I'm personally very cautious about damage to/around batteries, due to !spicypillows@lemmy.world . At the very least, a photo might help depict the scale of the dent.

And while it might not be a spicy pillow right now, a damaged battery is more likely to turn spicy spontaneously. Replacement of the battery is, of course, the most risk-reducing move.

I once read a theory on an electricians forum about how the USA electrical code's mandated maximum distance between adjacent outlets on a wall, coupled with the typical bedroom layout, as well as home builders trying to be as cheap as possible, led to only a single outlet being placed directly in the middle of the longest wall. This is also the most logical position for a bed, so the theory is that the bed pressing against the outlet over time was a contributing factor to electrical-related house fires.

I cannot find where I read that originally, and certainly the granularity of nationally-reported fire data is not sufficient to prove that theory. And while the electrical code's distance requirements haven't changed, more homes will now put enough outlets so the only one isn't behind the bed.

I'm not trying to be ignorant, I'm just curious.

I think you're in the right community! Don't let anyone tell you to shy away from asking curious questions. (well, unless the question is also bigoted, illegal, baiting, sealioning, or otherwise disingenuous)

I'm not an electrician in any jurisdiction, but one answer for why two 2-meter (~6 ft) extension cords in series is inadvisable compared to a single 4 meter cord is that it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. Longer cords necessarily have to be built differently than shorter cords, not only because of electrical codes (eg the NEC in USA) or product safety specs (eg UL, CSA) but also being well-designed for their expected use. There's also the human aspect, which all good designs must account for as well.

Here in the USA, common extension cord lengths are ~2 m (6 ft), ~7.5 m (25 ft), ~15 m (50 ft), and ~30 m (100 ft). Of those cords, the common wire gauge used might be 18 AWG (~1 mm^2), 14 AWG (~2 mm^2), 16 AWG (~1.5 mm^2), and 12 AWG (~3.5 mm^2). I've intentionally rounded the metric units so they're more analogous to common wire gauges outside the USA. Finally, the insulation used can be anything from "thin, indoor only" to "heavy, abrasion and sunlight resistant". And while the USA technically has a boat-load of AC connectors, the grand majority will use the standard 2-pin or 3-pin 120v connector, formally known as NEMA 1-15 and NEMA 5-15 respectively. What this means is that chaining extension cords is both possible and somewhat common. The problem is one of mismatched designs.

From a cursory search on the website of a major USA home improvement store, the smallest wire gauge used for a 100 ft cable is 16 AWG. The largest is 10 AWG (nb: smaller numbers mean bigger wire). That thinner cable is marketed for outdoor use. The thicker cable indicates its use "indoor/outdoor" and for heavy-duty applications. It is also branded with a major power-tool company, which would be appropriate as power tools often draw high current.

Whereas looking at 6 ft extension cords, most are 16 AWG but a few were 18 AWG (thinner than 16) or 14 AWG (thicker). But I could not find any thicker cables than that, certainly nothing that uses 10 AWG (~6 mm^2). The "heavy duty" cables of this length also used only 16 AWG wire.

Because electrical resistance is additive in series, and because Ohm's Law governs the voltage lost at the end of a cord, the use of insufficiently large conductors can cause voltage issues for high-current appliances. Appliances for USA-spec generally require 120 Volts +/- 10%, with utilities aiming to provide 120 Volts +/- 5% from the outlets. This means a "sufficient" power cord should not have a voltage drop of more than 6 volts, give or take. Of course, a high-current appliance will also cause a larger voltage drop than a low-current device, so we only consider the former case.

For a machine that draws 12 Amps attached to a 100 ft extension cord made of 18 AWG wire, the voltage drop would be 15 volts. This is bad for the machine, which now sees a lower voltage than expected. Had the cord been made of 12 AWG wire, the drop is an acceptable 3 volts.

So if you're operating construction tools, it would be a terrible idea to use three random 6-ft cables, and you should instead use a single 25-ft cable. Even though it's longer than you need, the fact is that most 25 ft cables use thicker conductors, which reduces the voltage drop overall.

But there's also that peaky human factor. Sure, there would also be more connectors which could come loose, but the really pressing issue with daisy chained cords is when people do that indoors, because they only have light-duty 6 ft cables handy. And for that Christmas tree, they need to use attach three cables together to go beneath the hallway rug.

