Sandy Hook families holding about $1.5 billion in defamation judgments [...] a competing plan submitted by Jones that would allow him to reorganize by preserving parts of his media empire and paying the group at least $5.5 million a year over 10 years
Literally pennies on the dollar.
His house in Austin, that he bought for a couple million dollars, he sold to his wife in 2022 for the grand total of ten dollars. They're going to claw that back from him for trying to hide it. And then they're going to force him to sell it because Texas bankruptcy law only keeps your house in a city or town safe from bankruptcy seizure if it's one acre or less. And the lot his house is on is 1.089 acres - such a shame!
Also there may be state specific differences, but the transfer of his assets to his wife only is called a “fraudulent conveyance” and is still able to be obtained to the debtors. Also it was a dick move and requires more lawyers.
Sandy Hook families holding about $1.5 billion in defamation judgments […] a competing plan submitted by Jones that would allow him to reorganize by preserving parts of his media empire and paying the group at least $5.5 million a year over 10 years
What’s the difference between 1.5 billion and 5.5 million? About 1.5 billion.
Sandy Hook families holding about $1.5 billion in defamation judgments […] a competing plan submitted by Jones that would allow him to reorganize by preserving parts of his media empire and paying the group at least $5.5 million a year over 10 years
Why did you omit the part where they didn’t accept that plan? Those ellipses did some heavy lifting.
It really is the best part, because he’s trying to weasel out of it saying “if you want money I’ve got to keep the machine running to make more” but the families holding him accountable are setting his everything on fire telling him it was never about the money, and that’s awesome. He was hoping greed would save his ass but here he is in the hands of people who want real justice - the dismantling of the very machine he used to do harm.
I wonder if his assets include infowars? Would be another nail in coffin of his hopes if the families gave it to the knowledge fight guys. Funny as fuck, too.
I’m gonna go with: don’t send cops on welfare checks. Send somebody competent to respond to mental health challenges, preferably someone not wearing a police uniform (after all, at this point a lot of folks think “unaccountable killer” when they see that uniform and there’s honestly reason for that).
Maybe they should have borrowed corporate lingo to call for right-sizing police, or restructure community resources.
“Defund the police” is such obviously bad marketing that it makes you wonder if the people who coined the phrase were trying to help or hinder reform efforts.
Typically conspiracy theories come with a kernel of truth, like he always maintained that the CSAM was planted. Only he didn’t. Because he was into CSAM. Don’t muddy the waters unless there’s reason to because there’s zero fucking reason to defend someone collecting that shit.
Haven’t looked into this guy specifically but hitting someone with the “sexual predator” label is the number one thing that the CIA does to people they don’t like.
The boomers aren’t a monolith. It’s millions of people with different experiences and actions throughout their lives.
Did a large number vote/legislate themselves into this problem? Yes. Are millions of others also along for the ride despite not supporting this system? Also, yes.
The issues in this article aren’t even applicable to boomers exclusively. Gen-X is a big portion of the population mentioned in the article. This isn’t a generational problem, it’s a class problem.
And don’t forget the fact that if these systemic issues aren’t addressed, we’ll all face the consequences.
Damn fuckin straight. No one that hangs out in these kinds of places is sane enough to contribute to what’s going on out there. The least sane think they do and they’ll create 45 comment long unpopulated wastelands proving as much.
It’s kinda hilarious to see “everyone” act as if they’re above the exact same shit that happened on Reddit, and yet the vast majority of us were from reddit and absolutely aren’t sane.
I mean I’ve read more about guillotines and communism on lemmy this past year than I ever did in the 11 years I was on reddit.
I know I am, because I usually come posting here when I have temperature and feel bad and have to direct my attention and anxiety somewhere. EDIT: … so conscious of posting the exact same shit, but above because of knowing it
No dude if we can just get rid of the Juden Boomers, all of our problems will be solved because the Juden Boomers are all responsible for every problem in The Reich America.
It’s all the same rhetoric. The Jews, the Blacks, the Boomers, the Zoomers, the Christians, the Muslims, etc.
Any comment that blames anything but class as being the only reason for why things are so bad is contributing nothing and hurting actual progress. A 1%er Zoomer does more harm in a single day than a 99th-percentile Boomer does in their lifetime.
Boomers are not an oppressed minority, literally the fucking opposite, what in the hell are you on about and wtf is wrong with you comparing reasonable hatred for the generation that fucked us all over to antisemitism? Not at all comparable, you’re just going to bat for a generation that wants you to pay their social security while trying to get it abolished before you get any
The generation didn’t fuck you over, the bourgeoisie did, as they always have. The fact that some of the bourgeoisie is made up of baby boomers is purely incidental. You are not being oppressed by Thomas James, 76 year-old local caterer who marched for Civil Rights before you were even born.
Thomas James is dead. He had to work his entire life and died because he couldn’t afford the meds he needed, or got run over at a civil rights march, or just broke his body with labor and broke half his bones falling down the stairs. Almost all the good boomers are dead, and there were very few to start with. They’re the most conservative voting block out there afaik, maybe older people are worse on average but I doubt it. Boomers and the bourgeoisie are both to blame for the shit situation we’re in. Less so with boomers, but you sure as fuck shouldn’t be letting them off the hook or defending them when they’ve never done the same for you
No amount of downvotes is gonna make the boomers give a shit about you :P they’re still gonna vote conservative and think they’re entitled to your money
True, but the vast majority did, and even the “good” ones are usually the kind of democrat that wants Hillary Clinton as president and wants to bomb more middle eastern countries. Obviously there’s exceptions, but most boomers have voted to fuck over themselves and everyone else, and now want others to pay them so they don’t have to experience the consequences
Those who were taken along for the ride and actively voted against these are a small minority. I can see some benefit of helping them but would need to see what percentage of them actually need it.
The rest of them fucked around and need to find out or we’re just going to keep doing this shit generation after generation. Those on the lower end of the socioeconomic scale have happily voted for regressive policies. Fuck’em.
They already fucked our planet, I owe them nothing. We owe them nothing. They owe us.
For as long as you continue to think the problem is age and not class (which you are a fool to think that every boomer is upper class or vice-versa), you will contribute nothing to real change. You’re playing directly into petty division politics like a good little prolie.
