And that tired adage of "
No good deed goes unpunished".
There's something fundamentally evil in suing individuals who volunteer their services for some altruistic effort, or get left holding the bag when the organizers bolt.
Especially never volunteer when the recipients are just one deep armadillo hole of undisciplined head-cases to step into.
(Jun 9, 2021 08:40 PM)C C Wrote: [ -> ]And that tired adage of "No good deed goes unpunished".
There's something fundamentally evil in suing individuals who volunteer their services for some altruistic effort, or get left holding the bag when the organizers bolt.
Especially never volunteer when the recipients are just one deep armadillo hole of undisciplined head-cases to step into.
That’s funny. I was just looking at that saying today. I was wondering if there’s any truth to it. It sure seems like it.
SS Wrote:I had no way of knowing that he was trying to make a left-hand turn.
Strangely, 40 years ago I would have expected an invitation to pass in front to include a check that it was safe to complete the manouver. Now, absolutely not. Any invitation to pass in front of any (my) vehicle automatically does not include passing beyond the space immediately invited into.
If I invite and offer that I will not make an aggressive move within a certain space - that's it - beyond that proceed at your peril. Every car driver is the captain of the ship.
When in slow moving traffic I invited someone out of a turn to pull into the opposing traffic - he understood completely, pull out and wait for a gap, but a bus driver coming the other way didn't and slammed on his brakes to avoid hitting the car he thought was going to turn out in front of him. Hopefully nobody hurt (I don't know) but it fouled up even when everybody had the best of intentions and behaved sensibly.
I sympathize with drivers who unwittingly cause someone else to have an accident. I’m sure SS felt bad about it but what if there’s a fatality or serious injury involved? I suppose it’s in the same category as telling someone the gun isn’t loaded. Only saving grace is that you can deny it unless someone has it on video, dashcams come to mind.
Most likely you end up convincing yourself it’s the driver who trusted you who’s at fault. Definitely will play on one’s conscience I suspect. If you don’t have one then you’ll be fine. No disrespect intended SS, just an unfortunate circumstance of heavy traffic and compassion. We’ve all been there.
(Jun 10, 2021 12:22 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]I sympathize with drivers who unwittingly cause someone else to have an accident. I’m sure SS felt bad about it but what if there’s a fatality or serious injury involved? I suppose it’s in the same category as telling someone the gun isn’t loaded. Only saving grace is that you can deny it unless someone has it on video, dashcams come to mind.
Most likely you end up convincing yourself it’s the driver who trusted you who’s at fault. Definitely will play on one’s conscience I suspect. If you don’t have one then you’ll be fine. No disrespect intended SS, just an unfortunate circumstance of heavy traffic and compassion. We’ve all been there.
I feel bad for the result of my actions, but I don't feel that it was my fault. If I thought I was at fault, I would have offered to pay. I was allowing him to make a right in front of me. Had I known that he was trying to make a left, I would have never waved him in.
"I’m all for courteous driving and civility on the road, because it is the common thread we all share and the glue which holds us together as a civil society. That said, when liability starts attaching to a courteous wave to a fellow driver, I’ll let the guy looking to enter the roadway wait his turn from now on."
https://www.claimsjournal.com/news/natio...244965.htm
(Jun 10, 2021 12:22 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: [ -> ]I sympathize with drivers who unwittingly cause someone else to have an accident. I’m sure SS felt bad about it but what if there’s a fatality or serious injury involved? I suppose it’s in the same category as telling someone the gun isn’t loaded. Only saving grace is that you can deny it unless someone has it on video, dashcams come to mind.
Most likely you end up convincing yourself it’s the driver who trusted you who’s at fault. Definitely will play on one’s conscience I suspect. If you don’t have one then you’ll be fine. No disrespect intended SS, just an unfortunate circumstance of heavy traffic and compassion. We’ve all been there.
It is like a gun, which every good gun owner knows you NEVER take someone's word on if it's loaded. You always clear a gun yourself. Moral liability only adheres to things you are in control off, and legal liability should follow suit. That means that if you've been handed a gun, you are now responsible for the current status and actions with that gun. Same goes for a car, where only the driver is ultimately responsible.
(Jun 9, 2021 08:34 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]....
On a differnt note...my son has been dabbling in cryptocurrency. He’s doing quite well, but with Biden’s proposal to raise capital gains, he decided to packed up and move to Puerto Rico. He’s in the process of buying a condo on the beach. If you're young and single, might as well.
I looked at cryptocurrency some time back, however something didn't sit well with me about it. I suppose the problem is that I am inherently a counter-culturist. Brands, Advertisements, Trends even Likes just trigger a subconscious response of loathing.
I did a brief biopsy of what crypto entailed while it was still fresh and came to the conclusion:
- The power consumption was huge (which in recent years has become a notible problem)
- How it used by the criminal element means that should I have dabbled I would of not just been making money for myself but also floating the proceeds of their ventures too (The more interest in crypto, the higher the prices rise, which means it's seen as advantageous for the criminally minded, especially since people seemed to have neglected taxes through it) Criminals aren't just investing in the crypto financially, there is also the leeching of electricity from the grid and it's notibly the currency of choice now for ransoms, people trafficing, paedophila etc.
- The original design of the currency was an "Anarchist weapon". Money has long since been seen the root of all evil, and the best way to upsurp the greedy (and/or powerful) is by creating something so overwhelmingly necessary they have to have it. Think of it a bit like the Emperors new clothes of currency. More the fool you if you're left holding the proverbial bag that doesn't even have a coporeal magic bean.
In the end the morales stacked highly against my willingness to participate. So I declined... Yes I can be percieved foolish by those that adopted, and poor by the rest but my Morals are worth more than their petty monetary values (And have far more substance that a Bitcoin to boot)
I know I could make a killing monetarily as a capitalist if I didn't have the morals that seek to keep me true. (or skint)
Capitalism shouldn't really be about throwing your morals under the cash bus.
(Jun 10, 2021 10:35 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: [ -> ]You might want to take a look at XRP, Stryder. I think that they're going to win their court case.
http://papers.netrogenic.com/sid/eco-friendly-money.pdf
They seem to use Flattened "Averages" for power consumption comparison. Not the Exponential curvature required for crunching increasingly difficult algorithms. The only saving grace is that coins have a "Finite" maximum that the exchange can reach.
If they made it that everytime you used your Visa card you had to swipe it an extra time (added onto the total from previous swipes) it might be put their comparison on an even ground. (although spending 15 hours in a supermarket swiping your card to get a loaf of bread really wouldn't be efficient)
I was recently minded to apply for a job as a deck chair attendant.
I wrote down my qualifications for the job - conscientious, hard worker, team player, physically fit - and thought I'd better run this past Mrs C2 before applying. Apparently I am none of those things - when pressed for an honest summary of my best qualities all she could come up with was "not paunchy". I have to admit I don't think I would be inspired to employ someone whose sole qualification was "not paunchy".