This is essentially the worst-case scenario: using thin conductor cords, with thin insulation, underneath very flammable household surfaces, which are also trodden upon by foot traffic. Every step on that cord weakens the insulation and fatigues the conductors. Over time, the conductor becomes thinner where it's being fatigued, and this increases the voltage drop. An unfortunate result of a voltage drop is that it generates heat. For a cable which is uniformly thin, this heat is spread over the whole length. But for localized conductor damage, the heat is pin-point... directly under a flammable rug.

In the USA, some 3300 house fires started from an extension cord. Because these cords are not within the walls, they are usually beyond the control of often-strict building/electrical codes, something that's been critiqued by a prominent YouTuber. The US CPSC even goes so far as to create memes to promote their messaging that space heaters -- a common, high-current appliance -- should not be used with extension cords or strips.

Of course, from an electrical perspective, even a ten-long chain of dinky extension cords would have no problem powering just a single LED night light. But it's reasonable to ask: 1) is this just asking to be struck down by fate, 2) are there better alternatives like thicker/longer cords, and 3) why isn't there an outlet where you need it?

(There's also a scenario where too long or thin of an extension cord can cause a circuit breaker to fail to trip during a short circuit, but it's fairly esoteric and this post is quite long now)

In short, the blanket recommendation to avoid daisy-chaining cords is to avoid the nasty and sometimes fatal results when that can go wrong, even with it might not always play out that way. There's almost always something safer than can be done than daisy chaining.

IANAL, and lawsuits almost always end up being very fact-intensive, which means that the specifics of the case often make the difference. So it'll depend. But broadly speaking, if there isn't a specific law -- eg ADA -- that specifically assigns liability, then the most typical claim someone would try to make is a theory of negligence. That is, failure of the laundromat to behave with a reasonable degree of care.

In the absence of signage or disclaimers or waivers (like in some amusement park rides), the jury will have to assess whether this laundromat's environment suggested some heightened sense of security (eg security cameras, even fake ones) or that management implied or leaned into marketing that made it sound like clothes wouldn't be stolen there. But a typical coin-op laundromat has people going in and out at all times of day, so it's not reasonable to think it's akin to Fort Knox, even without a sign indicating that management disclaims liability for clothes theft.

As for posting that sign, it won't change the general lack of liability on the laundromat in a case where someone snatches clothing. But the equation is different if, say, a patron asked a staff member to watch their laundry for 5 minutes as they make a phone call, and that staff member agreed but then went out for a smoke, resulting in an opportunistic thief stealing the $80 bras from the dryer. Here, the laundromat would carry liability, because although they don't normally watch the clothes, they agreed to do it this once and did it so badly that the clothes were stolen. That's negligence, despite the sign.

That said, posting a warning sign is generally encouraged, since a core principle of liability is that avoidance of harms is always going to be preferable than litigating after they've already happened. So if the sign causes patrons to stay near their clothes in the machine, then some amount of theft has been outright avoided. For this reason, courts seldom will punish a business for having an overzealous sign, unless the sign itself is materially false or the sign itself causes a hazard (eg a loose "Gusty Winds" highway warning sign that falls over in a light breeze, injuring a middle school student).

But to muddy the waters some more, another core principle of liability is that liability should fall upon the person whose behavior if changed will prevent future harms. For stolen clothes, it's quite clear that the thief should be liable for the value of the stolen bras. If a court instead holds the laundromat liable, then that creates a perverse incentive where rather than spending money on more/better washers, the laundromat must spend that money on cameras and private security, raising the cost of the laundry machines. In additional to absolving civil liability on the thief. All for something which would be more cheaply solved by patrons just watching their laundry, or perhaps installing hasps on the machines so patrons can bring their own locks.

On the flip side, denying liability means the patron has lost the value of their clothes. Perhaps they now have to spend more on "clothes insurance", which only serves to benefit an insurance company rather than affording more bras. Adjudicating liability -- in any legal system -- is a thankless job and there are never perfect answers to the delicate balancing act. Life is messy, and even the best civil tribunals struggle to make sense in all of the turbulent circumstances.

TL;DR: it depends

There is truth in this, but it needs a little bit more context. If a civil lawsuit -- eg personal injury claim -- goes to trial and either party requests a jury, then yes, the jury is mostly unrestrained in what sort of damages (or none at all) they find. But they don't have absolute authority.

The caveat is that some jurisdictions have hard caps on the type of damages. Texas limits punitive damages (meant as punishment to ward off copycats from causing the same harms) to 2x the economic damages (loss of money or value; excludes emotional suffering) plus $750k. This was raised as an issue in the lawsuit brought in Texas against Alex Jones where the jury awarded approximately $50 million, although the judge did not determine that the Texas cap would apply, and so it didn't. Jones could have appealed that decision, but I couldn't find news articles suggesting he did.

