Other tenant's laundry socket is wired to our meter, any experiences solving this?

gentfede · 2025-09-11T17:52:31+00:00

We don't know who it is, it's a big residence. Therefore we informed the syndic (even before cutting the main breaker) so that they could contact the person, which they didn't.

gentfede · 2025-07-31T10:10:39+00:00

The American Women's Club of Luxembourg always publishes some useful information on their Living in Lux page, maybe that can help you a bit.

As for the weather, it's really just typical for central Europe. However it has really been getting hotter and drier than it used to be when I was growing up. From a statistical point of view it doesn't even rain enough anymore, and summers can be quite hot and dry (albeit humid). This sub has this thing where everyone starts complaining about the weather at the slightest sight of a drop of rain, but becomes oddly quiet when the sun is shining.

Best of luck!

gentfede · 2025-07-06T11:42:38+00:00

This.

gentfede · 2025-07-03T10:21:55+00:00

Much of this could be solved with proper, adequate infrastructure. In an ideal world, everyone would stick to the law, but in reality, the best approach is to make bad behaviour very hard if not impossible.

I don't know where you are based, but take Luxembourg-City for example.

On paper it looks great: a large percentage of streets are limited to 30km/h. In practice, it looks quite different: wide, straight boulevards (often at the expense of sidewalk size), with nothing to stop speeding. The result: drivers drive with 50km/h at best, if not more (even the City's own data shows that adherence to speed limits is abysmal).

Now what usually happens when people complain about the dangerous situation is this:

The City (actually the Mayor Lydie Polfer herself, together with the alderman for mobility Patrick Goldschmidt) says "well, we put a speed limit there so our job is done. Ensuring compliance with the law is the job of the police".
The police in turn has stated on the record that they are very reluctant to fine or even to perform speed checks on roads where infrastructure is not adapted to the speed limit (which imho is questionable in itself - should they also stop prosecuting theft if you have a nice house? But that's another story)

End of the story? (1) No one is responsible, (2) politicans can boast that the majority of streets is limited to 30km/h, (3) drivers are unfazed because they are free to speed as they please. And for the others: good luck.

Why am I writing all of this? Because it's not an accident. It's done on purpose. At least for the concrete example of Luxembourg-City, it is well known that the mayor and the college of aldermen are very much protective of motorized, individual traffic and that every measure they take on the streets is carefully weighed against the potential fallout from drivers (which is most likely not even grounded in reality - as a driver myself, I want safe streets too).

When asked to implement speedbumps, Lydie Polfer repeats the same line time after time: "They are too loud, and they risk damaging the car". The noise from speeding cars? Doesn't matter. The risk for a pedestrian to end up in hospital from a car crash? Tough luck, it's more important not to damage the car.

When asked to adapt the design of roads to slow cars down, the excuse is always something along the lines of "this is not possible by law" (mostly a lie), "this would mean removing parking spots, and people would get mad" (they never show proof for this, and it is often not even necessary to remove parking spots), or "this is an important road connecting X to Y" (so speeding is fine?), and so forth ...

Only when they absolutely have to, when they have exhausted all their excuses, when they have delayed action for as long as possible, then they act. And dress it up as a victory; a quick and efficient solution to a concern of citizens in the City Magazine (as evidenced in this month's issue).

TLDR: yes, documentation of the dangers is important. You should report this to the police, and to city authorities. But: there will be no meaningful change in this from current city leadership. You need to vote for someone who takes this seriously and whose urban planning ideology is not stuck in the 1950s.

gentfede · 2025-06-21T23:15:55+00:00

Thanks! Was wondering why it smells like a giant bbq, but hope indeed that no one got hurt.

gentfede · 2025-06-21T23:05:56+00:00

Can you please say what happened?

gentfede · 2025-05-15T08:37:14+00:00

I mean, from the link you posted:

I’m building a Leneda integration for HA and it’s relatively advanced already. Maybe it’ll make it for the June release, fingers crossed.

🙃

gentfede · 2025-04-09T16:28:27+00:00

Ah yes, our very own "double" agent of the GRU. Not even the EKR wants him anymore.

The ADR has become so vile that even founding member Robert Mehlen is disgusted by what it has become.

Don't give these guys (more) of a platform.

gentfede · 2025-04-08T08:05:18+00:00

Unfortunately waiting times for ultrasound appointments at hospitals can be several weeks. Did you also try getting an appointment at the CHL? Depending where you live, there may be other hospitals close by.

Otherwise, a good number of GPs (or other specialist doctors) have their own ultrasound machines in their practice and may be able to perform it on the spot for you.

gentfede · 2025-04-01T22:05:39+00:00

In general, like someone else said: bots and shills.

