You guys need to chill a bit and stop suggesting illegal shit. This isn’t the poster’s car. This was posted on Reddit about 8 days ago and then shared by BuzzFeed 2 days ago.
The guy in the car was able to get out and then talked to the building manager who then assigned the truck a new parking spot.
I mean there should be consequences for being an asshole and the fact that assholes very rarely receive said consequences is why when they do it’s usually brutal.
I’d definitely have scratched the paint on the passenger side and probably spit on the windshield.
Don’t be an asshole and you won’t have to worry about the consequences of being an asshole 🤷
Better to draw a giant dick on the windshield in lipstick or eyeliner. No permanent damage, the point gets across, and it’s a bitch to get off properly. Never did it myself but I watched an adult woman do it (as a child) and it struck me as such a clever way to get back at an asshole without being a bigger asshole. (Full disclosure, she wrote “bitch” in huge letters across the windshield, but I think drawing a dick is funnier)
It’s funny, pretty simple rule. Yet people defending assholes in here…How about just don’t be an asshole and maybe think of anything other than yourself. Hard concept to grasp for some ppl
Leave a note, embarrass them on socials, call parking enforcement. Consequences aren’t for you or I to give, it literally only leads to bad shit happening. You don’t know if this is a single mom who borrowed a truck, an elderly person who shouldn’t be driving, or maybe something like a tweaker who did something like this because they’re fucking insane and want an excuse to attack somebody.
Randomly? You mean someone doing something with no consideration for anyone but themselves? That sounds exactly like the situation that calls for someone reminding that person that their actions impact others and that they’re responsible for that impact.
And again, what gives you the absolute right to be the decider of consequences? Do you not see how that leads to problems? I have to drive for 6 hours straight in a small city, if I decided to give people consequences literally the only thing that would happen is I’d look like an asshole. And btw, if you live in the states, you’re a fucking idiot if you don’t think this could easily lead to the person “giving consequences” getting shot.
I don’t, truth and justice does. Getting angry at me because you don’t want to hear the truth won’t make the truth go away. And you may reject justice, but it’s still there all the same, and for rejecting it to get what you want, you will always be a morally bankrupt, immature piece of shit.
Want that opinion of you to change? Then change your perspective.
In tight fits you are much more able to park straight than if you parked nose in.more space for the front end to angle and get the back end where needs to be as well as space to move the front end back and forth to straighten out.
Nose forward you are pretty limited in sideways movement and need to do like 18 tiny 3-point turns to try and get it lined up good.
So I’ve driven fire trucks and similar sized vehicles. If I’m trying to get the truck in a driveway and have two lanes to work with I can go nose first. I go into the lane opposite of the target driveway to swing the front end into the driveway. It definitely takes both lanes if you don’t want to make a 100 point turn, Austin Powers style.
If it’s a tiny road or only one lane then I have to back in. I approach by getting as close to the target drive as possible and then swing the nose away from that side of the road, lining up at a better angle when I start backing. This pic shows it well but you don’t need nearly as much space irl. Your just go slower and cut the wheel harder. The back tire could be just a bit above and to the left the #3.
My point is you can get into a lot tighter spaces backing in. There’s a reason why forklifts steer from the back. The truck in the pic should have backed in or started over.
If you back up with your front wheels turned all the way to the side, the back corner of your car barely moves. Mostly of the movement is your front end swinging to the side.
This can be useful when you need to make a sharp turn. It allows the back corner of your vehicle to make a very tight turn around the opening of the parking space.
Basically going forward, to turn the vehicle 90 degrees might take say 30 feet of forward motion. Going backward, it might only take 3 feet of “forward” motion to turn the car 90 degrees.
Much tighter turning radius for the end of the car opposite the turning wheels.
This is why a forklift’s steering control works by turning the back wheels not the front wheels. Allows that forklift to rotate around the front, without the front moving at all.
Forklifts have a more extreme version of this design since you can turn those wheels full sideways (and even a little backwards if you want), but the same principle operates in any vehicle with one set of turning wheels.
