itsprobablyfine

If destruction be our lot, we ourselves must be it's author and finisher

Yeah my assumption would be that it was open on both sides, otherwise it wouldn't be deenergized. But that doesn't mean you can't get induced current flow. Let's say our dead line shares a tower with a high voltage live line. Our dead line has multiple ground connections via undergrowth. The live line experiences a line to ground fault, creating high currents in its faulted phase but also a ground potential rise at the fault location. So now our dead line is experiencing possible potential differences between its many ground locations as well as induced current. This current would be inherently directed to the lower potential ground which in this case is likely via a tree branch. I don't think it would take much current or much time for that to create a fire.

Again, I don't think any of this is particularly likely, but I don't think it's out of the question either. At the very least it's the kind of question industry should always be asking itself

My first reaction is also pretty skeptical. That said, while the article was written by someone not really in the industry it is an interesting question. We know normal line operations create mutual inductances...I think if there were a dead line that temporarily shared a ROW or even a tower with an energized line could be subject to this. Esp during a fault on the energized line.

Basically, I think it's unlikely but it's definitely not impossible and is probably worth looking into

Yeah but I think there is something to be said for him not being like other presidents. As much as I dislike a lot of former presidents I don't think democracy was at stake. I think him being openly fascist kind of changes the game a bit so I don't know how good of comparisons those are. Which is super not comforting if true

This is interesting because I very deliberately try the opposite. My top priority is always making time for helping colleagues. Most of my industry is super green and the young staff require a lot of training/attention if you want them to develop well/quickly. It means when I first started my team things were a bit hectic, but years later it basically runs itself. I always prioritize investing in individuals so that when things pile up I've got 20 people I can delegate to. What's more, this is cultural at this point so they all do the same. It's basically a positive feedback loop at this point where things just sort of work cause everyone knows what they're doing.

There is another team next to mine that is run a lot like how you're describing and they are constantly missing schedules/going over budget/having quality issues cause the lead 'doesnt have time right now'. Except right now is all the time and none of the staff seem to know what they're doing and are all super frustrated.

Anyway, all that to say I think how you structure these kinds of things depends a lot on what kind of work you do, what kind of team environment you have, and what your overall goals are. Could I be individually more productive if I told everyone else to go away? Absolutely yes, I'd get 3 times as much done, but the team overall would be less efficient.

I also don't work outside work hours, and neither does anyone else on my team because we're efficient enough at work to plan out and execute 40 hours of work per person per week. The same can't be said for that other team where the lead goes home and everyone else is left confused working crazy OT.

Your way seems to work for you, but I think it is important to note that there is no 'right' approach for all situations. One needs to define the objectives and then determine what the best approach for accomplishing those might be for that particular role. In short, it's complicated. And anyone who says it's not is generally trying to sell something

I think women and children first would be a similar thing

Yeah he may have moments of happiness but it appears to be built on top of a super unhealthy desire to be viewed as impressive that I'm sure eats away at him every day. He wants to 'win' so people think he's cool. He's like a 10yo kid that steals the ball from his teammate to try and score a goal who gets upset when no one invites him to the after party.

I suspect that chart here is like actual action, not counting presnap. The shortened game one's still include replays and relevant presnap action. Though I agree, this still feels a little underestimated

They're upset they have to spend time fighting insurance companies cause every hour they spend doing that is one less hour they get to spend actually helping people

In my mind this is just another way for shady actors to give him money with less paper trail. Is that not possible? I admit I don't actually know how people are buying or selling this.

Honestly if that's what's happening it seems like an actual 'good' use case for crypto. Good as in clever/useful not good as in, well, good.

Not a lawyer but I think the fact that honey profited, like, a lot from this is a key factor. From my understanding it's hard to say what they didn't wasn't straight up theft. What's more, they lied about what they were doing so the consumer was unaware of the 'product' they were getting. So while I get your concern, I wouldn't be too worried about precedent here. It's less 'this should be made illegal!' and more 'they def committed several actual crimes'

Aragog gets no love