I think what is considered acceptable strongly depends on where you live to be honest. Driving while druk (a felony offense in most places) is extremely frowned upon by the general public. At least, it is where I live.
Although I do get where you are coming from in terms of other behaviors, there's a reason traffic violations are the most ticketed offenses in just about any country.
I'm not saying or suggesting that it's a pedestrian, cyclist, driver, or anyone else's sole responsibility to stay safe. In fact, I strongly believe the "stronger" party has an outsized responsibility to make sure they act safely and not endanger other road users.
All I'm advocating for is for all participants to be vigilant and not assume right of way will be honored by the other party.
Ultimately, only you can keep you safe. Don't assume anyone is flawless. Regardless of where you are driving a car, walking, cycling, etc. people can and will make mistakes, miss something, or forget to check.
"I had the right of way" makes a terrible headstone slogan.
I really, really, appreciate seeing someone not dig their heels in at the sight of downvotes and actually continuing the conversation to learn about the other perspective.
Kudos to you, and thank you for reminding me why I hate Reddit and other social media where opinions are unchangeable and there is no grey between black and white.
They'd honestly get away with it too if they did it in French. The average MAGA voter doesn't exactly strike me as multilingual.
It could be used for cyberstalking, but it's not expressly built for that use case I think. All it does is spit out sites that have a matching user name on file. It's actually quite useful for periodic social media / account cleanup to check for account you created for one reason or another and no longer need / have grown dormant.
In that sense it's similar to something like Mine.
The problem with these laws (and many others to be fair) is that "right to work" sounds great at face value. If you don't look past the name/description of the law, why would you be against people's right to work?
If, however, they named these laws what they are, "lose you collective bargaining rights laws", I'm pretty sure lots more people would be against them.
It's the same thing as "pro life" legislation. Who would be against life, right? But call it what it is, "forced birth", and suddenly it sounds a lot less appealing.
Right. So it's less "rape her until she's happy about climate change" and more "rape her so she shuts up and knows her place"?
Because that does make sense to me, it's just an expression of violence against those you disagree with.
They're not intent on "fixing" her like those weirdos who think you can "fix" LGBTQ people with rape, but good old misogyny expressed through threats of sexual violence.
Man, now that I wrote that out it's even more depressing.
Yeah, I'd heard that bullshit before, but at least there's at least some relationship between sex and sexual preference/orientation/expression. Not saying I'm agreeing or condoning that sort of thinking, but I can say least somewhat connect the caveman dots there.
I'm just stuck on how is raping someone going to make them be okay with a climate apocalypse. I can't logically tie those two things together, and I'm actually kind of scared of the mental gymnastics required to get to this point.
I'm probably overthinking it to a level beyond the amount of thought the people that came up with it put into their position though.
"Rape Greta until she's happy about climate change" what the fuck? Did someone seriously make that argument?? What the fuck is wrong with these people? How does causing additional trauma fix anything?
Yeah, I am 100% with you on the need for investment in infrastructure. The reason Norway is so successful is because they both set hard deadlines on the sale of gasoline and diesel powered vehicles and simultaneously heavily invested in infrastructure and incentives to remove older vehicles from the road.
That said, having owned multiple BEV vehicles (in what's arguably the middle of nowhere, BC) the issues with cold and lack of charging infrastructure are largely overestimated by the buying public. To the point of feeling like an excuse rather than an actual reason. People that actually try to live with a BEV for their daily transportation will find that, by and large, charging at home and driving to where you need to be and back is perfectly doable and will cover 99% of your yearly transportation needs. Even in temperatures down to -35, your EV is going to function just fine, and your range will get you where you need to be and back.
So, unless you are going on a 300km+ trip every day (which the vast majority of Canadians don't do on a daily basis, statistically speaking) you'll very likely be fine with a BEV. And, just in case you are wondering, if you do need to drive those 300km+ trips often within BC you will find a charger within 300km of the previous one, pretty much regardless of where you are (see: https://pluginbc.ca/charging/finding-stations/).
I honestly feel that too many people repeat the above factors (which are real and should be addressed by both the government and car manufacturers respectively) without having actually tried to live with a BEV.
That's such a great depiction of Alberta's politics it's both funny and tragic at the same time. Alberta (and SK for that matter) could be leading the nation in non-hydro renewables if they let the market decide, but for some reason the O&G industry needs to continue to be propped up. If only they could see the opportunity staring them in the face.