Total N2 build up in the bloodstream is time dependent. If they're flitting about, zooming to the bottom and back to the top with very low Bottom Time, then the risk is (relatively) lower. But (IMO) not worth screwing with, as the downside (getting bent) is no picnic. Whether in a hole in Dubai or out on the reef, plan the dive and dive the plan.

I heard 5000 lbs in other reports too....but it seems that's the entire haul, not what they exploded on scene. Footage of the 5000 lbs of fireworks looked like two pallets worth. I'm curious about whether the fireworks were removed before detonation or if they just got lucky they didn't go off too.

That was not just 10 lbs of fireworks exploding. It flipped over nearby cars and obliterated the bomb disposal truck, launching the 1ton lid over two blocks away. I know that's the LAPDs story, 10 lbs, but they aren't exactly known for telling the truth, especially if it's bad for them.

I've now read there were 40 coke can sized IEDs and 200 more slightly smaller devices all filled with unknown explosives. That sounds like 35lbs +- for the coke can sized ones alone (based on the weight of an unopened can), and who knows how much the smaller ones weighed, but there were 200 of them!!! Somebody screwed up big time putting them all in at once. That was way more than 10 lbs of unknown high explosives, and 10lbs wouldn't be safe to dispose of in a neighborhood. It should have been done in stages, starting with a test of just one, and a full evacuation of the block, not knocking on the 2 neighbor's doors and walking away.

At least it's turning out that most of the injuries weren't civilians, but more than one home is destroyed and many may have permanent hearing damage.

I'm pretty sure the dude's just having a good time because he's at a concert and he's all young and shit. He's probably high, too. Look at that glorious blue sky! Who wouldn't be joyous on such a perfect day when they're all young and high and shit? Dude, I'm old, it's dark and I'm not even at a concert (full disclosure: I am listening to Lord Huron's new album and it's fucking amazing. There's some stuff that's not up to their other work, and a weird 14-minute filler piece at the end, but Drops In The Lake might become the most beloved Lord Huron song ever) and I'm totally joyous right now. I'm also stoned out of my mind, so take that as a plus, a minus or a none-of-the-above. Look, all I'm saying is there's a cute video video of a sheep standing down a Border Collie. Props to the sheep for having the kinda balls it doesn't have anymore, but fucking with a Border Collie is asking for that dog to fuck up your tax return later. So yeah, y'know, cute dog and cute sheep and some Welshman who knows he's getting some pussy tonight and if that dog screws this up, it ain't gonna be the sheep getting fucked. That's life in Wales, man. Those dudes will fuck anything. I mean, if I was stuck in Wales with nothing else to do, I'd be looked at our four-legged friends in a far more than friendly way, too. Also, they don't have vowel mines there so they're stuck spelling words with all contestants and chunks of coal for punctuation. NO idea how that little linguistic hiccup got passed the Proto-Germanic language tree, but people in Quebec speak a language that's completely similar to French, only without the word order, the grammar and any words that are actually in French. The French hate that shit because they're French and no one in Europe is being all shirty these day. Except that dude in Belarus who apparently doens't know what an utter fucking legend the guy who runs Ryanair is. Fucking hell this shit's good. Anyway, the whole point of this was that a dog, a sheep and a Welshman walk into a bar and the bartender asks the man what he wants. And the Welshman tells, in exceedingly graphic detail, what he wants while the sheep and the collie listen in horror, straining against their leads and praying Pop-Up Darwin will suddenly appear and gift them opposable thumbs, a cellphone, and a SIM card that actually works in fucking Wales, because those vowel-less cocksuckers have a totally different cell system than the rest of the UK. Shit, you try to make a call to anywhere in Gwfjhsrmflsslll, the first thing you notice is that numbers have apparently joined the vowels in being MIA, and you're trying to explain that you just want to make a call to London and the operator is speaking some language that'd scare the shit outta C'htulu and finally you just give up and hop back on the Ryanair flight to JFK while scanning constantly for Mig-29s.

Anyway, be happy.

In theory that shouldn't happen, cars in the left lane should be going straight or turning left, cars in the middle lane should only be going straight. If they tried to go left they've screwed up, they should have been in the left lane.

Indeed, amazingly the wind power in Texas actually met expectations of the power it would provide in the cold snap.

The trouble is wind is so undependable they only counted on there being about 10% of capacity available. Wind gets absolved of blame by having almost no expectation that it will be available in the first place.

