Just going to ignore everything I said that proves you wrong? OK, you do you and keep being wrong, I’ll keep driving legally and keep my perfect driving record.

The only good thing about all this I suppose is I learned not needing to use turn signals in turn only lanes is a unique thing to my state, it seems like most other states do require them.

Anyway if all you’re going to do is keep saying wrong and re-quote the same debunked statement there’s not really anything left to say.

Turn signals are required, but not in a turn only lane. The question asked and answered wasn’t what’s being talked about here. Also it’s trivially demonstrable that turn signals are not required “anytime you are changing direction” in your vehicle otherwise you’d be constantly turning them off and on just driving down any random road as it curves back and forth. They’re required when you depart one lane for a different one. In a turn only lane you never depart the lane, it just becomes another lane. Finally quoting cops is a terrible defense as cops are per court decisions not actually required to know the law which is super fucked up, but that’s an entirely different discussion.

The clauses apply if the first one does which it doesn’t. Since you’re never turning from a direct course you don’t need to signal in the manner the following clauses describe. Since you’re never leaving the direct course, there’s no need to signal otherwise you’d need to use your turn signal every time you turn the wheel on your car even if you’re just following the road (which is what you’re doing in a turn only lane). You need to signal when entering the turn lane, but once in the lane you’re just following the lane (the direct course) and therefore don’t need to signal.

Yes because it’s irrelevant. The first clause failing means subsequent clauses don’t apply. Because a signal isn’t necessary it doesn’t matter how far back you don’t signal for.

The only law in my state that requires usage of turn signals states this:

No person may turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided, in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.

The key there is “direct course”. The direct course in a dedicated turn lane is the turn, so no signal is required. If it’s a turn or straight lane it is required as in that case the direct course is straight.

I stated there wasn’t a law.

You can’t prove a negative. You cite the law that says you need to use a turn signal in a turn only lane. Or are you full of shit?

Ah, OK might be a Canadian thing then. There is no law in the US that requires usage of a turn signal in a turn only lane. I didn’t pull a law from my ass, you’re pulling one from yours, or rather I’m talking about US law and it seems you’re talking about Canadian.

What law, that’s the point, no law requires usage of a turn signal in a turn only lane. There is no law that requires that and a driving test is testing that you’re following the laws. It’s the same as if you turned on your turn signal in a straight lane and then didn’t change lanes.

No it isn’t, you’re not required by law to use a turn signal in a turn only lane. If I was giving a driving test I’d fail you for using a turn signal in the turn only lane as it demonstrates you don’t know the law.

You don’t need them in turn only lanes, but otherwise yes, use the damn turn signals.

In a normal military this would be a pretty big deal, but Russia has long used the strategy of “keep throwing bodies at them until you win”. That’s also likely the reason their navy and air force are a joke as that strategy doesn’t work so well when you have a finite number of craft to send those bodies on. There’s a reason that Ukraine’s tiny well trained military has been able to use guerrilla tactics to wipe the floor with Russia’s military.

So unfortunately this is likely to make little if any difference, Putin will just find a new piece of meat to stuff into that uniform and then kick him towards the front line. What does make a huge difference though is every time they manage to destroy a piece of Russian hardware (be that a boat, plane, tank, or artillery) as Russia has a very hard time replacing those unlike their practically unlimited supply of cannon fodder.

TACO.

The platform is a tool, and like most tools it can be used for both good and evil. I agree it’s making the problem significantly worse, but hyper focusing on just the platforms while ignoring the people using them doesn’t seem like the right approach either. I don’t know how to preserve the positive aspects of platforms like Facebook, TikTok, and Youtube while also preventing them from being abused to spread hate and lies. I feel like there must be something that can be done to at least improve the situation a little. The various “community notes” features I don’t think were a terrible first step, although they’re also far from a solution. It’s a complicated problem with a lot of potential pitfalls, but one I think is going to be critical to solve and soon because the problem isn’t going away, as long as we have an internet it’s here to stay.

TL;DR: of that whole thing boils down to “the problem is too hard to solve and all the solutions are worse than the problem so don’t even try”. I don’t agree with the premise because if we accept it, then democracy is doomed.

We can not have a functioning society when we can’t even get a majority of the citizens to agree on basic aspects of reality and half the people are convinced the other half are lizard people that are putting mind control drugs in the water supply. A functioning democracy requires an informed and educated populace, and unchecked propaganda, disinformation, and conspiracy theories lead to the opposite of that, particularly when you have a wealthy group that profits from spreading it.

You’re both right which is the real conundrum. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that conspiracy theories and propaganda in our hyperconnected social media fueled internet are incredibly dangerous and rot the foundations of democracy. Democracy can not survive if these kinds of things are left unchecked. By the same token however any mechanism that immediately springs to mind to combat them is ripe for abuse and easily subverted by fascists and totalitarians. I honestly don’t know what the solution is, only that we desperately need one.

I actually had that happen once.

Bold of you to assume the MAGATs (including the felon in chief) are smart enough to understand the implied threat/warning.

That does raise an interesting question though. What would happen to those treaties if Canada decided to officially become fully independent of the crown? I don’t think anything is really stopping that from happening other than there not really being a significant upside for Canada.

Also side question, is the king (and I guess the entire royal family) considered a citizen of Canada and all the other countries that apparently never really got their independence from England? That’s got to be incredibly weird for someone marrying into the royal family. “Congratulations you married a royal, here’s your new citizenship to a dozen different countries most of which you’ve probably never set foot in before”.

Well, I suppose that’s kind of like the ultimate veto, “you suck at this so much you’re all fired”. How many times has that actually happened?