Its one of those "arsonists are more often than not firemen". Vast super majority of firemen are not arsonists, but the profession attracts those with a burning desire.

this might be an instance of two birds, one stone (several cats).

If you don't know, in the 1850s plank roads were to trains what modern day light rail is to trains: the bullshit budget version.

Yes. I implicitly assumed events were uncorrelated to make the math simple to understand and simple to explain. Its a sketch not a photograph. What you're describing is an optimization problem wherein the chance of failure P is some function of the trials per time frame n. So if you're doing it n times per week then the probability of not dying in a given week is (1-p(n))^n . The obvious question to ask is what is p(n)? Well we know some properties it must have. It has to only be decreasing in n (it shouldn't be possible to get worse with more experience). It has to have a diminishing return and eventually stop getting smaller with n (you can't get better than 0% chance of failure). It has to be smooth (your skill doesn't change in sudden discrete jumps). The obvious candidate distribution for this is exponential decay. e^{-rn} * (p_0 - p_inf) + p_inf where p_0 is the absolute worst no-practice value p(0) and p_inf is the is the absolute best attainable value. r is just some constant that determines how quickly the practice pays off. Now based on the assumptions so far the probability of dying in a given time frame becomes (1-e^{-rn} * (p_0 - p_inf) - p_inf)^n. The last step is to just take the derivative with respect to n and set it to 0. I'm tired so exercise for the reader yada yada.

It makes perfect sense. Suppose each time he surfs there's a 1% chance of fucking up and dying. If he surfs every day, the probability of making it to his next birthday is (1-.01)^365 (about 2.5%). If he only surfs every other week, then his chances exponentially improve to (1-.01)^26 (about 7.7%). If he only does it once a year, as a treat, for old times sake, he his probability of making it to his next birthday is 99%.

Put another way, if you decide to only play Russian roulette every other week rather than every day, you have in fact drastically reduced the odds that you will die playing Russian roulette. From the outside you might say playing it at all is stupid, but you can't objectively reach that conclusion without knowing how much value they get out of it and how strongly they value their lives. The decision to play might be totally rational with respect to what they want and what they are willing to risk to get it, even if it seems insane to you.

The warning should be showing them the reddit thread on the news article where everyone sneers at the incredibly stupid dead kid.

Bro, I'm going to blow your mind right now. Ready. Look at the map and read the names out in alphabetical order. What do you find?

(123456) - The Bronx
(ABCD) - Also the Bronx (or close)
(EFG(H?)) - Queens Blvd (note the G no longer goes past Court Sq).
I is skipped because it looks like 1.
(J(K?)LM) - Bushwick and Williamsburg straight to Broadway Junction (skipping Downtown BK). Runs parallel to EFGH but further South.
O is skipped because it looks like 0.
(N(P?)QR) - Coney Island (usually) to around 50th st then (usually) turns off to Queens.
S always denotes a shuttle.

oh and the 7 goes to Flushing and W/Z exist but they break the pattern. W should be P, Z should be K, arguably R should be H and Q should be T. Done. Thats the whole system.

Bro literally nothing will satisfy you. They don't buy new cars: "oh wow what losers we're soo far behind the rest of the world." They do buy new cars: "that's not the future, they're just playing catch up to the rest of the world." Pick a lane

You da real 8th Ave Express

probably nothing. its not like the media is treating him special and giving other politicians a pass.

I'm not. I honestly have no horse in this race. I couldn't imagine caring all that much about the age, race, orientation, or anything else about consenting adults. Really curious to see if people can put into words exactly why they feel it's "wrong". Is there any argument to be made for why it's wrong that doesnt imply an 18 year old women doesn't truly have adult personal agency, for there are certain relationships to which they are incapable of consenting and must be a victim? And if we accept the premise of 18 not being the real adult personhood cutoff, at what age does it happen? Is 48 and 40 OK? How about 38 and 30? If the rule of judgment is different from the rule of law, then what exactly is this rule being used to judge for which you and so many others feel so strongly that you imagine it universally felt? I want an explanation that isn't just cheap shot implying that anyone who doesn't agree must be a pedo. That's lazy Qanon their bullshit. Answer the question. Why exactly is it morally apprehensive, in your view, for an 18 and 26 year old to be in a relationship?

Why tho. Is 8 years always too much? How about 40 and 48? If the latter is not ok, why not? Why does it matter? If the latter is ok, at what age do we accept people can start dating 8 years older/younger if they want? Why do we put the line of adulthood at 18 if we're not going to actually accept the autonomy of 18 year olds when they make decisions we happen to disapprove of?

Sonofabitch even lied about resigning if 142k people told him to.

BOTH DIRECTIONS ARE QUEENSBOUND

read my edit. bad news friendo

So fuckin what if it isn't.

> of a natural plant or fungus-based hallucinogen.

LSD is derived from ergot, a type of fungus which infects plants in the wheat family causing the grains to develop black bulbouses.

Edit: I just clicked through and read the bill. It's a hard read and I may be missing something, but it looks like the quoted part isn't the whole story of what's in this thing. There's a whole section after that which goes on to define "plant based hallucinogen" as specifically meaning "any of the following compounds or their salts or isomers..." LSD is not on the list. The revised rules are helpfully shown in green and the parts of the legal code being overwritten are helpfully striker through in red. In section 5 we see the same list of" natural" chemicals crossed out but LSD is still there.

So it looks like I was wrong in interpreting that quote because every single word in it was defined to mean something else later on.

WTF is this arbitrary hippie "natural plant based" bullshit. I don't get what this guy thinks is natural VS processed, or why that's even relevant. This dude buying his psychedelics out the whole foods organic shelf?

I'll be your therapist. I'm not board approved or even ethics committee approved, but yolo.

Yes. On the door. A bit faded and doesn't show very well in the photograph but it clearly reads

>NYC
>9260

Reachable without trespass before anyone asks.

Meet me at Montauk

^^^cause ^^^you ^^^can't ^^^leave ^^^Montauk

The midnight train going anywhere?

There is no George Santos. He's a collective delusion, known to manifest in the body politic of all sorts of disparate civilizations throughout history. His presence portends plague, war and famine.

But you don't even need to pay for this one!

Nothing panders to boomers more than an opportunity to save a trivial amount of money.

>They wouldn't understand Reddit if you tried to explain it to them.

"Its like a news paper but with only the sections you care about and also you don't need to wait a whole day for it to update."