Eh I would give that comment some grace. They’ve been misled to believe attacking Boomers is being a class traitor. Rather than the reality which is that Boomers are generally either capitalists themselves or working class traitors.
So you’re saying you supported everything trump did while President? I mean… you were of voting age while he was elected right? So clearly you agree with everything done? And you agree with everything currently being done?
Funny. My understanding of political history isn’t limited to the past 10 years. The people hitting retirement age today overwhelming supported Reagan in the 1980’s. They’ve had decades to correct their mistake, they’ve had decades to prepare for a proper retirement in the world they created. They have chosen poorly.
Ant and the Grasshopper. They chose to be the grasshopper and dancing away decades of their lives. Now a significant percentage of them approach retirement with zero savings. Fucking zero! Their inability to prepare for the inevitable is not my problem.
The message from the boomers has always been that we cannot afford it. Now that it’s them in need, cost is no issue.
I am more than happy to help the generations younger than myself shore up retirement.'They were born into the shit and most of will never have a chance to save anything significant.
Everyone older than me can get fucked.
But we need to act now or you’re fucked anyway. Remove the cap on social security. Raise taxes on the wealthy. There are dozens of these options that have been floated about for decades.
Save yourselves before you try and save others, half of whom wouldn’t bother to save you once they are comfortable.
Just wait until they say that about you. I don’t know what your age is, but your generational cohort certainly hasn’t done everything perfectly either. No “generation” ever has, and never will.
I don’t need to wait. I encourage you to do it now.
Don’t worry about me. Take care of yourself first.
Don’t assume those younger than you will take care of you.
Take responsibility. Take control. If that means you burn this motherfucker to the ground to make it happen, I will support you. But don’t do it because I would support it, do it because it’s what you feel is necessary.
Nope. The problem is not class. They could have implemented a better world and choose not to.
I hear you bud. I would suggest what you actually mean is that the problem is class and it’s the Boomers who are siding with capitalist class against the working class. People try to gaslight us into thinking our criticism of Boomer means that we’re creating this division. We are not. They are intentionally fucking us over.
It’s not a small minority. Look at the results of every presidential election since the 1980s, they’re not representative of an overwhelming majority of the population. Nor are the republican/democratic splits in Congress.
But that’s all besides the point. These generational lines are all arbitrary anyways. We agree there are problems with the status quo–do you think the fixes just shouldn’t apply to anyone over 55? Would you be okay with that logic being applied to yourself in 30+ years?
It’s always they’re not a monolith and true enough but if a literal vote doesn’t represent the overall will of the group then that’s implying thay democracy doesn’t work. If most of them voted for this then thats what most of them wanted. We have exit polls and data on this, it’s not as if anyone’s attributing to a group characteristics that only a few of them have, it’s the clear majority, year over year.
The will of the majority shouldn’t infringe on the liberty of the minority. Might shouldn’t make right.
Are you saying the actions of a portion of an arbitrarily defined group should condemn the group as a whole? I’ll ask the same question I asked another commenter; are you okay with that same principle being applied to you in the future?
It’s being applied to me now. Every thread talking about millennials political preferences top comment is always ‘then they should actually vote’ despite the fact that I havent missed an election. The least we can do is keep the same consistency here. Im not here to coddle boomers and treat them in higher regard than how we get treated. You get what you give and the majority of boomers are also getting exactly what they voted for. Must be nice, that’s not a luxury my generation has.
Also whos being condemed? Are you suggesting honoring the democratic outcome of a vote of a group is condeming them? If so then who exactly did the condeming? No one says I’m being condemed when I have to live with shit I didn’t vote for, the comparison is ridiculous.
We agree the current “boomer” policies are inadequate and should be changed, yes? Then is your position that improvements to the status quo should exclude people of a certain age because of how a portion of that population has voted?
If that’s your position, then that’s condemnation. The entire group is being excluded from the solution, despite only a portion having created the problem in the first place.
Apply that logic to any minority/disadvantaged/disenfranchised group, and see where it takes you. Should all Palestinians be punished because they didn’t do enough to stop Hamas? Should black Americans born in the 1910s not have enjoyed the benefits of the Civil Rights movement because they didn’t affect enough change in their youth?
So did millions of any other group of people you can think of; white, black, rich, poor, young, and old. Are they all uncompromising pieces of shit too? Is voting for Biden the mark of the beast, and once marked you’re never entitled to government reforms?
Or is there some other purity test one must pass before being eligible for support?
Other groups are welcome to vote for whomever they like. Boomers are not. They have caused so much damage and fucked over so many people. They have no business continuing to do so.
Seriously, wtf are they whining about. “If I subtract the money we paid from the current market value of our house we get such a nice number, but now we have to lose 14% of that 😭😭😭😭”
Maybe it’s my interest in economics, but American life is so expensive in part because Americans are willing to spend a shit ton of money because they think they’re supposed to. It’s like we’re all enamored with the idea that bigger and more is better just because someone said so. And then we complain about things being unaffordable like corporations aren’t trying to fleece us for all we’re worth.
I’ve heard it said that Americans purchase based on the maximal use case as opposed to the typical use case. As an American, that description makes so much sense. As an example, I live in an area where there are a lot of hills and it snows rarely, but just about everyone who can afford a 4WD SUV has one. Heaven forbid they can’t drive around on those 1-2 days a year that it snows! Meanwhile, they get shitty gas mileage driving to work the other 300-odd days of the year.
The maximal use case! That’s a good way of thinking about it!
I’m struggling with my SO to buy a reasonable house in a high cost of living area. They want a massive 2000 Sq ft monstrosity because we plan to have a kid soon, and I’m thinking 1500 is more than enough. They’re reasoning it’s we need space for each other and entertaining. My reasoning is I want to eat out at the nearby fantastic restaurants nearby more often and buy cheese and wine and stuff.
I had to use a unit converter, but I've lived in places housing up to seven people that weren't that big. Comfortably.
This is a conversation I had here recently as well when I pointed out to a car thread that for the money Americans pay for pickup trucks you can also buy a hatchback and a proper van, cover most use cases and not drive a tank to take kids to school. They did NOT like that.
Hatchbacks and vans are enclosed and not fun to haul stinky stuff and aren't conducive to hosing out after.
