Ookami38 @ Ookami38 @sh.itjust.works

Posts

4

Comments

1,596

Joined

2 yr. ago

Any tips on finding an insurance company in your state that doesn't have shareholders? A big part of the insurance issue is that you have to practically be an industry insider to navigate... Anything in insurance, really.

Honestly it sounds like we're describing the same driving style, and I'm just pointing out nuances to the specific wording of the law. And, ultimately, it boils down to, as you said, the driving habits (more than the actual laws) of the area you're in. I do, in fact, live in the states, where those kinds of rules aren't really enforced, and people weave through lanes more or less however they want. In that environment, minimizing your own lane changes is maximizing predictability.

For what it's worth, I don't ever foresee a time where I'll be driving in any other countries, but in that event, yeah, I'll have to adjust a bit, probably.

The most dangerous act while driving on a multi-lane highway is lane changes. When there are entrances/exits every mile or less, I'm not going to merge into the lane that merges with the on ramp, be in the way of people trying to get on, and merge back to the inside in, what, 4 seconds? If I followed that logic, I would be weaving between lanes. Similarly, if I'm in, say lane 3 and actively passing a column of cars, but someone faster is coming up behind - I'm going to merge when it's -safe- to do so. Yes, I could technically squeeze in between two of the cars in the column I'm passing slightly slower than the guy behind me, but that's just not safe. And, if there is a lane further inside, THEY should be merging to get around.

In almost every activity you'll do, there are prescribed "right" ways to do things that usually work, but sometimes require a little bit of an exception. Smooth traffic flow and minimizing dangerous maneuvers is one of those times.

You know, I was tempted to note (US) after the lanes. I see now that people get angry if you don't. The logic still applies though. The first lane is for entering/exiting. The middle are for cruising, driving a steady pace near the speed limit. The inside is for passing.

If there is an open lane to the inside, the person trying to pass someone already doing a reasonable pace should be the one making the change. If there's not, then yeah, the slower vehicle needs to go ahead and move over.

Those people are wrong. On a 3+ lane highway, the right lane is for entering or exiting, the left lane is for passing, and the middle lane(s) is for cruising. Unless you're like, only doing 55 or something, in which case just get off the interstate and take surface streets.

Essentially regenerative braking. Should work, though the question is how coat effective.

Mine is "network unavailable".

Being generous, I could see A use case for translating whatever the customer says (because how often have you known something exists, but not what it's called?) into an actual product and then looking it up in a proper database. This, though, is bound to fail.

Between eulogy and vicarious, they've absolutely got some fitting songs for the time.

He had a lot to say.

He had a lot of nothing to say, we'll miss him.

And unfortunately, one of the only places that are consistently telling young men they AREN'T disgusting, perverse and annoying is the same place that actively makes men into annoying, perverse, disgusting people. For a lot of young men, the only consistent positive reinforcement they receive is from Tate et al. The only ones teaching men (poorly, but still) how to navigate these interpersonal relationships are the ones turning them into pests.

None of this is the individual woman's fault. None of this is the individual man's fault. It's a societal failing, and the only way we're going to fix it is as a society. Men's problems are women's problems, and women's problems are men's problems. We all shape the world we share, and we all have a duty to shape it into a better one, for everyone.

I told this story on here before, but it's relevant.

One day, I was walking around my city with a couple of friends, another guy (M) and a girl (J). We worked together for a while, all generally got along well, killing some time before J had a tattoo appointment. As we're walking around, we find some stickers covering a light pole, including a pretty new "Yes, all men" sticker. J takes a photo of it and starts posting it on Instagram.

Cue a pretty in-depth discussion. I was pretty hurt. Here I was, hanging with a woman who was actively spreading the very narrative we're talking about now. Fortunately, I don't tend to keep company with people I can't chat with about important topics, so I was able to actually explain why, while I get the actual intent of the message, the relevance in the current climate, but also why it's very damaging to everyone in society.

I think about that event a fair bit. It's emblematic of how polarizing the discussions have to be to gain momentum. It has to be all or nothing, or you don't get to build the message. It's in every aspect of life now. Dating, Politics, religion, online discourse... If you're not at the extreme end, buy in fully, then you're at best ignorant and at worst a false flag.

