anon6789

It thankfully wasn’t anything directly monetary. It was basically an administrative oversight in removing a portion of another property used as collateral. It resolved itself not too long afterward, just not on the originally promised timeline. All the more reason really I took it so personally.

Our whole family has banked with them for 3 generations, including 2 small businesses and back when they were cool we’d get greated by our names as we walked in the door, even for a few years after things went all direct deposit and I rarely had to go in. Then they got bigger and stopped doing all the nice things and events and such for customer appreciation, lots of the old staff left, and then they act crappy to me over something that really didn’t affect either of us in the grand scheme of things.

They’re still not a bad bank, but that day permanently changed our relationship to me.

I went to my bank one time when there was an issue with my mortgage. They weren’t honoring part of their original terms, so I went in to talk to them.

They’d recently bought some other local banks and rebranded the whole thing.

I go talk to the mortgage manager and say you’re not honoring your terms, and the lady looks at me and says that deal was with the old bank.

I said you are literally the same person I made this deal with, and if you aren’t the same bank, why do I still owe you money?

They had been a really great local bank my whole life, and after that, I’ve never looked at them the same or trusted them all that much ever again. Nearly every business here is some mega chain, and it burns me to see the remaining local companies turn into something just as bad.

Very true. That’s something that will keep pulling you in.

Most of my lathe time was threading and knurling on a metal lathe, so more hands off than a wood lathe.

Interesting article! There are so many parties and motivating factors involved in all these things. No wonder patent law is its own field of practice!

Reminds me of all the format wars like Beta/VHS, DVD/DivX, and Blue Ray/HD-DVD. It’s not necessarily the best idea the wins, but the one the industry and/or consumers finds the most accessible or valuable.

That’s a heck of a saw!

The feedback the unit gives is pretty nice. Cameras in a dust prone environment and AI detection makes me a bit nervous, and price aside, I might prefer the less tech version of the saw stop, but very cool demo!

Wow, I spoke too soon! I just saw the demo of the slide unit at the end… Amazing engineering and craftsmanship! Thank you for sharing this!

Seems like there is an override for federal/military use, not private industry, and the PTI (power tool industry lobby) seems very against being made to use the tech by fiat.

I lost a fingertip working in a supermarket deli. The part I cut off thankfully grew back, but it’s a reminder to watch my fingers!

I didn’t take your previous comment as being against the system. I’m fairly neutral as now I live in a place I can’t use any tools like this. It’s kind of crazy this hasn’t already become a law or someone to have found another way to do it without violating the patent. It’s not like the issue has gone away.

I think it’s to prevent brands that would just continue selling cheaper saws without it, as it increases the price of each unit (25% production cost plus 8% license are the numbers in the wiki). Having it mandated levels the playing field.

I’m not going to argue for or against that, and that may not be the exact reason. After 25 years, search results are full of such biased posts on both sides that I can’t find anything from the inventor.

It’s a good case to self reflect on one’s feelings on patents. Bosch and others shouldn’t be able to steal his idea if we’re a society that values them. Even those here against patents typically could find his goal noble, and would likely be against a megacorp stealing from a single amateur inventor. At the same time, him giving it away from the start could have saved many people injuries.

I just skimmed the wiki and it’s interesting to read about some of the hang ups of negotiations like his patent license fees and disagreements on share of legal liabilities should a saw stop not function as designed.

I had heard about the blade damage, and it seems more things like the wet wood you’ve mentioned have surfaced since I got out of woodworking. Even so, it’s quicker, easier, and cheaper to patch or replace a saw than one’s hand, at least in America where we get the pleasure of paying directly for our misfortunes.

I thankfully never heard of any injuries at our high school. We did have the anti kickback wheels and the lifting blade guard and were taught to use push sticks and not standing directly behind the work, etc.

The table saw looks so simple, but there is no room for any margin of error and there is no opportunity for warning, and I think most people that don’t use power tools can’t quite appreciate that.

I had always been iffy on this, as the tech has been around for 25 years but is patented, so all manufacturers would be forced to pay a single person.

The linked article mentions this, but also said the patent holder has expressly said that if it becomes mandated tech to save people from injuries, the reason he invented the system, he will give up the patent to the public.

This is great to hear. Table saws are irreplaceable in woodworking. Fingers are pretty irreplaceable as well. I don’t know if any other machine comes close to a table saw for demanding my respect and full attention. It is just so fast, powerful, and the random structure of wood adds unpredictability to every cut. Anything else I’ve acclimated to using, but every time on the table saw I treat with the caution as if it were my first time.

Not sure how much saw stop would change that, I don’t want to really even be knicked by one, but that is way better than the current potential outcome.

The temporary block of sales of these heavily controlled firearms provoked a fierce backlash from industry groups and members of Congress. While sales of semi-automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns have proceeded untouched by the government shutdown, and background checks have proceeded as normal, lobbyists argued that the impediment to sales of silencers, pre-1986 machine guns and short-barreled rifles was a violation of Americans’ second amendment rights.

Regular firearm purchases have remained unaffected. The “problem” is that rich people’s toys were being held up. This is about the $200 permission slip you need from the gov to buy full auto or suppressors that was not being processed due to the shutdown. Suppressors are often more than the actual gun to put it on, and the cheapest full auto guns I saw on the first 2 sites that came up started at $10,000.

On 16 October, the firearm industry trade association, the NSSF, wrote to the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, protesting that “a right delayed is a right denied”.

