Turn signal or not, you shouldn’t be pulling out in front of them. You should be assuming they are turning into a driveway after the intersection, or that they mistook your intersection for the next one down the road, or that they left their turn signal on from a lane change 5 miles back.
Turn signals are lies until conclusively proven otherwise.
I want to equip my vehicle with an annoyingly loud external speaker so that when someone near me does something dumb, I can personally shame them.
CB radios often had a “PA” switch that sent your microphone audio to a loudspeaker under the hood.
I’d prefer a “FlameThrower” button next to the horn.
Ah. I see. They are emitting a green light, so I know they’re braking, and it’s OK to cross.
But, it turns out that they’re planning on turning into a driveway past the intersection, and not into the intersection I am crossing.
That’s OK. I can check “impersonate a hood ornament” off my bucket list.
We already have this problem with turn signals: there are circumstances where it would be confusing and dangerous to use them in the manner prescribed by law, and to avoid dangerous ambiguity, they should actually be used much later than the law specifies.
YOU SHOULDNT GET IN FRONT OF ANYTHING YOU ARENT SURE IS STOPPING
This, exactly. This “plan” sounds terrible to me.
No, I’m not braking to turn at the intersection you’re sitting in. I’m turning into a driveway just past that intersection. If you pull in front of the green light the government says I have to have on my vehicle, I’m going to t-bone you.
“The math is somewhat different” does not give adequate consideration to the importance.
That 777 I mentioned? The fuel weight on a maximum range flight is more than twice its remaining payload capacity. Fuel weight is the primary consideration you need to be looking at. The efficiency gains from charging batteries (relative to electrically-produced fuel) cannot justify the losses from their constant weight.
Some estimates say that between electrolysis, transportation and fuel cell conversion it’s almost twice as bad in terms of energy efficiency, so you ultimately need double the energy for the same thing.
Only twice? Then its not even a contest. I was assuming fuel production was 1/10th as efficient conversion as battery charging.
The typical issue with fuel cells is not energy density, it is the fact that you need to waste a lot of energy to regenerate and transport the fuel.
I’ve never understood that thinking. Yes, it takes energy to produce fuel. So what? We started with a form of energy that couldn’t be stored and transported, and converted it to a form that could be. That’s the entire point.
So, overall, you’ll need to spend much more energy (= both recurring and upfront costs) compared to running battery-powered transportation if you want to make it a close cycle similar to batteries.
That’s not actually true.
A 777 can carry up to 320,000 pounds of fuel, which gives it a 9000 mile range. It will land about 300,000 pounds lighter than it took off.
Build an electric version of the 777. Put enough batteries on board to make a 9000 mile flight, and it will weigh the same amount on landing as it did on takeoff. It carries the whole load for the whole flight.
Put that original 777 on the 2600 mile flight from LA to New York, and it doesn’t need a full fuel load. You can drop 200,000 pounds of fuel, and add 200,000 pounds of payload.
The e777 will still have the same weight of batteries needed for that 9000 mile flight.
Swap out the batteries with fuel cells, and you can take on an optimal, sub-maximal fuel load for your shorter flights, radically improving total efficiency over batteries.
You are defending someone
Most of the people here are rebutting your general claim that self defense is only available to the unarmed. Those rebuttals don’t constitute support for this woman.
If you are armed you can force them to leave through threats
I am making a general comment on your argument, and not specific to this case. Like most of the arguments directed at you in this thread, My comments should not be construed as support for this woman in this particular case.
You are conflating “threat” and “force”. They are distinct. A “threat” is an attempt to influence the subject’s decision to act, by making them fear a future action. “Force” is a physical action imposed on the subject.
A threat is something intended to convince the subject to decide to act in a particular way. Force is when the subject’s choices are removed, and their body is physically manipulated against their will.
Force can also be a threat, but a threat alone is not force. Holding a knife to your neck and demanding your wallet is force (your neck is being physically manipulated against your will) and a threat (you are being coerced into giving up your wallet).
There are six generalized criteria for defensive force. A person who 1. Reasonably Believes an imperiled person faces a 2. Credible, 3. Criminal, 4. Imminent, 5. Sufficient threat (sufficient = “death or grievous bodily harm”) may use any level of force 6. Necessary to stop that threat.
When you articulate your arguments about this specific case using the above terminology, you will find that your opinion is shared by the overwhelming majority. There is very little support in this thread for her self defense argument.
An armed person theoretically has a greater capacity of force than an unarmed person, but threats made be an unarmed person can certainly justify a forceful response by the armed person.
