This is why I like cheaper tools. Yes, that means cheaper quality but it's far easier to approach taking a dremel to it. And the DIY look usually matches the stock materials better anyway.
I'd say it's an even split. Half the Jeeps on the road and on the trails are modified. On the road maybe 1/10 of Porches are modified, but on the track 90% are.
Big difference between bolt-ons vs deeper mods too.
Go to any mechanic thats been doing cars, especially if it's a focused subset of cars, for more than a few year and I guarantee they'll either have some modified HF sockets or wrenches or some home made tools. Probably don't want to cut up your SnapOff debt peonage tools, but a lot of the time they alone don't cut it.
I thought it was just the opposite: people recognized it as satire but what they really wanted was the dumb action movie. Spare us the social commentary and show us some power armor with jump jets.
That only works when there's time to adapt. This is like the insane tariff rollercoaster. There was no time to plan or adapt. It was a black swan event and wrecked everything for no appreciable benefit.
ACA mandates that ~80% of insurance co. revenue must go back towards medical service. So not "non-profit" per se but there is some kind of restriction there.
also 3) many "insurance" companies are in the provider game, meaning they can preferentially shuffle surplus to their other arm
(2) and (3) were part of what I meant by a lack of regulatory bandwidth in another comment. There are rules that could be enforced to promptly impose steep penalties for a company that tries to skirt them. But they just aren't, so after one company starts doing it the rest inevitably follow suit.
For a while, there was a strong trend of "I want to do everything in one singular language". Your coding is in language XYZ. Your build tools will be configured/written in XYZ. Your UI frontend will be generated from XYZ. Everything will be defined in XYZ.
Shell is from a time when you had a huge selection of languages, each for different purposes, and you picked the right one for the job. For complex applications, you would have multiple languages working together.
People look at Bash and think, "I would never dare do $Task with that language!". And you'd be right, because you're thinking you only have one tool in the toolbox.
Bash syntax is the pinnacle of Chesterton's Fence. If you can't articulate why it was done that way, you have no right to remove it. Python would be an absolutely unusable shell language.
I didn't say that there wasn't a reason. I said it was absolute trash to use. It's so bad that the moment I need even the slightest bit of complexity, I will switch away from bash. Can't really say that for any other language.
reply