The assumption is that there is not much room in the lane. When you pull in forward, especially with a longer vehicle, you need more room to swing out and get the front end aligned with the spot before you enter the space since the rear just follows the front turning wheels. When backing, you just have to get one of the rear wheels into position and then the front end swings out while pulling into the spot rather than before pulling in. It’s way easier to pull out of the spot when you do this, too, because you can turn the wheel immediately, whereas when you’re front in, you have to back almost all the way out before you can start cutting the wheel. Of course it also depends on how far past the rear wheels the vehicle extends as to how much it will swing out.
You can’t turn the wheel immediately on the way out or you’ll drag the back end of the truck into the vehicle next to you.
If they didn’t have the room to swing out to go in straight, they likely won’t get backed into the spot on the first try as well. The number of cars getting run into while parked if everyone backed in would sky rocket. I have met at least 3 people who told me they couldn’t parallel park, I’d rather those people just pull in forward so they can see where the other cars are.
As I said, it depends on how much of the vehicle extends beyond the rear wheels as to how far you have to swing out or pull out before turning. But it’s still significantly less than with front-in parking.
And I’m not talking about skill, I’m talking about physics. I lived in a place there there was a rock wall opposite of the parking spaces and just enough room between the cars and the wall for the width of a car and maybe another foot of clearance. If the spots next to mine were occupied, it was physically impossible to pull in or out front facing without several rounds of adjustments. But backing in and out was perfectly fine. And it was only big enough for cars.
And there are plenty of spots in my city that are back in parking only (usually angled). It’s way easier than parallel parking and parallel parking is much more common. And the reason is that the cars pulling into these spots don’t have to swing into the incoming traffic lane like with front in. So they only block one lane of traffic while parking. Though most people don’t get that and swing out anyway because they’re used to front in parking.
I’ve actually been hit more times by front pulled in cars. Both because they are not at all cautious pulling out and because they mis judge how wide they should swing out before pulling in and end up side swiping the cars next to them. So it’s not even that much of a skill issue. People who don’t have skill parking will fuck It up no matter what way they have to do it.
Not so much simpler as more specific. Geometry is just a subset of physics. The common properties of objects in a three dimensional perspective of the universe. 😁
Both parallel parking and backing in are a part of the bloody exam for a license here in the UK. So the people who are unable to should not have a license in the first place. And that is before we start talking about the outsized trucks americans are so obsessed with. I tend to think we should all redo the exam every 10 years or so just to make sure we are still fit…
He should completely disassemble the car, and then install each piece in a different car in the lot. Then he can build a new car in the original spot from the displaced pieces. A maneuver known as the auto-troll shuffle.
It’s like they’re trying to show you a party that’s going on in some private location, but you don’t get in, because you don’t have an account. Well then, they say, if the account is free and you still don’t make it, it’s not our fault. So they close you out.
You telling them to “just copy and paste the content” is like telling them to send you a photo/video of the party. It’s not the same as being there.
Yep, whenever people text me an Instagram or TikTok URL, I just scroll past it. I don’t even bother to find out what it’s supposed to be about, it’s completely inconsequential to me.
I have told my wife and several of my friends stop sending me things from ________, ________, and _________. I can’t see them and I refuse to do what is required.
That’s a misconception. Farmers lobbied heavily against DST. Their work does not abide by the clock; they milk when cows need milking, and they harvest when there’s enough light, no matter what some clock says.
In Europe, DST as we know it now was first introduced by Germany during WW1 to preserve coal, then abandoned after the war, and widely adopted again in the 70s. In the US it was established federally in the 60s.
This is all glossing over a lot of regional differences and older history. But yeah, US farmers were very much against the idea.
So, this is wrong on so many levels. First of all, DST had nothing to do with farmers, it was to save energy usage in the summer as people were doing more things when the evenings were warmer.
IIRC daylight savings was created way back when electricity really didn’t exist so it allowed the farmers more daylight to harvest their crops.
DST does not increase the amount of daylight on any specific day of the year, it just shifts it later in the day so that people in 8-5 jobs can do more things after work. Farmers don’t work 8-5, they work as needed so if the crops need harvesting they will get harvested based on the weather.
Now with that said there is more technology in today’s farming equipment so DST shouldn’t really exist anymore.
Nowadays farmers have lots of lights and can harvest after the sun goes down, but that has nothing to do with why DST shouldn’t exist. DST shouldn’t exist because it doesn’t save energy due to any populated place having their lights on all night and the actual changing of time leading to negative outcomes like deaths from accidents with no benefits.
