Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Road signs to help people limit radiation exposure in contaminated areas

theautopian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–216 of 216 posts

Re: Road signs to help people limit radiation exposure in contaminated areas

#211

Post by olalonde »

dotancohen wrote: post #203
olalonde wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was sort of my point: it's not a reasoned stance (e.g. culture X is objectively superior), but an emotional one (e.g. I have an emotional attachment to culture X).

Let's be honest. Would you want to live in a culture where only certain people, based on factors that happened before they were born, can or cannot work? Pay less or more taxes? Can or cannot own land? Where women cannot walk freely outside? Do you feel that your culture is better than that? Would you consider that an emotional attachment to your culture?

I would say you could have those preferences and values without being a nationalist. In fact, there are dozens of nations who share those values.

Re: Road signs to help people limit radiation exposure in contaminated areas

#212

Post by AnthonyMouse »

mminer237 wrote: post #210
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The energy is exponential. It takes 30% farther to stop going 80 than it does going 70. That's when the issue is stopping distance. The issue on highways is that you have, for example, two cars in the left lane going 55 MPH and a third approaches going 70 MPH. One of the slower cars sees this and moves over but only at the same time as the faster car is changing into the same lane to pass on the right, so now both…

I guess that's theoretically possible, but even in that rare case, people are going to break if they hit someone. Driving too slow causes some accidents but they rarely lead to deaths. AFAIK, driving too slow is such a minor safety issue that no study has been carried out to ascertain exactly how bad it is though.

The trouble with that one is that it's the one caused by people driving too slow, and isn't rare. When people are driving at significant speed differentials to each other, it causes a lot of lane change maneuvers. Which are dangerous because each one is a chance to move into a lane without realizing there is someone in your blind spot, or that the new lane has an obstruction ten feet in front of you, or focus your attention on what's happening in the lane you're intending to change into and fail to notice an immediate hazard in the lane you're still in. So you get more accidents, and those accidents are still happening at highway speed.

Meanwhile a significant proportion of accidents happen not because you couldn't stop fast enough but because you couldn't stop at all. Another driver side swipes you and rams you off the road and you're now three feet from a head-on collision with a utility pole; if you can even get your foot to the brake before impact it's not going to save you. You're driving on an apparently clear road in winter and come across a patch of black ice; your brakes have no effect and you're hitting whatever's in front of you at full speed. It's night, you're tired and you only realize there is a completely dark disabled vehicle in one of the travel lanes when you smash into it.

In cases like this the difference between 30 MPH and 50 MPH can mean a lot, but the difference between 55 MPH and 80 MPH is basically just "you're still dead".

Re: Road signs to help people limit radiation exposure in contaminated areas

#213

Post by foxyv »

AcerbicZero wrote: post #205
foxyv wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

110 MPH is never a safe speed for a car on a highway. Crash rate increases exponentially with speed. At 110 MPH you are placing your life and the lives of other road users at risk for no real good reason.

This is cringe, and I refuse to engage with it further.

Uh, you just did?

Re: Road signs to help people limit radiation exposure in contaminated areas

#214

Post by elzbardico »

IAmGraydon wrote: post #154
elzbardico wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The west can't even make enough artillery shells in one year to overcome Russia's monthly production. Fucking Russia for God's sake.

You really believe that?

Several reputable European media vehicles said that. On the UK, the Royal United Services Institute said the same. It is not a secret, unless someone keeps a media diet of MSNBC and CNN only.

Re: Road signs to help people limit radiation exposure in contaminated areas

#215

Post by defrost »

elzbardico wrote: post #214
IAmGraydon wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You really believe that?

Several reputable European media vehicles said that. On the UK, the Royal United Services Institute said the same. It is not a secret, unless someone keeps a media diet of MSNBC and CNN only.

The United States Army current artillery shell production capacity is about half that of Russia's .. not less than a tenth.

There are other producers in "the West".

What the RUSI report(s) stated was that Russia is hitting the limits of production and will be bound by material input constraints (chromium, etc) and is ripe for supply disruption, whereas "the West" is ramping up production capaicty and can easily exceed that of Russia.

Re: Road signs to help people limit radiation exposure in contaminated areas

#216

Post by dotancohen »

olalonde wrote: post #211
dotancohen wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's be honest. Would you want to live in a culture where only certain people, based on factors that happened before they were born, can or cannot work? Pay less or more taxes? Can or cannot own land? Where women cannot walk freely outside? Do you feel that your culture is better than that? Would you consider that an emotional attachment to your culture?

I would say you could have those preferences and values without being a nationalist. In fact, there are dozens of nations who share those values.

And which of those nations are not nationalists?
Post reply on HN