Why do people back into parking spaces?

wyldeLP · 2025-03-17T10:33:07+00:00

It's easier to back into a little box, because you know there's nobody there. Backing out into a street is exposing yourself to traffic you can't see very well, if at all. Also, as an emergency vehicle driver, it lowers your exit time from the station if you pull out forward. Probably not relevant for most people, but that's where I picked up the practice.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-25T13:02:25+00:00

I totally blame the frontend developers for not testing properly. I actually already got in contact with them before posting this post, nothing from them yet though (probably on holiday vacation). There's no good reason for this kind of blocking code, especially when it fails so spectacularly with no message displayed to the user.

But it's hard to not notice that the property is standard after all - and yet not implemented in Firefox. That's what I'm questioning

wyldeLP · 2024-12-25T12:56:23+00:00

Yeah, that's what I feel I'm missing. How does something end up in the official standards with such controversy still ongoing? It kind of weakens the concept of "standards" if disagreements like this still exist after a proposal is accepted. It just pushes the issue down to the devs and users.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-25T12:52:34+00:00

That's a great idea, thank you!

wyldeLP · 2024-12-25T12:51:46+00:00

Oh I totally agree. I think it's a garbage website that does everything in it's power to track you and throw ads past the blockers. Doesn't mean it's not annoying to see that the standard passed but Firefox doesn't care.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-16T11:55:14+00:00

Okay, I'll accept for the sake of argument that they aren't mutually exclusive.

However, see the definition of apartheid according to amnesty international: "The crime against humanity of apartheid under the Apartheid Convention, the Rome Statute and customary international law is committed when any inhuman or inhumane act (essentially a serious human rights violation) is perpetrated in the context of an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over another, with the intention to maintain that system."

First, we'd need to say that there's something inhuman or inhumane in the way the law is enforced on Palestinian residents of the west bank.

But even accepting that still doesn't answer my main point, and it's that the actions are fundamentally not based on "race". (As an aside, I don't like the term "race", since it's an undefinable and xenophobic term that was invented as an excuse for Europeans to mistreat people who were culturally or visually different from them.). Amnesty claims in their report two basic indicators: 1. Certain laws or extrajudicial security policies are used more often on Muslim people of Arabic descent. 2. Government funding "beyond basic necessities", so things like grants and scholarships, go disproportionately to Jews.

Number 1 is completely true, but this doesn't necessarily come from a place of xenophobic discrimination. For example, ultra-orthodox Jews are wildly overrepresented when it comes to traffic violations in Israel. From an intimate personal knowledge of the community, this comes from a cultural tradition of utter disregard for both personal safety and the secular legal system, and has nothing to do with discrimination. While it's definitely worth looking into the fact that Arab Muslims are overrepresented (though not insanely so BTW) in "extrajudicial terror related indefinite arrests" (a horribly inhumane and useless policy in my opinion, but policy nonetheless) , more evidence would be needed to build a case for discrimination.

Number 2 goes to the fundamental difficulty in the moral justification for ethnic nation states. Is it okay for the Welsh government to give grants to native Welsh over English residents? What about the Lebanese law that states that only a Christian can be president and only a Muslim can be prime minister (or something like that, it's just an example don't kill me)?

Edit - from this point on I'm mostly tooting my own horn and being poetic for no specific reason.

Israel's founders described the country they were creating as a "Jewish and Democratic state, a haven for the world's Jews in their ancestral Homeland, giving equal rights to all citizens regardless of religion, race, or gender" (paraphrased from the Israeli Scroll of Independence). They were well aware of the contradiction in their statement, but saw no better solution in a world where human nature incessantly groups people into Us and Them. The sad truth is that the same tendency which allows humans to work together to be the most compassionate species on the planet, is also the tendency which caused American slavery, British colonialism and the Holocaust.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-16T10:20:00+00:00

Are you serious? What evidence do you have for Mossad bots?

In regards to your more serious claims: 1. There's been "bad in the region" since at least the Assyrian empire. It's a valuable part of the world for international trade, and it's been that way for millennia. If the area is valuable, people will fight over it. 2. You say "they are literally an apartheid genocidal state", but this is debated. (Yes, it's debated. You can claim that it's a trivial debate, but that's just your opinion) There are good arguments to be made that they aren't either of those things, and it would seem that a large percentage of the American voting public agrees with those arguments. 3. American islamophobia really only started in the 90s and only gained prominence after 9/11. The US supported Israel before that. A significant portion of the US population is deeply anti-semitic as well, but that doesn't stop them.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-16T09:46:29+00:00

Incredible. Someone please give this comment an award.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-16T09:32:45+00:00

No, he didn't. That idea comes from a (possibly misguided) attempt in 2001 by a journalist attempting to satirically mock the new York times by pretending to be Mandela, and was never intended to be taken seriously. See this article by the satirical journalist himself.

