• 1 Post
  • 83 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: July 3rd, 2023

help-circle
  • The only threshold that will automatically get you a reckless driving violation in CA is over 100 mph

    Texas has no defined speed threshold

    Alabama, where I lived previously on the east coast, has no defined threshold

    The guideline for officers in CO is to consider a reckless driving ticket at 26 over the limit and above

    I could keep searching individual states but I guess my point is there are many states where 20 over is pretty much a common thing among drivers and not typically punishable with a reckless driving charge. I haven’t spent much time in the northeast, perhaps things are different there.


  • Lol no, you have to be going something like double the speed limit most places to get arrested

    You might get a ticket, but almost any judge will throw the ticket out if they write you up for going 5-10 over. Some places will write the ticket anyways in the hopes of making some extra revenue, but generally speaking it’s not a ticket that is worth writing because it’s so easy to get tossed out.


  • What part of the country are you from? IME that’s far from universal. I have gotten pulled for 20+ over in multiple states and it’s often just a warning, if I do get ticketed it’s just a ticket and that’s the end of it:

    When I had first gotten my license in CA I got pulled over while doing 105-110 in a 65 mph zone. The cop wrote it up for 99 mph, which was a simple speeding ticket without the option for traffic school. I went to court and the judge knocked it down to a <$200 ticket with traffic school so I didn’t get any points on my record.

    85 mph in a 65 is normal in a ton of states, they’d be they’d be writing up people for reckless driving in every other traffic stop if 20 over were the threshold.






  • nBodyProblem@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzChildren is bugs
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    This, and cultural diffusion is a normal part of human society. It has been for countless thousands of years.

    I understand why cultural appropriation can be problematic but the fact remains that the usual mode of cultural diffusion has been, “that’s really cool. I wanna have that too”

    It’s not a zero sum game because there isn’t some finite limit. By wearing a kimono or whatever you aren’t taking someone else’s right to wear one away from them.








  • nBodyProblem@lemmy.worldtoScience Memes@mander.xyzAntybooties
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    14
    ·
    5 months ago

    You don’t need a sense of numbers, in the abstract mathematical way humans use, to count.

    Maybe a human child can’t count to 1000 but they could be taught to put a BB inside a jar every step they take. Then they can take a BB back out of the jar at every step on the way back. When the jar is empty, they’re near home. Even if they can’t count at all, they can keep track of thousands of steps this way given enough attention span and stamina.

    Then, just imagine, instead of a BB’s in a jar it’s some chemical signal in the brain.



  • This is some pretty weird and lowkey racist exposition on humanity.

    Getting “racism” from that post is a REAL stretch. It’s not even weird, agriculture and mechanization are widely considered good things for humanity as a whole

    Humankind isn’t a single unified thing. Individual cultures have their own modes of subsistence and transportation that are unique to specific cultural needs.

    ANY group of humans beyond the individual is purely just a social construct and classing humans into a single group is no less sensible than grouping people by culture, family, tribe, country etc.

    It’s not that it took 1 million years to “figure out” farming. It’s that 1 specific culture of modern humans (biologically, humans as we conceive of ourselves today have existed for about 200,000 years, with close relatives existing for in the ballpark of 1M years) started practicing a specific mode of subsistence around 23,000 years ago. Specific groups of indigenous cultures remaining today still don’t practice agriculture, because it’s not actually advantageous in many ways – stored foods are less nutritious, agriculture requires a fairly sedentary existence, it takes a shit load of time to cultivate and grow food (especially when compared to foraging and hunting), which leads to less leisure time.

    Agriculture is certainly more efficient in terms of nutrition production for a given calorie cost. It’s also much more reliable. Arguing against agriculture as a good thing for humanity as a whole is the thing that’s weird.