You have an old favorite team-up of Germany and Japan?

Talking to other people is part of what I mean by seeking things out. If you do all you can to avoid ads, along with the 99% that are useless you also block the 1% that you might actually find useful.

For example; I recently heard about this show from a friend that is right up my alley. When I looked up a trailer it’s the kind of thing that seeing a commercial once would have caught my eye and ensured I watch it. She was surprised I hadn’t heard of it because it’s on a network with a few shows she knows I like and they’ve been pimping it pretty hard for a while. Because I block the bullshit I either have to hope cool stuff comes up in conversation or seek out new stuff elsewhere.

Where on lemmy did I suggest that?

I’m not sure where on earth you got the impression that I thought that.

Every second or third post on Lemmy is about privacy or ad-blocking or piracy or pi-holes or bitching about ad injection.

Not that any of that is a bad thing. (The bitching isn’t bad, the things are.)

But you can’t be surprised when you don’t hear about shit. When you reclaim your eye-holes from Madison avenue you need to seek things out.

Hopefully the big studios doing shit like this leads to a resurgence of true indie cinema. I won’t hold my breath for it, but I’ll hope.

I imagined work as a building with a big neon sign out front that said “work”.

Shit, I don’t even think it has to be subtle. People emigrate all the time for a variety of reasons. And most of them are much less compelling than “I’m surrounded by people who might decide to murder my entire family any day.”

They have no responsibility to stick it out and take the risk just because other people, including myself, don’t want to see the settlers win.

It seems like it was just yesterday some would bring up some millennial kids bullshit and someone else would respond; “you know they’re all adults now, right?”

Now it’s starting to happen with zoomers?

I don’t know where I was going with this. I’m going to go take my Geritol now.

I don’t know if they’re still around, but when I was a kid and ATMs were still kind of new there were drive thrus at banks where you interacted with a teller using a speaker and a pneumatic tube for sending/receiving.

My mom would let me operate the tube from the back seat, I thought it was cool as shit.

So we’re both in agreement that driving too fast is irresponsible.

But you think diving an unlighted buggy at night is fine. And furthermore, if that unlighted buggy gets in an accident with a car, it’s definitely the driver of the car obeying all the laws at fault, never the fault of the buggy driving scofflaw.

Nope, doesn’t sound like dogmatic culty thinking to me at all.

BTW: the appeal to authority fallacy is no better than a straw man. Much like traffic laws, they’re all important.

Lol, nice straw man.

Hey, let me ask you a few questions.

What if the next law these fucking jerks decide they don’t want to follow is driving on the right? You come to one of the bends you go around and instead of a deer standing there, or a fallen tree, there are two horses pulling a carriage toward you making the combined speed too high to stop in time. Your hood takes out their legs and a couple thousand pounds of house torso blasts through your windshield killing you and your family.

Are you and your deceased family victims now? Or is the victim still somehow the asshole driving the carriage who miraculously always remains blameless just because they’re not driving a car?

What does fuck cars mean to you?

To me it means drastically reducing the share of infrastructure and space given to the operation and storage of cars by improving public transportation and cycling/pedestrian friendly infrastructure to reduce, or even eliminate, the need for personal motor vehicles larger than an E-Bike in most, or even all cases.

Based on your comments “fuck cars” is just a mantra. A mantra you’ve repeated often enough to inspire a religious-like conviction that the driver of a motor vehicle is always at fault when they come in conflict with any other road user, no matter how ridiculous it makes you sound.

I suppose you could try to pass laws against animals or fallen trees in the roadway. I don’t know how successful that might be. Fining a bear for being in the road also presents challenges.

Using a road in any way is never going to be completely safe. All we can do is make rules that reduce or eliminate known hazards.

We’re not taking about a deer being a deer. We’re talking about a group of stubborn dickheads who despite knowing damn well that they’re sharing the road with vehicles that have large speed differentials, refuse to make themselves visible for the benefit of everyone’s safety.

The victim is the person injured or killed by someone committing an illegal act. Not the person acting illegally.

They have a very good chance of seeing me while I’m cycling because I’m lighted. If I’m forced to walk on the road at night without a light I’ll stay out of the roadway when cars are coming. Doing otherwise would be stupid, just as stupid as driving an unlighted vehicle with a significant speed differential at night.

I don’t necessarily disagree. But someome using the road legally needs be able to assume others are too. If you can’t, what do you do? Walking, riding a bike, or driving do you stop at every green light to make sure no one is going to decide the red lights don’t apply to them? Do you idle down the road at 10mph whenever it’s dark or there is reduced visibility to make sure someone didn’t decide the laws don’t apply to them and drove an unlighted vehicle?

The most important thing about using a road safely, whether you’re walking, riding, or driving, is to be predictable. A large unlighted vehicle appearing out of the darkness is not predictable.

If you think the law should be changed and some other accommodation made, that’s a reasonable opinion. But until that happens, the person injured or killed by illegal activity is the victim, not the person acting illegally.

They’re not using it legally, hence the legal proceedings.

By victims I assume you mean unsuspecting drivers coming across a dark, unlighted vehicle in the road at night who could be injured or killed by an accident or swerving to avoid one, right?

There were normal diplomatic disagreements that all allies have. And consider the source of that statement. Yeltsin’s critics would have included any anti-democratic groups. This was a period of unprecedented cooperation and trust that was growing until Russia turned its back.

Before Russia did their heel turn in the aughts, they almost joined NATO after a period of significant cooperation. Russia seeing the U.S., or it’s allies, as enemies is a symptom of Putin turning a fledgling democracy into a dictatorship, not the natural state of affairs.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia–NATO_relations

Go to the “Development of post-Cold War cooperation (1990–2004)” section and check out “NATO-Russia Founding Act”, “NATO-Russia Permanent Joint Council”, and “NATO-Russia Council”.

Back then the talk was pearl clutching over NATO with Russia being seen as some racist white alliance against China, MENA, India, and others in the global south.

Russia only sees us as enemies because Putin needed to create enemies to seize and consolidate power.

Just make sure you finish on the Bach. Never finish on Debussy.