Sure, the sun will come up earlier and set later in the summer if we get rid of DST, but the only reason for the time change in the first place was the standard working hours being longer after noon than before.
Farmers don’t care about clocks unless they are scheduling a time to meet and using the clock for clarity.
The sun comes up when it comes up and that is what matters. Farmers don’t care about the clock for what they consider morning, because morning is before the sun is highest in the aky. They are already getting up a few minutes earlier or later depending on whether the days are getting longer or shorter.
This is besides what I was saying, which was again “if anything” and adding another reason why farmers and DST makes no sense. But dude people live in the world. Farmers are not 1000% in their own bubble. They need to go out to stores and get supplies and interact with the world and the supply chain. You are now taking lack of an office schedule or something to a ludicrous degree with your analogy. I wasn’t even disagreeing with your old points, I was saying “if anything” and adding another reason, but you want to go off on seemingly everyone. Perhaps you’re confusing me with the other guy, but whatever. Cheers.
My understanding is DST did still save appreciable energy until we replaced incandescent lights with fluorescent and leds. Longer daylight in the evening when people are awake and less in the early morning when people are asleep means lights aren’t being used as much. The average light bulb used to consume 60 watts or more and also let off significant undesirable heat, so with a house full of lights DST really did cut back energy usage. Now though with led lights low consumption and virtually no heat, it’s not nearly as significant.
Originally being started for WWI and WWII doesn’t contradict my post which talks about the current reasons given to keep it and that it is not saving energy now.
I hate it. I fucking hate it. With every fiber of my being. I spend every winter counting the days until the sun stops setting before I stop working. Our entire lives are scheduled so we are inside under neon light from 9-6, why are we trying to maximize how much of that is during daytime?
On the day that we go back to permanent ST I will turn to hard drugs to make up for the dopamine deficiency. No joke very few things in my life fill me with more dread than having to suffer early evenings for the rest of my life.
Maybe, and hear me out, the problem is that 9 to 6 is the problem, since 2/3 of that time is after noon. Instead of changing reality to appease business, business, work hours could be changed to 8 to 4 with four before and four after which is both more light in the evening than DST and a shorter workday because people are more productive than they ever have been.
But I guess you would rather let business practices determine when noon is for everyone instead of the sun.
Business hours is no more or less of a social construct than DST or the 24 hour clock.
The only difference is that we have a shot at making everyone agree on a timezone shift or permanent DST, but absolutely NO SHOT at getting every business to switch to an 8-4 schedule. None. It’d be a nice sentiment. But it’s not happening, and I don’t care what the number says on the clock when I leave work as long as it’s sunny outside.
Why is it so important that the sun reaches its zenith at noon anyway? Do you often get confused while looking at your antique sundial?
From a development perspective it certainly sounds easier to have one global timezone with DST than a bunch of smaller ones without it. Would that make sense in reality? Probably not but I definitely think timezones take more work to compensate for properly.
What matters is consistency and our time system has tons of crazy inconsistent shit in our. Everyone knows about leap years, but do you know about leap seconds? Imagine trying to write a function to convert unix time to a current date and suddenly all your times are a second off.
Lets just have 2 timezones, Chinese time and EST w/ permanent DST. The most populated timezones for Eurasia and the americas, and they’re both 12 hours apart, so nobody has to do timezone math, just swich AM and PM.
There was actually a really interesting idea I heard to have no time zones. And I actually think it could be a good idea. It’ll never happen because people would need to re-learn time but if it was always the same time everywhere it would make scheduling and business so much easier. No one would need to convert between different zones or be late because of an incorrect conversion. The downside is that times which are conventionally morning or evening etc, would no longer would be so people would have to get used to time just being a construct for scheduling and not a representation of the natural day/night cycle…but it actually doesn’t sound like a half bad idea.
Problem you run into is the areas where we need to tie things to solar days across an area.
You end up with places having to regulate that school starts at 22:00, and gets out 05:00 the next day.
Businesses close for the night at 06:00 and open bright and early later that day at 22:00.
You have places where one calendar day has two different business days in it, so the annoyances faced by people who work overnight shifts spreads to everyone, and worse gets spread to financial calendars, billing systems and the works.