I say screw wind, build nuclear reactors instead and get the job done properly.

So weird seeing people disagree with you and offering various examples of marriages that contradict your blanket statements and then you go off spouting shit about subjective pitfalls some minority still experience after being married as if those outcomes are the only possible outcomes or even the norm.
What you two mean to say is DIVORCE is win win for the woman and lose lose for the man, still dead wrong but at least it's the point you two are trying to make.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's neither in no fault states.

It's asinine of you two to assume the man always has more assets, and more earning power. It's maybe true on average but it's trending away from that, and it's absolutely not in every instance.

My brother won. He got full custody and child support. No alimony for either. In Texas, a non no fault state where the woman is assumed to be the primary child raising parent.

Really, you still think most women don't work? Are you still living in the 1960's? My wife works, has since before we met in 92. I retired in early 2000's. If we divorced, I would get alimony.

I've known plenty of women who lost in marriage, not sure where you come up with that, and for over 1/2 the population, divorce is 50/50 split of marital assets, no winner.

It's only men in fault states who caused the dissolution of the marriage or don't fight for custody that get screwed as you describe. Most of us tossed out the system you describe decades ago. Most of us understand that while women still get paid less for the same work, that's no guarantee she makes less than her husband. As for "marrying up".... plenty of men do that too. Even if your significant other is a homemaker, they contribute enormously to the marriage, at one point they determined the jobs a homemaker does would cost over $80 K per year if you hired people.

With your opinion about women and marriage, I doubt you need to worry about the kind of woman who would marry you. The ones who accept the outdated misogynistic patriarchal mindset you show aren't the ones with much to offer, the desperate and insecure who will take whoever accepts them. They might resemble the women in your descriptions. Treat women better and you'll attract better women.

What makes you think you are some prize that only a near perfect woman would be acceptable to? It sure sounds like you're alone now. How is making the perfect the enemy of the great working for you?

Again, many states have changed the law to no fault, 50/50 splits with no prenup. Hard to be more fair. You complain about issues most Americans evolved out of.

So weird seeing people disagree with you, and then go off spouting shit about subjective benefits while married.

Objectively, by the numbers, in terms of who benefits if the marriage ends, it's pure win for the woman and pure loss for the man.

It's practically a carrot dangling in front of them daring them to divorce.

eg.

Woman wins :
Woman = Here's 30% of his income for 20 years and 50% of assets, and you get to walk away with no obligations.
Man = You get to keep all your financial marriage obligations for the rest of your productive life while she gets her divorce.

Man wins :
Man = Here's $500 for 6 months. You are an able bodied person and you can take care of yourself after that.
Woman = Pay him $500 for 6 months, then you have your divorce.

... and women win practically all the time.



So considering that most women 'marry up (financially)', and most women don't sacrifice personal life for career (to the extent that men do)... they benefit financially from marriage.

Then the divorce is massively skewed for their benefit.

So in the end, they win in marriage, and win in divorce.

And since it's the men paying for those wins, the men are losing and losing.

So yeah, I think your description is totally on point.




Marriage is so screwed up that I wouldn't even consider marrying anyone that has any adverse indicators that suggest they are even slightly disloyal or temptable. Don't care how much I like them otherwise.

Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk

When the consequence of failure is immediate total financial annihilation, and a heavy financial burden for the rest of your productive life, you better F'ing choose carefully.

Or just don't get married.

(Or change the law so a divorce is actually a divorce for both people. No obligations. Just everyone go their own way.)

-scheherazade

I thought the same thing. If average Canadians only paid 11% total in taxes Canada would have been forced to build a wall to stop all the republicans trying to move there.


Ahhh.....Thanks @eric3579 . He's taking what they called "labor tax" which apparently is some nonsense number they produced that, while it includes employee income and payroll tax as well as employer contributions, is somehow far less than employee income and payroll taxes alone in Canada, labor tax is listed at 11.5% with the next lowest being the UK at 26.1%. Somebody screwed up here, their numbers don't add up.

Bob, as much as this'll surprise you, I totally agree with what you're saying. The distribution of the stimulus money to couples making up to $150,000 is friggen ridiculous -- and I'm in that category. I will do what I did with the last two checks: give to local charities helping the homeless and communities of color (as much as I hate that term).

