Jump to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Surly Horns

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.
Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Dahobbs

Legacy Members

Posts posted by Dahobbs

  1. ·

    Edited by Dahobbs

    15 hours ago, CleverNickname said:

    I wonder if it calls into question the recall of the Fisher aprice rock n play. If millions and millions were in use, and 1 in 150k infants got SIDSz wouldn't some kids die and it not be the bassinet fault?

    Why would this change anything about the recall? I've attached the full congressional report for reference. The Rock N Play was marketed for overnight sleeping despite being an inappropriate place for infants to sleep.  

    https://oversight.house.gov/sites/democrats.oversight.house.gov/files/Inclined Sleeper Report.pdf

  2. 21 minutes ago, Wulaw Horn said:

    Or else those that were going to die just die in year 1. Be interesting to know prevalent this is and what the interaction is over time. I suspect you are correct but would want to isolate out some other variables before any conclusion is made. 

    You'll see the non-SID deaths and control cases all have ranges that also overlap with the ranges of the SIDS deaths. At least as to this marker, there isn't any evidence that every child with low levels is going to die. It is much more consistent with what I described, but I agree additional research is needed. 

  3. 9 minutes ago, bernorange said:

    Is the fomula the link describes more or less in line with standard practice?

    No idea what insurance companies use. What they use internally for first party claims isn't particularly important to you. Make your claim based on what you think the vehicle's reduced value is. And then let them argue what they want on diminished value. Y'all can then figure out if you can agree/meet in the middle. You aren't bound by any particular formula the insurance company wants to use. 

  4. ·

    Edited by Dahobbs

    2 hours ago, Foosters said:

    So all those high-risk factors - Smoking parents, things in the crib, stomach sleeping, etc. - were all just coincidental?

    As said above, the low BChE issue doesn't cause the breathing issue. It just is a sign that the body's automatic way of dealing with it may not function properly. It is still important to prevent the underlying distress, apparently especially for children born with low BChE. Further, given that the incidence of SIDS dramatically lowers with age, I would have to assume this is developmental deficiency that the body eventually corrects to a large degree. 

    1 hour ago, Ghost of LL said:

    I guess that's my question.  Would there be any treatment?  Or would it be "Here's your little timebomb--enjoy!" when you left the hospital?

    Identifying at risk children is itself a benefit. Extra monitoring or additional precautions are certainly in order for them until/unless a treatment can be devised. It isn't so much a time bomb as a vulnerability that needs to be guarded. I suppose this research may eventually allow loosening of precautions with children with a sufficient BChE level, although given that the precautions aren't onerous most likely providers will continue to recommend the current SIDS precautions. 

  5. ·

    Edited by Dahobbs

    7 hours ago, bernorange said:

    According to this site:  https://www.finder.com/how-to-calculate-the-diminished-value-of-your-car

    Texas doesn't allow for diminished value claims.  Even if it did, according to the 17c calculation, I think the diminished value would end up being $200-400.  I will ask the Farmers rep about it when they contact us to close out the claim, but I'm not expecting much.

    This isn't applicable to third-party liability. Texas absolutely let's claim the diminished value of your property as a type of damage in a lawsuit, which is ultimately what third-party liability insurance covers. 

    2 hours ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    Its been a couple years but I had a diminished value claim in Texas. Or this is a recent Texas change? I think I received a couple thousand from the other guy's insurance. Admittedly it took several months of back and forth and back and forth phone calls. Finally the claims adjuster just paid me to close the case which I was ok with.

    See above. I assume the link is talking about the policy with your insurer for collision/comprehensive coverage. 

  6. 21 minutes ago, capnamerca said:

    Apologies for going down a rabbit hole here :).

     

    I"m building out a list of matchups for a golf tournament. The player pool is divided - three teams of twelve. We're currently moving teams around, playing with matchups, etc. As we move players around, I want their handicaps to follow. I"m not skilled enough to figure out index+match when the data is in three separate tables. But what I do know is that handicap is always one call to the right of the player name, and so what I really want is an indirect reference that references another reference (lol).