Time is an air bubble trapped under a screen protector. It’s annoying, and you can push it around to try to keep it out of the way, but you can never really fix it.
There’s just too many inherently contradictory requirements for us to end up with a “good” system, and we just need to settle for good enough.
My dream is that we stop changing things. Whatever we have in time zone database today is what we stick with going forwards. No more dst shifts, no more tweaks to the zones, no more weird offsets and shifts, because we don’t get to stop dealing with the old layout when we change, we just add a new one that we think is better.
For the most part, dealing with this stuff is a solved, shitty problem. It’s when we change the rules that problems come up. Worse when we change them retroactively. (Territory disputes between nations have been resolved with the conclusion that land was actually in a different time zone in the past because it was actually in another country. Not a problem usually, unless there’s a major stock exchange in an island that was transferred between nations and retroactively changing what time it was affects what laws were valid at the time certain transactions took place.
Not really. Timezones, at their core (so without DST or any other special rules), are just a constant offset that you can very easily translate back and forth between, that’s trivial as long as you remember to do it. Having lots of them doesn’t really make anything harder, as long as you can look them up somewhere. DST, leap seconds, etc., make shit complicated, because they bend, break, or overlap a single timeline to the point where suddenly you have points in time that happen twice, or that never happen, or where time runs faster or slower for a bit. That is incredibly hard to deal with consistently, much more so that just switching a simple offset you’re operating within.
As I explained in my other comment, there’s no situation where you’re getting any daylight in the evening with DST, that’s just not possible.
Also daylight in the morning sets your day on a high note. The morning you’re spending in the darkness is what turns your life into a winter long depression. Coming home in darkness is inevitable and has a lower impact on your mental health. And with DST effectively removing BOTH morning and evening daylight, you’ll be completely fucked.
Strong disagree, under DST I get to experience some sunlight in then evenings. Under Standard time I get to watch the sun come up through the window and set through the window.
I don’t know what you mean by evening, but it’s already dark at 16:00 during winter. You only get some light in the morning. DST means no more light in the morning and no more light in the evening. Complete depression. DST should not exist.
i still dont even understand what DST even is, as far as i care because i don’t is that DST just means we change the time, because god forbid the time be a little funky.
The real problem is that across the globe there is like 50 different implementations of it. Some places have a fucking half hour, or some goofy shit. Really fun handling time zones with that sprinkled on top.
That’s ST obv. Now let’s convert it to DST, that will be 9:03 - 16:53. Let’s say you work a standard 9-5 job. Well, 9:03 is after you start working and 16:53 is before you finish. Thus you get ZERO daylight during the day in DST. You get almost an hour in the morning with ST.
No wonder Finland has such high suicide rates during winter…
P.S. It is also worth noting that daylight grows the closer you get to the equator and it grows in the morning, not in the evening. You can see from the examples above that their evening difference is smaller than the morning one. There’s just no point having DST.
I’m missing your point. Do you think that moving the clocks is having an effect on the tilt of the earth? Or are you just trying to explain to me how daylength and latitude are related?
I know quite well how dark it gets in the north. I live in the north. Luckily, the sun still rises and sets at very predictable intervals. If I want to enjoy sunlight, I simply need to be awake at some point that coincides with when the sun is up.
You are also aware that not everyone works the exact same hours, right? And windows exist?
Use a different example to make the opposite point: I’d like the sun to be out for at least an hour after I get home from my “9-5”, so if the sun sets at 1700 I’m standard time, I am depressed. But in DST, I get to spend an hour in my garden.
See? The debate is stupid. Do you want more daylight in the morning or afternoon. That’s the only question. The amount of daylight is not affected by clocks.
Wut? If it’s DST during winter, you don’t have any light to enjoy after work. You can only enjoy light in the morning with ST. All the explanation is above, with facts.
Because it was treated as a reading of historical texts. I haven’t personally looked up if those historical texts are legit but it’s funny to think that historians would disregard lesbian relations by saying they were just friends/roommates
It wasn’t just lesbian relationships. Pretty much any gay/lesbian relationship when written about by historians calls them roommates or very close friends or some bullshit like that
That’s it. That’s really all there is. And yet whenever you see posts about women in love there’s always a reference to this one 5 second video. It’s also never in the stories about people’s uncles having a “friend” who lives with them in a one bed flat in the Castro, it’s only ever a wlw thing.
