Magnet fishing, also called magnetic fishing, is searching in outdoor waters for ferromagnetic objects available to pull with a strong neodymium magnet.[1] Recovered items may be dangerous, such as firearms, ammunition, and bombs.
I'm not getting the 'better' part. You're much more stationary and whatever you pull up will be coated with muck and slime and, as what I pasted said, it might also seriously hurt or even kill you.
I'd say finding a bomb on a beach that no one has discovered yet is less likely than finding one in a river.
There isn't even one instance of an active bomb exploding... And magnet fishing is a pretty common thing. Plus generally people will call the police if they find something potentially dangerous or used in a crime. It's probably fine.
I remember watching a video where some people pulled a landmine out of a river and the cops were so annoyed to have to deal with it. Apparently this wasn't the first explosive that's come up out of that river and the cops basically blamed the people for pulling out another one.
I'd totally be up to magnet fish, but our bomb disposal department finds enough explosives from ww2 as is. Though I could use a pair of rusty bolt cutters used in some crime, as shown on the Wikipedia article ...
You can be nice, just make sure you think about what you're actually doing before doing it.
Letting a car go in front in the situation above: you're probably causing an accident.
Letting a car go in heavy traffic when there's one lane each way and everyone's stopped already anyway: won't cost you much time and you've allowed that person to move on with their life instead of being permanently stuck at an intersection he's never going to be able to get out of unless someone yields.
I live close to a few intersections where if no one is nice and yields, it's impossible to join unless you barge your way in and hope people stop. But to be fair, these aren't designed like death traps like the one above.
Letting a car go in front in the situation above: you're probably causing an accident.
I disagree. In this situation, you are letting the left turning car move to the middle lane of this five lane road. From there, they can make a better decision of when to go. You aren’t causing an accident by letting them go TO THE MIDDLE LANE. From that point on, it is their ability to merge that may cause an accident. But they are supposed to stop in the middle lane and check that they can merge BEFORE they merge.
Edit: Woof, sorry my phone mangled my comment into a hot mess. Fixed it and re-commented here.
You are supposed to be in the middle near that rounded portion just above the time-traveling assassin.
These…
Turning Left on a Straightaway: Most main roads have median lanes into which you can move your vehicle if you need to turn left off of a straightaway. Move into the median, and yield the right of way to the oncoming traffic. Once there is an opening, you can complete your turn.
Turning Left onto a Straightaway with a vehicle in the median: Every once in a while, you’ll be trying to turn onto a straight away, and you’ll find someone already in the median—right where you need to be! The rule is that the vehicle in the media has the right of way. The idea is that they are in the most vulnerable position because they are literally stopped in the middle of the road. Let them complete their turn before you move to the median.
That is not what that excerpt is talking about, that is talking about a road with a middle turn lane.
The road pictured here has a median which cannot be driven over, generally there's a kerb and it's usually just grass on top. The center part is not for stopping in, it is only for driving through. You should not proceed unless you have a clear view of traffic from where that car is sitting on the left. In some cases there will be a white line to stop there, and in that case that is okay, but that is not what is pictured here.
What are YOU talking about? The median can 100% be driven over (circled in red below), and the center part (again, circled in red) is entirely intended to stop in prior to merging.
The entire middle area is the median, which also contains protected left hand turns, a raised section, and what I assume is a painted median (maybe, maybe not, but again the circled portion). I am talking about stopping here, in the circled portion, prior to merging. You are supposed to stop there, assuming you aren’t towing or driving a longer-than-average vehicle, if you do not have visibility into the lane you are merging into.
The quoted text I have above specifically mentions a left hand turn onto a straightway WITH ANOTHER VEHICLE IN THE MEDIAN, so clearly they mean a median that allows driving through.
Edit: The predictable thing to do here, turning left with low visibility into the lane you are merging into due to obscuring traffic, is to yield to traffic coming from your left until you have: no traffic coming from the right, or someone from the right waves you through. You then stop in the middle, circled red portion until it is safe to complete your turn. You don’t just Hail Mary blindly drive from where you were initially stopped into the desired lane. That is how you cause an accident.
I think you are entirely missing the point of this comic and misunderstanding the rules of the pictured intersection. There's a reason these were outlawed in my state (michigan). They are a dumb way to direct traffic, the "stopping room" you've circled is not meant for stopping in, or else there would be far more space there, likely an entire lane of room. I'm not suggesting making blind turns. You are not supposed to proceed without visibility or merging room, hence why the stopped line of cars in the middle lane have the right-of-way as they are blocking your view of that and possibly the traffic behind them, which the person at the front of the line has almost no way of knowing. You stop in the middle then you are still blocking them for as long as it takes to merge into traffic now that you've got yourself in this situation.
It just does not make sense to do it that way. If you can't make the turn left then you turn right and find somewhere to turn around, which is how our roads are designed from the jump here in michigan.
Anyways, this is a really stupid argument and I'm really not interested in continuing it.
Alright, bow out if you must. But keep in mind here you chose to pedantically argue there is no middle lane. You picked this fight, when my original argument to the first commenter I responded to was that allowing someone to go when you are in the middle lane of the straightaway (a.k.a the time-traveling assassin) is not "causing an accident". So agreed it is stupid, but it isn’t like I called you out first for something silly.
Cringe, and implies you're trying to win an argument rather than have a conversation.
Also, I'm sorry, but you're totally wrong. I know what kind of intersection you're talking about, this definitely is not it. Maybe it's a regional thing, but XKCD is an American webcomic, these intersections are all over the place and you definitely are not supposed to stop in them.
This is the kind of intersection you're talking about. You'll notice that the center area where the car turns is much longer than the area in the original post, in addition to having clear lane indications.