     

    image.png.fb8fa2dea13df75dbe04c5dc76b0bd69.png

     

    In the table above ... two separate tables of players. Building the matchups on the right. G5 contains "=b4", and so gets populated with 'Bill'. What I was gunning for was something I could put into H5 that would say "ah, I see you referenced cell b4, I'll get the value from one to the right of b4" and then it would resolve itself to a reference of "=b5", and thus populate itself with '5'. 

     

    I don't believe this is possible in Excel or Google Docs, at least absent some custom VBA code. What you've done to move everything over is the correct answer.  

  7. 6 minutes ago, capnamerca said:

    all I want is "when I reference a cell, I'd like the cell next door to grab the cell next to the cell I just referenced."

     

    But, I've rearranged my source data to more easily support INDEX MATCH. Appreciate the insight all.

    I'm still not really understanding how this fits into your broader request. However, spreadsheets (at least excel) supports relative references by default. For instance, if you put in cell A3 "=B2", you can autofill that through the rest of column A such that A4 = B3 , A5 = B4 and so on.  If you're dealing with a range and a not a defined table, you literally just need to copy cell A3 and highlight the rest of column A and then paste (or in excel you can drag the bottom right corner of cell A3 down and do the same thing). 

    image.png.794af92ade2f8a53e88cfa4cbad2e10a.png

     

    image.png.364f1f2d98632b38093f8092ee5f34f0.png

     

  8. 2 hours ago, capnamerca said:

    If the data were cleanly in one table, that works. But for various reasons, it's not, thus my desire to be able to operate on a reference. (believe me, I get why the data layout in my sheet is sub-optimal, but here we are :) ).

    Take a look again at what 40acre posted. He is using a reference. He has the reference table of handicaps, and then separately the formula that pulls from that table (which is what you asked for). If you don't have the handicaps listed somewhere, I don't understand what type of reference you're asking for. You have to refer to something else, somewhere.  If you have multiple tables of players, that is ok too. It just requires a modification to the formula, which will depend on how many player tables you have. As I said above, probably easiest to fix if you can just post the worksheet. 

  9. 2 hours ago, capnamerca said:

    If the data were cleanly in one table, that works. But for various reasons, it's not, thus my desire to be able to operate on a reference. (believe me, I get why the data layout in my sheet is sub-optimal, but here we are :) ).

    Can you just post a link to the worksheet? I don't understand what you're saying. This sounds like something I could fix I'm 5 minutes if I could see it. 

  10. 48 minutes ago, Bevo said:

    Thanks. That is one of the dumbest articles I have ever read.

    I sincerely doubt that. It is a fact that Russian lies have been promoted by certain individuals on that network. And certain individuals on that network have been promoted on Russian state television. 

  11. ·

    Edited by Dahobbs

    11 minutes ago, ChickenSandwich said:

    Did the owner of the car have to pay legal fees for his victory granting indemnification? Would hope the family covered that for him beforehand at least. 

    Hard to know for sure without more information. If it was indemnity by contract, there is a decent chance that the victory would have included attorney fees. And he may have been covered by his own insurance, who would have hired an attorney to on his behalf. Finally, as I said earlier in the thread, coordination between the family and the owner before suit was filed would be common.  I wouldn't be surprised if the owner and the family have an agreement on how to share any award. 

  12. ·

    Edited by Dahobbs

    1 hour ago, Bob Lives! said:


    Interesting. So the case against the owner isn’t even a negligence case. It’s purely about invoking coverage.

    Crazy how the media will do anything to perpetuate the frivolous lawsuit myth.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    Yeah. It is essentially automatic liability on the owner, who is indemnified (by contract I assume) by the dealership. Straight bypass of terrible worker comp limitations. 