They don't even have to be new, a good pair of socks fresh out of the drier is the best IMO. I avoid wearing new socks unwashed because there can be all sorts of nasty shit on them from the factory, shipping, warehouse, etc. that I'd rather not have rubbing against my skin.
They’re not made to eat, so who the hell knows what kind of chemicals they douse clothing in to keep them “fresh” and keep bugs out of them while they travel across the ocean in shipping containers. Agreed, wash the fuck out of them, first thing!
It might not necessarily be a bit but he was definitely setting Danny up with some softballs giving him room to do his thing; Larry King was a great interviewer.
He doesn’t come off that way in this interview. He seems like a rich old fuck who’s been so rich for so long that he genuinely struggles to understand how the poor plebs could possibly exist without private jets.
Oh he was for sure out of touch, he got hugely successful in the 70s and interviewed actual rich and powerful people, real world leaders and superstars. Over his career he interviewed over 50k people, everyone from Nelson Mandela to Eric Andre. Like the other commenter said, it was kind of his shtick to not prepare or learn too much about the guest so he'd "genuinely be curious" about them.
I'm not saying the dude was a saint, he was a womanizer and was married like 7 times, but he wasn't born into money or anything. He was a little kid from Brooklyn whose dad died when he was 9 and it messed him up, he grew up poor as fuck until he lucked into radio in the 50s. He did end up seeing a lot of success, idk if he ever got private jet rich but I'm sure he traveled 1st class more than once.
Eat the rich and everything but also save your ire for someone that deserves it, an old dead interviewer seems pointless.
It’s a bit. Larry King was famous for never preparing and treating every person he interviewed the same. Larry King likely had no idea how low down on the list he was in Hollywood.
I met Danny at my local coffee shop. I am a total ass and said “Abed?”. He said " Danny. " and shook my hand. Thus confirming my status as Total Ass, and his as a mensch.
Socks as an answer makes me think of “Ode to my Socks” by Pablo Neruda:
Maru Mori brought me a pair of socks which she knitted herself with her sheepherder’s hands, two socks as soft as rabbits. I slipped my feet into them as though into two cases knitted with threads of twilight and goatskin. Violent socks, my feet were two fish made of wool, two long sharks sea-blue, shot through by one golden thread, two immense blackbirds, two cannons: my feet were honored in this way by these heavenly socks. They were so handsome for the first time my feet seemed to me unacceptable like two decrepit firemen, firemen unworthy of that woven fire, of those glowing socks.
Nevertheless I resisted the sharp temptation to save them somewhere as schoolboys keep fireflies, as learned men collect sacred texts, I resisted the mad impulse to put them into a golden cage and each day give them birdseed and pieces of pink melon. Like explorers in the jungle who hand over the very rare green deer to the spit and eat it with remorse, I stretched out my feet and pulled on the magnificent socks and then my shoes.
The moral of my ode is this: beauty is twice beauty and what is good is doubly good when it is a matter of two socks made of wool
I think a lot of them also did come over here. No doubt about it, daily records are being broken but sharing without any context feels very on brand for that ole gang.
I felt bad reading this. Fast food is way too expensive here in 2024. And then you had to write an essay justifying yourself because of all the pedantic jerks who love to pounce on the smallest of things.
The thing about inflation is the food is not expensive, its the value of money that’s gone down. Its salaries that are way too low to afford the new prices. The food isn’t too expensive - employees are being underpaid.
people love acting like they’re perfect and always make perfect decisions in these posts. like, you can easily advise the OP and sympathize but people love to be smug instead
We don’t have to do this. Not everything is black and white. Tesla would not be where it is today without his intervention. I expect SpaceX wouldn’t either.
I don’t think it’s about whether what he did with Tesla is good (it is at least debatable whether it is unilaterally good given they are anti-competitive in the EV market). It’s rather about the pretense for the good thing. Elon isn’t driven to help the environment. The sum purpose of Tesla’s operations isn’t environmentalism, else they’d not be selling carbon credits to ICE manufacturers, incentivising them to avoid EV production.