There's also a court's inherent duty to deliver due process, which would allow a judge to cut down a jury award which is so outlandish that it is not supported by the evidence. This is similar to throwing out a criminal guilty verdict when no shred of evidence supported guilt. The opposite is rare, as a judge usually doesn't increase a jury award; judges might add sanctions instead though.

The odd quirk is that the fickleness of juries -- both criminal or civil -- is often used to broker a settlement or plea deal. When Dominion Voting Systems sued Fox News, their suit requested $1.4 billion in compensation. But a jury could have found more damages than that. But it could also have been much lower. To avoid that gamble, the parties agreed to settle for $787.5 million. A settlement cannot be appealed and permanently terminates the lawsuit, which provides some peace to all parties. As for the merits of criminal plea deals, the pros and cons are better described here: https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/plea-bargaining-necessary-evil

that a law firm thinks it can make money

This is unfortunately rather common in the USA, specifically the issue of nuisance-value lawsuits: https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/351/

So even without a meritorious lawsuit, a law firm can extract what is essential a ransom, because for a targeted business or individual, they would have to pay their own way for a defense attorney, taking time to go to court, and all sorts of other headaches. It can indeed seem reasonable to just pay a few thousand dollars to the attacking law firm just to make them go away.

Even if one jurisdiction were to implement some of those proposed solutions to nuisance-value lawsuits, there are 50 US States and the federal courts, so pernicious law firms can just go forum shopping.

For the specific issue of SLAPP lawsuits -- frivolous lawsuits claiming defamation, as a means to drain the target of their time and money to mount a defense, typically targeting critics -- the solution is fairly clear: anti-SLAPP laws that would make the plaintiffs of such garbage lawsuits pay the defendant's expenses. California and Texas have excellent anti-SLAPP suits, and so do almost a majority of states, but not the federal judiciary. We need a federal anti-SLAPP law ASAP.

You're going to have to clarify what jurisdiction, since USA law is going to be vastly different than EU law, in the realms of product, medical devices, and public accommodations liability.

But if we did examine the USA, then we can find some generalized rules. For product liability -- the responsibility of manufacturers and distributors of a tangible object -- strict liability will lay when a product has an inherent defect (meaning it didn't become defective after the initial sale) and this defect causes some sort of injury. Although this criteria doesn't depend on the frequency of injuries, if a product is accumulating a body count, that's usually a good sign that there's a defect. Causality is also important to establish, as well as any mitigations that may have existed. On this front, a manufacturer might argue that the warnings in the instruction manual specifically advised against diving headlong into a 30 cm deep swimming pool. And although warning consumers to not do something may be somewhat effective at discharging liability, warnings alone do not prevent someone from trying a lawsuit anyway; the popular wisdom that the "pages of warnings" in manuals are written by lawyers is only partly true, since most manufacturer prefer repeat business by customers that are still alive.

Medical product liability is similar, but slightly different because medical products are built for a specific purpose but a doctor can instruct a patient to use it differently, if medically appropriate. If not used as instructed by the manufacturer, the manufacturer is usually off the hook, but the doctor might be liable for medical malpractice. Maybe. Doctor liability in the USA is framed within a "duty of care", meaning that the doctor takes on a responsibility to act with a reasonable degree of skill and competency. The "standard of care" idea is related, in that it sets the floor for what is reasonable for all doctors. It is, for example, grossly negligent to a drunk doctor to examine a patient. Harms from such negligence can be litigated through a malpractice suit. But this doesn't mean all harm is actionable. A successful appendectomy that results in blood sepsis is always going to be a possibility, even with the best infection controls in place. If all the staff discharged their duties within their training, then negligence does not attach. Also, malpractice is not something which can be waived, because even if a patient doesn't sue, a doctor's medical license can be suspended. Whereas the risks of a surgery can be described in detail to a patient, for informed consent.

Finally, public accommodations law sets the floor for how public and private businesses conduct themselves if they provide goods or services to the general public. Very prominently in this realm are accessibility requirements, which are rules that assure the disabled will not have undue burdens that able-bodied people wouldn't face. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) provides for very stiff fines for non-compliance, and because its objective was to set the standard, there is no provision for a "fix it ticket" approach for enforcement. That is to say, the ADA does not allow business owners to wait until a wheelchair user makes a complaint; they must follow the standard from day 1.

