Rory Stolzenberg
@rorystolzenberg.bsky.social
renewable energy tech by day. legalizing housing by night. sometimes vice versa.
planning commissioner in charlottesville
planning commissioner in charlottesville
It seems like the earlier disclosure was for AAPL and CAVA and they let it slide, but the new disclosure shows there were a bunch more impermissible trades:
www.wsj.com/economy/cent...
www.wsj.com/economy/cent...
November 15, 2025 at 6:00 PM
It seems like the earlier disclosure was for AAPL and CAVA and they let it slide, but the new disclosure shows there were a bunch more impermissible trades:
www.wsj.com/economy/cent...
www.wsj.com/economy/cent...
Would love to know, because it does seem very passable in VA (especially after the new General Assembly takes office) if we can figure it out!
(And especially if NEC changes aren't strictly required or at least not major, because legislating codes is still fairly taboo here.)
(And especially if NEC changes aren't strictly required or at least not major, because legislating codes is still fairly taboo here.)
November 15, 2025 at 5:15 AM
Would love to know, because it does seem very passable in VA (especially after the new General Assembly takes office) if we can figure it out!
(And especially if NEC changes aren't strictly required or at least not major, because legislating codes is still fairly taboo here.)
(And especially if NEC changes aren't strictly required or at least not major, because legislating codes is still fairly taboo here.)
Pretty sure it's all smart meters (in Dominion territory at least) already. Are the NEC updates substantive, or is it just about technically allowing low-amperage backfeed? (I'm assuming qualifying devices already comply with islanding requirements?)
November 15, 2025 at 3:14 AM
Pretty sure it's all smart meters (in Dominion territory at least) already. Are the NEC updates substantive, or is it just about technically allowing low-amperage backfeed? (I'm assuming qualifying devices already comply with islanding requirements?)
What is needed to make this work? Electrical code changes, or just requiring the utilities to allow interconnection?
November 15, 2025 at 2:08 AM
What is needed to make this work? Electrical code changes, or just requiring the utilities to allow interconnection?
There's a winery with a thatched roof in Albemarle you can check for bugs! (Formerly Thatch Winery, now Michael Shaps)
maps.app.goo.gl/2QRgJYj17A7Z...
maps.app.goo.gl/2QRgJYj17A7Z...
November 15, 2025 at 1:33 AM
There's a winery with a thatched roof in Albemarle you can check for bugs! (Formerly Thatch Winery, now Michael Shaps)
maps.app.goo.gl/2QRgJYj17A7Z...
maps.app.goo.gl/2QRgJYj17A7Z...
I feel like the household silver days were mostly over by 1971? And in any case they probably would have wanted wealthy people with silver to ride?
I could see prohibiting expensive things for liability reasons for checked baggage, but carry-ons?
I could see prohibiting expensive things for liability reasons for checked baggage, but carry-ons?
November 15, 2025 at 1:11 AM
I feel like the household silver days were mostly over by 1971? And in any case they probably would have wanted wealthy people with silver to ride?
I could see prohibiting expensive things for liability reasons for checked baggage, but carry-ons?
I could see prohibiting expensive things for liability reasons for checked baggage, but carry-ons?
I feel like I can hear that announcement in my head, but I only associate it with WAS? Maybe they skip it for northbound Virginia Services since they did it in DC, or that's only for trains coming down from BOS? (Now that I think of it the NYP stop isn't long enough to do it while stationary...)
November 14, 2025 at 11:11 PM
I feel like I can hear that announcement in my head, but I only associate it with WAS? Maybe they skip it for northbound Virginia Services since they did it in DC, or that's only for trains coming down from BOS? (Now that I think of it the NYP stop isn't long enough to do it while stationary...)
I ride enough to have status, almost exclusively on the NER (Virginia Services), though I guess maybe I don't pay quite enough attention to the cleaning crews.
November 14, 2025 at 11:03 PM
I ride enough to have status, almost exclusively on the NER (Virginia Services), though I guess maybe I don't pay quite enough attention to the cleaning crews.
