Do they? Most cyclists I know do at least a bit of running.

Swimming though…even triathletes think swimmers are nuts.

not counting plugging in cars

fwiw you can get wireless car-mount docks.

Splitting lanes is not legal in the vast majority of the United States but idk where you’re from

Where I am it’s explicitly allowed for motorbikes (at a maximum speed of 30 km/h), thanks to a relatively recent law change. Pushbikes are a different story. There’s no law explicitly allowing it, and this has led to some people (even people in positions of perceived authority, such as the social media team of the Department of Transport and Main Roads) to suggest that it’s not legal for bikes. But the reality is that it is legal, as a necessary side-effect of the fact that cars are allowed to overtake bikes without leaving the same lane. Basically, bikes are allowed to share a lane with another vehicle, and this has the effect of also allowing a bike to come up through congested traffic.

It’s very very rare for me to see a car blow through a red light outright

I find this rather hard to believe. First, remember that an amber light does not mean “be careful” or “get ready, you might have to stop soon”. It means stop right now, if it’s safe. How often have you seen drivers actually do that? I’ve had so many times where, as a driver, I saw the amber and found myself in that awkward position where I didn’t know whether it was appropriate to keep going or to stop, and eventually decided to go through; a situation where it is obviously going to be the case that anyone behind me should stop, because I was on the borderline, so anyone behind me must be well over the other side of the line. And yet, so many times not only has the car behind me gone through, the car behind them did too. And that’s before we even get into the daily cases where they don’t even start to enter the intersection until after it has turned red. I’ve got a mate who rides a motorbike and posts helmet-cam footage on Facebook at least weekly, and every one of his compilations includes at least one case of a driver who runs a fully red light.

For cyclists, recall that there are some places in your own country that explicitly allow cyclists to go through a red light if it’s safe. Not everywhere does (nowhere in Australia, to my knowledge), but those places that allow it do it for a reason. Evidence shows that it makes cyclists safer. Not all lawbreaking is equal, and the evidence pretty clearly tells us that when cyclists break the law, it tends to be for far better reasons than the reasons drivers break the law, even though the rate of lawbreaking is the same.

They’re motorized vehicles when its convenient to them and pedestrians when its not

Almost like…they’re neither? What you describe here is perfectly legal.

They split lanes

Legal

blow through red lights

Imagine thinking cars don’t 🤣

and they loooooove to go out in big groups

Not remotely against the rules

and take over the road

Please define. Because as someone who has spent many hours in a car, I’ve been prevented from going at the speed I would like to go by other cars far more than bikes. And my life has been put in danger by cars, not by bikes.

The simple fact is that data tells us cyclists and drivers break the law at roughly the same rate at worst. (Incidentally, one study from a place with better infrastructure shows that when good infrastructure is in place, cyclists break the law considerably less often than drivers.) Studies also show that cyclists break the law to keep themselves safe (this has been backed up by multiple studies). When drivers break the law, it’s because they think it’s more convenient not to bother.

The simple fact is that though @makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml claims it’s cyclists being “dictators” and you claim they “take over the road”, the reality is quite the reverse. When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. And no demographic in our society (excluding socioeconomic and racial discussions) is more privileged than drivers.

I can’t speak for horses. I’ve only once in my life encountered people on horses while on a bike. It’s an exceedingly unusual scenario.

I can tell you that, as a matter of fact (not anecdote), drivers and cyclists break the law at roughly the same rate. But that in crashes between cars and bikes, the car is the responsible party in 80% of cases. And that studies have established that when cyclists break the law, it is overwhelmingly done in the interest of their own safety, while drivers break the law in the interest of perceived convenience.

I only realised after writing the above that that you mentioned “trails”. Sounds like you’re talking about mountain biking. I can’t speak to that, I’m almost exclusively a roadie, using the bike either as a means of transport or for exercise/training on the road. Saying “you” doesn’t really work here. The amount of overlap between mountain bikers and road bikers is surprisingly small.

