There's another factor here: There's a huge swath of services that private insurance companies outright will not, under any circumstances, cover. They are explicitly exempted from having to cover these things specifically because they are technically available through Medicaid. This very much includes critical things like long-term caregivers/assistive devices. So having access to Medicaid becomes extremely important as soon as you need any of those services.
His supervisor was given a $20k bonus with a performance review that specifically cited that "Don Sanders is no longer working for BNSF." Insane that there are no criminal penalties for this nonsense, just penny fines absorbed by the company.
The railroad companies that merged to create what's left of the rail industry in the US are the ultimate evolution of "too big to fail" corporations. They've been kept alive/subsidized for almost 200 years now, and they've had time to tilt the playing field to their advantage just like e.g. Amazon, except they've had a lot longer to pull shady stuff.
If you look into what privileges the railroads have, it's insane. In some places they have eminent domain ability, and immunity from eminent domain. Since most of the railroad regulations are Federal, they override state law as in this case in Ohio:
Every time I see some analysis of an unprotected level crossing crash putting fault on a driver it blows my mind that the standard is still that trains have the right to just blow through intersections, everybody else be damned - especially given how infrequently utilized most tracks are. That kind of priority should require a crossing gate with positive verification that the gates are down and intersection is clear before giving the train signal to proceed. And I say this as someone who likes trains.
(And yes, I get the physics involved. Similar physics applies to cars versus people, yet outside of some very narrow and high utilization contexts like controlled access highways, cars' speeds are limited by having an implicit responsibility to stop to avoid collisions)
A car can typically stop within 5-10m at most city speeds (reaction time notwithstanding) and not really waste much energy in the process. A freight train probably takes about a month to stop, at the cost of a lot of energy/fuel. It absolutely makes sense they have right of way.
Cars waste exactly as much specific energy coming to a stop from a given speed as a train (or anything else) does. City speeds are limited precisely because otherwise the stopping distance would be too great. If you're driving 25mph in a city and someones jumps out in front of you and you hit them, you're not going to get blamed. If you're driving 65mph you will.
It only "makes sense" for trains to have unimpeded right of way if you're prioritizing corporate expedience over human life. Within my point there are still two main ways trains can move at high speeds - bridge crossings and crossing gates with positive control. If railroads want to operate at high speeds, then they should have to fix their infrastructure rather than being allowed to continue to dumping their externalities onto the public.
Of course "specific energy". You're either unaware a train is significantly more massive than a car, or you're deliberately trying to mislead with your statement. Neither is encouraging.
I would say that focusing on the total big number is deliberately misleading. When the goal is to accelerate (decelerate) mass using the friction created by the weight of the mass itself, the amount of mass cancels out. Likewise when the goal is to transport mass, then cost per unit mass is what matters.
As I said in another comment, we don't condone SUVs or tractor-trailers ignoring red lights just because they're heavier.
This is exactly it! Their speeds are limited around areas they're likely to interact with people to enable this. Agreed that slowing them down probably is wrong but they should definitely be protecting crossings.
You need to take physics again. You clearly don’t understand it. The physics of stopping a car is nothing like the physics of stopping a train. The mass is so different it’s comical for you to even say that. The propulsion system is not even remotely similar.
Thanks for the content free insult and wild hyperbole?
Mass cancels out and is irrelevant. "Train is Big" makes for a great red herring though. And "propulsion system", really? I'm pretty sure they both use wheels to accelerate and decelerate, not reaction mass or gravity bending sci-fi tech.
Both trains and cars have stopping distances that are proportional to speed, with the main difference being the constant factor. Therefore, for any desired stopping distance, we can set a maximum speed. This is done with cars, where areas of heavy interactions (cities), speeds are low. Moderate interactions speeds are moderate, and the onus is still on cars to stop even though it doesn't feel that way. And there are controlled access roads where speeds are high and you're not practically expected to stop for pedestrians in the road (though obviously you certainly should try).
Currently train tracks are treated as if they're controlled access, while often having few controls. That's the problem.
