it seems that in Canada, there is more authority for a court to hear a case, if it originally started as a live controversy but resolving the core matter would clear the air, even though the present matter might not necessarily be any different. That is to say, Canadian courts retain discretion to continue a case, whereas American courts have to drop a case once mootness is found.

Finally, the judge in this case has no qualms calling out the government's proferred experts for their notable omissions, contrary opinions to everyone else in the field, or when the expert's testimony actually bolsters the supposition that bike lane removal will cause harms or won't reduce roadway congestion. American judges sometimes like to "split the difference" when it comes to expert testimony, but when it comes to rights of great import, that's like trying to split a baby. A supposed expert may not gallivant into court, spew anecdata, and be admitted to the same degree as all other experts who have testified to the contrary and came with srudies and citations. The section where the judge analyzes the evidence/testimony for undue bias is particularly apt.

Overall, the ruling seems well-supported in showing that the law's execution necessarily implicates the Canadian Charter, by being arbitrary about who should be free of bodily injury and who shouldn't. That said, the ruling is also quite narrow, only limited to the three separated bike paths in question. But this is likely because the complaint only went after the more egregious, most overturn-able part of the provincial law. The remaining provisions such as requiring Ministry approval for future bike lanes that displace motor vehicles lanes would continue to apply. But likely, those provisions can be litigated after the Ministry issues its first such denial.

It should also be noted that the case turned quite heavily on the separated nature of the three bike paths. The judge specifically contrasted evidence of typical bike lanes against those which have physical barriers and protections. Thus, subsequent cases involving the removal of painted bike lanes are not guaranteed to have as easy of a time in court.

Finally, as another procedural difference to America, the Canadian process for seeking an interlocutory injunction (USA: preliminary injunction) seems to move quicker. Though this might have to do with the obvious "balance of equities" problem, since if the province could quickly destroy the bike lanes before the court hears the matter, then that's a lot of waste if it turns out the law was bad. Meanwhile, the USA federal judiciary seems to be gutting the notion of any sort of balancing, blindly giving benefit of doubt to the federal government's most far-fetched legal claims of power. But I digress.

Is there anything legally stopping you from making your town think you're a gangster who robbed a bank and somehow got away with it?

If the goal is to convince other people to think you're a bank robber, but without actually having to rob a bank, I think it could be done with much less effort and likely more effective. But this then gets into the ethical line between little white lies and outright deception or misinformation.

Because one way to achieve that goal is to doctor a bunch of evidence that would "incriminate" yourself, such as AI-generated video, then disseminate that to local reporter s, while also plastering it on social media using astroturf accounts, and might as well stuff a copy into a manila envelope and mail to the local District Attorney.

And all of that is probably legal in most jurisdictions in the USA, with the probable sole exception of intentionally wasting the prosecutor's office's effort, since they had not solicited such evidence. Compare this to "tip lines", which expressly seek info and they are fully cognizant that not all the tips will be good.

I read only your comment and the first paragraph of the plot on Wikipedia, and I'm sold. It sounds like a more modern version of The Count of Monte Cristo -- which I absolutely love as a novel -- which then involves vampires somehow.

And I'm here for it. Added to my library reading list.

I think -- but do correct me if I have this wrong -- what you're describing is a resort, which all the big casinos do have, hence "casino resort". Resorts are truly astounding, how they basically operate their own in-house logistics. That some casinos expand to become a resort is not a coincidence, since it's the lure that draws people, and then they stay for the food, the hotel, the shows, etc...

But there are also non-casino resorts, often located in otherwise undeveloped places that don't have a nearby town to support all the visitors. And then at sea, there are floating resorts in the form of cruise ships, whose logistics are simply unfathomable to me.

The total San Rafael city budget is approximately $190 million, with $40 million being dedicated to public works for 2025-2026 (down from $50 million the year prior). $1.9 million thus constitutes 5% of the allocated budget, and that would be for just one project.

With public revenue down and expenses rising from by tariff-induced inflation, this is how a municipality can go from alright to treading water to underwater in just a few years.

Not to say that San Rafael is a model city of financial strength, but American cities can't conjure money from thin air, with even the "full taxing authority" of a municipality sometimes proving unable to avoid financial collapse.

This seems like a management/organizational issue, and so that means it needs to be handled by your manager, who would then figure out how to approach their counterparts on the other team. You would provide as detailed of info as you can to your manager, and leave it with them to best deal with that matter. If your manager needs concrete examples of how company time/effort is being wasted by the other team's shenanigans, help them help you.

