I haven't encountered one as a driver either, but I'm pretty sure "Don't drive into roads with water on them" was a basic safety question on the permit test.
You haven't been driving for 25 years anywhere east of the Mississippi river if you've never encountered road flooding. Accepting they can't predict everything sounds reasonable. Failing to account for a routine occurrence is negligent.
I think what gets lost in these conversations is that the government is using very lazy methods to catch low hanging fruit. Instead of extrajudicial spying they should be creating undercover identities and infiltrating criminal organizations. If law enforcement was competent Facebook wouldn’t even know it was happening.
I'm not sure if that's better. The feds have a long history of goading "probably harmless" people into parking SUVs full of half-ass explosives in NYC or kidnapping governors or whatever.
It’s possible for law enforcement to misbehave in more than one way. In fact while they were manufacturing these cases they were also conducting dragnet surveillance. It’s not a competition, or a choice.
Manufacturing cases doesn’t mean undercover investigations are illegal or even unreasonable. It’s just another example of unethical LEO behavior that should be destroyed.
On the other hand dragnet surveillance of US citizens is NEVER ok.
If I am being extremely generous I think the key word there is prioritizing. It's a moving goalpost. Could mean "allow you to bring your own cup" or "advertise you can bring your own cup" or "offer a discount for bringing your own cup".
Fair. It's definitely too broad of a statement and I feel like calling out the reusable cup policy that Starbucks already has would be more helpful. The current statement reads like there is no alternative whatsoever and you're forced to dump plastic into the ocean if you get a drink from there.
The role of an activist is to improve the status quo. They will, by definition, never be satisfied with what Starbucks is doing. On the other hand Starbucks now offers discounts if you bring your own cup, which I don’t believe was always the case, so it appears activism works.
Most municipal recycling programs accept a lot of materials they do not currently recycle because retraining people is harder than sorting materials on their end, and not necessary since they sort it anyway.
After sorting they look for buyers of the raw materials. This varies depending on the market and quality of the material. Everything left over is sent to the landfill.
But does Seattle actually recycle all the plastic numbers? There are a number of places where all plastic numbers are accepted in the bin, but some (and sometimes all, depending on market conditions) of them are thrown into the trash later. The logic is that, overall, plastic recycling can be increased by not requiring people to decipher the codes.
> I'm sure you could still get one, but who would when you could get something better on the lot for the same money.
It was almost certainly cheaper to get the small block and if that's all you need why spend more to burn more gas? The 1988 GM Medium Duty Truck brochure lists the 5.7L (350CID) V8 and SM-465 as standard equipment. I have no idea what the sales numbers were but it's not far fetched for a 1988 truck to have been configured with a small block and a 4 speed from the factory.
Neat! What do you do with it? I spent my summers in college driving C60 grain trucks. They were real workhorses! The 1979 with a 5 speed, split axle, and 427 was the best of the bunch but the 82 with a 366 did great work too. Sometimes I wish I could hop in one and split a few more gears but these days I shower before work.
I don't think that's right. I believe this is the relevant EPA regulation: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2004-title40-vol17/p.... This mentions emission limits but does not require a catalytic converter for medium duty (14,000lb-26,000lb GVWR) trucks like the GMC 6000.
> This mentions emission limits but does not require a catalytic converter
IIRC, technically if the vehicle meets emissions limits without a catalytic converter then it doesn't need one.
The emission limits are set such that a catalytic converter is required to meet them. They don't have to say "catalytic converter required" but the targets are chosen so that a catalytic converter can reasonably achieve them.
If the laws simply said "catalytic converter required" then manufacturers could put a tiny little square of catalyst in the exhaust and call it a day. Formula 1 isn't the only place where rules have to be written explicitly to avoid clever workarounds.
You claimed they were required by law, but they weren’t. Now you claim they had them anyway, but I can find no evidence of that either. Do you have some evidence that 1988 GMC 6000 trucks had a catalytic converter from the factory? I can find nothing online to support that claim.
There's a lot of missing information here. I'm no fan of Tesla and I wouldn't be surprised if they are doing something inappropriate but there's a lot of unanswered questions here.
Why wasn't the sample taken at the outfall? That seems like such an obvious thing to do that there must be a reason it wasn't done. Is the outflow accessible?
What other facilities exist in the area? This is described as a ditch, not a creek or river, which implies to me that it is artificial. Is this an industrial area with other contamination?
> Hexavalent chromium at 0.0104 milligrams per liter, just above the lab’s reporting limit of 0.01 mg/L. Hexavalent chromium is classified as a known human carcinogen by the US National Toxicology Program. It is the substance the Erin Brockovich case was built around.
I'm not sure I am parsing this correctly. To the best of my understanding this means it is just above the noise floor? What was the exposure in the Erin Brockovitch case?
reply