The worst part of this is that it sets up a liquidity trap. The Fed can't reduce buying crap debt (that BBB dogshit is at 4% should terrify anyone who understands how debt and the rating agencies work), nor can they allow rates to rise (thus totally screwing responsible savers). This is the cusp of a financial disaster that blew past 1929 on 9/17/19 and is now approaching the cataclysm of the South Seas Company collapsing. As far as I can see, this is a total melt-up in the markets because there's no stable returns and everyone is now in speculation mode.

Were it my call, I would scale the money along income (or non-income) lines: $10k for the lowest incomes, sliding scale from there. I'd also set up government-backed savings accounts that pay 10% for those people and only those people. I'd also pay off/down student debt along the same income scales.

I do not begrudge the wealthy for their wealth. But capitalism can't be a winner-take-all system. We live in a society, and society will always have winners and losers. The least we can do is ease the burden for those at the bottom by taking some from the top. I'm tired of the homeless camps and mentally-ill people wandering the streets of Seattle. They are the least of us and thus should be the ones who get the most help.

9% for the American people
$1400 each if earned under 75K/ear or $2800 of married under 150k$/year.

At $75K/year you really don't need this $ or at least could get by with out it.



then comes the remaining 91% for programs and pork.
Schools don't need this $.

Free premiums if under 150% poverty rate -- ok.



However if 1400 represents 10% of the 1.9 trillion when would it not be better spent if each got $14,000 each or $28K for the family and let each family decide how to spent this money. LEt teh people decide their needs on what to pay for Healthcare mortgage, rent car payment etc.


End of the day Americans got $1400 and a tax bill for 1.9 Trillion.


Again, Americans got screwed.

It would be more convenient to go with a majority vote to bar him from office if it was that simple, but I don't think it really is. (In reality I think that's maybe not the best move, because if he can run and starts a new conservative party, it will guarantee a Democratic landslide because the liberal vote won't be cut in half)
No matter the method, it's imperative that calling for the overturn of a certified election by any means necessary, and sending a crowd to force trial by combat, instructing them to stop the congressional certification, don't let it happen (which is a a direct call for interference in government proceedings only possible by force) be punished not ignored or it begs for a repeat. It's far from just using the word fight, it's saying if you let them certify this election you lose your country, you've got to get rid of these representatives that won't go along with you, and fight hard, you can't let them install Biden, stop it, he's illegitimate and I won by a landslide but Biden stole it, do not let them certify him or you're country is gone they must elect me, I'll be there with you stopping the steal.

I seriously doubt the American people will see it that way, all polls show a majority agree with his policies over Trump's. The election reinforces that.

It's hard to imagine hurting the economy worse than Trump's disastrous pandemic response that continues to cause more damage today because the distribution part of his "plan" was 1/2 baked and 1/4 implemented. Hundreds of millions of vaccines are being shipped to Europe because he wouldn't commit to buying them when he could, even knowing he couldn't buy them later. Any misstep in the response cost lives and hurt the economy horrifically.
Then there's the 8-9 trillion added to the debt not including last year's unprecedented spending spree during a recession meaning the deficit his last year may be well over $4-5 trillion (I've seen estimates of $9 Trillion). The debt and deficit will be hard to screw up worse, but time will tell.

Let's be realistic that the majority of Americans never wanted Trump, so much they voted for Hillary the most despised politician at the time, 3 million more times...it took nothing but not ignoring swing states and not being the most hated candidate in living memory to flip the electoral vote. Trump becoming the most despised candidate in history helped.

It wasn't a few thousand, my recollection is it was hundreds of thousands in most critical states, only a few were even close, only Georgia was as close as 12000, still more than a few, and Biden won easily without it.

The green new deal, if implemented, should create tens of thousands of good paying jobs. Innovation almost always pays off....again, time will tell. I'm of the opinion that it's too late to avoid climate disaster, probably too late to avoid a near total extinction next century without a miracle, but any mitigation is worth trying if it works. I don't want to live on Venus....and don't want my grand nieces and nephews to either.

I'll agree to disagree about guns. I've heard the same fear my entire life, claims democrats will take guns away, I once believed it. It's never happened even when they had the house, Senate, and Whitehouse. I'm pro gun and pro regulation.....a well regulated militia is what the constitution says. I respect your position even if I disagree.

I am a stickler for not fudging terminology. It makes understanding another person's argument impossible if they use words that are just wrong just because other people are misusing them, and is often used intentionally as a means of escaping one's statements by saying they didn't mean what they said, but only when tightly cornered. That's not an accusation, just a peeve. Bob, to name one, insists Trump's never been impeached.