Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Dahobbs

Legacy Members

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. 1 hour ago, luke duke said:


    Most non-essential industrial customers have clauses in their electricity (and natural gas) contracts that allow the utility to curtail their usage during periods of high demand. That said, ERCOT will still find a way to fuck it up.

    Anyone can be curtailed in periods of very high demand if it is required for grid stability. I don't think those clauses really do anything other than potentially provide some marginal additional legal protection

  2. 39 minutes ago, Blotto said:

    What if that appeal is successful? Maybe the chances are slim, but if the dealership's appeal is successful, it seems to me that the owner of the car gets proper fucked. 

    Eh, then whatever insurance the owner has gets paid out and that is about it. It isn't going to be worth the trouble of going after an individual's assets unless that individual is uber wealthy. And even then it may not be since a lot of assets can be protected from judgment under laws like homestead (don't know what Michigan allows for that, but in Texas it is functionally unlimited).

    And the reality is that an appeal doesn't seem likely to be successful. And even if it is at an intermediate level, it likely either A) will not be determinative and just require the lower court to consider some other factor or B) will get appealed by the family to a higher court. The result just changes the bargaining posture of the parties. 

  3. ·

    Edited by Dahobbs

    1 minute ago, Blotto said:

    The lawyer and family don't have to sue the driver. Anybody with a brain knows he had nothing to do with the employees death. Yet they sue anyway because they would rather get paid by fucking over someone thats innocent, than not get paid. I'm fairly certain it was the lawyer who figured out the angle, not the family. Its a shit course of action by a fucking scumbag lawyer. Its why ambulance chasers have the reputation they do. 

    This is wrong. I'm sorry, it just is. Again, both the owner and the family will likely get paid here. This is a workaround a bad Michigan law so that the actual responsible party has to pay. I can almost guarantee you that the owner's attorney and the family's attorney will end up working together.

  4. 10 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    I don't read it that way at all.

    The plaintiff can't sue the dealership because employer/workman's comp.

    They can sue the vehicle owner because Michigan law is fucked up.

    Apparently, the vehicle owner CAN sue the actually negligent parties (the dealership and its employee).

    So, the plaintiff here can either eat workman's comp or take advantage of Michigan law pretty clearly written to favor the situation.

    It's not like they're suing the owner under some overcooked cause of action just to get at an insurance policy.

    Yeah. This. Also, normally something like this can actually workout for the car's owner. Basically, both the owner and the family will end up splitting a pot from the dealership, assuming the car's owner hires a competent attorney (or his insurance company does). It is not unlike a bad faith claim against an insurer when an excess judgement exists.

    Just now, freyguy said:

    does the same legal risk apply in Texas?

    No, not really. I mean, negligent entrustment exists, but I don't think negligence law is going to support a claim here. 

  5. 23 minutes ago, bernorange said:

    A few weeks ago, my son was leaving for the gym.  He pulled his car out of the driveway and the neighbor across the street pulled out of his driveway right after and hit my son's car causing some minor damage to the passenger side rear wheel area.  Neighbor apologized, admitted fault and gave his ins. co. info (State Farm).  We had our ins. co. file a claim with State Farm.  A few days later, we got a letter from State Farm acknowledging the claim and stating that they would investigate the claim.  A few days later, a State farm agent called my son and requested photos of the damage to his car, which my son then provided.  We haven't heard didily squat from State Farm since then.

    I suppose we could just get the car fixed and then send the bill to State Farm, but I suspect we'd then be fighting an uphill battle to get them to pay it.  What options do we have to expedite the settling of our claim?

    Third party insurance, so your only real deadline is the statute of limitations for filing a cause of action. In Texas for a typical PI case that would be two years from the date of incident. State Farm is under no real obligation to do anything to resolve the claim until your son files suit against the neighbor. Now, typically for small claims with uncontested liability a third-party insurer will make some effort to resolve short of litigation. But again, they are under no pressure to pay and generally will delay paying as long as possible. 

    Your choices to expedite are generally:

    (1) Be really really annoying so that it is no longer worth State Farm's time to hold off on paying. Most effective for very small claims. 

    (2) File claim with son's insurance and have it pay for repairs. His insurance will then be incentivized to put pressure on State Farm to get repaid. As part of that, it is supposed to also refund any deductible (although there may be some states where the law/policies are different). This doesn't work if his insurance is also State Farm. 

    (3) File a lawsuit against neighbor.

    So long as there is no personal injury element to this, I believe either (1) or (2) will eventually get the job done. (2) gets him his car repaired sooner, but at the cost of having to pay the deductible upfront and waiting for a refund at a later time. The math on (3) gets complicated if he has to hire an attorney. With a PI element, the attorney can leverage that to make it worthwhile for everyone. Without a PI element many firms will not even take the case and even if they do, it will often end up with the claimant getting less money in pocket than with (1) or (2). 

  6. 1 minute ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

    ASIC miners can run for years. Maybe you’re thinking of gpu cards that burn out? Those are only economical with smaller shitcoins. 

