I’d guess grift. The pic shows gravel beneath the asphalt in those potholes. For any major road, you should be having more asphalt than that. Ontario major series highways have large amounts - 200-350mm is standard, 400 I’ve seen in areas with constraints. From the pic, I’d guess youre at 1-2 lifts, so maybe 100mm, at most? Given the speed of deterioration, likely only 1 60mm lift.

Something like 80% of the prices you pay at a grocery store go to middle men. Farmer is only about 11%, IIRC.

NGL, you’re fighting the drivers for this, just in a different medium. You think the government is just doing shit for kicks and giggles? Nah, they don’t put in bike lanes because too many residents complain when they lose their parking lanes to bike lanes, or the road gets widened solely to add a bike lane.

Sure there are some cases where the govt is making a bad decision, but don’t think that you don’t need to argue with those same people, just in a Public Information Session instead of on the road.

This came from Age of Empires, where priests could heal units by shaking incense/holy water over them, including ones that didn’t make sense like trebuchets or seige rams.

Sure, sounds great. But it’s the same problem that applies to everyone - all you can do is reduce your own impact and hope they do the same.

The article seems to be basically just complaining about China not doing enough, while not proposing any measures to encourage China to reduce their impact, while also failing to note that the manufacturing China is taking produces resources and goods FOR the west. If we don’t want to give them our manufacturing jobs, then pass legislation forcing more manufacturing to be done in your own country.

Just saying “no, we should burn fossil fuels because otherwise it’s not fair” is a bunch of bullshit.

this place gives you a nice area not to be judged about asking it. Everyone here is willing to help.

Lol, good info in the middle two sentences, way too much judging on either side. This guy is here to ask a question significantly more involved than “How to tie shoes”, the example in the sidebar, and you treat him like an idiot. Nice.

Totally unrelated, but this is an interesting book

You’re looking at the original article. This whole series of comments has been spawned off a discussion about a different case, in which the person did join the organization, then let his license lapse.

In the original, I agree. He never required a license because of their own regs( though it appears that also means he couldn’t call himself a professional engineer, so the title itself is protected, he was just exempt from needing the license to do the industrial work he was doing). He is then totally within his rights to use that knowledge and pass himself off as a subject matter expert in the same field he worked for X years, and the board just got pissy. Glad it was overturned for him.

When it comes to titles like this that are considered protected, it is actually how they work.

In your example, he isn’t allowed to use that title in the new state until he’s joined their organization (or they have an agreement with his original state)

As an extreme example for why the timing does matter, If he was licensed properly for 1 year, then let it lapse but continued to do design work as an engineer for 25 years, and then relicensed himself for one last year before retiring, the work he did during that period of being unlicensed isn’t covered, and the board of engineers would go after him for that.

For what it’s worth, there are specific provisions in the laws to allow retired people to continue using the title P.Eng with a “Retired” tag added onto it.

Interesting! Thanks for sharing that. I found a Cornell Law paper breaking down the decision and how/what things could have changed the decision (ie what things the govt is allowed to ban despite the amendment)

This is not true. I can call myself a doctor a lawyer or a cop or anything like that and it is protected speech so long as I am not attempting to perform the professional duties of that job

It actually is true, unless MN has weird rules compared to other states. I’m not a lawyer, but the code here, sec. 326.02 seems pretty clear.

or to use in connection with the person’s name, or to otherwise assume, use or advertise any title or description tending to convey the impression that the person is an architect, professional engineer (hereinafter called engineer), land surveyor, landscape architect, professional geoscientist (hereinafter called geoscientist), or certified interior designer, unless such person is qualified by licensure or certification under sections 326.02 to 326.15.

You actually can’t call yourself a professional engineer if you’re not - theres several lrgal cases where i am that are ongoing due to people calling themselves engineers while being realtors, for example, and trying to use the title to advertise (IE John Doe, P.Eng), which is not allowed.

If your argument is that you’re an expert, then you need to have the credentials you claim to have. Anyone can show the faults in a design, but he’s explicitly doing novel calculations and analysis - ie not just reviewing someone else’s work.

Now that being said, it looks like he never needed a professional license as he fell under an exemption, in which case I feel like they shot themselves in the foot. He’s got previous experience doing the same thing he’s examining - hydraulics and fluid flow analysis. Regardless of his status as “professional engineer”, his previous experience sould qualify him to testify.

Yes but during that period he didn’t have a license.

Without a doubt it’s someone on a vendetta against him, but those regulations aren’t weird, hidden ones.

If you call yourself a professional engineer, that’s a protected title and you must actually be a professional engineer. Part of being a professional engineer is paying dues to the organization in your area.

The term has been trademarked since 1995 for different uses. This isn’t anything new and there’s no signs they intend to use it aggressively. https://trademarks.justia.com/856/81/cyberpunk-85681741.html

Pretty sure they bought the trademark from the company who owned it previous (for a 1980s era board game if I recall correctly). They bought it to prevent shitty 2077 clones with the same name from popping up. I haven’t heard of them actively pursuing copyright infringement against others who use cyberpunk.

Ehh, reading the article makes it clear that the farmer fucked up.

Best case, he gave it a thumbs up to show he read it and then forgot to ever follow up or reject the contract. However it seems like he had previously accepted and executed contracts via text, which reduces this likelihood.

Worst case, he did the thumbs up to show he agreed to it, and now is trying to back out either because he can’t make the deadline, or because the price of it has shot up.

Neither case is great for the farmer. Contracts can be made from whatever form - verbal contracts are perfectly acceptable, so I’m not sure why people are freaking out about this. If he had said “Agreed”, or “yes” in response to the text then that would be taken as confirmation of the contract too.