If someone were to stop in the intersection in the OP, they would have to be stopped at an awkward angle not parallel to either lane, and if someone were to follow them into the intersection, the second person would have nowhere to go.
Long story short, there's two different kinds of intersections being discussed here, regardless of whether or not you acknowledge it or which one you believe is being depicted. One of them makes the comic make sense, while the other does not. Which one do you think the artist intended to draw?
Cringe? Okay, thanks. So this was a discussion until meowMix came in with a "there is no middle lane what the f* are you talking about". Charged language, incorrect statement, and a nitpick nonetheless.
Now you are here arguing for meowMix, but again, you are arguing something counter to most US states. You are generally allowed to turn into an intersection as long as you are not impeding traffic turning left in that same intersection. I am talking about intersections without lights, not controlled intersections. Those are different, and not applicable here.
In this case, there is clearly enough room for a reasonable sized car to be in the intersection assuming they yielded for traffic from the left AND were waved into the intersection by another left turning car on the straightaway (the time traveling assassin), so traffic from the right. Left and right, basically the general rule that applies to all left turning uncontrolled intersection traffic questions. But that waving though only is to the lane of the car waving you through, closest to your side of the street. No time traveling assassin can give you right of way to lanes to their right, a.k.a the lane with the 45 mph car.
That’s the premise of this joke, that people cannot give you right of way to SOMEONE ELSE’S LANE. In case everything above is still unclear, there is a wiki for this exact joke. Because this has been debated countless times before. Because everything from xkcd has. Because this is the internet, where everything is debated to death.
Now I have no idea where this supposed intersection is. Could be Pennsylvania where the artist is from, or Virginia where they went to college. Or even Massachusetts where they currently reside. Or it could be in any number of states that allow this exact behavior I am talking about. Tough to say without knowing directly from the author where this is from.
The example you provided is another intersection type, and different than the joke. The middle section of the joke is what appears to be a double wide (wide as two lanes) section, so there is definitely enough room for a standard sized car. Angle of the intersection plays no part in whether it is a valid turning place, awkward or not. There are countless examples of intersections that aren’t perfectly perpendicular, should ALL of these awkward left turn merges be forbidden because you aren’t in a spot exactly parallel to the lane you are merging into? No.
Who cares about the second person? You shouldn’t be taking them into consideration for this kind of turn. They are supposed to turn when they have enough space. Following you blindly into an intersection is a poor decision on their part, and of course not your responsibility.
Long story not short! You’re talking about a different intersection, not even the one from the joke. You are right there are different kinds of intersections, but any of them with: an intersection, two left turning drivers, a two way straightaway, a middle section with a left turning lane (a.k.a. a middle lane, or a center left lane, or a median with a raised section and left turning lane, …), and enough space for a non-straightaway left turning car to move into the intersection without impeding traffic from either direction of the straightaway would have worked for this joke.
Because the joke wasn’t there isn’t enough space in the intersection. It was that NO DRIVER CAN GIVE YOU RIGHT OF WAY TO SOMEONE ELSE’S LANE.
You’re potentially right that I enjoy a debate, most people on the internet do. That’s why I am here. But I’ll be damned if sit on the sidelines while some cat food user makes an incorrect nitpick, or you yourself argue for driving behavior that is counter to most states’ DMV rules.
I was gonna lose my mind reading some of these comments. Thank you for being sensible.
The majority of cases where one could politely let someone through are not going to be on highways like this.
It's also ridiculous to assume that the driver that you're letting through would just stop checking for oncoming traffic because you waved them through.
Driving is one of those things where we're supposed to be human - make choices, act sensibly, think about what we're doing and adapt to others around us. But often people assume it's something entirely deterministic - "if the light is green I'm going to launch forward even if there's still traffic moving past me and I'm going to get hit or hit someone, because green means I HAVE to go".
Being polite to others, asides from the nicety of it, is often more positive to everyone on the road than going "I have the right of way so I won't let anyone in" and allows traffic as a whole to move with less issues. But some people go way too hard on the mentality that every road user other than them is stupid and stop acting like humans because they assume others won't be able to cope. Which usually complicates traffic for everyone.
There's a roundabout in my daily commute in which at the end of the afternoon 80% of drivers are coming from and going to the same direction and there's usually heavy traffic in that specific direction that blocks the roundabout. Often, drivers who are approaching the roundabout to go to a different direction will signal their intention, and users already inside the roundabout will give way - even if they technically have the right of way and don't have to - because those users aren't going their direction and will only increase the number of cars stuck if they're not allowed through. Roundabout users being polite effectively makes traffic as a whole go more smoothly and everyone benefits. Sometimes someone inside the roundabout will be an ass and not let people through - and the result is always that everyone is stuck for more time because there are now cars inside the roundabout which could've already vacated it which are stuck behind someone who could easily let them through.
you dont have two lane roads in your town? i sure do and this is a real issue. the driver pulling into traffic cannot see the car coming along at higher speed.
you dont have two lane roads in your town? i sure do and this is a real issue. the driver pulling into traffic cannot see the car coming along at higher speed.
The xkcd breaks it down for us, basically we don't know because the person who coined the term never specified what it was. It's either: puissance, potens, or potenz. Which means potency in French, Dutch Danish and German, the three languages the scientists published in.
Can the term potency also be used to refer to the exponent in English? Because that is what is meant by the terms in the other languages and I haven't come across that usage of the word potency in English
It appears that an individual's heuristic analytical mechanism is engendering a subversion of their affective response system, resulting in epistemic determinations that lack substantiation from the linguistic parameters prevalent within the upper two quartiles of the demographic distribution.
Exponents and Logarithms can be first taught in Middle School in many places, but sometimes get revisited during Calculus in AP High School or at University level.
xkcd
Active