The main problem in the US is companies not making Coupe utility sized vehicles like the Subaru Brat or the El Camino. Small and light vehicles with beds. I would love a small AWD electric or hybrid truck that size that has good mileage for commuting and just enough convenience for moving cumbersome and stinky things around. The Ford Maverick is a move in the right direction, but is almost a midsized truck instead of going full on compact.
Let me speedrun through this: I've never seen a pickup truck and I am in a rural place where people move stinky stuff all the time. Vans can be purchased with sealed off cabins, and with all doors open can be hosed down easily. It's fine. Nobody here has pickups. I haven't seen a pickup or known anybody to have one and everybody is fine. This is a strictly American thing and the US isn't the moon, there really isn't a unique need to use a truck bed for school runs.
You're doing the thing the man said: drive a tank to buy groceries in case you have to haul manure once a year.
Those are called hatchbacks and are pretty awesome! Unfortunately the Civic hatchback I had for 15 years would have been better for the last 5 years I owned it if the hatch area was just a bed becauseI no longer needed a back seat but would have been 10x more convenient with an open bed in the fact same space instead of being enclosed.
We rented a minivan on a recent trip and got 35+ mpg with a very full load, and it had some decent get up and go. It had a long sloped front end and I would absolutely recommend minivans to anyone who needs more space than a hatchback!
It wouldn't work for me outside that situation though, which is why I keep saying no to those suggestions.
Was that a hybrid? I’m having trouble finding a minivan that gets that kind of mpg that isn’t a hybrid. Conversely, a hybrid crossover will easily break 40mpg for both city and highway. It weighs around the same while having better aerodynamics.
To be clear, aerodynamics dominates on the highway, and weight dominates in cities.
Right, but in this scenario you end up with two vehicles: a light, economical car to drive and a dedicated work vehicle. The original point is that expensive, heavy vehicles as daily drivers can be less practical and economical than mutiple cheaper, dedicated vehicles.
For some reason, this makes Americans, and especially American car people VERY angry to hear, and it's bizarre.
I don't want two vehicles that don't do what I want. I want one vehicle, that is the same size and gets the same gas mileage as a car that does what I want by having an open bed in the back instead of an enclosed hatchback.
Its like you can't read.
Note: The Subaru Brat, which is one of the example I said that I wished they sold trucks in today, was smaller than a Honda Fit. Do you think a Honda Fit is big?
No, hey, I get it. You want a cool toy, not a boring practical solution. That's legitimate. I own many things that are not the optimal answer to a problem just because I like them.
The sheer rage at the insinuation that the option may not be optimal is fascinating, though. So uniquely American. Which is what this thread is about. "The maximal use case".
For the record, I had not heard of the "Honda Fit". I guess it's like a Japanese Fiat Punto. Also for the record, what both the Fiat Punto and the Honda Fit seem to have is a back seat. But hey, again, a cool toy, not an optimal solution. Maximal use case. It's a good observation.
Considering you have absolutely no idea of what he does on a daily basis and no idea of how often he needs the vehicle for those situations. Plus no idea of his parking space. I’m not sure how you are able to tell him what he should buy.
I didn't? Like I explicitly didn't. I explicitly say up there that I get it and even if I think it's not optimal you get to buy stuff you like that's not optimal because you think it's cool.
This only reinforces my point about the sheer, unbridled rage this subject triggers in a certain stripe of car people, and it's both hilarious and kinda terrifying.
I swear to you, if I ever have any kind of emotion towards "anything that has an open bed" beyond mild bemusement I will quit the Internet, abandon the concept of self-propelled vehicles and ride a donkey to a mountain monastery to rethink my life.
I just didn't know you could get people on the Internet to froth at the mouth by implying that pickup trucks aren't perhaps the most efficient mode of transportation until a couple of weeks ago. Now that I do know it feels irresponsible not to use this power. Especially when somebody brings up how culturally strange some purchasing choices are in the US.
Thank you for finally admitting that you are a troll!
Imagine being such a worthless piece of shit that you argue with someone who wants a truck version of a car by constantly saying they want something other than they are literally saying. It probably helps if you are jobless and unable to make romantic connections with people because of your inability to maintain proper hygiene. That must really help with the personal need to rile up others so you can feel better about yourself while you cry yourself to sleep on the bare mattress you sleep on.
Oh, yeah, this conversation is super irrelevant. There is literally zero reason to have this conversation beyond the morbid fascination of seeing weirdos come out of the woodwork to be super offended that you said mean things about open beds. It's like flipping over a rock to see the bugs.
I mean, let's be honest, why else would anybody have an intricate, incensed conversation about whether the back of a van is covered with a bit of sheet metal or going commando? It's absolutely bonkers. Think about it. Think about it hard for a second.
Why would anyone shit on the idea of a car that is the same size, gets the same mileage, and is otherwise the same as a hatchback but with an open bed instead of a closed hatch? What kind of nut job would suggest a van and a second vehicle that would get the same fuel consumption as a solution? Think about it hard for a second.
So why are we having this conversation, then? Because that's great for you, but as a "optimal use case" as opposed to the "maximal use case", I'd say "seats" tends to rank pretty high the list of car features. For... you know, most people.
You would say that since you keep ignoring everything that I have written.
Would you tell someone who wants a SmartCar that they should get something with a backseat instead? What about the van with a sealed off cabin that was suggested, which would also have two seats but worse fuel economy in a larger package than what I want which is a car with a truck bed?
Honestly this keeps going because I am fascinated by how hard you have dug your heels in opposing a car with a truck bed for reasons that I have already explained are not relevant based on my prior ownership of a hatchback. And you will respond to this because you can't just admit maybe you were wrong in your assumptions. Like comically wrong, but it would be a travesty for someone to not fit your idea of an American who uses their lifted truck as a dick substitute.
Plus I have some time on my hands so will definitely be getting the last word in.
I'd tell someone with a SmartCar to get a monthly bus pass instead. And a bike, maybe. And a sense of self-awareness.
But also, yeah, failing that get a bigger car with a backseat. For sure. Maybe the one Smart make, if that's what they're into.