If you're in engineering, your focus is to build stuff and make it work. And your manager's focus is to maintain the prerequisites for you to do your job. This does necessarily mean that in the interim, while management works on a resolution, you may still be asked to fix some of their mess. And you should do so, in a professional manner, to the best degree that you can stomach. Obv, if management drags the issue out, then you'll have to weigh your options, since it would demonstrate a management chain that isn't doing their own job properly. And that's no environment conducive to success on your part.

Possession of content -- with the unique exception of CSAM -- in the USA does not draw a distinction between how it was acquired, whether or not it may have violated a license or copyright. The primary provisions of the Copyright Act of 1976 are to protect the production and distribution of copyrighted works. So unless your stash of content is being hosted on a server for others to access -- which constitutes distribution, though one could possibly argue that if no one ever accessed it, it's not distribution -- then the mere possession does not incur criminal liability. Of course, civil liability may attach, meaning that the copyright holder could sue you for the cost of buying a legit license. Though there's zero reason for the police to pass that info to whomever the copyright holder is. Whether police can gratuitously share investigation info with a third-party is a matter of state law.

But the other potential criminal charge could come from the infamous DMCA, whose provisions make it a crime to circumvent DRMs. Though this provision has an out, whereby certain circumvention is permitted as exceptions for designated purposes, created and renewed through a regulatory process. Outside these exceptions, the standard defense of fair-use for copyright infringement does not apply to a charge of DMCA circumvention. So if the police could put together evidence that your content stash is the product of circumvention, and other evidence shows that you used or have the tools/software to perform that circumvention, that's technically a charge which could be leveled.

This would take a colossal amount of effort, for something which generally has to be brought by the (federal) US Attorney's office, rather than a state-level District Attorney. So realistically, this would only really be considered if you somehow managed to annoy an FBI investigator enough. And even then, it's quite petty to charge DMCA circumvention alone.

If your content was purely acquired through download-only means -- as in, not BitTorrent -- then I can't think of what criminal charge could be raised. But IANAL.

To get ahead of anyone that thinks that induced demand for bicycles would destroy these benefits:

Firstly, the principles of induced demand apply no matter the mode of transport. So creating the environment for safe bicycling or reducing NIMBYist environmental hurdles would, to no one's surprise, encourage more bicycling and bus/LRT development.

Secondly, induced demand does not change the fundamental efficiencies (and inefficiencies) of that mode of transport. Bikes themselves don't get any larger just because there are ten or ten thousand of them that need to be parked. But how this compares to the rest of the built environment matters a lot.

To that end, let's play it out: what would it take to ruin these ten benefits.

1. No traffic jams

For there to be a bicycle traffic jam, there either has to be: a) limited road capacity, or 2) limited intersection/junction capacity. The latter is easier to imagine (eg hundreds of bicyclists stopped and waiting for a green light) but also easier to solve: just remove the traffic light. Bicycle traffic runs slowly enough that formal control devices aren't necessary. For that same reason, there are no traffic lights for people within a shopping mall. A bicycle roundabout would be incredibly compact in any case.

The scenario of limited road capacity would involve something like a bike lane entirely filled, along a full city block, and no room for other bicyclists to pass each other. This is, quite frankly, extremely rare in the USA, since we don't have very much barrier-separated infrastructure. The full density of a filled bike lane -- including two-abreast riding -- approaches that of a filled sidewalk, and that doesn't really happen either, except maybe during parades.

2. Easy parking

To make bike parking difficult, there would have to be overcrowding of the parking area. But as can be seen from the Netherlands and Asia, bike garages exist. And even in the absence of a parking area, a bicycle can be parked anywhere there is room and ideally something to lock against. To run out of room in an urban area for a bike would also mean a high probability of a human crush, which is outlandishly dangerous. To run out of room in a rural area (eg a weekend music festival) is just not a thing.

3. Low maintenance

This one is easy to dismiss: if everyone has a bicycle, that does not in any way make it harder for you to maintain your own bike. Sure, parts availability might be lower if everyone needs replacement parts at the same time, but it's a bike. Bike parts cannot physically be larger than a whole bicycle, which already isn't that big and such parts are easily warehoused. There's no such thing -- nor a need -- for a pick-n-pull lot filled with wrecked bicycles.

4. Health benefits

Same as the last, other people riding bikes doesn't change the health benefits derived from one's own bike. You pedal, you get exercise. Harking back to 2020, it would also be dubious to suggest that there could ever be enough adjacent bicyclists that it becomes impractical to social distance due to a respiratory disease, as bicycling is generally an open-air activity.

5. Cost-effective

Individual running costs don't really scale up when more people ride bikes. Bicycles are not known to create potholes, and the Fourth Power Law would tend to agree.

