I remember reading a case, I think it was in Reader's Digest, where a Lawyer was 'touring' through small towns, then suing their main streets(more precisely, all the businesses on said main street) for ADA violations, doing much the same as presented in this article.

Despite being in a wheelchair, I believe he did end up being disbarred from the practice. What happened to him is that he did it enough that the towns found each other, formed a group, and basically caught the dude lying. As a lawyer representing himself, what could be considered 'mistakes' added up to him not doing 'due diligence'.

For example, he sued a hardware store for not having a wheelchair ramp. Yet said hardware store had had such a ramp for decades before he came by. Once this was noticed, they started going through his claims, collated from the various lawsuits, and started noting up discrepancies. For example, him suing a store for not being accessible inside - when the store had been closed when he supposedly visited due to illness by the owner/operator. Basically, they figured out that he stayed in the hotel for a couple days, then sued everybody on the street, without having actually attempted to patronize their business. A number of businesses actually had accommodations for him - he would have simply had to ask, which is very much allowed under the ADA.

That's why everything ends up being estimates, but with something like a wheelbarrow there's a number of stores you can get a wheelbarrow in, so you end up with a standard price for wheelbarrows, which is the general range where the person who needs a wheelbarrow can count on being able to buy one, and where a person with a wheelbarrow can count on selling it.

So you might 'value' your wheelbarrow at $100, but if the price of wheelbarrows actually traded is around $50, that indicates that you're not looking to sell. If a dude values his at $20, but can sell it at $50, he's probably going to adjust his valuation to ~$50 and sell it at that price.

So the guy with 50 wheelbarrows values them at ~$2500 and puts that on his value sheet. He might value them a bit more, but if he went to liquidate or had to replace the wheelbarrows(theft, natural disaster, accident), that's what they'd be worth.

The idea is that with a large company, unless you have systematic errors, it should be 'pretty' correct in most companies, despite the individual value of things like 'name brand', IP, and such being hard to estimate correctly.

Part of the deal with this, I believe, is that if a company has a Q-value of less than one it's a prime indication that it would be worth more broken up, and is thus a prime target for corporate sharks to come in and liquidate it, dissolving the company or selling the remnants to suckers after having sucked the worth out of the company.

A q-value of less than 1 is an indication of a company that's NOT efficient with it's assets.

I think that depends on the subway. Property taxes already go towards paying for the road in front of most houses, for example, because there's not enough traffic for gasoline taxes(for example) to pay for the upkeep.

In a city where the roads can't keep up, paying at least for the subway transitway makes some sense. The extra transport capacity helps bring customers and employees to the work site. To put it another way, in properly situated sites adjusting things for the extra car traffic would be even more expensive.

Another factor you might not be considering is the marginal cost per passenger is quite small for rail(most forms of transit, really). You can run into a situation where if the trains were full, you wouldn't need to subsidize them even at low fare levels, yet at high fare levels you won't get enough passengers, so the rate of subsidization actually remains pretty constant. But by setting fairs low you actually move more people that way.

In a lot of cases, our rail travel sucks because there's just not enough of it. With enough investment - straightening routes allowing higher speeds, to actually useful destinations, we could make it a lot more prevalent, and safer/cheaper/more environmentally friendly to everybody.

The idea being that you're a lot more likely to take a 200mph train that can actually get you to work faster than driving. And because there's so many people like you, the train's reasonably full and thus profitable.

CZ75BD IWB

The first aid kit & fire extinguisher are kept in the truck.

Great! Where do I mail the chicken?

Concrete longevity has a LOT to do with preparation and maintenance.

For example tree roots - proper subsurface preparation, which isn't normally done for sidewalks, will result in roots not extending far under the concrete, and even if they do penetrate somewhat, not growing large enough to crack the concrete. Failing that, routine maintenance with certain products will kill the roots before they get too large, but leave the rest of the tree unaffected.

As for your questions -
1. It will probably only fix any given crack spot once.
2. 99% of the fixes will be practically microscopic in nature.
3. At the depths we're looking at, restoring a barrier is a bigger deal than being structural.
4. Most of the time the very cracking releases the stress that caused the crack, then water gets in and freezes, widening it. This keeps the water out(after the bacteria do their job).

They mostly remove the safety equipment that's redundant in a Tesla battery pack. Normally they pack a thermal fuse that kills the battery if it overheats or experiences sufficient current overflow.

If you think this then you misunderstood what I said. Last paper I wrote went through about a dozen different people.

However, if they received information, and not just the usual constructive criticism, then the person should be cited. Merely having males review the paper doesn't mean that a male viewpoint has been considered in said paper, which is what I was trying to get at.

Finishing up a 300 level statistics course at the moment, and this fits right in with it.

You have the 'null hypothesis', which is what you're trying to reject/not reject. So 'Women's papers are just as good as the Men's' is, crudely speaking, a valid null hypothesis. You do all your math and you either reject it(p=.95), or fail to reject it(insufficient evidence say that they aren't). Other options include Men's papers being better, or women's being better.

If they did so and didn't cite such in their paper, then they're bad at writing papers. If they did cite such, then he's a bad reviewer.

Then there's my usual answer - you generally get things like this when two assholes meet. So they might of written what he saw as a biased paper and reacted poorly.

1. They don't need their streets torn up. My area is finally getting natural gas, and the 4" pipe is larger than what fiber needs. They're just pushing the pipe through, they can do that with the fiber.

I just wish that I had been around when this was proposed to suggest that as long as they're at it, run fiber with the NG pipe...

Yeah, but the power company building a fiber network shows that there's *demand* in that city! /snark

Same can be said for most engineering work. Anyways, what I was trying to get at is that making it look 'more socially meaningful' in order to attract women means that it would, at least theoretically, attract more men as well, because we care about that stuff as well.

Indeed. I found the op's bit '"An experience here at the University of California, Berkeley, where I teach, suggests that if the content of the work itself is made more societally meaningful, women will enroll in droves," writes Nilsson.' to be incredibly sexist in a number of ways.
1. Implies that women are more interested in 'socially meaningful' work
2. Implies, by correlation, that men aren't.
3. That the current engineering work isn't 'socially meaningful',
Oh, and news lady, Berkeley isn't 'normal'.

Oh, and it's not her fault, but remember that at this point men are highly outnumbered at most universities by women. They're the minority, not women.