Well, the concrete pond is usually empty. But yeah, the site kinda smells like methane. Hard to say if it's from the dump (which of course has vents), or from the sewage treatment plant. The sewage treatment plant is always burning.. something. Maybe methane escaping from the dump? Maybe from the wastewater? I'm not sure.
Anyway, it's not bad-- I run around there all the time. It's just when the wind blows a certain way. I live a half mile from it and you absolutely do not ever smell it outside of the park.
I've owned a handful of BMWs (no S54 though) but I'm partial so the sound of the S62 V8. The turbo 6 generations were truly a remarkable change for BMW in terms of power, though.
At the moment, I have a Boxster, and the flat 6 somehow feels smoother than any I6 I've owned. I've done some research and sure enough, the inline 6 is (mathematically) smoother than an inline 6. The only way I can explain the fact that the boxer feels smoother is because it's mounted low and behind me, away from steering components? Whereas in my I6 cars, with the engine in front, you feel it through the front subframe and steering a bit.
Funny. I also have a Boxster. 2014 981 S. I love natural aspiration 6 cylinder cars.
Smoother in what sense? My Boxster is stick so the shifting experience is very different. The flat-6 is a remarkable sound - intoxicating. Especially purely naturally aspirated though I don’t hate the sound of the turbo 3.x variations in various Porsches. BMW ZF is great but it’s not the same.
Otherwise, yes - the handling in Boxster is so different compared to the m340. It just feels like it’s on rails around corners. No body roll. And for me peak way up in RPM means my highway merges are an absolute blast / symphony.
Yeah, mine's the same (2013 981 S 6MT). As you know, they're geared to the moon, and taking a surprising amount of rowing to get the most out of the powerband, so often I'll merge onto the freeway and just be hanging out in 3rd at 70 as I look for my spot in traffic and you don't even know you're not in 6th. Turbine smooth.
The inline four has largely converged around a 2.0L displacement with an equal bore and stroke. IIRC, it's fairly optimal from a performance and thermodynamic efficiency standpoint.
This was all so weird to read about. I guess I just assumed the polygraph was of marginal utility, and you either passed, or you didn't. I didn't realize it was part of a combative interrogation process, even for regular employees.
There is definitely more to this. I’ve been on Facebook since it opened up to the public, and they know for a fact that I am a guy.
I literally only use it to communicate with family. I logged in today on both desktop and iOS, and the only thing I saw were updates from friends/family that I personally know.The only AI things were from a nerdy friend that created/shared/disclosed of it being AI, the rest was real stuff that I already knew about.
If users are seeing this, it is more likely something to do with settings, Facebook not knowing anything about you, or some other mechanism.
I am absolutely not holding them blameless, I am saying: compare notes and identify the actual problem, because I know a lot of folks using Facebook, and from conversations I had in the past hour or two, none of them see any of that, so there is likely something else going on.
I think they definitely track how long you stay on something as you're scrolling. They show an attractive woman doing your hobby, then it just keeps going.
I always really enjoyed Facebook -- much more so than any other social media network. It was all friends, friends' content, and groups I was interested in and cared about. Sure it had ads, and a bit of suggested stuff, but mostly it was interesting content, no ragebait, no politics.
But as those friends use it less and less, I use it less and less. And the less I use it, the more "suggested" crap I get. If I don't use it for a week, the site is absolute garbage.
To think I used to log in to Facebook every day, scroll friends' posts until it said "You're caught up!" then leave.
That's almost unimaginable now, but I deeply wish I could return to that experience. Unfortunately as the suggested content got turned up, friends stopped posting, so even with all the browser extensions in the world I can't get that same experience back.
^ This. The Feds are so utterly gridlocked in culture war nonsense and whatever dumb bullshit Trump is up to that they cannot effectively govern. States and activists groups are trying to address actual problems the country has, instead of just playing political games on Twitter.
To be fair, the CEO of UnitedHealth Group was murdered with a 3D-printed handgun. He made $10 million in 2023, or about 100 times the median salary of a UnitedHealth employee.