And it’s not even just that “the good” was only to make money, it’s that it’s as a member of the landed gentry he had the opportunity to throw many things at the wall that failed before the Tesla takeover stuck; his ‘intervention’ is simply a VC success story by happenstance.
Taking this at face value, is what he did with Tesla really laudable at all? It is a lucky byproduct of elitism.
The Nazi enabler part being the bad side, you’re saying we should to reconcile this with the good side. I’m saying the good side is actually just some good shit that happened. Attributing it to Elon would be a mistake because of all of the times he did the same thing with the same intent and it never amounted to anything. For the truly good person, their opportunities to do good things would have been well exhausted before the Tesla opportunity arose. If we’re trying to balance the perception of how good we are it should be a function of the proportion of the things we do that are good vs. bad, not a function of how many things we have the means to try.
It’s so wonderful that Reddit, by making a decision that benefits no user/mod/sub, and actively harms users/mods/subs, all in the name of corporate greed, gave Lemmy the boost it needed to become a viable alternative to Reddit.
Thank you, Spez. We couldn’t have done this without you.
Impressive, I guess, but how many of those 2 million posts have a single comment? If 90% of these are just bots reposting things from Reddit with no further engagement…
I said “We should all do our best to comment on various posts that have no engagement to encourage others to engage.”
You did not say that, you said “The more random ass comments the better”, which I disagree with.
Two completely different factors. One is a genuine engagement with social media. The other is not.
If you’re insulted because I implied your comments aren’t genuine, I’m sorry. Genuine is a very subjective word “natural” might have been a better choice. So to reiterate, I really just prefer natural content personally. We don’t need to astroturf the site.
Not going to continue this conversation when it started on braindead circumstances and is somehow still going downhill. Goodbye.
I used to lurk like crazy on reddit. I had a nearly 12 year old account that mainly had a few comments here and there months apart, and only a few posts but ever since moving to Lemmy I’ve found myself actually posting relatively frequently to help build some of the smaller communities I’m in that have also migrated.
I’m exactly the same. I feel like the opportunity to have a productive conversation on Lemmy is a lot higher. There are fewer of us right now but we are the motivated minority kicking Reddit to the curb for its terrible actions and we want to see Lemmy thrive.
I still check Reddit every couple days on my laptop. I don’t think they maintained a majority of their users. Engagement is way down. Most of the posts on my front page are barely hitting 2000 updoots, compared to well over 10,000 prior to July 1
Some of content really depends on OP being in the comments, like AmITheAsshole. Just reposting doesn’t give the kind of interaction that the original post would have.
Only if the content is organic. Look at !photoshopbattles . Full of bot posts from reddit with 0 comments. Even if one of them gets a comment, it would get drowned out by the subsequent bot posts. Blindly filling a community with bot posts would eventually make people unsub from it.
I’m sure those bots are well intended, but I would rather not see bots just copying posts from reddit blindly. When you sort all by new, it’s just a swamp of bot posts.
Edit: So I checked to verify my claim and most are from @bot iirc and you can just block that account to stop seeing all the automated posts from reddit
Ongoing discussion—i.e., comments replying to other comments, not just posts—drives engagement as much as content. If the post-to-comment ratio is too high, active commenters are less likely to encounter each other in the sea of automated posts.
Yeah, a ratio means nothing if the bulk of the comments are only on a small portion of the posts. If 90% of the posts have 0 comments and the other 10% have 52.7 comments per post, that’s worth knowing.
The problem is that without an effective way to ID bot content then stats like this could be covering up the real trends in human users, particularly in any stat that purports to measure all lemmy instances since we already know there are instances out there filled with thousands of bot users
It does need that, but it also needs dedicated posters for small niche communities that keep posting into the void so that when someone eventually stumbles over they won’t go “aw it’s dead here, I guess Lemmy isn’t for me” but will actually find some content to engage with instead.
Hah, that sounds like me! I started a few communities in places where I knew I could supply some OC, and so far its been mostly just me posting my stuff, but I’m stoked whenever I get comments!
I just subbed to your nature patterns community! I love the idea! I will keep an eye out and hope I can contribute some neat things soon!
And since I notice you are a gardener, you may be interested in my !beebutts community. It’s about bees… and their butts… I’ve also got !awwnverts for the front side of the bees, and all of their adorable invertebrate friends.
lemmy.world
Top