Recent comments in /f/Maine

MathematicianGlum880 t1_j46gkia wrote

I don’t travel much past Freeport these days. More so to Mass and back, quite often so our grandson can visit his mother. I’m doing 70 in the middle lane and I’ve got crazies blowing by me in the left and right lanes. Swerving! No blinker! There is literally no common sense and no respect ! I was told I was in the wrong lane and going too slow one time.

2

costabius t1_j46ddeo wrote

"last desperate push" my ass. It was a bayonet charge, downhill, into a bunch of guys exhausted from running uphill. It was the correct tactical decision, and the one most likely to succeed even if they weren't almost out of ammunition.

−21

ASki420 t1_j46c3l2 wrote

Lol nice comeback? A little weed that I use for a severe medical condition, has nothing to do with the fact that I can’t dish out almost $1k or more for snow tires. Even if I did manage to come up with that kind of money, I live in an apartment building and have absolutely nowhere to store them. Get a fucking clue buddy, not everyone has some comfy ass life like you clearly do. Kindly eat shit. EDIT: Oh, and did I mention I’m from Massachusetts? Just wanted to give you an extra reason to hate me😉😘

−4

WalkerBRiley t1_j46a853 wrote

No, it's the people who tell others to get snow tires or get off the road. They think because they've 4 wheel drive and/or snow tires that means they'll never go off the road and can go thirty over the limit.

I say "people don't know how to drive in the snow" frequently. I also drive slowly in icy and snowy conditions. Usually slow enough that people back up behind me and are quite obviously very angry because they can't go 20 over like they want.

8

MrLonely_ t1_j468xn8 wrote

It’s common in cars and trucks with rear wheel drive, gravity means the tires are working harder to stay in contact with the road, hills tend to ice up from the water running down them and all your power pushing instead of pulling means that if the tires lose control your basically a pendulum. It’s why you will sometimes see the DOT plow trucks reverse up hills, but that’s more common in very rural areas.

2

AssumptionLivid6879 t1_j467gar wrote

That isn’t our reality. Our reality is that there hasn’t been any new tenants in many of these structures and many current tenants are renting shithole end-lifecycle properties.

Easiest example is the Airport Mall in Bangor. Every drop panel is brown from water damage at the dollar store, and 90% of it is vacant. The Bangor mall has like 4 out of possible 40 tenants. The landowner will keep running it into the ground and shorting the value of neighboring structures.

These landowners waiting for “someone to bite” are creating blight and butterfly effects the surrounding community. Blaming blightingly buildings on the lack of tenants is like a vacuum salesman blaming the customer on not wanting to buy a vacuum.

All of these pseudo-commercial shopping districts are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer, from the wasted land use within the city limits, to the extra road/sewer/power maintenance. Rather than incentivizing the repairing of these structures, it’s incentivized to just build more 30-year big boxes and let the old ones rot.

0

fwydriver t1_j460bb1 wrote

I remember emailing the Maine Turnpike Authority in 2020 about why variable regulatory speed limits are limited to ORT plazas and got the following response at the time:

We do not have any plans at this time install variable speed limits signs at locations besides the ORT plazas. Our flashing 45 MPH signs are technically advisory signs, however motorists can still be issued a ticket for imprudent speed. ORT plazas are different than the rest of interstate and making it regulatory vs advisory prudent.

5

Fabulous_Engineer_79 t1_j4600w1 wrote

The original argument here was that you try to justify your claim that nuclear generation is ideal by saying that nuclear accidents don’t happen. That’s false. You won’t convince anybody who doesn’t already share your view by making claims that can be so easily verified as false. Then when you’re presented with a fairly long and comprehensive list of accidents, you say they’re not accidents. Well, according to the scientific community they are accidents. I don’t think your determination carries more weight. In short, people don’t want nuclear power because of the risk, however remote the possibility of a serious accident might be. You won’t be convincing anybody otherwise.

0