What I'm fascinated about is the "these are not relevant based on my prior ownership" bit, because... I'm not talking to you. I never talked to you. You popped up in here saying that the problem with pickups is they weren't making small ones, as if that was a systemic issue and then somehow this became about a specific car that you want to have that they don't make. Like you personally. As if my tangentially related point was an affront to this purchase that you want to make specifically.
I'm not sure that's a specifically American thing, because people in social media do tend to think everything is explicitly about them in particular, but man, when combined with the pickup thing it does sound... you know, arch.
So someone who wants to buy a two seater car that is extremely convenient in the city because of the short wheelbase and excellent gas mileage should buy a bigger car for extra seats they don't need?
Why are you so angry about people not needing more than two seats that you insist they need a larger vehicle? Must be a wherever you are thing to think people shouldn't have preferences.
We had a used Brat when I was a teenager in the 80s! The seats in the bed had already been taken out and it was a rust bucket, but just fun on a bun until my older brother rolled it in a ditch.
A modern version with an electric drive train would be fantastic!
The original point is that expensive, heavy vehicles as daily drivers can be less practical and economical than mutiple cheaper, dedicated vehicles.
Hold up here. Americans have too many cars per capita as it is. Your solution is to increase that? Especially when cars come with a big environmental footprint right out of the factory. Because I’m over here trying to consolidate how many cars we have and use an e-bike more often.
Well, see, the secret is you probably don't really need that truck bed in the first place, so if I was to guess, I'd say that's why there's a bit of resistance to that idea. The working hypothesis here is that if you bought a sensible car that makes sense as a car... and a separate van to work, then you'd never buy a van. Which is what most people do here, honestly. You don't so much buy a van as you know a guy who does own a van and will let you use it for the thirty minutes that you actually need it once or twice a year in exchange for a beer later.
Which is probably how you end up with fewer cars per capita than the US and still have work vehicles separate from whatever you use to take the kids to school or go get groceries.
Also, you send the kids to school in a bus and walk to the shop. That also helps, I bet.
I’m not sure why you think a van is a better option. If we’re talking about people who actually use their big hauling thing for more than running to Starbucks, they’re different options for different uses. They’re not more efficient, and on fact may may be less efficient in comparable models. The bigger ones are built on exactly the same truck frames.
People who actually need one can choose whatever. I don’t have a need for either, don’t have either, and probably never will. But I’ve seen this van argument a lot, and I think it’s silly and misunderstands how the two are built and their tradeoffs.
But no, we're NOT talking about those people. At least we're not just talking about those people. And a van that is not being used because you're taking a smaller car is, in fact, more efficient than a pikcup truck. The point isn't "buy a van instead of a pickup", it's "buy a sensible car instead of a pickup, and if you do need a work vehicle get one of those on the side".
The entire point is we're talking about how Americans in general apply this very specific kind of FOMO to determine whether to go for a thing they don't really need in the event they might need it, that was the point of the thread. Like, you know, driving a luxury work vehicle everywhere when you could just have a practical small car for people and a practical cheaper work vehicle for the same price. Then it weirdly morphed into how if you point out that this applies to pickup trucks people get mad at you on the Internet. And then people got mad on the Internet.
Also, second time in this bizarre argument somebody raises "vans are just built on pickup frames with a roof on them". The other guy who said it went to sanity check online and came back reporting that actually no, that wasn't the case, at least for the popular examples he was thinking of. I think that may be a US thing as well where one popular van was built like that and it became common to think that was the norm but the popular vans in places where vans are populars are not built like that. It's weird, I hadn't heard that one before until I accidentally pissed off pickup people the first time.
More to the point, I’m asking why you think vans are a superior option to trucks in this role.
Things like the Ford Transit or Mercedes Metris are built like cars with unibody construction and car suspension. That’s fine as far as it goes, but they’re not clearly superior to a pickup in the same size range. The Transit Connect is roughly comparable to the Ford Maverick, and I believe even uses the same engine. Comparing fuel economy:
The van has a smidge better city millage, but the truck has a fair bit better highway. That’s likely because the truck weighs a bit more (which matters more in the city) but has better aerodynamics (which predominantes for highway cruising).
Why would a truck have better aerodynamics? Frontal cross section. Vans tend to be as tall as a truck, but also sit lower like a sedan. They would tend to have better drag coefficient, but their frontal cross section is worse. By way of contrast, a motorcycle with a rider has a drag coefficient that makes a truck look good, but has a relatively tiny frontal cross section.
And here we might have our answer to why Americans may prefer trucks in this role: more highway driving.
Past the Transit and Metris size, yes, vans are built like trucks. A Ford E350 van is an F350 frame. Same with the Chevy Express and the Silveroto. The Mercedes Sprinter doesn’t have a direct pickup analog, but it is sold as a cab chassis for customization.
More specifically, they tend to be body-on-frame construction. They have to in order to support higher weight capacity. The Sprinter is a bit of a hybrid between unibody and body-on-frame–hence allowing a customizable back end–but anything bigger than that has to be built like a truck regardless of what’s on the backside. Unibody car-like frames don’t cut it.
In what "role"? How is that more to the point? I never said "vans are better than pickups", I said "for the money of an expensive pickup you can get a hatchback and a van". So not that vans are better, but that you can cover the dual role of a very expensive "truck" that you also use as a daily driver for a thing that is a more practical daily driver and a work vehicle.
So no, the idea isn't that you're driving a van to take your kids to school like some deranged weirdo (again, I've been that kid, don't do it, it's a bad idea). The point is that using a work vehicle as your daily driver is expensive and inconvenient for everybody else in the road.
Incidentally, you guys are being obnoxious enough about this that I today I walked past a Citroën Berlingo parked in a compact car spot on the side of the road and went "heh, look at that". That's what you made me do. I shouldn't care about this. This shouldn't even register. Stop making me notice practical vans.
I’m honestly trying to explore this point about vans, because I’ve seen it come up a lot. Not just your argument, but there’s an idea among the FuckCars crowd that vans are superior in every way to pickup trucks, and pickups are only for penis enhancement. It’s silly and misunderstands how the two are built and why people might choose one over the other.
Basically, my argument comes down to most people don’t need either one (and we seem to be aligned on that), but past a certain point where people actually use their big vehicles, either vans or pickup trucks are fine. Europeans often choose vans because it works for them and Americans often choose pickup trucks because it works for them. Americans need to buy fewer F150s or anything else in that size class, and neither side of the Atlantic should be buying so many crossovers/SUVs.