    It isn't that they stop working entirely (although that certainly happens). It is that they stop working efficiently. Hash rates go up, meaning more time needed for the hardware to generate revenue, meaning more electricity needed for the hardware to generate revenue. As a result, old hardware becomes uneconomical to run. It is better to replace it with newer, faster hardware. It is a race to get value out of your hardware before increasing hash rates make it uneconomical. Downtime is bad.

    As a combo investment, Bitcoin mining and renewables can work really well for the investor (even without subsidies). That's because both Bitcoin mining and renewables are generally good investments right now. But it doesn't do shit to add excess capacity to the grid. 

  7. ·

    Edited by Dahobbs

    (1) He is a bit of an asshole for not regularly paying and just mooching a bit on his friends.

    (2) His friends are assholes for not including him after 6 years of being in the pool with them. Yeah, he didn't pay on time, but it sounds like he always eventually madegood on his debts. And it sounds like they agreed he would be in on the next round despite being short $30. 

    (3) He must really suck to be around for his friends to write him off over $4,500 per person. 

    (4) On the Plaintiff's side, what lawyer would take this case? On contingency, it just seems like a huge time suck that at most will get you like 30k in fees. If he is paying hourly, well then maybe he is even a bigger asshole than I thought if he can afford to pay a lawyer but not make good on $30. 

    (5) On the Defense side, these guys are idiots for not just paying him his share or at least a good portion of it (which, in my view it seems he is likely owed). It'll likely cost them more than the $4,500 per person to litigate this. 

    Bad decisions all the way around. 

    Edit: Look at the post above, I just realized we are talking Canadian dollars. That makes this whole thing even more fucking stupid. Sure, the winnings per person might pay for a few meals at Tim Hortons, but that is about it. 

  8. That said, as long as you have an industry that doesn't rely on quickly depreciating assets (which Bitcoin mining does), this plan could result in higher overall generation capacity compared to peak demand. But, again, this is a poor match for crypto. 

  9. 8 hours ago, TKthunder2 said:

    I get that but it’s based on the fact that wind blows harder at night and the windmills generate excess electricity that they sell for pennies on the dollar.  This drives traditional power generators to lower their yields as well.  If you had  a large commercial endeavor that could run at night you could sell that excess energy and make more money which will allow for higher profits and more generators/windmills to pop up since they will be quicker to recoup their investments.  Make them a deal on their energy use between certain hours and have the ability to turn them off during peak hours and this could be highly beneficial for all.

    There is less demand, but there isn't really excess energy. Higher cost power plants are taken off line to balance the grid and maximize generator profit. 

  10. 1 hour ago, TKthunder2 said:

    Yep this is generally a good plan.  Similarly power generators waste electricity at night (which is why some offer free electricity after dark in hope that you avoid using high energy appliances like washers/dryers until after dark) so having bitcoin miner use that electricity and increase demand will increase their ROI and encourage more new generators which will help during peak consumption periods ESPECIALLY if the miners can be disabled by ERCOT or the like.  I assume we’ll fuck it up somehow but it’s not a bad plan as some here are claiming.

    Those free night plans are all gimmicks by retail electric companies. They all include higher rates in the day time when they know you're more likely to use power. The blended rate is actually fine for them and they convince more customers to join their plans (even though there really isn't a difference between that and a flat rate plan). At least in Texas, those plans have little to do with the companies actually generating power. 

  11. 9 minutes ago, SydneyCarton said:

    You have to wonder, is all of this stuff relatively normal in Russia, and just now getting coverage because of the war? Because as 956 has said about fire controls they suck, and if their military has shown anything it's that it, and I assume the rest of the country, is crumbling under graft and kleptocracy. So this could be...normal shit. Although I'm sure we'd all much prefer the idea there's a dozen or so Ukrainian special forces guys inside Russia's borders just creating havoc. But I have to assume it's the former, right? 

    I assume a good number of the fires in the defense industry are due to trying to quickly ramp up production to replace lost supplies. 

  12. ·

    Edited by Dahobbs

    19 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

    They build it at the site. See the tweets I shared a few posts ago. 
     

    This is a compliment coming from you. 
     

    You lack a basic understanding of how miners work but call me misguided. Lulz. This is a waste of time. 

    Race against increasing hash rates to get value out of your hardware. Eventually, older hardware becomes functionally useless.  But none of that really matters because the basic problem remains: Bitcoin miners arent providing any benefit to power generation. Their funds benefits themselves, not the grid. You have this misguided notion that the reason we don't have more supply right now is because of lack of demand. That's just not reality. There is plenty of demand, which is why new supply is coming online all the time. The problem is our system in Texas doesn't adequately account for the importance of excess capacity. Increasing demand is poor way to resolve that problem. And increasing demand through government subsidization is an even dumber way to address the problem since the government could just subsidize the excess generation without artificially increasing demand. 

