Just going to ignore everything I said that proves you wrong? OK, you do you and keep being wrong, I’ll keep driving legally and keep my perfect driving record.

The only good thing about all this I suppose is I learned not needing to use turn signals in turn only lanes is a unique thing to my state, it seems like most other states do require them.

Anyway if all you’re going to do is keep saying wrong and re-quote the same debunked statement there’s not really anything left to say.

Turn signals are required, but not in a turn only lane. The question asked and answered wasn’t what’s being talked about here. Also it’s trivially demonstrable that turn signals are not required “anytime you are changing direction” in your vehicle otherwise you’d be constantly turning them off and on just driving down any random road as it curves back and forth. They’re required when you depart one lane for a different one. In a turn only lane you never depart the lane, it just becomes another lane. Finally quoting cops is a terrible defense as cops are per court decisions not actually required to know the law which is super fucked up, but that’s an entirely different discussion.

The clauses apply if the first one does which it doesn’t. Since you’re never turning from a direct course you don’t need to signal in the manner the following clauses describe. Since you’re never leaving the direct course, there’s no need to signal otherwise you’d need to use your turn signal every time you turn the wheel on your car even if you’re just following the road (which is what you’re doing in a turn only lane). You need to signal when entering the turn lane, but once in the lane you’re just following the lane (the direct course) and therefore don’t need to signal.

Yes because it’s irrelevant. The first clause failing means subsequent clauses don’t apply. Because a signal isn’t necessary it doesn’t matter how far back you don’t signal for.

Looks awesome, but unfortunately seems to only be for the UK and EU. I wish the US market would get something similar.

The only law in my state that requires usage of turn signals states this:

No person may turn a vehicle from a direct course or move right or left upon a highway unless and until such movement can be made with reasonable safety, and then only after giving an appropriate signal in the manner hereinafter provided, in the event any other vehicle may be affected by the movement.

The key there is “direct course”. The direct course in a dedicated turn lane is the turn, so no signal is required. If it’s a turn or straight lane it is required as in that case the direct course is straight.

That is literally the only thing keeping me from installing Graphene on my phone.

I stated there wasn’t a law.

You can’t prove a negative. You cite the law that says you need to use a turn signal in a turn only lane. Or are you full of shit?

Ah, OK might be a Canadian thing then. There is no law in the US that requires usage of a turn signal in a turn only lane. I didn’t pull a law from my ass, you’re pulling one from yours, or rather I’m talking about US law and it seems you’re talking about Canadian.

What law, that’s the point, no law requires usage of a turn signal in a turn only lane. There is no law that requires that and a driving test is testing that you’re following the laws. It’s the same as if you turned on your turn signal in a straight lane and then didn’t change lanes.

No it isn’t, you’re not required by law to use a turn signal in a turn only lane. If I was giving a driving test I’d fail you for using a turn signal in the turn only lane as it demonstrates you don’t know the law.

You don’t need them in turn only lanes, but otherwise yes, use the damn turn signals.

Same difference. If someone has a Windows 10 device and got rid of it, but didn’t purchase a Windows 11 device to replace it, they’re no longer a Windows user. Sure they could have had multiple Windows devices for some reason, but it’s rare for someone to own more computers than they have potential users to operate them (barring things like schools or companies that maintain a fixed pool of devices, although even they try to avoid having significant excess inventory). So yes, fewer Windows devices is to within a certain margin of error fewer Windows users.

Yes, as I said, most went to mobile or tablet, so Android or iOS. Basically Windows users went to one of Android, iOS, OS X, or Linux. Some OS X users meanwhile went to iOS or Android.

MS also recently shared that they lost 400 million Windows users. I bet most of them were Windows 10 users. This isn’t “people finally moved from 10 to 11”, this is “people finally got so fed up with Windows that they abandoned it for other options” (mostly mobile/tablet but also some Linux and OS X).

In a normal military this would be a pretty big deal, but Russia has long used the strategy of “keep throwing bodies at them until you win”. That’s also likely the reason their navy and air force are a joke as that strategy doesn’t work so well when you have a finite number of craft to send those bodies on. There’s a reason that Ukraine’s tiny well trained military has been able to use guerrilla tactics to wipe the floor with Russia’s military.

So unfortunately this is likely to make little if any difference, Putin will just find a new piece of meat to stuff into that uniform and then kick him towards the front line. What does make a huge difference though is every time they manage to destroy a piece of Russian hardware (be that a boat, plane, tank, or artillery) as Russia has a very hard time replacing those unlike their practically unlimited supply of cannon fodder.

The problem is that the biggest service Cloudflare provides is DDoS protection, and doing that requires that you have more bandwidth available than your attacker. Having enough bandwidth to withstand modern botnet powered DDoS attacks is ridiculously expensive (and it’s also a finite resource, there’s only so much backbone infrastructure). Basically it’s economically infeasible to have multiple companies providing the service Cloudflare does. You might be able to get away with two companies doing so, but it’s unlikely you could manage more than that without some of them starting to go bankrupt.

I dove into their FAQ which explains it. I don’t agree with their logic, but the core idea seems to be that in order to run their equivalent of a TOR relay you have to stake a certain amount of their crypto, and you periodically receive some of the crypto as a reward for running the node. The theory is that the more nodes there are, the less crypto is available on the market and the more expensive it will become to acquire enough crypto to create new nodes. It’s all supposed to make it prohibitively expensive to control a significant amount of the network.

The fatal flaw in the reasoning is the assumption that anyone will actually care enough about their crypto to drive the price up. With no central authority setting a price for the crypto the price becomes whatever anyone is willing to buy or sell it for. Their fatal assumption is that scarcity automatically generates value. It does not. A thing needs some kind of value in addition to scarcity to become valuable.

TACO.