Sufficient storage capacity to meet overnight needs is going to be a challenge; storage to meet seasonal production variation is impossible. To make solar feasible, we need to build out sufficient generation capacity to meet our needs in winter. Winter, with, perhaps, 9-hours of mostly overcast skies and low angles over the horizon.
Imagine the output of that same system in summer: 15 hours of high-angle daylight and mostly clear skies. The summer output of that facility will be at least 400% its winter productions.
The solar economy needs absurdly massive electrical loads in summer that can be readily shed over winter. We may see fleets of factory ships, loaded with electrolysis equipment, plugging into grids on whichever side of the equator is currently experiencing summer.
Go ask a criminal attorney if there’s a self defense claim
If you had ever followed that advice, you wouldn’t be repeating this nonsense. You would have learned the 6 general criteria required for a self defense claim, and that none of those criteria require the defender to be less-well-armed than the attacker.
This subject is too serious for your uninformed opinion. PM me your zip code, and I would be happy to find you a class on the laws regulating self defense.
Yes, as the armed person you do not have any claim of self defense against an unarmed person.
This is absolutely false. Arming yourself does not prevent you from making a claim of self defense against an unarmed attacker. “Being armed” does not negate your claim.
Armed vs unarmed is not a definitive factor in a self defense case. The criteria are that a defender who 1. reasonably believes they face a 2. credible, 3. criminal, 4. imminent, 5. threat of death or grievous bodily harm, may use any level of force 6. necessary to stop that threat.
Reasonable belief, credible threat, criminal threat, imminent threat, sufficient threat, necessity of force.
An unarmed attacker can, indeed, generate all six criteria required to justify lethal force in self defense.
The jury doesn’t seem to think that happened in this particular case, but it certainly can happen and has happened. Please don’t repeat that nonsense that it can’t.
You claim the postal worker attacked the woman. I’m not finding any information about that. What was the nature of this “attack”?
I want a better world,
Yet you only promote the second-worse world available. Curious.
Conservatism is a disease.
I think the conservative approach you are displaying here is emblematic of the last federal election cycle: pissed off at the direction of travel, but unwilling to actually move forward.
I will notice that you have you to make any public statement toward any of the superior options presented to you, nor have you presented your own. To date, your only comments on alternatives to the second-worst option that you do support has been to denounce the intentions of such proponents as trying to make children suffer.
This is the hill I have been talking about the entire time. This is a particularly stupid hill. The only path off of this hill is back the way you came.
I will advocate for the better
I won’t hold my breath.
this government
What government are you talking about?
This isn’t a federal issue. This is state and local. There are 48 state governments and thousands of county and municipal governments involved in decisions on fluoridated water and public health.
Your heel-dragging approach does not call for improvement, just slowing the regression. You have been exposed to several options in this thread for improvement, by me and several others. You have yet to promote any of them. You are continuing to try to drag your feet rather than promote improvement.
Fluoridated salt is a massive improvement over fluoridated water. Promote fluoridation of salt. Fluoridated toothpaste is a massive improvement over fluoridated water. Promote toothpaste.
For preventing caries, fluoridated water is actually the second worst option, in that it is only marginally better than doing absolutely nothing.
Stop promoting mediocrity. Demand better.
It actually works much better in salt: your teeth are exposed to higher concentrations of fluoride for longer periods of time, yet you consume less total fluoride. Plenty of countries fluoridate salt much like we iodize it.
You’re still advocating the status quo. You are not advocating the “solution”.
Instead of actively advocating for improvement, you’re actively advocating dragging our feet against Republicans advancing their agenda. You’re advocating slowing their regression. You’re not advocating progress yourself. You’re only trying to slow them down.
You accuse me of missing the point; I assure you, I haven’t. I am very well aware that harm will arise if no alternative is enacted. I am trying to redirect your attention toward superior alternatives, but you seem hell bent on buttressing the status quo rather than seeking improvement. You’re playing a weak defense. You need to go on the offensive.
Fluoridated Salt. Toothpaste. Universal healthcare. I keep throwing out vastly superior options, and you keep coming back to the status quo.
Pivot toward progress. They want to kill off a program. What would you need them to agree to before yoy would be willing to let it go?
Fluoridated water only benefits neglected kids. If we didn’t have neglected kids, we wouldn’t need fluoridated water. What can we do to ensure kids aren’t neglected? Let’s pivot to that. Let’s demand that.
They can get their “win” on something that doesn’t matter, and we can get our win on something that actually does.
Progress. To hell with the status quo.
They theoretically could come from tap water. Reservoirs of treated water can be open to the atmosphere, and accessible to wildlife. Chlorine and dilution mitigate most of the risk, but not all of it.