No doubt there is abuse of the liability laws -- there's nothing more American than filing "ambitious" lawsuits -- and this is just a brief (and uncited, '"from the hip") summary of possible areas of law that might answer your question. But I hope it gives you an idea of why a warning or sticker or sign might incur liability. Or at the very least, an unexpected lawsuit from left-field.

You're absolutely right; I meant to write it from the perspective of having 100% large-cap, which would be quite bizarre for an octogenarian (unless they immortal?). I've amended my answer to make that clearer.

Also, I've realized that I didn't touch upon non-personal investment. That is to say, institutional investors like university or charitable endowments, or sovereign pension funds. The simple answer is that they essentially have an indefinite lifespan, and so play an entirely different game than personal investors or even millionaire/billionaire investors.

To start, I'm assuming you're talking about low-cost index funds tracking the S&P500. All of the "actively managed" funds tracking an index are, IMO, farces designed to extract money for the fund managers rather than delivering value to the (index fund) share holders. A passively-managed index fund is a fairly boring (and cheap) operation to manage, primarily buying and selling shares to keep the same proportions as the tracked index, be it the popular S&P500, the CRSP Total US Market index, or any other imaginable index. The low-cost appears in the very low expense ratio, some measured in single-digit hundreds of 1 percent (eg 0.04% for VTSAX).

As for whether an index fund tracking American large-cap stocks is a "sure fire" investment, absolutely not. Any investment needs to be viewed in terms of its appropriateness, such as being properly diversified (within one's abilities) and the timescale must match one's financial objectives. The conventional adage is that everyone would like to win the lottery, but when pressed for a more specific answer, most would say that they just want to live without worrying about finding an income. That is to say, they're just looking for "enough".

Practical financial advice aims to sustainably achieve "enough", usually framed in terms of retirement but quite frankly, the process works for all sorts of goals, such as saving for higher education for oneself or a child, buying a car, building a marriage dowry, or planning to support aging parents. What's distinct with these scenarios are: the amount needed, and the time remaining to achieve that amount.

For a mid-20s newly-employed knowledge worker (eg mechanical engineer), they have about 40 years until retirement age. Time is a very valuable asset, because time can overcome short-term problems like economic recessions or high interest rates. Even if a recession strikes just prior to turning 65, the nest egg will have grown with 40 years of dividends prior to the recession taking a small haircut. Alternatively, starting one's career in a recession means post-recovery investments will bolster the savings.

The large-cap index funds (like S&P500) are high risk, high reward. For someone with a long time horizon and a good savings rate like a young professional, large-cap makes a lot of sense. But having only large-cap would be wholly inappropriate for a retired octogenarian who just needs to draw a steady income to pay their living expenses. After all, having already gotten so far in life, the meaning of "enough" changed from "high growth of nest egg" to "drawing down the nest". So this retired person would probably have gradually swapped out most their index funds for things like bonds, which pay less in dividends but are steady even through recessions and bad times. But they might still keep a small portion in large-cap, in case they live longer than expected.

For a longer discussion about investing according to one's definition of "enough", I would recommend reading some pages from the Bogleheads community, like this one: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Bogleheads%C2%AE_investment_philosophy

I suspect that PG&E's smart meters might: 1) support an infrared pulse through an LED on the top of the meter, and 2) use a fairly-open protocol for uploading their meter data to the utility, which can be picked up using a Software Defined Radio (SDR).

Open Energy Monitor has a write-up about using the pulse output, where each pulse means a quantity of energy was delivered (eg 1 Watt-hour). So counting 1000 of such pulses would be 1 kWh, and that would be a way to track your energy consumption for any timescale.

What it won't do is provide instantaneous power (ie kW drawn at this very moment) because the energy must accumulate to the threshold before sending a pulse. For example, a 9 Watt LED bulb that is powered on would only cause a new pulse every 6.7 minutes. But for larger loads, the indication would be very quick; a 5000 W dryer would emit a new pulse after no more than 0.72 seconds.

The other option is decoding the wireless protocol, which people have done using FOSS software. An RTL-SDR receiver is not very expensive, is very popular, and can also be used for other purposes besides monitoring the electric meter. Insofar as USA law is concerned, unencrypted transmissions are fair game to receive and decode. This method also has a wealth of other useful info in the data stream, such as instantaneous wattage in addition to the counter registers.

For other people's benefit beyond my own:

RIIR: "Rewrite It In Rust"

OSM can definitely find you a bank near a freeway ramp, but it can also find you a bank near a creek to make an inflatable boat getaway. What it can't do is arrange for decoys to confuse the police while you eacape.

The inflatable boat robber was ultimately caught and sentenced a year later.