Yeah, man, so... maybe have that argument with someone who is having that argument?
I mean, cool, I get it, you're itching to make that case to somebody who is making the opposite case, but if you just blast it at people who are not saying the thing you're responding to it just... doesn't really work that well.
No you are not. But perhaps you might consider a small and light trailer you could pull behind a sedan of even a mini-van. The costs are far, far, lower and the insurance and licensing are nearly non-existent.
Congratulations you anecdotal experience means nothing. I see pick up trucks ALL the time in rural areas (in Germany and the US) and in the US they aren’t all hulking behemoth dodge rams. Those fill the suburbs. There’s nothing wrong with wanting a small compact truck for hauling stuff. Trucks like the 95 toyota hilux, 98 Ford ranger, and 92 Jeep Comanche are great for hauling stuff like used furniture or concrete powder and picking up your kids from school without looking like an Abrams tank.
This is a strictly American thing and the US isn’t the moon
Except the 2 best selling cars GLOBALLY in 2020 was the Toyata corolla and the Toyota hilux a fucking truck. The hilux was 2020′s best-selling VEHICLE in 14 countries, including Argentina, Australia, Panama, South Africa and Fiji.
Wait, in 2020? Why not look up 22 or 23? I mean, it's not like anything weird would have impacted the market in 2020, huh? And hey, it doesn't even look that bad for your case, the Hilux and the F150 both break the top 10 in the most recent source I could find, if narrowly. The best seller I see is a SUV, and man, trust me, I don't share your defensiveness here, you are super allowed to mock those.
Now, I don't speak for the whole world, but I sure speak for myself. Since I was checking, in my location small vans and pickups all together account for less than 10% of the national market as per the most recent data (they don't even bother separating those segments, apparently). Large commercial vans and small commercial trucks are actually as big of a segment.
So yeah, anecdotally and statistically, it's exceedingly rare to see a pickup truck here. Turns out you also don't speak for the rest of the world. Because, you know, nobody does. That tends to happen with hundreds of countries and billions of people.
Turns out you also don’t speak for the rest of the world. Because, you know, nobody does. That tends to happen with hundreds of countries and billions of people.
I never claimed to, you did. Outside of your world statistically ppl do buy trucks. They’re not rare. It’s not just an American thing. I’m not speaking for the world. I’m stating an objective fact.
You’re just trying to walk back your condescending attitude because you realized you were PAINFULLY wrong. It’s easy to shit on America (usually rightfully so) but all it showed was your own arrogance and bias.
I don’t even understand how anyone could think like this if they know anything about cars. Modern trucks were designed for carrying loads (hehe) long distances through rural areas with rough to non existent roads.
You think the average guy selling mangos or hauling farm equipment still uses an ox and cart or a Citroen?
Oh, I'm condescending HARD here. The mere fact that this conversation is ongoing is extremely condescending. It's extremely boring, seeing how I've had it multiple times already, so the only thing keeping me here at all is the opportunity to condescend, frankly.
FWIW, and to engage honestly with data, because data requires honesty, we're just citing different sources. I think the one I pulled, which was dated September 2023 and had the Hilux and F150 at 6 and 9, respectively. I suspect it was a "year so far" list, given the date, but it doesn't cite a primary source, so I couldn't guarantee it.
Anyway, speaking of arrogance and condescension, I live in a rural area and have ridden on the back of Citroen vans to school more than once (don't do that, it's dangerous and illegal). So... average mango seller where? Because the anwer is yes. I've also gone around on the back of a tractor a few times.
Oh, you have no idea the things I can be smug about. I am very good at it. Lots of practice.
Not being smug about my own ignorance, though (although I can and I have). I'm being smug about the insane immediate ragefest you get at the insinuation that pickups may not be a great solution for a daily driver. That's a way lower level of smug. Entry level smug right there. Was doing it before you even got to this conversation and it was eeeeasy.
I think people tend to pick the wrong targets in this debate. Stuff like the Ford Maverick and F150 are usually people who really don’t need a truck, and most crossover/SUV drivers would be fine with a sedan. Once you get into the F250 and higher, though, you’re mostly dealing with people who actually use their truck for a living. There are reasons workers in the US choose those–such as fifth wheel trailers–and there are reasons why European workers don’t (except when they do).
And it’s really silly. Vans for that kind of work are generally truck frames with a different back end. It doesn’t make that much difference at that level. The best you can say is that the hood doesn’t stick out as far and therefore visibility is better, but even that’s not always true, and there are other tradeoffs with that design.
I live in rural Germany. The only people with these trucks are the ones that never use the bed. In fact, I’ve recently seen one at the hardware store. The guy bought a shelf maybe 1.5 m long. Neither did it fit in the bed, nor did it fit in the cabin. Such a worthless piece of shit.
Everyone in the trade business uses vans. For heavy duty hauling they obviously use something bigger than a fucking pickup truck.
That out of the way, I see the appeal in smaller old-school trucks. They usually have larger beds than the ridiculously oversized pieces of shit that start sprouting in urban areas.
Everyone in the trade business uses vans. For heavy duty hauling they obviously use something bigger than a fucking pickup truck.
My 2015 Dodge Ram Hemi pickup truck and 24,000lbs/11,000kg tandem axle tilt bed trailer would like a word. Pretty hard to get a skidsteer or tractor in a van…And the cost to own and insure even a single axle truck and trailer is far more expensive, (I’ve done the math), and far less versatile. And hiring a large truck makes scheduling very difficult for weather sensitive jobs far too often. Not to mention the loading and offloading almost always needs a ramp or dock of some kind for those larger trucks - hence the tilt bed trailer.
And when not being used as a haul/work vehicle, it can get groceries or even a 6 pack of beer…
That said, do urbane Cowboys/Cowgirls need a pickup truck? Probably not. But it’s a free, but often stupid choice they are free to make.
If by “American” you mean North American, then yeah, you are correct, because pickups are also super popular in Canada and Mexico. But I don’t think that’s what you mean. I think you mean to specify the US which again, is incorrect. The fact that pickups are so popular in Canada and Mexico as well tells us that contrary to what I suspect you’re trying to imply, there isn’t some kind of special innate idiotic pickup truck gene that’s unique to Americans and that instead, it’s all about marketing.
