xapr

joined 1 year ago
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Thank you as well. I agree with pretty much everything you say.

Thanks for the clarification as well. That totally makes sense.

I hope we can eventually make cycling and public transportation more popular.

Take care.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (2 children)

I've personally seen each of the things I listed multiple times. Sometimes several of those items at the same time (ex: cyclist riding at night, without lights and without a helmet, on the busiest street possible).

I understand why people would do some of those things, but not others. Like you, I have sometimes ridden without a helmet or without lights, and I understand that sometimes one is just caught unprepared. The main thing for me is that when I see extremely risky behavior, especially a combination of them like my example above, I worry tremendously for those people. I also seriously wonder if they are actively trying to get themselves killed.

Yes, I imagine that our cycling infrastructure and conditions are probably very different. I also feel that this study may have focused on some places that have better conditions and infrastructure (and cyclist education) than my area. This may explain the discrepancy in what the study found and my experiences.

What you've described all sounds very reasonable. I guess all I was trying to say is that the study had surprising results for me, and I worry that potentially misleading results could encourage cyclists to take more risky behavior. My concern is for cyclists' safety and for the perception of cycling in general.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

This is interesting. I hadn't heard of the recommendation for pedestrians to walk against traffic before. I'll have to look it up. Thanks.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago

Regarding riding on the sidewalk/crosswalk, I was only speaking of safety for the cyclists themselves. Especially the sidewalk may seem safer, until a car coming out of or turning into a driveway runs into you because they don't expect someone moving at bicycle speed on the sidewalk.

Regarding riding the wrong way, I was only speaking in the context of when there is car traffic on the same street. Of course, if there are no cars then there's no added risk to riding in any direction.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago

I agree with all you said, 100%!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 week ago (4 children)

I agree with a lot of what you say and have experienced and done some of that myself. There are just a couple of minor terms of degree that I don't quite agree with:

Cyclists break laws to reduce exposure to cars and their drivers.

I think that's true some of the time, but not anywhere near all the time. A few of the things I listed that I've seen don't reduce their exposure.

So yeah, all the things that make using a light vehicle safer tend to make heavy vehicle users pissed off.

Again, I generally agree, except that I think "all" is excessive. Plenty of things that cyclists do that piss off car drivers don't make them safer.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Yeah, that was poorly worded on my part. What I meant was that the combination of direction AND speed was what was wrong. I was turning from a stop sign and didn't expect someone coming at speed against the direction of traffic that they were closest to and that I was looking out for.

If they had been going that speed on the sidewalk going the same direction as the car lane closest to them I would have noticed them. If they had come from the opposite direction at pedestrian speed I would have noticed them. It was the combination of both speed and direction that almost resulted in a collision. I hope that clarifies.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago)

Sure, I recognize that what I'm saying is anecdotal, obviously, and I recognize the need for real studies, but it was still surprising that what they seem to be saying in the article (again, I didn't read the paper in detail) doesn't match what I've seen in my city. I can assure you that I see more of the other things I listed than cyclists running stop signs. But maybe you're right and I notice stop sign running less because I do it myself (edit: when I'm cycling, not when I'm driving).

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (7 children)

Sure, I realize that. Maybe I wasn't clear or perhaps overly verbose in my previous post, but my point is that running stop signs and red lights is the mildest form of "illegal" (in most places but not all) and like you said, arguably could be said to improve cycling safety. I just thought it was a weird thing to focus on. There seemed to be no mention of either why running stop lights or stop signs can improve cycling safety, or the myriad other ways that cyclists frequently break the law and make things more dangerous for themselves. Maybe there was mention in the paper itself, I didn't read it in detail, but the article didn't mention it.

PS: I upvoted you, by the way. Not sure who downvoted you or why.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm sticking to Mastodon because I don't want to give into yet another corporate platform to eventually end up with the same results as Twitter and Reddit. Most people are on Twitter/Reddit/Bluesky? Who cares? Enough people are on Mastodon and Lemmy.

 

My environment is a (freshly installed) Debian server with ZFS pools. I would like to store files in ZFS and share them using Samba.

My question is which is better from efficiency, effort, and security (for the host) perspectives? Running it natively on the bare-metal Debian host, running it in an LXC container, or running it in a VM? Why do you think one way is better than the others? I'm pretty familiar with VMs, but don't have much experience or knowledge of containers.

This is what I'm thinking at the moment, but I would appreciate any feedback:

  1. Natively: no resource overhead, medium admin overhead (manual Samba configuration), least secure(?)
  2. LXC: small resource overhead, least admin overhead (preconfigured containers and/or reproducible configs), possibly more security than native(?)
  3. VM: most resource overhead, most admin overhead (not only manual configuration, but also managing virtual disk [including snapshots, backups, etc]), most secure
 

I learned about this many years ago and the difference after I started using only SLS-free toothpaste was night and day. I used to get canker sores any time I would bite the inside of my cheek, hit my gums with the hard parts of my toothbrush, etc., and this completely stopped a while after I switched to SLS-free.

SLS is Sodium Lauryl Sulfate, by the way, and it's a detergent. From what I understand, the only reason why it's added to toothpaste is to make more foam when you brush. But the SLS-free toothpaste I use makes plenty of foam, so I have no idea why they add it. It's one of those things about the modern world that makes absolutely no sense. The ads and packaging should say in big letters: "now with even more canker sores!"

Unfortunately, the vast majority of toothpastes on the market (at least in the US) have SLS. I can only seem to find SLS-free toothpaste in natural food/supplement stores. It's extra difficult to find toothpastes that are SLS-free but that keep fluoride too. The difficulty (and price? I haven't compared) is completely worth it to me though.

TL;DR: The SLS (Sodium Lauryl Sulfate) in most toothpastes is unnecessary and causes canker sores (painful sores in your mouth and gums). If you have this problem, you will likely benefit from SLS-free toothpaste (some still include fluoride) that you can usually find at natural food stores.

 

You should know that the issue with many communities on other Lemmy instances that you subscribed to showing a "subscribe pending" status has mostly been resolved.

I looked in my subscribed communities list, found all the pending ones, opened them, unsubscribed (clicked the yellow "subscribe pending" button) and resubscribed. After that, I refreshed the page and I was now fully subscribed to them, regardless of which Lemmy instance hosts the community.

The only exception, unfortunately, was with kbin communities. All the kbin.social ones still showed subscribe pending for me even after following the same procedure. Still, this is a big improvement over having a bunch of half-subscribed communities.

I know that the pending status didn't have much of a negative effect on my end because I would still get those in my subscribed feed, but I hoped for the communities' subscriber numbers to fully reflect the actual number of subscribers.

 

I don't know if it's just me, but I've been unable to comment on any lemmy.world communities for several days now. I have even verified that lemmy.world was up and running, but it didn't help. I presume that there's some federation problem, likely on their end. My solution for now will have to be to unsubscribe from all lemmy.world communities and look for alternatives elsewhere, unless anyone has any better ideas.

 

I have an issue with some servers at work where I have been unable to determine the best course of action to address it based on pre-existing knowledge within my team or web searches. Does anyone have suggestions for the best place to ask RHEL-specific questions? I don't want to presume that it's OK to post such nitty-gritty technical questions here.

view more: next ›