eureka

Rare /r/sydney win:

[Mod reply]

Yeah, I knew this one was coming - x.com has been on the blacklist since December 2023. We're not taking it off.

Zionists pretend to speak on behalf of all Jews, but never have [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Zionism#Early_Jewish_anti-Zionism] and certainly don't now - all the Palestinian rallies I've seen have a notable contingent of anti-Zionist Jews protesting alongside them. For an extreme example, you can find plenty of cases of Orthodox Jews burning flags of the Zionist State even decades before this conflict.

It's important not to confuse the Zionist Regime with the Jewish peoples of the world, just as one doesn't conflate neo-Nazis with all Europeans. Both the Zionist movement and anti-semites (esp. Nazis) intentionally try to push this false narrative for their own separatist goals, and it's important we recognise and counter it.

That article is worth a post of its own for awareness, I reckon. That's not trivial.

T-intersection

Good point, and you're right. That statement I made was not well thought through.

example 2

I agree that two lanes become one centre lane (and it's possible that I interpreted the last photo example wrong with the photo quality).

What would you think if a car on the centre lane put their left indicator on? Personally, I would assume they want to enter that side road or a driveway. That's my reasoning for why I don't believe an indication would be appropriate.

I think neither is obliged to indicate here, they're both continuing fully in the direction of their lanes. The lane changes, and just as you don't indicate in the T intersection example when the lane curves left, you wouldn't need to indicate as the lanes blend (rather than one merging into the other, which to be honest, doesn't benefit from an indication either).

So in your interpretation, when two lanes merge, whether or not indicating is required would depend on the precise configuration of the lanes?

Yep. It also lines up with my general interpretation of indicators themselves, that they're a way of saying 'I want to begin moving in this direction, instead of straight'.

In your example picture, I see that as the centre lane remaining and the left lane gradually merging into it, just like the OP image but longer.

In that scenario, would only the left, neither, or both be required to indicate, in your opinion?

My interpretation of law: Left only must indicate.

My opinion: it's obvious that the left has to merge in, they ideally shouldn't even have to indicate, but if a driver in the centre lane is tired and oblivious then they might not realise that and get caught unaware so just indicate anyway to be safe. Middle should not indicate, because that makes it seem as if they want to turn off into a side road or driveway (if one exists) or over on the shoulder.

The majority of the world has always been in a bad mood because 90% of planet has always been poor, struggling, doesn’t have enough, live in poverty, are hungry and are generally not happy.

On one hand, there is absolutely harsh struggle around the world for the vast majority of the world.

On the other hand, it's not as if most people are never in a good mood. Australia's state broadcaster (ABC) had a show where people in small or disadvantaged groups answer anonymous questions, and when it came to Sudanese Australian refugees, a few were saying that life in Sudan was often happier despite their material struggles. IIRC a main part was that they had a collective culture, in some places outside of the cities even a communal village culture, and where good fortune was cause for celebration. Some contrasted that with our largely individualist, money-centric culture here.

All that to say, money doesn't buy happiness, poverty doesn't guarantee sadness. Money and other resources really really help, but it's far from the whole picture.

Which clause there would compel the bike to indicate?

2 d) / 3 d) are "entering a marked lane, or line of traffic, to the left/right" but this line is directly ahead of the bike.

How would the bike indicate in this scenario? With a left indication while not changing direction or lane? I would interpret that as them wanting to leave the road on the left side after the merge and indicating it impatiently.

The media sanewashing/legal sanitizing is actually pretty disgusting.

It's laughable that neo-fash and their friends think the 'Roman salute' excuse is rational. Nazi culture was heavily inspired by the myth of Rome, from architecture to that salute. People in the US don't just do that salute. No sane person will say 'ah clearly Elon felt the need to do an ancient roman gesture'. And in case anyone needs this stated: neo-nazi groups colloquially refer to the salute as a 'roman'.

Example of a neo-nazi chatroom referring to the salute as a 'roman' after the nazi group performed a nazi salute in public.

It is a Nazi salute.

Musk is just shit at performing it. It's still a Nazi salute.

You're right, and I think I forgot to mention this in my reply - will people looking at those fans overlook it? When Musk was seen by many as a brilliant humanitarian ethical billionaire championing green vehicles and space innovation, that could be persuasive to typical people. But it's harder for typical people to respect any praise them now they've clearly unmasked themselves on a stage as a nazi.

And playing the “woke cancel culture leftists are taking him out of context” card.

An Australian neo-Nazi speaker recently pulled this coward move too, laughably. (Context: in their jurisdiction, the salute is illegal*).

Nazi promotion event 1: After [...] performing the Nazi salute, Mr Richardson asked the crowd if he was “going be fined now”. [1]

Nazi promotion event 2: i-i was just waving at my friend Beryl in the back row and they screencapped it out of context, it wasn't a salute :( leftism gone mad

Don't worry, antifascists bashed their office door in on Christmas regardless.