If you have to break out special equipment like ladders to service a vehicle, it is no longer consumer-grade.

Lame-brained people who think LLMs are an authority on anything.

You obviously didn’t read my comment and think about it to respond to it, so I guess I owe you the same treatment.

Whether you’re stubborn and love arguing with strangers for no reason or are an actual rage-baiter, I don’t want to waste any more seconds of my life on reading anything you have to say; either way, I hope you get the help you need and enjoy the block.

My question implies that there is no guess that seems reasonable.

Sorry to hear that, but it seems to be a problem unique to you.

Successive 17-year periods is a highly unusual method for measurement, so that doesn’t really make sense. Or am I simply missing something otherwise more obvious?

It’s simply arbitrary. As they say, “it’s not that deep.” There is no standard period for measuring such a thing. 17 is weird, but then what’s less weird about 5, 10, 15, 20, or 50? That they’re evenly divisible by 5?

Why not share that information instead of being condescending?

I wasn’t trying to be condescending, I’m just pointing out that you are the person who has stubbornly refused to make a reasonable conclusion. If that gives offense, perhaps you should consider whether or not your stance makes any sense before decrying someone pointing out that your stance doesn’t make any sense?

If I’m being less pleasant as this conversation goes on, maybe it’s because you keep down-voting all of my replies despite my being cordial in helping you understand why people are dog-piling you?

And if “you all” know that it’s unclear, why not simply agree that it’s unclear in the first place?

… reread that sentence a few times and tell me if it isn’t hilariously ironic to the point I’m starting to think you’re a rage-baiter and heavily considering a block.

On the off-chance you’re not a rage-baiter, here’s why it’s ironic:

You are complaining I did not “agree that it’s unclear in the first place” in spite of the fact that I literally agreed with you in the first message I wrote to you.

As I said, we all know it’s unclear, but the rest of us made a reasonable conclusion as to what they meant.

One of the guys in my police academy class would rib me for being less of a man because I didn’t drive a truck.

A couple months later, he would go on to commit a felony on duty in front of a half dozen of his peers, including me. Nobody bothered to report him but me, even after we had a meeting about someone from a neighboring agency doing nearly the exact same thing that had been fired and arrested for it. Being a brand new deputy, I thought it was an integrity test so I was more than willing to report it. IA dropped the case.

In hindsight, that was a clue I should’ve started applying elsewhere or quit, but I had three more years to put in before I wouldn’t have to pay back my academy pay, not to mention I naively trusted there was some other interpretation of what happened I hadn’t considered that the agency’s brass and legal team had; I wasn’t about to be the Apprentice telling the Master he’s full of shit.

Years later they’d fire me for some complete BS. He still works there as far as I know, and the US Army promoted him to Captain.

No, the problem is you’re taking a very niche stance in service of an interpretation of an ambiguous title that probably meant something entirely different, presumably because you enjoy a fight?

Everyone else but you went with the “probably” instead of this war path you’re on against the person who wrote the title for not being clear enough.

Doubly so if they’re a toddler.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to protest at an abortion clinic because killing children is immoral when a woman does it.

Or worse, motorcycle!

-seethes with rage at the very notion of vehicles with less than four wheels-