6. Environmental impact

There are no real nor substantial ecological impacts from full embracing of bicycle transport. At worst, the collective sound of hundreds of squeaky derailleurs per block could add a small din to the city soundscape. A few more birds and squirrels will likely become roadkill underneath bicycle wheels. But this all pales in comparison to the machinery needed for modern buildings (eg HVAC compressor) and the bird deaths caused by flying into glass windows.

7. Exploration and Adventure

This one is more arguable, but if a region has run out of space to explore because everyone and their mother is out-and-about exploring on bikes, that's hardly a bad thing, is it?

Plus, the USA has wilderness preserves, where even bikes are prohibited (except for the disabled). So even with built-up areas "overrun" with bikes, this planet would still have room to find new-to-you things.

8. Community connection

Perhaps the greatest social aspect of bicycles is that they don't interfere with the conventional methods of human expression. They are not so loud that shouting is required. They neither veil their rider, while enabling the rider to address others in the same manner as they would if on-foot. Sure, one cannot fist-bump a stationary person whilst astride and at speed, but that's easily rectified by coming to a halt. One need not even fully dismount to embrace a loved one at the wayside.

It's a very romantic thing in old cinema to wave some off at a train platform while they depart, but even that simply does not compare to standing face-to-face with someone, at level, to deliver a final valediction.

To build even the shallowest of community connections is to have one's presence acknowledge in that space. The simple act of riding in a neighborhood is the start of forming a cohesive community. Whereas driving an automobile through one is to forcibly drive a wedge through a community, pun intended.

9. Flexibility and freedom

Same as earlier, what someone does with their bicycle does not impact what you do with yours. Anyone stuck in automobile traffic knows that this isn't a universal statement for all modes of transport. But even within the structures of civil society, how can anything be more flexible than to arrive or depart with your own bike on your own schedule? Even if it's bicycle rush hour, then you still have a choice: join them or depart earlier or later. Freedom does not mean "do whatever you want" but rather "do you have a choice in the matter".

Motorists don't get to choose their price for gasoline. They cannot build their own car if they don't like what's available at the dealership. They cannot avoid some forms of surveillance, some reasonable (eg speeding cameras) and some not (gratuitous license plate tracking). Motorists accrue more of these problems as there are more motorists.

10. Personal empowerment

In the physical sense, a bicycle is literally powered by its human rider. But psychologically, making your way to a destination under one's own effort is an achievement. For many people, this achievement happens daily and they should be proud of it. In the USA where automobile commuting is the norm, it's not at all an accomplishment to get to work. But when it's one's own sweat pouring on a bike, it is.

In some ways, this is akin to the so-called IKEA effect, where people value their own contributions more than being handed the same thing made by someone else, paraphrased. Undoubtedly, this should be a good thing for people's mental health. So the more people who have that opportunity should be a good thing at large.

I agree that using this tank would be unsafe.....

But now that you've mentioned that specific test regime, the seeds of a bad idea have been sowed lol. So to that end, I have to advise anyone who even thinks to try that: make sure you have a way to de-pressurize the suspect vessel, not because the tank would fail, but because it might pass.

Because if it actually achieves 100% of working pressure and you keep climbing but it still hasn't failed... what do you do then? Just leave it there in the ground with over pressure? It would essentially be a hidden landmine, waiting for water corrosion to take its toll and set it off. And no one is going to get anywhere near a potentially-damaged pressurized vessel at over 100% working pressure, not without body armor.

100% agree on tossing it. The risk isn't work it. I think the only thing I'd do differently is to stab that hole to make it larger, as a way of indicating to any would-be dumpster diver: "you really do not want this".

I have a similar policy for CAT6 cables, where if I'm tossing it due to diagnosing that it's dead, I'll cut it in half. The next person who wants to revive it is now on-notice that it might have problems.

Same policy for faulty home appliances: the cord gets cut off.

The brake calipers are super close to the spokes

Is this something which can be photographed? I'm having trouble understanding how this can happen, unless the disc brake caliper body is exceptionally wide or if the spoke angle is exceptionally steep.

I've changed the setting to prevent the behavior, but the prompt is still missing.

You've disabled the automatic switching based on HDMI CEC, and yet the TV still automatically switches and without a notification/option in advance? This just sounds like a firmware update for the TV introduced a bug.

I'm in the same camp with the other commenter who suggested never attaching a so-called smart TV to the Internet, for then it can never perform an unwanted update. Because for whatever neat features an update may bring, it rarely can be reversed if proven to be undesirable. I'm staunchly in the "own your hardware" camp, so automatic-and-non-undoable updates are antithetical to any notion of right-to-repair principles, and will inevitably lead to more disposable and throwaway electronics.

[gets off soapbox]

Your best bet might to try attempting a manual software downgrade using a USB stick.