Just like for Virginia Giuffre, right? What a POS…

“The Yakuza series itself was originally created with the concept of ‘Japanese people making a game for Japanese people,’ so we never imagined it would be accepted globally.”

Besides it being GTA with likeable protagonists, the specific Japanese stuff is what I really enjoy about it. The setting feels authentic because everything is in kanji, the onigiri aren’t jelly donuts, the characters and situations feel culturally different to me (American), and the social issues raised in the game lead me to learn about things going on in Japan, and now Hawaii since I’m working on Infinite Wealth now.

Much the way Golden Kamuy anime/manga got me interested in different Asian minority cultures, Yakuza has exposed me to many things I wouldn’t otherwise hear about in Western media or things made for a more generic audience. I wouldn’t call myself a weeb, so much as I just like to learn about anything I’ve never heard of before, and having media targeted to specific audiences makes me investigate questions about what comes up I’m unfamiliar with.

Plus I think the games just kick ass even if you aren’t interested in that stuff! A lot of story elements are still generic, but there’s a ton of fun fights, finishing moves, leveling up, a billion mini games, karaoke, and so on.

I thought you were talking about me at first! 😅

This guy was telling me earlier Jimmy Kimmel shoulda done more to stop the genocide in Gaza. 😄

They’re just a troll on every thread they post in, no matter the subject.

I ignored Kimmel until he started to really promote universal healthcare after having scary medical problems with his child and coming to the realization that for many people, the care he was able to get for his child was out of reach for so many in this country.

After that I started watching him more and I think he seems like a fun and genuine person. He pushes the envelope more than I think most people would expect, but doesn’t come off like a know-it-all. I think most of his show bits are funny, and other celebrities really seem to like him and Guillermo, and I think his people on the street segments are more creative than a lot of other shows.

Anyone that hasn’t thought of him since Man Show are really not giving him a fair shot. That was like 20-25 years ago, he’s developed his own thing.

I loved that quote! 😄

And this was a court they cherrypicked for presumed favorability.

I love that we still get some moments like this.

I feel it more wanting to see it as a black and white issue than something with a ton of nuance. This deal had to have been complex, and for whatever reason they willingly sold to Unilever, I doubt any of us commenting here will ever understand. I wouldn’t want to be in their situation.

If people want to point out areas where they think they could have done better, let’s discuss it. But all we tend to get is “rich people bad.” I won’t totally disagree with that statement, but it seems like they have also done a lot of good for Vermont and beyond. They’ve given over 70 million in grants, but so what, right? Why not 71 million?!

I just think we’ve got better people to be mad at now than some hippies that went corporate. To just write off what they did because they got personal benefits as well is likely hypocritical. I never see these screen names talking about what direct action they’re part of or what solutions they’ve got. A little funny how that is.

If they want to complain or downvote, that’s their prerogative, but I bet it won’t accomplish as much good as what Ben and Jerry have done. 😉

I did, and that was why I felt it was a decent source.

The article is dispelling the part of the mythos, created by the public with some help from Ben and Jerry, that the sale was purely a legal issue of that they were forced to sell due to (mistakenly, according to the author’s take) believing they had to do what the majority of shareholders wanted them to do, which was to sell to Unilever, as their stock had lost 50% of its previous value.

That may be true or not, I’m not a business lawyer. But the law itself wasn’t so much the interest I had in this source. With it being written as a legal paper, I’m going to lean that the background they are giving is pretty impartial facts on what actually did take place. The history of the sale and why it occured is what is relevant to the point I’m attempting to make here, disagreeing with people say Ben and Jerry deserved this treatment from Unilever for being sellouts. That’s a moral and ethical argument, not a legal one, so all the legal stuff here is moot to the conversation I’m having.

The Ben and Jerry’s shareholder and Unilever prior to the buyout both wanted to ax the social missions of the founders to keep those profits for themselves. In response, they reached what they felt was a deal beneficial to all 3 parties, themselves, the shareholders, and Unilever, who was going to buy the company one way or another. In return for cooperation, Ben and Jerry ensured their social programs lived for another 25 years. My thoughts are that is a positive accomplishment and that rather than being greedy stakeholders, they extended their contributions to the betterment of society, while making Unilever do that, the exact opposite of what they would have done on their own. You guys want to crap on them, but they did an additional quarter century of good, at least partly at the expense of a megacorp that would not have done so. This is the kind of thing all you guys cheer here, but when executives do what you talk of doing, you still badmouth them.

Leftists have no bigger enemy than gatekeeping leftists. Ben and Jerry have given over $70,000,000 away, and I’m sure a good chunk of that was taken out of Unilever at this point. How’s that a dick move on their part?

Why are so many people here mad at Ben and Jerry while they tried to do the best they could?

The decision to sell sounds a lot more grey than comments are playing it off as. If people want to debate if they ever should have taken the company public that’s one thing, but B&J seem to have tried to make the best of their financial and legal situations while being beholden to shareholders, and laws that would have helped prevent being sold to Unilever didn’t exist in Vermont until over a decade after the sale.

Instead of being forcefully bought out, removed by Unilever, and had all their social agendas canceled immediately, they made a deal to continue to be able to serve in some capacity after the acquisition. They remained active with the company for 25 years, so they seemed to do a lot with their “empty promise” they were given by Unilever.

This is the summary I read on the story of their sale to Unilever. It doesn’t really support one side or the other, so take what you will from it, but treating them like jerks really doesn’t feel called for.