> Both trains and cars have stopping distances that are proportional to speed
Doh. Stopping distance is proportional to the square of speed. I knew this was wrong when I was typing it out, but I convinced myself it was right. I must have been thinking of the time. Being the square of the speed actually makes my point stronger, as the speed doesn't need to be reduced nearly as much to obtain a given stopping distance.
You are making a point that uncontrolled railway crossings should be banned, correct.
Though what you don’t get is the concept of inertia at the train’s scale. You can’t just say “mass cancels out”. The specific energy to stop is the same per given amount of mass, however the amount of mass is not in the same league. Not to mention the CoF differentials between rubber/asphalt to steel/steel.
I agree that the lower coefficient of friction of steel on steel leads to less favorable maximum speeds for trains when applying the otherwise uncontroversial standard of possibly needing to stop at an uncontrolled crossing. I don't see what the amount of mass has to do with anything though. Like we don't condone SUVs or tractor-trailers ignoring red lights just because they're heavier and require more fuel to get back up to speed.
I'd say the problem with simply saying that uncontrolled railway crossings should be banned is that railroads will understandably say that it will take time to comply, and then stonewall for decades because of funding/whatever. Whereas the standard of liability can be changed atomically after some notice period, and if the railroads haven't upgraded their crossings to be able to maintain the speeds they'd like, that's on them.
Also the framing is different. Prohibiting certain types of crossings is creating new regulation, whereas removing the unjust liability shield is fixing traditional corruption.
The culture doesn't allow it. If you don't publish enough, in prestigious enough journals, instead of tenure you get replaced. That's one reason this is a pretty interesting move - by providing an alternative publishing location based on principles that the universities supposedly value, this sort of departure _could_ help push the academic culture toward a less-abusive publishing model. Institutional change is hard.
I keep trying to organize my academic friends to join unions and engage in organizational sabotage of administrators, who have completely taken over the academy and left most faculty in a state of abject misery. Huge endowments seem like part of the problem, universities are essentially run as financial concerns with a vestigial teaching staff attached that many regents would rather do away with completely.
True, but in the meantime faculty need to find ways around the power of the administrators rather than waiting for fairy godparents to intervene, especially given that administrators control all the budgets and have entire departments devoted to flattering donors.
> That's the lawyer's job, to guide you through ! If they're not doing that, then find a different lawyer.
Yes! And if you happen to know that, and have a good lawyer, then you're all set. But a hell of a lot of lawyers won't volunteer to do this, or aren't competent enough to have this conversation productively with a layperson, and most people don't know to ask for it.
I have my doubts as to the practicality, but a tool that could summarize and then prompt laypeople go to their lawyer to start that discussion seems like it could definitely have value. I suspect most people interested in this tool may already be knowledgeable enough to ask for a walkthrough anyway, but you could imagine implementations where the summary is presented directly, and could guide more people toward the help they need.
> competent enough to have this conversation productively with a layperson
HUH ? That is literally their job !
Legal document review is bread and butter for lawyers.
Having productive conversations with laypeople is what lawyers do all day every day.
I really don't get your point.
If a lawyer is unable to have a productive conversation with a layperson about a legal document, then they need to be stripped of their qualifications.
That’s not their job - their job is to make persuasive legal arguments, craft legal language to be ironclad, etc. Similarly a top researchers in CS isn’t employed for their ability to explain CS, despite the fact we employ them to do just that.
Given how _poorly written_ a lot of real legal documents are, I would definitely not trust any current AI to summarize it accurately. How would it handle documents where terms or clauses are in conflict, or any other situation where a close-reading human would have to step back and say "okay, this is _semantically_ impossible?"
I could see a tool like this being valuable as an outline generator for long documents, but I would be very reluctant to believe any statements it makes about the actual legal effects.
I could see this being useful as a tool that scans legal documents in bulk like Terms of Service and looks for red flags that simple keyword searches would miss.
I've never heard young people use this term the way the author claims - that's the definition used by people of the author's generation. Young people, by and large, seem to call it "doing your job", as you say.
In my experience, young people saying "quiet quitting" are referring explicitly to the judgmental attitude around work-life balance that's held by some older members of the workforce.