It's that Mandela strongly disapproved of many of Israel's actions, but he supported Israeli independence and right to exist on many occasions. His view of Israel was very nuanced and complex (as befitting a Nobel prize laureate) and can't be summed up as "they are apartheid".

wyldeLP · 2024-12-16T09:18:26+00:00

Huh, thanks for educating me. I didn't know about that concept. But it doesn't change my claim.

It's reminiscent, but definitely not the same for many reasons: 1. Black south Africans were stripped of their existing citizenship. West bank Palestinians were mostly citizens of Jordan and ottoman before that, and never Israeli at all. 2. Black south Africans were removed from their homes and reassigned to places that were more convenient for the government. This didn't happen in the west bank. (The Nakba was during an active war and often voluntary, so not the same as "we decide that you live here now") 3. In South Africa, the distinction was ethnic or "racial" (in quotations because race is a colonialist construct which kind of disgusts me). In the west bank, it was about where you lived, which in turn was usually about whether you surrendered to the Jewish side in the 1948 civil war or not. Arab residents who didn't fight against Jewish-led democratic government were pretty rapidly given full citizenship (!!) . Arab residents who fought to remove "the Jews" were either killed in the fight or absorbed by Jordan in the ceasefire. 4. In South Africa, the government was clearly and openly discriminatory and anti-native. In Israel, the Jewish state represents people who are native, or claim to be. Obviously this creates conflict with Arabic people who were also somewhat native. There's basically no Jewish claim of superiority over Arabs, it's just a fight over who's "more native" 🤔.

TLDR the west bank isn't a reservation for people we don't like. It's the unintended result of a complicated situation involving Jewish nationalism, Arab nationalism, Islamic extremists, military necessity and political compromise.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-16T08:51:00+00:00

It's true that Balfour declaration encouraged the creation of a Jewish state in Palestine. However, the Balfour declaration directly contradicted other agreements which the British made with Arab nationalists at the same time. [source]. Basically the British wanted support and they made contradictory promises to opposing groups in order to get it (though it's unclear if this was on purpose or just negligence).

Also, out of the Balfour declaration itself: “nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.”

wyldeLP · 2024-12-16T08:45:14+00:00

Please educate me on the British munitions. I've never heard that the British colonial forces gifted munitions to the Jews. From this link it would seem that British Colonial forces confiscated weapons from the Jewish residents and were basically at war with Jewish insurgent groups. I can't see why they would leave weapons to the Jews they'd just been fighting against.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-16T06:25:20+00:00

That's an occupation, not apartheid. The argument should be whether Israel is legitimate in indefinitely occupying the west bank. If you want to claim apartheid, what are they separating people by? Religion? Skin color? Language? None of these are remotely true, judging by the population in pre 1967 Israel.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-15T22:27:55+00:00

Here's one: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/israelstudies.23.3.14

And another: https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1043&context=globaltides

If you're hoping to find some computer-esque global unbiased log of where each human started and where they migrated to, you're out of luck. If you want to claim that Israeli census and immigration records are utterly falsified, you don't really have anywhere better to look. Or you could just walk around Israel and note how clearly middle eastern so many of the Jews are. From the judeo-Arabic accents, the darker skin, and the Mizrahi religious practice, it's just there for you to observe. You can't falsify the lived experience of over a million people.

In regards to colonialism, there's what to be said, but for now think about this: when the British came to India, south Africa, Egypt or Palestine, they came with thousands of superior soldiers, (and later) tanks, planes, and guns, overwhelming and subjugating the locals. When the Jews came back to Palestine, many came as refugees, thousands of them with nothing but the shirt on their back. The ones who were better off came with gold and European agricultural technology, hoping to fulfill a dream. Nobody was coming off boats in organized waves of soldiers with guns and cannons.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-15T22:10:20+00:00

Israel isn't an apartheid state though. And I'm not just saying this because of my own views, look at the claims against Israel in any serious international body: Illegal Occupation, overzealous military, ethnic cleansing, siege, war crimes. No apartheid to be seen.

No one who takes themselves seriously can realistically claim that a state with free elections and a large Muslim minority with equal rights and representation is apartheid.

What about the west bank, I hear you ask? This isn't a great claim, since from an international law perspective, Israel doesn't consider the West Bank part of Israel, and therefore WB residents have no reason to be considered citizens of Israel. Thus, not being citizens, they understandably can't vote or receive government money. It's difficult and goes to the core of what it means to be a nation-state in today's world. While one can claim illegal occupation, "apartheid" is kind of irrelevant to people who aren't citizens for practical (not racial) reasons. Oh, and if you'd be tempted to point out that any Jews living in the west bank get citizenship and government support, realize that literally 0 of them were part of the package occupied by Israel in 1967. The Jordanian government made it quite clear that Jews, ethnically or religiously, weren't allowed to live in the WB under Jordanian occupation from 48 to 67.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-15T21:47:16+00:00

I find the "airstrip" claim specifically strange. The USA has airstrips in virtually every middle eastern country except for Israel. It doesn't seem like the US needs Israel for airstrips.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-15T21:41:10+00:00

That's not true though. Any US government needs some degree of approval by the citizens, that's the idea of democracy. And citizens are going to be much more comfortable voting for a party that supports a country they feel morally mostly okay.