  13. ·

    Edited by Dahobbs

    2 hours ago, Bob Lives! said:


    Barring some evidence we haven’t heard, ‘negligence law’ won’t support a verdict anywhere in this country.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

    You missed a very important detail. Michigan applies automatic vicarious liability to the vehicle's owner (with some exceptions). 

    http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?mcl-257-401

    A supreme court ruling confirmed that negligent entrustment is available as a cause of action in the limited circumstances where the vicarious responsibility statute doesn't apply. 

    This lawsuit thus isn't about negligent entrustment and appears to be a winner to me. 

     

  14. 23 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

    But, because the plaintiff was also an employee, he is stuck with worker's comp for on the job injuries, at least as against his employer and fellow employees.  In most states with workers comp systems, an employee cannot sue an employer for injuries on the job, no matter how negligent the employer or how grievous the injuries.  It covers back injuries as well as decapitation or other mutilation and mayhem.

    Now, I suppose you could argue that the plaintiff here, or his family, should just stfu and live with the workers comp.  That seems kinda shitty, though.

    Just for context, Michigan's Worker Compensation death benefits are:

    • Up to 500 weeks of wage loss benefits, based upon the after-tax average weekly wage of the deceased employee. The amount of wage loss benefits will be 80 percent of the after-tax average weekly wage. Benefits are subject to a specific maximum: no worker is allowed to receive compensation above 90 percent of the state average weekly wage. The highest compensation rate allowed in 2012 was $775 per week.
    • A $6,000 burial expense

    Taking the $775 per week example above (which coincidentally appears to be around the average for a mechanic based on a cursory look at Michigan averages), that's a total benefit of $387,500. That's the sum value of a 42-year-old father of four under Michigan's Worker's Comp scheme. 

  15. ·

    Edited by Dahobbs

    35 minutes ago, Scheiss Meister said:

    Speaking of Afghanistan: I have started wondering what kind of connection there is between our rapid departure there and the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  The planning for the invasion had to have started a year in advance of the invasion.  I wonder if we got intelligence on the planning and recognized the early training and movement of forces, along with logistical preparations, that indicated a time frame for the invasion?  It would explain the rapidity of the withdrawal.  I also wonder if we had/have intelligence indicating an attack on a NATO member was possible, further enforcing the need for preparations on our part.

     The previous President entered us into an agreement to leave. Our rapid departure was just the execution of that agreement. If any connection exists between our departure and the invasion, I'm confident it isn't because we were concerned a NATO member would be attacked. 

  16. 3 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

    non-lawyer but my opinion is that the employer is liable if they have poor safety practices including hiring and training. Now if the hypothetical driver decides to get drunk over lunch, and hops behind the wheel and kills a co-worker, I would be less inclined to blame the employer. I still would want to know the employer provides safety training and practices to prevent accidents from occurring. 

    Whether vicarious liability (which only looks at the negligence of employee) would apply to this situation depends on what you mean by getting drunk over lunch. If they are driving their own personal vehicle back from lunch, then the employer may escape vicarious liability because the employee's conduct isn't in the scope of employment. If the vehicle is a work vehicle, but the employee isn't actually doing something on the job, the situation gets murkier and vicarious liability may not apply. But direct liability could attach under the theory of negligent entrustment, especially if the company had some knowledge (or should have had some knowledge given a proper background check) that the employee had a problem drinking and driving. 

  17. 7 minutes ago, Bevo said:

    Not sure what you are talking about. It is more like a Fedex employee in the warehouse who moves a Fedex truck and kills another Fedex employee in the parking lot. Then the employee's family sues Fedex. Fedex may hold some responsibility for not taking enough preventative measures. But from a moral perspective, the Fedex employee knew he shouldn't be driving the truck but chose to do it anyway.

    I feel like we are talking across each other. I also don't think the fact that injured party is also employee materially changes the situation.

    There are three separate concepts we are playing around:

    (1) Does the driver have responsibility? Both the law and fundamental fairness say yes. Unfortunately, if this is where the law ends, then injured people will not be compensated for their injuries because individual employees are almost always judgment proof. 

