Ever wondered what the current US Supreme Court Justices think about legal writing? Want some tips from some of the brightest legal minds of our time? Check out this link, and watch interviews with the current justices and listen to their thoughts on legal writing. Very cool.
If you want to get good fuel economy, sit ten feet behind a tractor trailer. You barely have to touch the gas. I just filled up my Toyota Camry and averaged 36 miles per gallon, after driving in tons of wind, and 1/3 of that tank city driving. I average 36, but if you net out the city stuff and the wind, and the fact that the drive had a net elevation climb of a few thousand feet, I was probably in the mid 40s. All hail gigantic trucks that get 2 miles per gallon that allow commoners like me to draft off of them.
P.S. I swear it’s safe. I mean, think about how long it takes a truck to brake. Even if you’re close to the truck, unless you fall asleep at the wheel you won’t crash into it when it starts to slow down.
Check out this graph. I haven’t checked out the underlying data, but based on everyday experience, I would say this graph is accurate. Not only is it more convenient to eat unhealthy food such as pre-packaged sweets, but it is less expensive as well. So, a rational person has two factors telling him to choose unhealthy food over healthy food. The question is, why is unhealthy food cheaper?
I do not have a personal underlying theory as to why unhealthy food is cheaper. The cynical person in me says this is because of lobbyists in the unhealthy food industries. The uncynical person says maybe it’s economies of scale of producing packaged foods, since they are more produced than grown and those costs are easier to bring down.
Regardless, this is interesting.
Hat Tip: Photo Basement
So today on the radio I hear someone talking about how he thinks that Hillary Clinton timed her surge perfectly, and now she has the “momentum” to carry her to victory.
Does anyone else think this statement - not just the one I heard on the radio - but the general idea of “momentum” and “surges” in politics is so stupid?
I mean, seriously, are we talking about running? When I think of “timing a surge,” I think of the tenth mile of a half marathon where my opponent is tiring out and I want to surge to drop him.
When people vote I sure hope they are not voting for someone because they won the previous primary. I can see voting for someone because they have exposed problems with the other candidate, or persuaded the public on issues, or whatnot, but for momentum? Sadly, I really think “momentum” has an effect on the way people vote.
There is nothing different between the two candidates’ political platforms from when they started the campaign and now. So if you vote for people purely based on the issues, you’re probably not going to change your mind about either of them as the primaries come and go.
I see so many commercials from car insurance companies that say: “People who switched to this insurance saved $x on average.” That is, for the most part, a pretty worthless statement. Why would anyone switch to a different car insurance provider if it cost more money? They all essentially provide the same product. Thus, the statement that people who switched to this insurance saved $x on average says this: people with particular characteristics switch to insurance companies whose insurance algorithm favors those characteristics. In other words, car insurance customers act rationally.
Additionally, if you are a good driver, you should be dissuaded by an insurance company who offers “accident forgiveness.” An insurance company is going to have to cover their costs one way or another. If they don’t increase premiums for someone’s first accident, that just means they are using everyone else’s premiums as a whole to subsidize that person. So if you are a good driver who doesn’t get in any accidents, this is not a good thing. It’s not like a company who offers accident forgiveness is less profit hungry.