After all, if marketing and advertising didn’t work, it wouldn’t be a multi-billion dollar industry. What the big American car companies have done with amazing effectiveness is to make owning a pickup truck an intimate part of a lot of people’s self-image. That’s what you are arguing against and that’s why it’s nearly impossible to change anyone’s mind about it.
That's all fair enough. And let me just include the first part about North America in there and not also pick the fight about Canada being mostly in that same cultural bundle because this thread is already trolly and angry enough.
I think if this thread wasn't such a hassle it'd be interesting to pick some of that apart, because I do think the marketing is culturally bound, not arbitrary (if it was arbitrary it would have worked in the places where it didn't). I do think it's obviously hard to argue about the identitarian bit you mention, though, because... well, look around this thread.
How is an extra piece of equipment that is less convenient and takes up more space a better solution? Where the fuck am I going to keep that when I could just have that same space in the back of a vehicle instead of an enclosed trunk?
Either truck means something different in your language where you cannot conceive of one being small, or you are somehow opposed to a vehicle with an open bed existing at all.
Please keep offering less convenient solutions than having an open bed in the back of a car sized vehicle though, it is entertaining how fucking ridiculous the suggestions are instead of just agreeing that a smaller trucks would be a nice alternative.
The base answer to your problem is owning a **small and light trailer. One that is capable of hauling a few boards or an appliance or two like a clothes washer or refrigerator. And when done with the task, can be parked in a corner and forgotten until needed again. A perfectly good one can be had for around $500US - Some simple assembly required.
**Apartment dwellers might not be able to own one.
The trailer takes up space when not being used, the back half of the vehicle does not. This is true no matter what the parking situation is. Zero space is better than any space, if the back half of the vehicle doesn't need to be enclosed or have seating.
The trailer requires some extra maintenance too. Keeping things oiled, tires aired up and replaced regularly. Driving with the trailer means needing to use to parking stalls when parking. Backing up with trailers is a lot of fun too!
The trailer is a very situational benefit for situations where the main vehicle space is needed. Hell, if I need a trailer I can just rent one from UHaul. But I don't when the same thing is solved with a truck bed, and the truck bed format is far more convenient if the vehicle with the bed is the same size as a normal car!
There are light trailers that can be stored vertically to take very minimal space and can be deployed in a few minutes of effort.
The maintenance costs and effort of greasing two bearings and tire replacement is still far, far, less than the total cost of owning and insuring a pickup truck. Plus, they have the bonus of being a whole lot easier to load and unload due to the much lower bed height.
Any place you might go with your trailer to haul larger/heavier items will have proper room to park your vehicle and small trailer. After all, they are getting far larger trucks and trailers to receive and ship items in bulk. Appliance, home improvement, furniture stores and the like seldom have “street only” parking. And if that’s all that’s available, you didn’t need either the trailer or a pickup truck to shop there.
That can work also. As long as there is a U-Haul to rent from and they have what you need when you need it. And it WILL cost more than $20 - been there done that.
I mean... it depends on what you mean, I guess? Even if I hadn't spent the pandemic lockdowns comfortably holed up in a small apartment, it's worth noting that big-ass houses typically have yards while small apartments do not.
I guess if you mean "having shops, bars and restaurants within walking distance" that can maybe work, but otherwise that doesn't seem to track.
I don't really know what this conversation was meant to be about at this point, and after re-reading the thread in order a few times I think you don't either.
US cities are rapidly running out of 3rd places. There’s almost no neighborhood commercial centers with a cafe and a pub/bar that you can visit for extended periods of time.
The net result is that the home and the workplace are the primary locations we can spend time in.
That somehow sounds like the primary space people spend time in should be a bar and not their home. That’s insane. Though maybe it’s some kind of an extrovert dream.
That’s quite the straw man of my statement. You’ve read a ton into what I wrote.
Given that, I get to turn right around and say “okay, then we’ll have no absolutely no places outside of work and home. All supplies delivered to a drop box on your doorstep so introverts never have to talk to a human.”
My point was that communities historically have had places where people can choose to go and spend time in the shared space. Common examples of these spaces include cafes and bars/pubs. Geez you made me have to be stupid pedantic.
I enjoy going to shared public spaces and businesses that welcome sitting and relaxing. So sue me. I also make friends with every housecat, dog, hamster, and houseplant (if no pets are available) at parties I get roped into. I am, at best, a light duty introvert.
I spend way too much time in my house because going out to places in the US is extra work. The accessibility of places to sit and relax around my neighbors is next to nil. This isn’t true when I get to visit international cities that aren’t capitalist car-centric hellscapes. There, I walk to nearby places to sit and enjoy my city, not just my apartment. The world should have places to be outside the home, even if hiding in your four walls is both an introverts dream and a capitalism goal.
No, they’re just saying it would be a part of that space. Like with a veterans club. You don’t have to buy anything to be there. (Of course you do need to pay your membership, which is why we’re talking about spaces that are just funded as a government item)
Running out of 3rd spaces? LOL you only see those in museums now. See the smilodon exhibit next to the woolly mammoth exhibit and next to that is the American 3rd Space exhibit!
We have two kids in a 3 bed/2 bath 1350 sq ft home. We do have a full basement, but the kids aren’t really allowed down there (power tools, toy stash, etc). I guess I do hang out there some nights, but that’s only because my gaming computer moved downstairs years ago when our oldest started to be able to reach the keyboard and pull key caps off it.
In our experience, you’re probably not going to do a lot of entertaining while you have young kids. While one of your kids is under 3-4, and sometimes older, they’re going to need naps. They’re also going to have early bedtimes. Naps are mostly behind us, and we do have afternoon play dates, but the kids don’t really care what space they’re in as long as they’re engaged and have things to do. Having an adult gathering is… very rare. We have a nice sized yard, so we tend to have gatherings outside.
I don’t think we need extra bedrooms or bigger bedrooms/bathrooms. An office might be nice, but working from the basement works just as well. A toy room could be nice, but to me it would be wasted space as the kids get older and have fewer, but larger/more engaging, toys. At least around here, the extra room comes with extra walls that result in a space that’s not often used (think a formal dining room).