Correct, men are not stupid by default. And yet there is still a very vocal subset of the population that shouts that at every opportunity.

It rarely matters what is actually true. We don't form our opinions of ourselves based on any objective truth. We form them based on what behaviors get reinforced and what behaviors get punished. Regardless of the truth, if the most prominent messaging coming in is "you're bad just because you were born a male" then you'll start to believe it.

I get the feeling that the best interpretation of your message is that you're denying that statement, the "all men are bad" statement. And that's a good thing. We need more people saying "not all men are bad" - but we have to do it in a way that acknowledges why people feel that way. It does no good to say "no one is saying don't approach people ever" when at least a few very loud, very aggressive voices ARE saying that, enough to drown out the majority population with reasonable intentions.

There are definitely a few (almost certainly a vocal minority) women who do say that - to never approach a woman under any circumstances. They're the extreme ones, for sure, but we can't ignore that they exist. Not in an age where everyone has a platform and the extreme positions get clicks.

Another example is the explosion of the manosphere shit. You get one dbag like Tate spreading shit that looks like self help for men. They get popular based on these ideas that seem okay on the surface, but they're really just manipulative, shady, outright illegal, etc. but because they're extreme views, that promise results, and that the target audience really wants to hear, now you can't go anywhere without seeing red/blue pill shit.

Circling back, all it takes is a few people saying and repeating "no approaching women in public EVER" and it spreads. Frustrated women repeat it (not even being literal), more men and women see it, engage with it because it's polarizing, and it grows. It's absolutely not hard to imagine that a lot of men truly believe that most women don't want to be approached ever.

The "sex is impolite" thing... I think that's a lot bigger than a lot of people give credit. I grew up in a non-denominational Christian house in the deep South. The only sex education I got was abstinence only, if you have sex with someone it's basically the same as having sex with every person that person has ever had sex with. Your penis will fall off, her vagina will fall off, and you'll have 37 babies.

Obviously, on an intellectual level, I've rejected all of that. Sex is fine and normal, having multiple partners throughout your life is normal. Your penis and her vagina will be fine, as long as you're careful. No kids if you're careful.

Despite this, for my entire life, sex has just been a thing that you don't talk about. You don't ask for. You're not a friend if you want sex, you're a pest. But also, you can't want sex from someone you've just met, then you're a creep and a pervert. You have to be their friend first, build a relationship and then you can want sex, but remember - you're not a friend if you want sex, so you're just living a lie to get sex. It's a vicious catch 22. One of the biggest driving factors in all animals - sex - and we've moralized it so that we both cannot seek it and must obtain it.

I've got a fair few female friends. Some of them I would not mind having a deeper relationship with. But there's always the struggle. Am I just being nice to get with her? Well, I can't do that - I'd feel like a horrible person. So let's just be friends and ignore the feelings for too long. Let's let her believe we're just friends, nothing more, until I can't ignore it, confess feelings, and - shocker - that's not a recipe for a relationship.

We're all products of our environment. I can recognize a lot of the factors that have led me to having the mentality that I do. Unfortunately, the environments for so many of us are just not good ones. It feels like every major force in our lives is pushing us towards isolation. The problem isn't men, isn't women, it's all just fucked. The whole thing needs an overhaul.

I legit used to work with a lady who would do that. Her dad trolled her with an onion he told her was a weird apple as a kid. She loved it and just kept eating them. She was an interesting individual. In the best way.

If he's stable that explains the horse shit...

Nah, not my job. I don't claim to have any better solutions, I just know that for almost every problem we've ever solved, we probably haven't found the MOST efficient solution. People should be questioning everything, even the most basic, because that's how stuff gets better.

Pretty short-sighted take. Sure, they worked for centuries, and still work today. Lots of things worked for centuries, still worked, and were still replaced by a better thing. Henry Ford famously said that, if he asked the consumers what they wanted, they'd have said faster horses. Just because something works doesn't mean it's the best way, or the way that makes the most sense. Change can be scary, but it's not inherently bad.