Not like the mid-route ones that hop on at long stops (like WAS engine changeovers) but don't ride? I don't think I've ever seen one on an NER, only on LDs. (And the latter stay onboard, they don't hop on for a segment then go back the opposite way, like I'm imagining an en-route crew would.)
November 14, 2025 at 10:51 PM
Not like the mid-route ones that hop on at long stops (like WAS engine changeovers) but don't ride? I don't think I've ever seen one on an NER, only on LDs. (And the latter stay onboard, they don't hop on for a segment then go back the opposite way, like I'm imagining an en-route crew would.)
Too many in the sense that they're rarely all in use, but at the same time they're already in rough shape by the end of the route, and it's hard to imagine them getting double the use.
Feels like this would work iff Amtrak added en route cleaning crews, instead of just refreshing at WAS & NYP.
Feels like this would work iff Amtrak added en route cleaning crews, instead of just refreshing at WAS & NYP.
November 14, 2025 at 9:57 PM
Too many in the sense that they're rarely all in use, but at the same time they're already in rough shape by the end of the route, and it's hard to imagine them getting double the use.
Feels like this would work iff Amtrak added en route cleaning crews, instead of just refreshing at WAS & NYP.
Feels like this would work iff Amtrak added en route cleaning crews, instead of just refreshing at WAS & NYP.
live JP Morgan reaction:
November 14, 2025 at 4:58 PM
live JP Morgan reaction:
The premise, of course, presupposes that SCOTUS will overturn the VRA requirement for majority-minority districts when they decide Louisiana v. Callais.
Except… obviously the previous map also intentionally included MM districts since that's been the law since 1965. But the Obama admin approved it!
Except… obviously the previous map also intentionally included MM districts since that's been the law since 1965. But the Obama admin approved it!
![“[T]he first thing” that map drawer Paul Mitchell “did in drawing the new map”—
the “number one thing that [he] first started thinking about”—was to create a new
“majority/minority Latino district.” And legislators focused—not on the purported vote
dilution of Democrats elsewhere across the country—but on the supposed dilution of the
voting power of racial groups in other states. They feared that a “Latino voice in Texas
is worth one third of the representation as a white voice.” That Texas would “slid[e] back”
to the days of “Black Codes and Jim Crow.” And that Texas legislators would “silence
the voices of Latino voters.” Proposition 50 would serve as a “shield” against “racist
maps,” they told each other, so that minorities in California could “stand up and be
counted.” The end result is a map that manipulates district lines in the name of bolstering
the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:yg7iinbtqem7oaif3na22nu5/bafkreifptzprzsktif6qssxfej6hq4ntxewuohc32jjjh6wf2z66cryc7y@jpeg)
November 13, 2025 at 7:46 PM
The premise, of course, presupposes that SCOTUS will overturn the VRA requirement for majority-minority districts when they decide Louisiana v. Callais.
Except… obviously the previous map also intentionally included MM districts since that's been the law since 1965. But the Obama admin approved it!
Except… obviously the previous map also intentionally included MM districts since that's been the law since 1965. But the Obama admin approved it!
Technically intervening in a lawsuit filed last week by the CA GOP: www.courtlistener.com/docket/71875...
Motion to Intervene: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Complaint in Intervention: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Motion to Intervene: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Complaint in Intervention: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
![INTRODUCTION
Race cannot be used as a proxy to advance political interests, but that is precisely
what the California General Assembly did with Proposition 50—the recent ballot initiative
that junked California’s pre-existing electoral map in favor of a rush-job rejiggering of
California’s congressional district lines. In the press, California’s legislators and governor
sold a plan to promote the interests of Democrats in the upcoming midterm elections. But
amongst themselves and on the debate floor, the focus was not partisanship, but race.
“[T]he first thing” that map drawer Paul Mitchell “did in drawing the new map”—
the “number one thing that [he] first started thinking about”—was to create a new
“majority/minority Latino district.” And legislators focused—not on the purported vote
dilution of Democrats elsewhere across the country—but on the supposed dilution of the
voting power of racial groups in other states. They feared that a “Latino voice in Texas
is worth one third of the representation as a white voice.” That Texas would “slid[e] back”
to the days of “Black Codes and Jim Crow.” And that Texas legislators would “silence
the voices of Latino voters.” Proposition 50 would serve as a “shield” against “racist
maps,” they told each other, so that minorities in California could “stand up and be
counted.” The end result is a map that manipulates district lines in the name of bolstering
the voting power of Hispanic Californians because of their race.