This bill is performative legislature not because of pipes and nails, but because professionally manufactured guns are widespread in the US. Criminals in the US overwhelmingly choose this option.
Criminals have tons of options, including straw purchasing a CA compliant gun, straw purchasing a non-CA-compliant gun from Nevada, or just throwing a brick through the window of the nearest pickup truck with a Glock sticker on it.
I know no such thing. The number one type of gun death is by far, suicide. When a gun owner takes a gun home (or in this case, prints one) statistically speaking they are more likely to use it to end their own lives or harm themselves more than anything else.
You could make a similar case for this as was made for the banning of highly toxic coal gas in the UK in the 1960's. Most suicides are acts of distressed individuals who have quick, easy access to means of ending their own lives. The forced changeover from coal gas to natural gas is largely credited with a reduction of suicide by 40% after it was done. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC478945/
I don't think 3d printed guns have been around long enough to really provide meaningful data on whether this law will be effective, and on the whole, I'm not thrilled about it. But again, as was originally commented: this is an issue where states are, perhaps ineffectively and ineptly, attempting to solve what they see as problems, under a federal government that has shown itself incredibly resistant to common sense gun regulation that virtually everyone, including the gun owning community, thinks is a good idea.
> The forced changeover from coal gas to natural gas is largely credited with a reduction of suicide by 40% after it was done.
The mechanism of that reduction very well could be reducing the level of depression in the populace and thus suicidal ideation, rather than just making the means less handy (or of course, some combination). Coal gas, like any other gas used for combustion, doesn't burn perfectly and UK homes likely had persistent amounts of carbon monoxide roughly all the time since heat gets used not-quite-year-round.
> What historical precedent is there for infringement of Constitutionally-enumerated rights of others based on suicides?
There is no requirement that a precedent exist for limiting personal freedoms for the sake of safety. We infringe personal rights in the name of public safety all the time, not the least of which is current, existing gun regulations, all the way down to far more benign shit like speed limits, and not letting people scream "fire" in a theater. The 2nd Amendment was itself a modification to the constitution, ratified some time after the constitution itself. Hence the "amendment" part.
And as numerous gun activists have pointed out before me: The individual ownership interpretation goes only back to the 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, and is not itself law, merely judicial precedent. The right for every single American to own a gun is not enshrined in any law, merely an interpretation of a law, and the law itself was written in an era of single‑shot, muzzle‑loading firearms, not modern semiautomatic rifles, and further, it was written to promote the creation of, and I quote, "well-regulated Militas," not "Ted up the street who owns the gas station."
Further, even if it was spelled out, in the 2nd Amendment, in clear words, that every single American had the innate right to buy and use an AR15, that does not make it unimpeachable or forever carved in stone: We can change that. We can amend the amendment, hell, we could reverse it entirely. The problem of gun violence is a hard nut to crack, and the culture of American gun ownership is long standing and on the whole I myself quite like guns. That said, I think they're far too easy to get right now, and I am far from alone in that opinion.
As far as I understand it, yelling "fire" in a crowded theater has not actually been legally tested. This was a non-binding analogy used in the decision of a supreme court case that found it was not a violation of the 2nd amendment to prosecute someone for speaking out against the draft (which was later overturned for obvious reasons).
The "fire in a crowded theater" line is by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. in Schenck v United States.[1] During the first World War, he ruled that it was constitutional to send socialists to prison for distributing leaflets that protested the draft.
The judicial precedent set in that case was overturned in Brandenburg v Ohio.[2]
The fact that the federal government is unwilling to restrict guns and other real causes of ongoing public health crises (such as massive passenger cars and trucks) even as the deaths pile up does not mean that any level of government should be piling onerous regulations onto other things that demonstrably cause essentially zero harm at the macro scale, such as 3D printers, non-commercial/non-military UAVs, and so on.
If the number of people killing themselves with 3D printed guns is not literally zero or vanishingly small at most, I would be very surprised.
Anyway, it's not bad-- I run around there all the time. It's just when the wind blows a certain way. I live a half mile from it and you absolutely do not ever smell it outside of the park.
reply