In case you’re actually wondering, in the state of New York where Timberlake committed the DUI, that falls under Penal Law Part I Title B § 15.25. And the words your tapioca pudding brain is looking for are “aggravating factor”, not “extra charge” (unless you mean public intoxication). Your comparison, though, as everyone knows, is moronic, and trying to downplay DUI through amateurish pseudo-lawyering disgracefully disrespects the many lives selfish pieces of shit abruptly take and ruin every day by driving under the influence.

Damn, so you go to bat for drunk drivers in the other thread, but this is where you draw the line.

The hypothetical experiment assumes basically the current mixture of transportation infrastructure exists by the time Election Day rolls 'round, but people are free to get there however they want with what they already have available. So obviously some of the traffic will be diverted away from cars if gas is e.g. $8/gal, but we’re assuming (magically, for the sake of the experiment to avoid a confounding variable) that the experimental price of gas hasn’t changed transportation infrastructure from what it is today.

Oh, shit, that’s really neat. Thank you!

but is it really worth processing for a shitpost?

Lmao nah. I only noticed because I’m so bad at white balance, so I spend a lot time fiddling with it.

It’s the hit new anime, Maku no Chisu.

Color temperature so low the camera got seasonal affective disorder.

Interesting but unanswerable socioeconomic question:

High gas prices will raise voter turnout by making people angry, but there’s likely a marginal counterweight to that because driving to the polls is more expensive. Vice-versa for low gas prices, where it’ll depress voter turnout, but as a marginal boost to turnout, driving to the polls is very cheap.

If you could somehow hold enough statistically independent trials of nationwide elections to measure this at different prices (I’d assume sampling from real elections has too many confounding variables even accounting for things like PPP, fuel efficiency, etc.), I wonder what the graph would look like of gas prices’ effect on turnout. I imagine it would be a rise followed by a saturation followed eventually by a falloff as people actually start to riot (assuming you just kept increasing it indefinitely). Moreover, is there any point on the left of the curve (gas price is the x-axis and turnout is the y) where the effect of the drive being cheap actually outweighs the anger over prices? In this dream experiment, you can assume free gas is on the table, and we can even cross into the negatives and have gas stations paying you to get gas if we want.

Oh, sure, just assume a Saddam Hussein in an open room instead of accounting for the entrance hidden by rubble blocking outflow. Classic engineers.

Shit, I think I need a new prescription.

“Hang on, let me just run the damage calcs real quick.”

Not necessarily in most conditions, I’d assume. The enemy would have to recognize that your gun fires in bursts of 3 and be level-headed enough to keep track of that. The FAMAS has a selector between burst and auto as well and fires at 900–1100 RPM.

The user, meanwhile, goes in knowing about this burst and which setting they’re using. In a chaotic gunfight, they can feel the recoil and hear their shots more closely, while an enemy is much less likely to notice it, let alone take advantage of it. Moreover, the 25-round mag isn’t the only one; there’s a 30-round, and the user knows which one they have.

I think you’d need some pretty idealized conditions for an enemy to notice and take advantage of you running out of ammo using the modularity of your mag capacity.

Note: a few of the more authoritarian ones moved to the breakaway state of Transnistria.

and then minimally acknowledging their verbatim taking at the bottom.

Sorry, I didn’t mean to spread misinformation. Nothing in the OP is dangerous (that I know of). I thought we were doing a shitpost-y rehash of the cow-based versus plant-based leather argument you see online sometimes.

Specifically, plant-based leather normally is plastic, but then over 90% of cow-based leather is chromium-tanned so it doesn’t naturally decompose (cross-links the collagen fibers). In a recent study, 82% of cow-based leather products sampled from southeastern China contained more than the EU regulatory limit for CrVI.

The argument being that, between that poor disposibility of the overwhelming majority of cow leather and the relatively enormous amount of resources that go into making it (raising the cow, slaughterhouse, tannery (esp. toxic runoff for the latter)), citing the environment as a justification to dunk on vegans for using plastic-based leather reflects a narrow understanding of cow leather’s impact on the environment.

Listen, okay, over 90% of your oh-so-“natural” hedgehog-based pencils are dyed with carcinogenic chromium (pictured in the OP as the yellow color) and act as an environmental contaminant when thrown away. At worst, it’s a lateral change to use plastic.

Article stolen directly from The New York Times. No clue what “DNYUZ” is supposed to mean, and there’s no trace of ownership on the site, but it’s clearly just aggregating stories from elsewhere and then minimally acknowledging their verbatim taking at the bottom.

Bad for a lot of reasons, and I’m not talking about the ones that hurt the publisher. There are no updates to the article should they become available, the average reader won’t know the source of what they’re reading, ostensibly images in the article body are missing…

What did you think the other “part of this complete breakfast” was if not companionship?

“And guess what? I’m going to put 21,000 more things in the iRack!”

It is imperative that the cylinder remains unharmed.