There’s also the financial side of things. We could afford a larger house, but would rather be putting any extra into 529s, our own 401ks, etc. Kid related expenses really add up before you start also thinking about a bigger mortgage payment.
Ok. We raised 4 kids in an 1800 sq foot house with one bathroom. I do not recommend the one bathroom, but the space was more than adequate.
Having said that, it does make a difference, we have the same size house now and only 2 kids left at home, but this house has a bigger main kitchen/dining area, smaller bedrooms, a separate living room for the kids, an enormous back porch/deck adding to the useable space and entertaining space is really helpful more than I had imagined.
1500 arranged right with small bedrooms and enough common area, and at least 2 bathrooms sure. It’s not a small house, that’s a medium size house. With an enormous porch? Hell yeah. We used to live in one of those with two other couples, it was fine. But I do think you are undercounting the value of common space.
My hybrid SUV (Ford escape) has awd and gets low-mid 40s mpg on my 12gallon-600 mile tank. The trick is the awd isn’t permanently on, it’s only on when it needs the traction or I change the drive mode to AWD when I’m expecting ice/snow.
On cars I agree wholeheartedly. It’s way too expensive to maintain that capacity. We rent a minivan to travel but buy small car for daily use.
House I am not convinced, the value proposition is different. It really is nice to have a little extra space. Not some monstrous McMansion, but not cozy, and space for the kids to have their gaming computer stuff not inside their bedroom and my home office stuff not inside my bedroom. And moving is a pain in the ass and expensive, absolutely don’t want to have to scale up if the family gets bigger.
Oh yeah the “office” they keep trying to delete from apartments and town houses. There’s good evidence for psychological health in separating sleep, work, play, and relaxation spaces.
Also, I drove a manual compact sedan in a mountain town with hills for about 6 years. Yeah it’s not as easy as throwing “off road” mode on but it’s not exactly hard either.
Also some of them are paid very well. Any of your unionized specialty trades can easily make $150k+ a year, especially if they’re willing to travel or work a lot of OT. If you’re single or married with no kids, you can pretty easily afford a big fancy truck like that.
If you’re willing to travel that can be more than $50k a year in per diem pay, so in two years you can easily pay off a new trailer to live in and a nice truck to haul it with. I personally know people who have done exactly this. The catch is that you need to get into a good union and do your apprenticeship and generally have your shit together. It always surprises me that more people don’t know this.
And because abortion is illegal and mothers are forced to bring non-viable pregnancies to term, both the living and dying occur on the same day for the baby. Somehow these proponents of abortion bans still call themselves “pro-life”.
Oh. It means stupid people are willingly ignorant and wish others to be just as ignorant as them, or the ones who aren’t as ignorant will face consequences. Fun.
The search warrant was for the Parmely Avenue residence, but it was issued for a person who hasn’t lived there in more than a year, Price said, sharing the search warrant left by police at the home.
[…]
Price said she learned police had visited the home at least five times within the past year. “The landlord even told [police] she had new tenants,” she said.
This is after the article mentions that they only waited six seconds between knocking on the door and busting in.
If your police department shows this degree of incompetence executing a raid, it should have all its toys taken away. No more flashbangs, no more SWAT gear, no fancy guns. You get the wrong address, you hurt an innocent person, you fail to identify yourselves, you lose privileges. Hell, I seriously question whether they need most of that shit in the first place.
I legitimately believe that a disturbingly high number of these raids that go wrong happen because the cops want to play with with their shiny new equipment.
Six seconds?! Holy fuck, it takes me about a minute and a half just to get the dogs corralled. Thank god I keep yelling, “just a minute!” Hopefully if this ever happens to me, the cops will hear me yelling.
They will ignore you and kick your door down if it’s a raid, knock or otherwise. Excellent chance they shoot your dog too because apparently the cops just love murdering family pets.
From everything I’ve seen, they’ll hear it, take it as an excuse to claim you weren’t complying, bust down your door based on that and shoot your understandably agitated dogs.
The issue is donation centers are shitty, workers are untrained, and corporations make a shit ton of money selling our “donations” while people that get it have to pay.
Kind of sours people on donating.
Last time I gave they went thru the vein, gave me a giant “golf ball” hematoma and then the workers “playfully teased me” it was going to slow.
They shut up pretty quickly when I showed them how fucked up my arm was, took almost two weeks for the bruise to go away.
When I stopped donating, I started getting automated phone calls that stared out with a distraught woman screaming:
Help, there’s been an accident!
Fuck these literal vampire corporations. We need a government donation system where 2-3 middlemen don’t make millions and the people who need the blood don’t have to pay for it.
Same experience here. It’s like 1/4 times they are going to fuck up with the needle. And then they call you, always from different numbers, to guilt you into donating. The last time I went they fucked up 3 times before asking if they could switch arms.
Have you forgotten where you are? We make everything for profit, from your emergency medical care to your child’s education, call that efficiency, and calling for anything not to be poisoned by the profit motive makes you a filthy commie Leninist socialist who loves Venezuela or something.
Greed and greed worship has destroyed us, the accelerating climate change and diminished growth/metastasis induced collapse will be a mercy in the long term.
Man I really want to donate blood and I’ve tried several times. The last time I went they literally stuck the needle in, wiggled it around for a few seconds, pulled it out, and then did the same thing two more times.
They wanted to keep trying. Like do they go to a John Wayne Gacy LARP convention to find these people? I’m sorry to anyone who needs others’ blood to survive, but it’s literal torture.
The most fucked up thing, is the “donation centers” are 100% running a cost/benefit analysis.
They’re trying to zero in on getting just enough blood with the bare minimum expense.
They can afford to have better staff and facilities, and they don’t need to rely on crazy phone calls.
But then they don’t make as much off what people are giving away.
Its bad enough we legitimately can’t trust them when they say there’s an emergency. Maybe hospitals are running low, maybe they just want a little more money this quarter.
Seriously, I’m so done with giving away resources (blood, money, time, anything) to for-profit corporations that are going to sell that shit for thousands/millions of dollars while I go through hell to make it happen. Fuck all of that!
I donated blood once a couple of years ago. Afterwards, they called me several times a week for like a year. They still call me like once a month. I can’t get them to stop. They have called me hundreds of times. I’ll never donate again.
