Bomb cyclone - devs affected
-
Different times. Condemning people for actions that were acceptable in their time but not now is a dangerous road to go down. If you allow that to become a norm you lay yourself wide open to the same treatment in your future....
Oh gosh, what am I doing? I said I wouldn't respond on this thread. I'm a bit sleepy right now, and forgetting myself (again). I'm out.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
-
Not being lazy at all. I still find it hysterical that New York needs disaster assistance with a snow storm. The fed has grown so large and dominate that it's become ridiculous. But that wasn't the point of my original post.
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.
By that logic, I hope you find it ridiculous that the southern states need help with hurricanes.
Asking questions is a skill CodeProject Forum Guidelines Google: C# How to debug code Seriously, go read these articles.
Dave Kreskowiak -
If states all received back what they pay in federal taxes the federal taxes would just be local taxes by another route. There's a clue in the name "United" States of America. "United" means inter alia helping each other, otherwise you may as well have 50 small countries each paying their own way, in global terms some moderately important, many insignificant.
-
If states all received back what they pay in federal taxes the federal taxes would just be local taxes by another route. There's a clue in the name "United" States of America. "United" means inter alia helping each other, otherwise you may as well have 50 small countries each paying their own way, in global terms some moderately important, many insignificant.
-
When people have to qualify history with extra adjectives I generally tune out. History is history. When people start claiming they have the one legitimate take it usually means they're running a con. Thomas Jefferson raped one of his slaves over the course of years. Claimed he was in love with her. They were sociopaths.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
That's an interesting Humpty Dumpty like interpretation of "sociopath". Here's a modern definition: "a person who is completely unable or unwilling to behave in a way that is acceptable to society" Whatever he was by 21C Western woke standards, by the standards of his day his behaviour wasn't considered unacceptable to that society, nor was it illegal so he wasn't a sociopath.
-
When people have to qualify history with extra adjectives I generally tune out. History is history. When people start claiming they have the one legitimate take it usually means they're running a con. Thomas Jefferson raped one of his slaves over the course of years. Claimed he was in love with her. They were sociopaths.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
That's an interesting Humpty Dumpty like interpretation of "sociopath". Here's a modern definition: "a person who is completely unable or unwilling to behave in a way that is acceptable to society" Whatever he was by 21C Western woke standards, by the standards of his day his behaviour wasn't considered unacceptable to that society, nor was it illegal so he wasn't a sociopath.
-
When people have to qualify history with extra adjectives I generally tune out. History is history. When people start claiming they have the one legitimate take it usually means they're running a con. Thomas Jefferson raped one of his slaves over the course of years. Claimed he was in love with her. They were sociopaths.
To err is human. Fortune favors the monsters.
That's an interesting Humpty Dumpty like interpretation of "sociopath". Here's a modern definition: "a person who is completely unable or unwilling to behave in a way that is acceptable to society" Whatever he was by 21C Western woke standards, by the standards of his day his behaviour wasn't considered unacceptable to that society, nor was it illegal so he wasn't a sociopath.
-
This. I was listening to [No Agenda](http://www.noagendashow.com) yesterday, a podcast that "deconstructs the news", and they played back some sound bites where one reporter was still calling this a "bomb cyclone" right after interviewing a meteorologist who defined what was needed to declare it as such (blah-blah-atmospheric pressure, blah-blah-needs-X-millibars, and this doesn't qualify at all). IOW, he was contradicting himself and kept using the name, just because it just sounds oh-so much more horrible and attention-grabbing... [Here](https://noagendaassets.com/enc/1672007295.994\_bombcyclonedeefined.mp3), found the clip...this is the part where one says this does NOT qualify...greater discussion was part of the podcast itself (#1515, recorded on the 25th).
The BBC is currently reporting on the 'extreme' weather the UK experienced in 2022. We had a month or two without much rain in the summer and a week or so of temperatures reaching over 30°C during the daytime, and in December we had a week or maybe 10 days in which we had a light sprinkling of snow with night temperatures dipping to as low as -5°C in places. Extreme? I hardly think so! The media just love to exaggerate and never let the facts spoil a good story.
-
This. I was listening to [No Agenda](http://www.noagendashow.com) yesterday, a podcast that "deconstructs the news", and they played back some sound bites where one reporter was still calling this a "bomb cyclone" right after interviewing a meteorologist who defined what was needed to declare it as such (blah-blah-atmospheric pressure, blah-blah-needs-X-millibars, and this doesn't qualify at all). IOW, he was contradicting himself and kept using the name, just because it just sounds oh-so much more horrible and attention-grabbing... [Here](https://noagendaassets.com/enc/1672007295.994\_bombcyclonedeefined.mp3), found the clip...this is the part where one says this does NOT qualify...greater discussion was part of the podcast itself (#1515, recorded on the 25th).
