Slow walking compliance is normal. It keeps assets liquid and processes & people in place as long as possible before making changes. It also prevents the cost of changing back and forth if a new rule is struck down before its final date.

What will happen often is that a compliant procedure will be developed as soon as possible, but no changes will be made until absolutely necessary. That gives the organization maximum time to figure out other routes of compliance, fight the rule and continue at pace before they change.

Good.

Because it’s bad.

Use an overlay network and run dns on it.

I gave a quick overview in another post, but in case you’d like some guidance unique to your repair, post pictures with the legs of the port and the spot it goes in with good enough focus and zoom that I can see the traces and pads and legs.

I do this kind of repair work every day, if everything is in good shape it’s no problem but if you have a damaged port or ripped pads/traces then you’ll need to change tack a little.

You’re gonna need a hot air station. If it’s actually usb3 and not just usb in a c sized connector then you usually wont be able to do it with just an iron.

The process is:

Clean the site and all through holes (they won’t be for usb pins but instead for physical connection). Use flux.

Reapply solder to all surface mount pads.

Preheat the area.

Apply flux.

Manipulate the new port into place. If you can, tack it down at a few spots.

Reflow all the pins. Use flux.

Have you confirmed that the port itself isn’t damaged? The pads it connects to?

The bolt is a subcompact, the Camry is a midsize.

The Camry is three feet longer, has two more doors and weighs 200lbs less.

A better comparison would be to the Yaris, Toyotas subcompact gas hatchback which weighs between 900 and 1400lbs less depending on options.

Yes and no.

Yes it’s possible. No it’s not scalable or affordable.

Synthetic plastics (all plastics for the purposes of this conversation) are byproducts of the petroleum industry. They’re making gas out of oil and are left over with plastic precursors so those get made into something and everyone wins* because the materials are basically free.

Last I looked we were creeping up on two billion tires a year.

Systemdeez nuts

I must be missing something. It sounds from all the articles you posted that the crime was covering up payments.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but each of the 34 counts refers to a payment made in an attempt to conceal the hush money as legal expenses. If paying hush money were illegal I bet there would be many fewer out of court settlements…

I guess I don’t take your meaning…

Yeah I’m with you. That line of thinking will only attract support from conservatives.

Not in the slightest.

My understandings is that the convictions were for not keeping records of what he did, not reporting what he did with the money and trying to cover up what he did with the money, not for what he did with the money.

Falsifying business records are the 34 different counts he was found guilty on.

That’s not illegal.

The crime is not reporting it.

It’s reported on a filing. Sometimes electronic but paperwork in spirit.

If the “problem” in your words is the crime, then the problem is paperwork.

The crimes are falsifying business records, not paying hush money.

The hush money was paid by trumps attorney who was then reimbursed with campaign funds. The crime is not paying hush money, the crime is covering it up.

As I said before, I don’t think it’s a very good idea to try to beat trump over the head with the convictions. At best you appeal to reactionary voters who have regressive ideas about crime and justice and at worst you have to reply to questions like “it’s legal to pay hush money out of campaign funds?”

Yeah I didn’t say that I think it’s a mistake, I said I think it’s not a good idea for the democrats to use the convictions as a lane of attack.

I even said that trump probably systemically doesn’t file paperwork he’s supposed to and that it’s common for people to do that.

I honestly think it’s more likely that like almost every business, nonprofit and other organization I’ve had any experience with, trump doesn’t have a “proactive” filing regimen.

An old ass accountant I used to work with explained why it’s like this: why give them something to beat you over the head with? Just know the requirements, know the punishment and give the least amount of information you possibly can until compelled.

Of course, larger, richer groups are more able to take that strategy, but that’s a systemic problem.

But it doesn’t matter for the purposes of the crimes in question if it was an “innocent” mistake or purposeful omission.

I think it’s pretty disingenuous for the democrat message to be an attack on trump for simply having been convicted because democrats are at the same time trying to catch lefty and otherwise third party voters who see that criminal justice system as having serious fundamental flaws.

I think getting bogged down in the details of trumps convictions isn’t helpful to the democrats either because explaining them to people makes trump relatable. Nothing he actually did with money was a crime. It was not filing paperwork that was the crime.

The whole thing becomes more akin to having to pay a ticket for a taillight you got fixed because you didn’t bring the receipts to court.

“Your honor, the taillight in question is new, intact and installed on my car”

“Your car isn’t in my courtroom”

“It’s in the parking lot 80 feet to the west of your courtroom. I have a picture of it right here.”

“I will only admit a receipt”

Tbh the conviction rhetoric only appeals to reactionary right wing voters who want to punish people with records or makes him incredibly relatable to normal people.

If anything it seems like a hedge to move towards the right.

It’s really funny seeing ppl make the surprised pikachu face about fetterman.

I don’t agree with his reasoning, but I do agree with his assessment that it’s a mistake to push the felon message so hard with trump.

If simply being convicted of a crime makes you a person not worthy of serious consideration in the political sphere, is that implicit endorsement of the legal system? Seems pretty conservative if you ask me.

Even if a person was to believe that our legal system is infallible and that there’s nothing wrong with weaponizing its decisions against one’s enemies, doesn’t bringing up the felony convictions beg the question of what they’re for? That hasn’t been a powerful message for democrats.

I have no love for trump, democrats seem to be messing up here though.

it runs a voltage regulator inside the cable

I disagree, but this is a cool reply and you should keep posting like this.

Significantly reducing our reliance on plastics cannot be taken on as a single issue or at the local or even national level.

Plastics are a byproduct of the fossil fuel industry.

That’s the only reason materials which were marketed to people as miraculous in the 40s, 50s and 60s are so cheap.

The extraction industry is global, and the production of plastics is as well.

Even if one nation reduced its fossil fuel and plastic consumption significantly, there will be other nations that will take the opportunity to get that cheap energy, materials and industry.