Alex Murphy. Aka: “Robocop”.

Every single one of those temporary IP addresses has the same prefix, which traces back to you.

Its about as anonymous as adding an apartment number to your own street address.

i would say you want to route through as many jurisdictions as you feasibly can. For example, US investigators arent going to get any cooperation from Iran or North Korea; any trail that crosses into their borders is going to be a dead end for their investigation.

You referred to Technology Connections. Unless I’m mistaken, he had an unhealthy obsession with UK plugs.

Our household wiring standards are intrinsically safer than the UK. They need the overbuilt outlets and plugs that Technology Connections likes, because the UK took so many shortcuts on their building wiring.

Can’t really fault them: they developed those standards during a massive copper shortage. To minimize copper use, they ran as few circuits as they could, which means each circuit is drawing absurd loads. They developed “ring circuits” which used undersized wiring and are one loose wire away from an overload. They had to build excessive protections into their plugs so they could safely plug every device they owned into one high-power circuit.

We used dozens of properly-sized circuits.

you certainly won’t find an outlook configured like that in a bedroom.

I’ve got one. My bedroom was designed to be able to use a 240v window air conditioner.

I don’t actually need that, because the house was renovated with central air, but the outlet is still there.

I’ve got a 30a 240v outlet behind my stove, a 50a 240v outlet in my garage. I wired an 80a 240v circuit for my parents hot tub. We’ve got no shortage of power here.

The only thing that annoys me about the North American power grid is that we only have three phase in commercial and industrial settings. We don’t bring three-phase power to the home.

You want to see stupid, go look at the ring circuits they play with on the UK grid. Completely unsafe.

Dick cancer is better than almost all the existing ones.

Its only “basic needs”. Paraplegics are still human. you dont habe your fingers anymore, but you’ve still got two extra arms, two extra legs, a spare lung and kidney, and a bunch of other stuff that you don’t technically “need” as a human.

What responsibility, if any, does the customer bear in avoiding harm to himself?

The onions in question are a burger topping, and are readily discoverable if the customer checks their order. I think that the customer with the special requirement can be reasonably expected to verify their order meets their needs before incurring harm.

I believe he’s already suing Sonic for the same issue. He knew (or should have known) this was a mistake that restaurants can potentially make, yet he apparently made no effort of his own to mitigate the risk by checking his food before eating.

I would argue that it is “reckless” for the customer to blindly trust the worker fulfilled the special instructions, and that this “recklessness” is the primary cause of the harm incurred.

I would say that the restaurant’s liability here is the cost of the “defective” burger.

I would call it “frivolous” when the primary purpose of a case seems to be for two teams of lawyers to generate billable hours for eachother.

Patent vs latent defect. Any issue with the product that the customer could reasonably identify before suffering harm is the customer’s responsibility to avoid. The vendor’s liability here is the cost of the burger. The vendor is not liable for the harm arising from the customer’s failure to look at the food they are about to eat.

The vendor is responsible only for harm caused by defects the customer could not reasonably avoid. Hiddent, latent defects.

If this is a case of subrogation, as I suspect, the customer acquired insurance coverage for the purpose (in part) of mitigating harm due to their own negligence. If this is the case, it is that insurance policy that is liable for the harm caused by the customer’s failure to verify the burger met their requirements.

Yeah but isn’t it a criminal act to poison

“Poison” implies someone deliberately intended to cause harm. Nothing has been presented to argue that someone deliberately intended harm.

I mean, if I was allergic, I wouldn’t trust the restaurant either,

Exactly. This is what a reasonable, prudent person would do. If the customer had checked their order, they would have discovered the problem before any harm arose.

Which is why this guy’s health insurance should simply cover this: simple negligence by the insured is not a valid justification for denying coverage.

It would be different if we were talking about something that the customer couldn’t have verified. But the presence or absence of onions topping a burger is easily verified before consumption; the customer was not reliant on the restaurant to ensure their own safety. They had the ability to prevent this particular harm through a simple, reasonable action that they failed to perform.

IMO, that means their liability here is the cost of the burger. They would have been expected to replace the burger if the customer had checked.

But the real takeaway here is Fuck Health Insurance. If this is, indeed, subrogation as I suspect, we should be picketing an insurance executive.

I doubt that he’s the one actually suing. I suspect that the actual plaintiff is his health insurer.

So many of these frivolous lawsuits ultimately originate from the insurance industry.

I’m betting that this is subrogation: His health insurer doesn’t want to pay his medical bills, so they are filing suit in his name.

I’m betting this is another example of subrogation..

I’d bet that this guy’s health insurance refuses to pay out unless they can file suit in his name. The overwhelming majority of these bullshit lawsuits only exist because of scumbag insurers.

Remember that lady who sued her nephew? Her medical insurance refused to pay her medical bills unless they were allowed to sue the nephew’s homeowner’s insurance in her name.

Never attribute to the named plaintiff what is adequately explained by subrogation.

We use power-of-two denominators. 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, 1/32. We don’t use 1/3, 1/6, 1/9, 1/12, 1/5, 1/7.

We intrinsically know that 1/2 and 16/32 are equivalent; we would have to think about 3/6 or 6/12.

In taste tests, customers actually preferred A&W’s burger to McDonald’s,

If those taste tests are accurate, I’m guessing that individual stores could select their own suppliers, and didn’t choose the suppliers used for the taste tests. Because every A&W burger I’ve had has been terrible. Completely inedible.

I would rather buy a quarter pounder from anywhere else than accept a free 1/3, 1/2, or 1lb A&W burger.

Americans rarely see 1/3. We typically only use binary fractions: halves, quarters, eighths, sixteenths. Occasionally, 32nds. Smaller than that, we use decimal.

This, exactly.

Anyone repeating this 1/4 vs 1/3 bullshit never had one of their 1/3lb burgers. They were fucking terrible. Sysco prison-grade burger patties, drowned in store-brand ketchup with a thin slice of “American”-flavored yellow #5.

Absolute worst burger I’ve ever had.

Growing up, A&W was for chili dogs and a big glass mug of rootbeer. Never order anything else; its always a fat sack of disappointment.

Trump will just do something outrageous and Biden’s funeral will be about as memorable as his presidency.