The BBC is currently reporting on the 'extreme' weather the UK experienced in 2022. We had a month or two without much rain in the summer and a week or so of temperatures reaching over 30°C during the daytime, and in December we had a week or maybe 10 days in which we had a light sprinkling of snow with night temperatures dipping to as low as -5°C in places. Extreme? I hardly think so! The media just love to exaggerate and never let the facts spoil a good story. The developers I know who work from home just have kept on, as you do....
-
Not being lazy at all. I still find it hysterical that New York needs disaster assistance with a snow storm. The fed has grown so large and dominate that it's become ridiculous. But that wasn't the point of my original post.
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.
charlieg wrote:
I still find it hysterical that New York needs disaster assistance with a snow storm.
What exactly would you consider a legitimate usage for disaster relief? The following have all been impacting communities since the United States existed: Fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes. The first US federal assistance was in 1802 for a fire. The disaster relief act of 1969 says the following
extensive property loss and damage as a result of recent major disasters including,
but not limited to, hurricanes, storms, floods, and high waters and wind-driven watersSo it does not include fire. But it does include storms which would include snow (and tornadoes.) It also says "but not limited to" so presumably fires as well.
-
charlieg wrote:
I still find it hysterical that New York needs disaster assistance with a snow storm.
What exactly would you consider a legitimate usage for disaster relief? The following have all been impacting communities since the United States existed: Fires, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes. The first US federal assistance was in 1802 for a fire. The disaster relief act of 1969 says the following
extensive property loss and damage as a result of recent major disasters including,
but not limited to, hurricanes, storms, floods, and high waters and wind-driven watersSo it does not include fire. But it does include storms which would include snow (and tornadoes.) It also says "but not limited to" so presumably fires as well.
I've been asked to refrain from political discussion in the forum, which was really not my intent. I was born in New York. If you live in the north, deal with the snow, and honestly it was completely overhyped. That said, there really is no limit to people's desire to spend other people's money. When you take money from all and selectively give it to "those in need", you are on dangerous ground. Imagine if I were to come by and take your money to a need I thought was sufficient on my own merit? Now if I could convince you to be charitable, that's your decision. But in reality, I just thought it was hysterical New York can't handle snow. That was the context of my OP. Nothing more. Just remember, Congress hasn't passed a real budget in decades - because they are spending other peoples money... that's all.
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.
-
I've been asked to refrain from political discussion in the forum, which was really not my intent. I was born in New York. If you live in the north, deal with the snow, and honestly it was completely overhyped. That said, there really is no limit to people's desire to spend other people's money. When you take money from all and selectively give it to "those in need", you are on dangerous ground. Imagine if I were to come by and take your money to a need I thought was sufficient on my own merit? Now if I could convince you to be charitable, that's your decision. But in reality, I just thought it was hysterical New York can't handle snow. That was the context of my OP. Nothing more. Just remember, Congress hasn't passed a real budget in decades - because they are spending other peoples money... that's all.
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.
charlieg wrote:
I've been asked to refrain from political discussion in the forum...
That said, there really is no limit to people's desire to spend other people's money
...I just thought it was hysterical New York can't handle snow.
Ok. But I didn't ask anything at all about that. What I asked was what you considered, if anything, a legitimate disaster for which one could designate it as such.
-
charlieg wrote:
I've been asked to refrain from political discussion in the forum...
That said, there really is no limit to people's desire to spend other people's money
...I just thought it was hysterical New York can't handle snow.
Ok. But I didn't ask anything at all about that. What I asked was what you considered, if anything, a legitimate disaster for which one could designate it as such.
-
go back to the original post... but don't worry about it.
Charlie Gilley “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” BF, 1759 Has never been more appropriate.
charlieg wrote:
go back to the original post.
I read all of them. No clarity from that to answer my question. Certainly the original disaster designation for a 'fire' was something that cities had been dealing with for centuries. Back then, far as I have seen, every city was a potential fire bomb just waiting to go off. The follow on legislation specifically added storms. For which this fits. Storms of course vary by location but it is certainly true that Gulf states experience hurricanes and midwest states experience tornadoes. And many places experience snow storms. And of course floods. All of those have existed for a very long time. So back to my original question - are none of them disasters? So the legislation should have never existed in the first place? Or there is some specific recent even that you accept is a disaster and as such would qualify for Federal designation?