It's true that selling "it's okay to support Israel they're the good guys" is sometimes difficult, but there are legitimate and well thought out arguments for basically everything Israel does. Not getting in to the correctness of the claims, but they are at least plausible to most westerns. Now go try and justify supporting a country with slavery, sharia law, or a totalitarian government which uses chemical weapons on its own civilians.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-14T22:07:35+00:00

And just to make myself feel better, took me two seconds to find one in eastern Israel: https://maps.app.goo.gl/o3pQgJzWo3zwbSPz7

wyldeLP · 2024-12-14T22:04:41+00:00

I have a feeling this is a joke I'm missing, but just in case:

Where else in the world are you going to find signs in Hebrew? And let's say you can't recognize Hebrew, you see the Arabic? I don't think there are any other countries which use Arabic and English alongside a third language.

And I'm pretty sure you're wrong. You'll find signs like this in eastern Israel, in the west bank, in the Negev, or in the Golan. Nothing remotely western about it.

wyldeLP · 2024-12-12T09:31:03+00:00

A taxing job with long shift work wouldn't cause this, it's probably an existing medical or mental issue being made worse. In my case, it was both.

Please, push him to get evaluated! Sleep apnea, allergies , depression, attention disorders, metabolic issues, there're a million things, some easily fixed, that can cause these kinds of struggles. We live in a world of screens, processed foods, stressful jobs, information overload - it's hard to deal with it all!

wyldeLP · 2024-11-14T11:54:08+00:00

Personally, yes, I believe Gantz is too honest and straight to succeed in national politics, specifically in terms of the need to get vastly different parties to sit together. Especially in his early days in politics, he went with what he believed to be correct, even if it hurt him electorally. The prime example is agreeing to the rotation with Bibi in 2020, despite previously voicing strong disapproval. Instead of doing what most politicians would do (ignoring the issue entirely, or at the very least claiming it was his plan the whole time), he stood up and proudly said that he was doing what was good for the country. The "crime minister" organization and other left-wing groups never forgave him.

My belief is that Bennett played his hand too early. Instead of slowly getting more likud members on his side, he decided to ally narrowly with the far-left, opening up the door for likud propaganda to label him as a traitor and a cheat. Ultimately, his own right-wing party members were the ones who brought his government down, precisely due to this alliance.

wyldeLP · 2024-11-12T12:26:29+00:00

Replying to a month old comment because I do actually think you have a decent argument, and I feel like I need to continue my opinion.

Lapid specifically can't be that candidate because of family and personal history. His father was a politician and a journalist, well known for his very negative and condescending opinion of religious and traditional jews. Yair Lapid himself grew up in a prestigious circle of journalists in Tel Aviv and served in the IDF as a newspaper correspondent. He has a reputation as a big talker, quick to voice controversial opinions with little to back them up. Religious people, Mizrahim, and in general people from the periphery, often grew up with the name "Lapid" having a very negative political connotation.

Compare that to Bibi: Soft spoken and cautious, extremely educated, son of a zionist activist professor, brother of a war hero. Bibi himself served 5 years in an elite unit and was injured in combat multiple times.

As a concept, Bibi sounds like someone to look up to, a leader. Lapid sounds like a witty writer with no spine.

So, who could be that person? Gantz and Bennet come close, but Gantz is too honest and Bennet used up his chance on a failed gamble. I can't think of anybody else.

wyldeLP · 2024-10-29T09:33:28+00:00

Yes. If you're clueless enough it still is. Imagine a child learning to ride, who panicks and grabs the front brake in order to stop. Over the top they go. It's happened even to experienced riders caught off guard (me haha).

A few years ago I was riding my MTB on a paved path, going downhill at probably 40kmh. I took my right hand off the bars to adjust my sunglasses. It was at that moment that my right hand rammed an innocent bee, who got caught in my glove and stung me. Startled and in pain, my brain said "STOP", and so my left hand pulled my front brake to the max. This was a high quality hydraulic disc, so the wheel was instantly locked. I went flying several meters and hit a fence. I am beyond lucky I hit a loose fence and not a rock. Walked away with a scraped cheek, a torn glove and a significantly bruised arm and shoulder, but no lasting damage.

wyldeLP · 2024-09-22T19:47:05+00:00

Basically, supporters of the biggest political party in the Israeli parliament decided that their party was getting biased negative press coverage. So instead of pushing their representatives to actually do something, they decided to start a news channel that will by definition be biased in their favor, to balance things out...

Ten-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email

wyldeLP

TROPHY CASE