    I have no doubt your strategy is good for Bitcoin miners. But it is a terrible way to address lack of excess generation capacity. At best, it marginally increases excess capacity, but very inefficiently given the amount of public resources used. At worst, it results in a pure handout to miners and actually decreases available excess capacity. 

  13. 3 hours ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

    It’s coming from private money 
     

    https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/23/lancium-raises-150-million-for-renewable-run-bitcoin-mines-in-texas.html
     

    And Public money

    https://news.yahoo.com/argo-blockchain-bitcoin-begins-building-green-crypto-mine-texas-101532690.html

    Those comments and you’re being completely wrong on what makes bitcoin miners profitable has me wondering why you’re so adamant while being wrong. 
     

    It’s a complex topic and I’m far from an expert on the grid, but here’s something good I’ve read delving into this. 

     

    Yes. There’s multiple companies that help set people up. Here’s a cool video. 
     

    This is pretty dope. 
     

     

    The money being raised privately is to build mining rigs. The money being raised publicly is to subsidize their efforts and pay for additional power. Again, the public could just subsidize additional power generation for existing demand rather than cater to some group that is going to use up all the new generation. No problem is being solved here, unless you're a Bitcoin miner that wants a handout from the government. You're argument, per usual, is incredibly misguided. 

  14. 9 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

    You’re just wrong my man. I don’t know what else to tell you. 
     

    The number one input determining mining profitability is electricity cost. They can actually lose money by running so they won’t run them. 
     

    Also, the machine don’t obsolete that fast. They can have down time. 
     

    Anyway here’s a graph representation of the benefit. 
     

     

    I'm not. You're incorrect. Low utilization is what kills miners. And, again, where is the money coming for new generation? The only answer that makes any financial sense for the miner is the government. And if the government is subsidizing energy production, what value are the miners bringing to the table? 

  15. 17 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

    You still don’t get it. If the electricity costs too much it’s not profitable for them to mine so it makes sense to turn off. It doesn’t hurt the machines to turn off and on and they can do it quickly. 

    No, you don't get it. Turning the machines off means less money and less return on investment for their equipment. Cost of energy isn't a big deal because even very expensive energy is still financially productive. Equipment sitting unused IS a big a deal because it isn't financially productive. It is wasted money. 

    The only way any of these deals work is if government subsidizes the cost of the downtown time or the cost of producing the new generation. But of course, the government could do that anyway without artificially increasing demand. The idea is bad. 

     

     

     

  16. ·

    Edited by Dahobbs

    23 minutes ago, Immaculate Vibes said:

     

    It’s really a simple argument. I’m not sure why you have trouble understanding it. Building out of power sources, especially green energy, is often limited for financial reasons. When there is lower demand in the market for electricity they don’t make much money if any. Bitcoin miners are a buyer of last resort. They will always buy at reasonable prices and therefore help make more projects viable. They also run variable load programs which throttle down their electricity utilization when demand is higher so they aren’t pulling off power when the grid can’t afford it. There aren’t a lot of downsides to it.  

    Why on earth would they do the last part? It literally costs them money if they don't use all the energy production they have paid for. In fact, Bitcoin miners are generally better off paying more for energy to maximize their up time. This is a terrible idea. 

  17. 4 hours ago, Caponata said:

    I'm sightly more than annoyed seeing a Neo-Nazi paramilitary being celebrated in U.S. soil. Grandparents fought them & whatnot. When this war is over you realize they're not magically going to disperse, right? And no criticizing Neo-Nazi paramilitary is not a endorsement of Putin & his fascist regime because I assume that is going to be your retort.

    Hi Putin. 

  18. ·

    Edited by Dahobbs

    5 minutes ago, Schulz2.0 said:

    If only there were some way to convert electricity into heat.

    Thus my point on replacing the existing furnaces. Totally doable, but also expensive when basically every home relies on gas right now.  Shutting down the nukes has extended Germany's reliance on coal. Keeping them running wouldn't, absent other changes, materially reduce its reliance on natural gas. 

  19. 17 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

    There are many German ways of thinking that I don't get.

    Their strident "We're gonna go green! But we're also gonna ditch all our nuclear power with no real replacement!  Wait, we'll replace it with Russian gas and oil, which is totally green because, umm, it's Russian or something!" is perhaps the German way of thinking that I understand the least.

    14757682.jpg

    Well, Germany's freakout over nuclear (hi Fukushima) is a bit separate from its desire to go green. And really, nuclear is somewhat irrelevant to Germany's usage of natural gas. Like 75% of what it imports goes directly to heating rather than electricity generation. Reducing its reliance on natural gas would require replacing a lot of furnaces in a lot of buildings. 

  20. 54 minutes ago, honolulu horn said:

    I am not convinced that Sark will name Ewers the starter at the beginning of the season. But however it shakes out, I believe he'll be starting by the time we play ou. I cannot WAIT for him to make that deep throw to Neyor in the Cotton Bowl and send ou back to their miserable state with a loss. 

    It would also be nice to beat Kansas. 

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.