Gorgritch_Umie_Killa

She is telling you how she goes about making decisions i.e. deferring to authority.

This is really insightful. Thanks.

Welcome!!! Come over to Aussie Zone for a banter anytime you like!

So, further to mu previous comment, no you shouldn’t need to create an account on each instance you want to explore. At best creating an account on the instance might make navigability better.

Mastodon is single developer

I think he has a few people with him now. But i listened to the interview at the start of the year, so i’m starting to the detail.

Exploring instances should be as easy as looking up any other website. At least to get their ‘local’ front page. Or just navigate to them through that link above.

As an example you could look up jlai.lu, a french instance. They’re pretty active.

No idea on Mastodon myself. I’ve heard a couple interviews of the developer, seems like a cool guy. But thats about all i can say.

I’s playing round with this instance and community finder the other night, works really well. Might be useful to find a more active community that you’ll enjoy.

https://lemmyverse.net/communities

The instance could be a problem if you scroll through the ‘local’ feed often and thats where you see a lot of things you don’t wish to see. A European or special interest instance might suit your context, (Portuguese?), better.

I spend more time on my ‘local’ (aussie zone) feed than ‘subscribed’ or ‘all’ and its definitely nicer, so a move like this can work.

But you could also optimise your own ‘subscriber’ feed as another option.

A roadway allowed multiple speeds across the lanes could be how to get around this.

If the citizens of a transport zone don’t like the rules as they stand, ie, one single speed for all lanes, they should lobby to vary them.

Apart from cases where multiple speeds happen, the speed limit is the speed limit, the person behind contravenes rules if they speed, use the shoulder, etc. They’re in the wrong, they have agency, and decide to cause the unsafe situation.

The person ahead, as that video showed to the tune of straight funktown, may cause worsened traffic conditions, but they’re not the people being dangerous on the road. (Assuming they are going within the range of the expected limit)

1. Often people use those lanes to speed. If a car ahead is overtaking at or within a reasonable range of the speed limit, but not at the speed the speeder wants to travel. The speeder must be patient, they don’t get to dictate what manoeuvres are happening ahead.

2. The argument you present at the end isn’t logical,

… Always do the safest thing.

I can largely agree with this sentiment, but you say before,

People who sit in lane 3 at 69mph are breaking the law and likely to cause an accident by forcing people to pass on the wrong side out of frustration (yes illegal but they will do it)…

If undercutting is the most unsafe thing for the person behind to do in the situation, then as your sentiment captures, the frustrated party undercutting are still in the wrong.

They are in the wrong because, they have failed to ‘always do the safest thing’ in the given situation.

3. Never be the reason someone else does something stupid on the road.

Nice sentiment again, but it implicitly assigns a rigid cause and effect regime to a situation where the ‘frustrated party’ behind has their own agency and likely as much training. There is no necessity that they undercut, it is a choice the party behind makes. The cause does not necessitate that effect, at best it could contribute.

In essence the sentiment shifts the blame from the person causing a potential accident (the undercutter), to the person ahead who, at worst, is causing poor traffic conditions.

Speed limit is the speed limit. End of.

If someone wants to go above the speed limit in the fast lane, then they’re contravening road rules.

No matter what social norm people believe there to be, it doesn’t have precedence over the speed limits.

In a case where the the car in front is going slower than the speed limit, it would be good etiquette though to move over.

Khan Academy

Pick, place looks good, cheers.

Ooh! The Kākā looks good. Shall be checking out.

I enjoy a podcast or two, and i only see a few here i know, so heres a few favourites that i didn’t see yet,

Battleground: Ukraine, podcast that was being started about historical battles at the same time as the march on Kyiv happened. They pivoted and have kept abrest of events weekly since then. Its been very valuable during times the rest of the media aren’t covering it.

Age of Napoleon, an all time favourite, Everett Rummage is a well researched unassuming host. His excursion into the history of Haiti and its ties to the Napoleonic era is some of the best podcast hours i’ve ever spent.

Philosophize This, Stephen West is the happiest podcaster in a state that most philosophers would refer to as alive. He has gone through so many philosophers from all ages and gives them all a fair go.

Capitalisn’t, Bethany Mclean and Luigi Zingales take an issue with the capital system today, interview an expert, and discuss.

Debunking Economics, Welcome to the mind of economist Steve Keen. The most heterodox economist kicking goals today. Slightly MMT but has some disagreements, and shines a new lense over the field of economics.

Dot Social, Interview Podcast for the fediverse curious. Don’t know if anybody here would be interested in that kind of thing though…

Rest is Politics UK/US, both UK and US ones are great. These political current affairs podcasts are hosted by former political insiders. Their insights are valuable, even if you disagree with them. The podcasts motto is “disagree agreeably”. Rory Stewart and Allastair Campbell’s discussion on the Iraq War was an extremely poignant and honest moment and is well worth listening.

Climate Deniers Playbook, Same guy from Climate Town on YouTube, but even more annoying because he’s right there in your ear holes telling you about all the ways Big Oil is going out of its way to fuck you, and specifically you, over.

The Tally Room, Ben Raue interviews a guest or two on Australasian elections. He analyses and discusses the electoral possibilities in upcoming elections, and historical electoral practices. This is not a politics podcast, its an election analysis podcast. Therefore he generally only strays into the policies of a certain party as it impacts on the electoral outcomes of the government area in question.

I hope theres some podcasts in there that interest people.

He bought it because he was going to be forced to https://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-did-elon-musk-agree-080448660.html

I really dislike how this fact is being forgotten. There is no ‘big brain’ conspiracy going on here he got caught out making an offer that he didn’t actually mean to be taken seriously. The rest has been making the best, for himself, of a bad situation.

Also this article only gets to the really interesting question in the last twenty words or so. ‘Why are people still on there?’ Thats the analyses good journalists could be focusing on.

But what is America without US? /s

I’d rather chill in the spirit world. Maybe spend a few years lost in the fog of lost souls, go hang with Hei Bai, attack some rando’s cause someones been breakin trees, end most nights catching up on some reading at Wan Shi’s library. I’d avoid the face stealer, cause that ones a dick! Probably drop in on Iroh once in a while for an injection of wisdom in my life.

Spirit world is where its at.

Glad to see someone has mentioned this. Huge gains in time in the day for a huge part of the population.

Everytime i go for a walk i see something new that i haven’t noticed before.

Doing what to casual observater seems like the same thing over and over again, can actually be the process of developing a deeper understanding of the subject area than before, (in this case your local neighbourhood).

Look random people on the street might find it a fun interlude to their day :) I know you weren’t completely though due to the personal example you referred to a couple comments back.

However, you didn’t specify a method, said brother-in-law enters into the political discussions. From an outsider’s perspective, (me), there was no indication.

Also,

will also

I used these words in my first reply, not to deny your experience, but to add to it. The general nature of the word,

people,

in that part of your comment followed by an absolute statement spurred my entry. I think it’s important to highlight varied reasons people have for doing the same things.

You spoke in one part of the comment generally, the other part specifically. My reply attempted to accept your specific experience, while engaging in the general discussion indicated about ‘general people’ happening alongside it.

While i find your derogatory comments about concussed goldfish disappointingly predictable, the point is by saying ‘both sides are the same’ or ‘both are as bad as the other’ isn’t really a political opinion.

Its a statement that withdraws from engaging in the differences in party positions on specific subject or policy positions by broad brushing them as the same.

For instance, a flounder might say to a butterfly fish, that, goldfish (concussed or not), are all the same, just to stop talking to the butterfly fish and get out of its reef! :)