hitmyspot

joined 2 years ago
[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago

Those roads already have a lower speed limit. I think the geography of the landscape and the neighbouring properties does not allow them to be more visible without loss of scenery.

Roads are designed for transport. Cars can be fatal. It's all well and good to say we should be safer but is wearing appropriate clothing when walking in a shared car pedestrian zone really be that onerous?

We already require the cars to have multiple safety standards to aid pedestrians and visibility. Cyclists are required to wear helmets in many places etc.

I am finding it odd that many comments talk about pedestrian freedom, yet jaywalking is illegal in many places but not in Ireland, where people can use their personal judgement and the cars are held responsible.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone -4 points 1 week ago (3 children)

Like seatbelts, of it saves lives and is harmless, then why not. If no lives are saved, nobody is worse off. If one life is saved, it's worth it. Like seatbelts laws, the idea is a change in thinking not to fine people for non compliance.

I doubt it will become mandatory. It seems more like a thought bubble. Ireland used to have very high road death figures but has worked hard to change that.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 59 points 1 week ago (28 children)

It should be noted that in rural areas, many roads are unlit and quite winding. Ireland has very high road density with lots of minor roads. Many people walk on these roads which have no path. Use of lights and reflective or hi vis clothing is sensible and already common.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 5 points 1 week ago

A burrito is a little donkey. You've been identified as a mule, helping illegal crossings. You will now be transferred to a facility to hold foreigners before deportation.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 6 points 1 week ago

So, white?

It also might be because he's afraid of her, more than the others. They have huge followings too, but Taylor Swift has been able to call her followers into action.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 4 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Ok, but just so you know, your taco is economic downturn with added uncertainty, and erosion of civil liberties instead.

Would you like a side of fascism or civil war?

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 14 points 1 week ago

There is still disputed land: Northern Ireland.

Ireland has seen where this goes and it is likely why they are one of the European countries most critical of Israel. Ireland recognizes genocide and colonialism and lies at the state level.

The Republic of Ireland have up all claims to northern Ireland as part of the peace process. All terrorists were given amnesty on both sides. If it's in their interest to keep fighting to stay out of jailz they will.

It is a fine line between punishing war crimes and crimes against humanity, and allowing everyone to move forwards. Israe and paesinel are far from there.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 4 points 1 week ago

Perhaps you’d enjoy the tv show Six Fewt Under. It’s a family drama set in a family that happen to own a funeral home. It deals with death and loss and trauma and personal growth and happiness.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago (3 children)

SpoilerWinning a trick is like winning a round. It’s just a card game term. I don’t think it’s so much old fashioned, more that card games are less popular.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 16 points 1 week ago (1 children)

It gets the stoner comedy reputation as the dude is stoned throughout. He's a character in the movie though, not then full tone. That's probably why it's so good. It blends so many genres with an interesting interweaving plot and wonderful dialogue.

It's a deserved reputation as it's great to watch stoned. Especially when the dude is confused and so are you. Or the psychedelic sequences. However it's also not deserved as it's so much cleverer than that with differen levels. A stoner comedy doesn't normally have a coherent plot and levels.

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 2 points 1 week ago

Hard to say. Could be either as I wouldn't expect grammar to be fully correct in a fast food establishment, especially if it's temporary.

If cards are not accepted at the register, cash only is appropriate. However, of the.kiosks don't allow cash, then cash can only be used there.

If it's the former, it would be easier to say no card payment at register, or change the word order to 'Only cash taken at register' If it's the latter a comma would help: 'Cash, only at register'.

Cash,

[–] hitmyspot@aussie.zone 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

His upside down bible and bigotry.

view more: ‹ prev next ›