This will lead to the majority of the state getting full say and suppressing minority views. This can be political, racial, etc.

California has a large Republican population. If it goes state wide they get zero voice as the full state will go blue.

These days I’m kinda fine with that, but in principle this is wrong. The same suppression logic can be spread to ethnic groups, etc.

One of the main complications in the US is the racial mix. Looking at party lines and geographic boundaries is an over simplification

Say 20% of the population is black, and the state has five reps. Two neighboring cities each have 30% black population, and enough population to have two of the five reps. The rest are dispersed in rural areas. Do you draw that each city gets one rep? Or do you draw such that a district has a majority of black residents, with funny boundaries to accommodate the geography?

The former means that you will more likely end up with a white representative for both cities and the voice of the black community are not heard in the legislative body. The latter means that you have now gerrymandered to ensure a group gets a voice they deserve.

This is the real pain in the ass about the whole thing. Some level of drawing stupid districts is needed to create good. Pure geographically created boundaries will only cause segregation if we want minority groups to have an equal voice in the legislature.

But, people in power tend to fuck everything up.

I’ll offer a near miss.

Chat amongst colleagues over a coffee, the topic was something very normal and mundane: how lazy are we about cooking.

My colleague Carol said, “sometimes I just throw some chicken nuggets in the toaster because I don’t care or have the energy”

My response I intercepted between the brain and mouth: “living the bachelor lifestyle, carol?”

Carol’s husband had died quite suddenly 6 months prior. I didn’t fuck up, but I almost did and it haunts me still over a decade later.

My situation is I have an ability to recall a lot of really old information and some of it seemingly mundane. I can also synthesize all this together to make a good decision quickly.

This is basically what learning is, but it’s a broader base I can pull from and the process is just faster.

I don’t do well with forcing specific information to be cataloged. This means I wasn’t a great student in classes where you needed to just remember things (eg history).

The other thing I’ve got going for me is being able to visually see things in my head. It might be memories, but it’s also things for solving problems like this https://www.intelligencetest.com/questions/visualization/medium/3/8.html

I’m gonna fuck a waffle, marry pancakes, and kill french toast.

Like who even invited french toast to breakfast.

Yeah it’s really there to guide how fucked up it can be and not really be mega prescriptive. It’s not like quantities are on there, either.

Ideally a fire department shows up, sees the signs and then gets in contact with the building owner to start being more specific about what’s ahead of them before they just start dumping a ton of water on the building.

Section 4.2.3.3 of NFPA 704 guides how to handle multiple chemicals.

You can combine the worst of each category into a composite, list each individually, or do a hybrid option.

The posts saying there are two chemicals are true but likely incomplete… There are probably several different chemicals and they decided to go with the hybrid method.

My guess is that they combined the worst rating of everything that doesn’t need special handling, and have a stand alone for the chemical that is incompatible with water (or even combined for several chemicals that are incompatible with water).

There are several people who will say “an historic” while fully pronouncing the H and acting all smug and proper about it.

A Ukraine? Really? Why couldn’t you use something practical like a university.

To also explain a part of the American tax system… people who are super excited to get a ton of money back on their taxes via refunds are complete idiots.

That’s a direct function of paying too much withholding and not calibrating against their relevant deductions. Some of these people also feel that their tax burden has gone up if their refund is smaller from one year to the next, which may or may not be accurate.

I hate to break this to you, but the customer pays in all scenarios.

But, yes, the employer should pay a living wage and include their overhead costs into the price of the goods.