Yes. Cars are the bullies and the dictators. But as the famous saying goes, “when you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression”. Drivers like @makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml are pretending that cyclists are the ones being “dictators”, merely for existing, because they perceive that existence as a personal slight against them. Drivers feel entitled, and when that entitlement faces even the slightest pushback, they accuse the others of being dictators.

Would you like to try answering the questions?

I’m still waiting for an answer from @makingStuffForFun@lemmy.ml.

To be clear, at the time I made that comment, every top-level response in this thread had precisely one downvote, apart from two. One had many downvotes (“Most of them”), obviously just not very constructive. The other was this one. It’s obviously the result of some troll.

They’re saying that cars are bigger and stronger than bikes, which makes them able to bully cars, which makes them feel entitled to do so. Because they then feel entitled to the road, they start calling cyclists “dictators” when they are merely using the road.

It’s a shockingly accurate description of behaviour that cyclists face on a daily basis, with drivers threatening their lives for no reason more than that the drivers feel entitled to do so.

Please explain exactly what you mean by “full blown road dictators”, and clearly detail how it is different from “use the road in a completely legal manner in ways trying to keep yourself and others from getting run over by the many car drivers with a sense of entitlement to the road”.

Yeah seriously. It’s pretty severely missed the point of this thread.

Ironic that it looks like someone came through and downvotes every answer in this thread other than this one, considering. It’d be pretty great if the mods banned whoever that was.

Oh damn. I came here to answer this too, but was definitely not expecting someone else already to have said it.

I do HEMA, which has a healthy overlap with the SCA, but from what I’ve heard, the SCA has a pretty rigid structure and hierarchy with ranks and titles. I’ve heard about people winning bouts in SCA fencing against someone who is supposedly ranked higher than them, and getting shunned because of it. That’s not healthy.

Huh? How? There’s no leadership structure to it to provide that cultish vibe, it’s mostly just individuals are small groups of friends doing their thing together.

Man there are way too many IoT standards. What’s the difference between these two? How do they each compare to Matter?

Might it not also depend just on how you define “the production team”? Since editing is often termed “post-production”, it would be reasonable to exclude the editors from the “production team”. To me that term seems more to imply the lighting, cameras, audio, PAs, and other people actually on set, rather than the task writers or editors.

• There Was an Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly
• The Farmer in the Dell
• Le Fermier dans son pré (French version of the above)
• The Wheel of Time
• New Spring

The first three all related to a recent conversation in !vampires@lemmy.zip.

In much simpler terms:

Think of an IP address like a street address. 192 My Street.

There might be multiple businesses at one street address. In real life we address them with things like 1/192 My Street and 2/192 My Street, but there’s no direct parallel to that in computer networks. Instead, what we do is more like directing your letter to say “Business A c/o 192 My Street”. That’s what SNI does.

Because we have to write all of that on the outside of the envelope, everyone gets to see that we’re communicating with Business A. But what if one of the businesses at 192 My Street is highly sensitive and we’d rather people didn’t know we were communicating with them? @bjoern_tantau@swg-empire.de’s proposal is basically like if you put the “Business A” part inside the envelope, so the mailman (and anyone who sees the letter on the way) only see that it’s going to 192 My Street. Then the front room at that address could open the envelope and see that the ultimate destination is Business A, and pass it along to them.

Yeah every 10 years would be good even if you assume they did learn everything correctly the first time and don’t forget anything, just to make sure people are keeping up with changes in the law. I regularly still see people loudly sharing interpretations of the law on social media that haven’t been true for a decade. And then speed it up to every 5 years after 65 to additionally account for senescence.

Life expectancy is a useless metric for this purpose. Maybe it would be more useful if you used “life expectancy at age 10” (so after any childhood illnesses), but even then it doesn’t really say anything about what the process senescence looks like.

Rare Reddit w