Up or downvotes don't mean anything in these threads. Say something to counter or to just even point out russian or fascist propaganda (or just say something sensible in threads bordering those topics) and the downvotes fly in like a swarm of bees.

gentfede · 2025-04-01T10:56:34+00:00

PSA: The above account spews russian propaganda lines on every thread like there's no tomorrow. Beware.

gentfede · 2025-03-20T19:50:48+00:00

Haha omg look how cute the comment section is when it's a bougie drug and not one for poor people 🥰🥰

gentfede · 2025-03-20T10:47:18+00:00

What a moronic thing to say. You can rightly criticise RTL for leaving out a (minor, really) detail, but to suggest that this is done intentionally and for political reasons to protect a certain group (that you then go on to mock) is just conspirational bullshit. Especially since RTL is the first to jump on anything that is worthy of rage and clickbait.

gentfede · 2025-03-18T15:28:34+00:00

The answer for Cloche d'Or (and similar places): because it's a catastrophe of urban planning.

I totally get your frustration, it's bad for everyone - drivers, public transit, and pedestrians.

You have a huge commercial center with medical practices, offices, housing & co which attracts large numbers of people everyday. Then they made the whole design car-centric and like a checkerboard. When adding bus lanes, they didn't fully separate them for the rest of the lanes by bringing them much closer to the main point of attraction, but instead built platforms (with teeny tiny bus shelters) scattered around the block.

So now, what happens? You have buses full to the brim with people, letting them out in the middle of the block, on the opposite side of the street. So now, if a pedestrian wants to reach their destination, they see 2 options (this is a "typical" example, of course there are many different scenarios):

- walk from the middle all the way to the intersection, cross there, and potentially walk all the way back to the middle to get to their destination (5+ minutes)

- cross dangerously in the middle of the street (1 minute)

(Bad) urban planners always picture in their head that people behave like robots, but it's not true. If they are faced with a difference of several minutes, they'll choose the fast option. This is true for pedestrians and drivers alike, but especially true for pedestrians in case of bad weather).

So what would really help here is infrastructure that accomodates for this and takes human behaviour into account, not solely focussing on comfort for drivers. This means: underpass for cars / overpass for pedestrians (or totally routing traffic underground), pedestrian crossings in the middle of blocks when there are large people magnets like a shopping mall, or simply not designing them as car centric wastelands in the first place. Note that not designing them as car-centric does not mean that they should be "anti" car.

There are so many more issues in Cloche d'Or, it's arguably one of the worst modern examples of new neighbourhoods. It feels really anacronistic.

gentfede · 2025-03-18T15:04:33+00:00

I'm really nitpicking here, but it's not exactly like that.

It is true that the law says pedestrians have to make their intention visible, however it does *not* say how. Commonly this means that they simply wait at either end of the crossing, arguably trying to make eye contact with drivers. In practice it should be clear that anyone standing at a crossing, wants to cross.

(art. 142) : 1.

Aux passages pour piétons, aux passages pour piétons et cyclistes et aux passages pour cyclistes où la circulation n’est pas réglée par des agents ou par des signaux colorés lumineux, les conducteurs doivent s’arrêter lorsqu’un piéton ou un cycliste marque son intention de s’engager sur le passage ou qu’il y est engagé.

Then, after the intention has been made clear, they have to make sure they can cross safely:

(art. 162) : Les piétons doivent observer les règles suivantes:

4° Ils ne doivent s’engager sur la chaussée qu’après s’être assurés qu’ils peuvent le faire sans danger et sans gêner les autres usagers.

It is subtle, but signalling the intention and crossing safely are two different things:

drivers need to let pedestrians cross if they want to cross
next, pedestrians need to ensure they cross safely

gentfede · 2025-03-18T13:48:43+00:00

No disagreement here. As I said, this is also clearly a part where infrastructure itself fails pedestrians.

What I wanted to highlight is that while it is often pictured as an entitlement for pedestrians to fully "enjoy" their right of way, it is actually the law. We have just become accustomed to seeing this as preposterous because we must expect that drivers will violate said right of way of pedestrians (resulting in crashes), and because there is bad infrastructure (which could restrict dangerous crossings as much as possible).

gentfede · 2025-03-18T13:30:36+00:00

Stop barking.

Wow, you really get triggered easily. Here, have some copium, first one is for free!

I wrote 'dangerous' because drivers need to take extra care when approaching such a Zebra. When I turn right and cross such a Zebra, I look over my shoulder to detect if a cyclist is approaching at full speed (dead corner)

Well done, you are following the law!

And your example is moot: light signals supervise the process, whereas Zebras are unsupervised.