    (2) Should the employer be vicariously liable for the negligence of employee? The law, fairness, and economic efficiency say yes (see my prior posts). Again, not having the employer responsible for the negligence of its employees would mean that the employer isn't incentivized reduce harm caused by its business operations. Unfortunately, Michigan's worker's comp comes into play and prevents accountability. 

    (3) Should the employer be directly liable for hiring a non-licensed, apparently non-trained person as a driver? Our negligence law and common sense say yes. Unfortunately, Michigan's worker's comp comes into play and prevents accountability. 

    I don't know what you mean by the driver "knew" he shouldn't be driving. That is literally the job he was hired to do. Now, he shouldn't have been hired to do it, and a non-negligent company wouldn't have hired him. But I don't think the driver was morally wrong for doing his job. He just fucked up. That's what negligence is. It doesn't necessarily mean the person is bad. It just means they failed to exercise due caution. 

  18. 6 minutes ago, burntorangebongos said:

    I tried reading all the posts that  might have the answer but ain't nobody got time for that. 

    Isn't what is going to happen here is the family of dead guy sues car owner and his auto insurance company is on the hook to the policy limits? They will then surrogate and sue the shit out of the dealership insurance company who hired a dumbass 19 year old who is stupid enough to attempt to operate a vehicle he doesn't know how to ON THE JOB? The dealership's insurance is going to pay out to the family and for the property damage the car owner suffered. If the family wants more money out of the car owner than policy limits...good luck winning that in court. But this does speak highly into why an umbrella policy to cover your ass from liability in Michigan might be a good thing. Let the insurance companies settle with each other on who is gonna pay the most.

    Not quite. 

    What has happened:

    Family sues driver under no fault law. 

    Driver sues for indemnification by dealership. Wins. Dealership is now on the hook for any judgments against driver. Essentially, dealership is an insurer for driver, but with much deeper limits than the driver's auto policy. No idea if driver pursued claims for damages to his vehicle, I assume he did, but that hasn't been addressed in the articles. 

    Dealership's attorney, under indemnification order, will now represent driver in case by family. Since the law is essentially that the owner is liable, it seems any trial would be essentially limited to damages. 

    Next Steps: 

    Judgment against driver by jury. The amount of the judgment will have no relationship to the driver's auto policy limits. Those limits are irrelevant. The question to the jury is what is fair compensation for the wrongful death of the worker. 

    Assume judgment is $15 million. Dealership has to indemnify driver for full $15 million under the other order. So, dealership is now on the hook for $15 million to driver, so driver can pay family. Usually in situations like this there would be some sort of split between the family and the driver since it is technically the driver that has the claim against the deep pocket, the dealership. 

    Where does the dealership get the money? Well, as you said, it has insurance. So, that insurance would be triggered and would pay to the dealership. Anything over the policy limits of the insurance would then be owed directly from the dealership out of its other assets. Note, neither the family nor the driver can sue the dealership's insurer. They don't have any contractual relationship with the insurer and so the insurer owes them nothing. Any suit would be for the dealership to do if the insurer doesn't pay out under the policy. 

    What about the driver's auto policy? Well, in this situation it doesn't really matter. Technically, it is triggered by the judgment against the driver and so should be paid to the family. But, the auto insurer then likely has a subrogation claim against the dealership. So, it gets paid right back to the auto insurer out of the $15 million pot. 

  19. 1 minute ago, Scheiss Meister said:

    Every time I watch one of these videos I have to remind myself that a lot of context is missing from them.  Are these front line positions, or checkpoints in relatively uncontested areas?  What was the intended effect of the strike?  Was it to kill, or to kill and get the enemy to move and reveal his fallback positions?  Lots we can't tell just from the video.

    Yeah. What looks at first glance to be a miss may in fact be an effort to disable a fortified weapon emplacement, weaken a front line position, and advance on it. 

    This is materially different from the other drone footage we have seen. Previous videos have been of attacks on supply columns. This doesn't appear to be that.  And given the short range of the smaller switchblade, it almost has to be an assault on a front line position. 

Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business & Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Advertise... Tailgate Donations

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.