I explained all the automated calls theyre doing was just making me not want to donate. And that since they come from different numbers I can’t just block them.
So I said the soonest I’ll ever donate to their company was a year after my last phone call.
It’s been like 6-9 months and I haven’t gotten a single phone call.
Because these companies are literal vampires and all they care about is blood.
Not sure if the calls are gonna start again or not.
companies legitimately trying to retain top talent
Basically blacklisting them from their field for a year after leaving your company is not how you retain talent. Pay them better. Give them better health coverage or other benefits. Only being able to retain talent by basically threatening them if they leave is not a good look.
knew a guy who crossed out those bits in the agreement. they HR peeps never noticed until he found a new place to work. (he now works for our company.) It amazes me; how many people fail to realize every contract is unique.
Nope. You just sign a contract without reading it, that’s on you.
Or did you think them being pushy while you actually read it wasn’t because they never ever try to sneak something in?
To clarify, you can’t add something way out of the pale, like “upon termination of this contract all assets of [whatever corpo] belong to FuglyDuck”… but you can definitely cross out terms you don’t ageee with (for example, the arbitration clause.)
And how exactly do you prove it wasn’t crossed after being signed?
If it had to go in front of a judge, there are no initials present to show that both parties were made aware of the change and one party claims that the contract was modified without them being informed then the contract as it was originally written will be considered valid.
I find it hard to believe that I have to explain that you can’t modify a written contract without informing the other party and without having a proof that you did in case of a breach…
By the way there’s a difference between including clauses on the typed document and manually introducing extra clauses. In the second case the judge would say the same as if information was crossed without informing the other party. The typed version is the original and the one that’s valid, without the hand written clauses that got added without the other party putting their initials to confirm they were informed. If extra clauses not previously agreed to by both parties (ex.: working hours agreed to during interview and written in the contract, extra clause saying they’re subject to change at the employer’s will in the written contract) were in the typed version then they were there from the beginning and it was the responsibility of both parties to be aware of them.
In a case where a clause with potential major consequences is modified (like removing a NDA or non compete agreement) it would be advised to reprint the document to remove any form of ambiguity.
And how exactly do you prove it wasn’t crossed after being signed?
“Your honor, they crossed it out after it was done! It’s fraud, you’re honor!”
“Uhm. This is your copy?”
“Yes?”
“How did they cross out your copy?”
Yeah, I dunno, it seems that’s the reason both parties keep a copy, huh?
If it had to go in front of a judge, there are no initials present to show that both parties were made aware of the change and one party claims that the contract was modified without them being informed then the contract as it was originally written will be considered valid.
They (or their representatives) have every right to read and review before they sign, just the same as you. If you agree to arbitration “I didn’t agree to that” doesn’t fly. They agree to a contract with it removed is the same.
Anecdotally, I know I guy (he’s a coder,) I’ve worked with around in a few companies now; he “always” crosses out both the non-competes and the arbitrate clauses.
Judge sided with him.
NDA’s are typically their own document/contract rather than part of the employment contract. At least I’ve never seen one that wasn’t it’s own document (and I’m under around 140 NDAs right now…. Most of which aren’t withy employer. Contract security is like thst.)
Technically, altering the document creates a counter offer- the original offer was rejected. If you make a counter offer for employment, and they behave like that offer is accepted, (ie by proceeding with onboarding, sending paychecks and assigning work,) it was accepted. Maybe not everywhere.
I’ve a friend that does this all the time- specifically both arbitration and non compete clauses. Just because they use standardized forms doesn’t mean the contract isn’t unique.
A while back I had a cousin living in Oklahoma. He had some troubles and was hanging out with some not great people. An acquaintance’s gf/wife ended up dead and the guy pointed his finger at my cousin. He was held in jail charged with murder, but all his hearings kept getting kicked down the road. After a year they released him and told him to GTFO of the state and never return.
Which, to me, screams that they found evidence he didnt do it, but didnt want to invest money in a trial to prove his innocence, or on finding the actual suspect.
Revealing the evidence in a civil case would show the prosecuters in the criminal case what his strategy is and let them work around it sooner than they would be able to otherwise.
I think Grampy Rudy is playing the long game, knowing that’s he’s going to dodge paying a penny to anyone, but that the real strategy is “stay out of jail.”
They already brought the criminal case and that’s not the way criminal cases work. The evidence still has to be presented at trial and would need to be cross examined.
So by releasing that information early, in a civil case, they would be giving the prosecution the advantage of extra time to poke holes in their defense.
You don’t just present evidence in a criminal case and get to go home, trials don’t work like that.
Giuliani claims it's bulletproof, completely exonerating evidence. So they couldn't poke holes in it. If such evidence was made public, the prosecution would back down rather than run a hopeless case against him. Of course, we know that he has nothing, as noted.
If they have already initiated the case, Sure. They'd evaluate the evidence in court. If they hadn't, no, they could decide to not bring charges if it seemed like it would be a waste of time and/or they'd be censured for a frivolous case.
I mean sure that might buy him some time, but I was under the impression that you can’t just show new evidence during a trial that you had before the trial. Isn’t all evidence shared between parties before setting foot in the court room?
The much simpler explanation I think is he’s talking out his ass and praying for a dictator Trump to save him.
In the context of this particular case, I’m not sure this type strategy is actually relevant. How many cases that were filed after that election got dismissed with prejudice for failing to provide any actual evidence? It didn’t exist then, it doesn’t exist now.
That last one actually did come back with a report - that said little to no fraud took place. They spent millions of dollars and used some shady practices with the ballots, but even they couldn’t find anything.
People who have exonerating evidence show it, and everything goes away without any civil or criminal trials.
People who have only bullshit lose trials and get criminal charges because all they have are lies. Their only play is to keep doubling down on the lies.
Good. They should push to make such a devastating example of this piece of shit that no one ever tries something similar again. Let him live the rest of his days in squalor. He has earned it.
The families aren’t actually interested in any money
That can’t be entirely true. These families need to pay for security to protect them from the frothing hordes of Infowarriors who continue to harass them to this day. They probably also need PR support to protect their names from being defamed further.
Don’t get me wrong, I hope that they leave Jones penniless.
news
Top
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.