u/dpark

I can only conclude that whoever implemented the block feature never considered the negative effects if it was misused.

The way blocking is implemented encourages this. It’s like they wanted it to be used to troll. Sane block would mean the blocked person can respond but the person blocking never sees it.

That’s how I want blocking to work, so that I can block spammers and literally never see them again.

Blocking someone on Reddit seems overwhelmingly a way to get in the last word in an argument you’re losing. A mature person would just stop arguing but it’s always some final dig and *then* block. i.e. Block is nearly always “I lack the self control to disengage so I’ll call you dumb and hang up the phone.”

Blocking should be reserved for abusive folks but that’s not how it’s used. It’s implemented as a troll feature because the person blocked cannot see responses and loses the ability to respond to entire comment threads while the person doing the blocking can still see the person they blocked. I blocked exactly one person ever because I didn’t want to see their obnoxious spam comments anymore but I could still see them, they were just collapsed.

Low blood sugar can definitely contribute but I would not call a few hours without food poor diet. Indeed I would say that eating a constant stream of food is more likely poor diet than going a few hours between meals.

At my leanest and healthiest (at last in terms of cardio capacity and health markers), I dealt with way more of this light headedness than I do now.

I can relate. Everyone I know who does jiu jitsu in their forties is constantly dealing with minor injuries. I spent Friday night walking like I was 80 because I did something to my hip at jiu jitsu.

getting a head rush when you stand up has more to do with poor diet than anything else.

Getting a head rush when you stand up is more likely about low blood pressure than diet. Lots of healthy people deal with this.

We are seeing this as well. Phone rings but it’s not in the app as a missed call.

You know, it might be. I do distinctly remember that name, though I don’t know for sure that’s what I bought. I cannot find an exact match right now, and the ones I find seem to have slightly different markings, but it would not be surprising if they had changed slightly in 20 years.

A billion dollar mistake

These slop posts are getting worse and worse. How is anyone seriously engaging with this obvious garbage.

I have a lot of trouble believing anyone actually cares if you’re on Facebook.

On a large screen mobile device I have to scroll through a full screen of text advertising DataCamp. Then I have to scroll through more than a screen of text advertising a subscription to the newsletter. Then I get an intro blurb followed by almost a full screen of links to other articles. Then another intro blurb and a request to subscribe (with a Subscribe link that doesn’t seem to actually be a link).

I had to go through 5 or 6 full screens of fluff and ads before finally reaching some actual content. This is actively reader-hostile.

(And the article is really just about HTTP/2 improvements and says nothing about gRPC other than asserting that the real reason it’s faster is because it’s using HTTP/2, which is maybe true but not really established here at all.)

30:09

It's in the highlights on Apple TV now.

they would have slammed the brakes

I find it farfetched that the aggressive overtaker who didn’t seem to brake at all in the video here would have suddenly decided to decelerate in response to a signal, but sure. We’re off in hypothetical land now so it could be.

They were trying to get around the guy and not to go into a skid where you lose all control.

Uh, so you’re saying they were passing at such a high speed that they were risking a skid?

It's not simultaneous, the guy is moving into the lane and has his left tires in the lane before the other guy even starts

It’s real close to simultaneous. Maybe the rear car initiated the change half a second before the front car.

Then he tells the guy "you shouldn't have been trying to pass me"

This is a thing that probably never happened. Multiple commenters attested to having seen this video before. OP is karma farming and likely a bot.

Sorry, do you lock your brakes up 100% every time you stop? I brake for more than 2 seconds all the time.

I don’t know if the car in front locked their brakes or not. What I do know is they were still moving when they got hit, so possible either they were partially depressing the brakes or they were skidding.

I don’t find it at all weird that someone who’s panicked on the highway might touch their brakes for 2+ seconds. It takes up to 6 seconds to stop at highway speeds. (So maybe they were fully locked.)

What about it?

If you are approaching a car in your lane so rapidly that a simultaneous lane change will cause a collision then you are going too fast. Car in front broke the law by not signaling (car in rear may or may not have signaled). But you don’t get a free pass to drive recklessly just because someone else messed up.

I’m not sure why you think the car on front signaling would have changed anything anyway. Do you suppose the aggressive overtaker would have found their brake pedal if the front car signaled? Because they sure didn’t find it when they saw the car change lanes.

I’m not breaking out a video editor to count frames so I’ll just take your word.

If you’re braking for that long with nobody in front of you, you’re immediately doing something wrong.

That’s such an odd thing to say. 2 seconds it’s nothing.

“Hey, if I’m driving dangerously, people need to get the fuck out of my way.”

If you can’t avoid crashing into a car that shares your lane and changes into the left lane at the same time, you are driving dangerously. This isn’t even an uncommon scenario. People do this all the time (usually not with wide open lanes ahead, though).

Not by my count. Lane changes started at about 2 seconds. Braking at 3. Collision at 4.

K. No evidence the rear car did either. Lots of evidence the rear car was unable to avoid a collision though.

Nope. That’s a guess. Someone else said based on the markings they were doing above 90 but I have no idea if that’s true.

Could be that car in front is going unreasonably slow. Same effect, though. Rear car approaching at a very high speed (relatively) initiated a pass very late.

If the car in front was actually going very slow, the panic reaction to switch lanes is less understandable, though.

2 seconds. That’s the time between when the following car started to change lanes and the collision. This is not “far enough away”.

Following car could have changed lanes earlier or maybe tried even touching their brakes. They at minimum share fault.

Because panic. The car was braking only as it retreated back to the right lane. Road also looks slick and he might have hit the brakes when losing traction while cutting back. Clearly these reactions were not the best even if they were well intended, though.

Also as I said:

it’s not impossible that the driver was playing amateur traffic controller. The overtake was reckless regardless though.

Time between beginning to change lanes and collision was about 2 seconds. At 75 mph that is not enough time. As evidenced by the collision that the overtaking car could not avoid.

The case established that failure to maintain a single lane, when practical, is a traffic violation.

Looks like I got this backwards. Final decision reversed the appeals court decision.

I still don’t see that this is actually relevant though.

The car in back can claim sudden emergency

You cannot claim a sudden emergency for a situation you create. “Yeah, judge. I was going about double the speed of the car in front of me and I waited until the last moment to pass because that’s how I roll. Then that dumbass changed lanes at the same time as me and I had no option except to crash into them. You see the emergency here, right?”

because they made a split second decision when the car in front swerved into there lane and created a sudden unexpected hazard. You cannot swerve in front of cars in other lanes and claim it was their fault.

Again, there was never a time that the following car was in a clear lane until after the collision. This is not actually a case where one car swerved in front of another. It’s a case where one car was unable to avoid collision when the vehicle in front changed lanes at the same time. That is an overtake with insufficient space.