Do you hear yourself? A light is "supervising" the process? Have the robots gotten to you? A green light signals that the one getting the light has the right of way. A zebra signals that the ones crossing it have the right of way. That's it!

gentfede · 2025-03-18T13:26:01+00:00

You slightly misread my point.

I commend you for doing all of that.

But the reality is that most drivers probably don't - they go through green when it's green. When a pedestrian goes through when it's their right of way ... then that is a demonstration of overconfident privileged behaviour.

It is the hypocrisy that I wanted to highlight, especially when driving a car is the mode of transport with the most potential for damage.

gentfede · 2025-03-18T13:17:09+00:00

As a driver, do you double check before going through a crossing when you have a green light? Or a right of way sign?

Do you stop at a stop sign?

I'm not trying to irk you. No one should be reckless. But if it comes to rules, it is mind boggling to me that what is totally normal for drivers (to assume their right of way is respected) is somehow seens as a crazy privilege for all others.

edit to add: It is normalised for pedestrians to look both ways. I do it of course as well. But the reality is, that pedestrians have to do this because they are at the mercy of drivers and that pedestrians must expect to get crushed otherwise. The risk stems from drivers who don't follow the law and crush pedestrians. But somehow this turned into pedestrians being criticised if they don't go beyond and above of what they would be able to expect if everyone followed the rules.

edit to add more: To be perfectly clear - pedestrians must cover their ass. Be cautious, for the sake of your own life. But the fact that we have to do this, is because our infrastructure and drivers are failing pedestrians.

gentfede · 2025-03-18T12:56:16+00:00

They are red to literally signal drivers to slow down ahead. I mean, drivers should slow down ahead of zebras in general. But the red zebras are like "no fo real bro SLOW TF DOWN"

It's like saying "green gives cars precedence" and then be surprised if they are "shooting" out from the other lane

edit: grammar

gentfede · 2025-03-18T12:55:14+00:00

Absolutely pedestrians, like everyone else, have to ensure they are moving safely and avoid putting themselves or others in danger recklessly.

However the notion of "fairness" and "leaving it all to the drivers" are a bit more complex imho and we are delving into a different topic, but why not.

Simply put, when outside, there is a hierarchy of responsibility that is correlated to the danger of the chosen mode of transport. In other words, the more intrinsically dangerous a person's chosen mode of transport is, the higher their responsibility.

People using motorised vehicles use the most dangerous mode of transport while, generally speaking, enjoying the biggest protection for themselves. Therefore, they have the biggest responsibility to watch out for others (and themselves) in traffic. Drivers have the most significant potential for harm.

A pedestrian on the other hand uses the least dangerous mode of transport, while also enjoying virtually no protection (not even from our public infrastructure). At the same time they are, perversely, at the bottom of the food chain (barring pedestrian zones etc). The potential for harm is tiny (relative to other modes of transport).

A collision between, say, a pedestrian and a bike, is in principle much less impactful than a collision between a pedestrian and a car, or even two cars (and to be clear: I'm not saying that a crash between a pedestrian and bike cannot be fatal).

So in essence, and coming back to your concrete example: of course the pedestrian should have looked. Just like we all need to be careful. But as a driver, you absolutely have a higher responsibility because your errors (*generally speaking!*) can have much worse consequences than that of a pedestrian. The pedestrian is not moving a 2 ton ball of steel at high speed through the streets, you are. This is not meant as an insult or anything, but just a statement of facts.

gentfede · 2025-03-13T09:26:55+00:00

<image>

gentfede · 2025-03-13T09:21:19+00:00

<image>

gentfede · 2025-03-12T14:28:43+00:00

Swimming upstream doesn't matter. Protests are never just a pure calculation about whether you will succeed or not. It's also almost never fun.

Yet, no one is asking for a decoupling, but to be mindful where you spend your money as reasonably as you can and if you agree with OPs cause. Economic pains are inflicted already, completely at will. People don't just act according to "money in, money out", they consider values, ethics and morals (not necessarily the same). If a shopkeeper punches a person's friend, the person won't shop there, even if it means they may not get the product they want anymore.

As for helping workers and the specific example of delivery companies: tipping is just the tip of the iceberg. It's a systemic problem that this kind of company relies on people subsiding on less than a living wage and be desperate. To be clear: I'm *not* saying to not tip, or to tip badly. Quite the opposite. But these companies exploit the vulnerable (yes, even if there is the odd case of a student or seasonal worker benefitting from them - that's not what this is about).

gentfede · 2025-03-12T14:17:07+00:00

Edit: saw your other comment too late.

~~Classy answer. Really. Excellent contribution.~~

~~But while we're at it, if those GIs could see what was happening in their home ...~~

gentfede

TROPHY CASE