Our Constitution does not tolerate this racial gerrymander.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:yg7iinbtqem7oaif3na22nu5/bafkreiaxpy4v6vid6kxbfua7ywscqmtrj4p2jfi7yfafozt6lbwzqejze4@jpeg)
November 13, 2025 at 7:31 PM
Technically intervening in a lawsuit filed last week by the CA GOP: www.courtlistener.com/docket/71875...
Motion to Intervene: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Complaint in Intervention: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Motion to Intervene: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Complaint in Intervention: storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.us...
Assuming a 2% cross slope and a 4' bike lane, that's .96" of ponded water before it would start entering the swale, even if the swale were a bottomless pit that could take it all.
Unless the plans called for the cross slope to reverse along the bike lane to direct all the water to the swale?
Unless the plans called for the cross slope to reverse along the bike lane to direct all the water to the swale?
November 13, 2025 at 5:58 PM
Assuming a 2% cross slope and a 4' bike lane, that's .96" of ponded water before it would start entering the swale, even if the swale were a bottomless pit that could take it all.
Unless the plans called for the cross slope to reverse along the bike lane to direct all the water to the swale?
Unless the plans called for the cross slope to reverse along the bike lane to direct all the water to the swale?
I dunno, that seems like it's a design problem too.
Roads are generally gently sloped toward the curbs, which puts the inlet on the downhill side of the swale / uphill side of the bike lane… so it wouldn't flow in until the bike lane has enough ponding that water level = the grade change across it.
Roads are generally gently sloped toward the curbs, which puts the inlet on the downhill side of the swale / uphill side of the bike lane… so it wouldn't flow in until the bike lane has enough ponding that water level = the grade change across it.
November 13, 2025 at 5:56 PM
I dunno, that seems like it's a design problem too.
Roads are generally gently sloped toward the curbs, which puts the inlet on the downhill side of the swale / uphill side of the bike lane… so it wouldn't flow in until the bike lane has enough ponding that water level = the grade change across it.
Roads are generally gently sloped toward the curbs, which puts the inlet on the downhill side of the swale / uphill side of the bike lane… so it wouldn't flow in until the bike lane has enough ponding that water level = the grade change across it.
Certainly it was a close election, so it's not *impossible* that enough students were affected to swing a couple hundred votes. But in any case the guy above was implying that students aren't allowed to vote at their college so their turnout (or ability to vote) wasn't relevant, which is wrong.
November 13, 2025 at 5:00 AM
Certainly it was a close election, so it's not *impossible* that enough students were affected to swing a couple hundred votes. But in any case the guy above was implying that students aren't allowed to vote at their college so their turnout (or ability to vote) wasn't relevant, which is wrong.
While anyone being disenfranchised is bad, I think it's unlikely that the practices here affected a substantial percentage of students. The lawsuit cites "several James Madison University students" receiving letters saying they had to provide more information, on "some occasions."
November 13, 2025 at 4:58 AM
While anyone being disenfranchised is bad, I think it's unlikely that the practices here affected a substantial percentage of students. The lawsuit cites "several James Madison University students" receiving letters saying they had to provide more information, on "some occasions."
The ostensible reason for denial in that case is not that the registrants are students... because it's undeniably allowed.
November 13, 2025 at 4:30 AM
The ostensible reason for denial in that case is not that the registrants are students... because it's undeniably allowed.
That's not accurate. Virginia allows registering at your college.
www.elections.virginia.gov/registration...
www.elections.virginia.gov/registration...
Home
The following information is specific to college students and explains residency requirements for voter registration and special absentee privileges for certain students.
www.elections.virginia.gov
November 13, 2025 at 2:49 AM
That's not accurate. Virginia allows registering at your college.
www.elections.virginia.gov/registration...
www.elections.virginia.gov/registration...
that didn't take long...
November 12, 2025 at 9:01 PM
that didn't take long...