That’s often the point of riding two abreast. If you are riding one at a time and on the edge of the lane then cars will often try and overtake you without leaving the lane, or at least a minimal amount. That leads to very dangerous close passes.

If you ride side by side or in the middle of the lane if alone, then generally the times you get passed by cars are much safer as if going fully into the other lane already they tend to give you enough space.

This would depend on the drivers in your area, but with the shitty Sydney drivers I learnt quickly to hold the lane unless it was a safe place for them to pass.

Also, because traffic is a thing it’s very rare that I don’t end up right behind whatever car passed me at the next traffic light, safer passes don’t really cost much time for the driver once traffic is accounted for

It’s also better than v and much much better than 2042. It’s a pretty fun arcadey shooter, with a very non toxic player base

Yeah I’m kinda with you. If you’re becoming filthy rich off selling access to content others made then you’re fair game. If you’re just doing it for yourself / not profiting it’s a very different ball game though

I think the current thing is quite likely an organic uprising. Things have been very very broken in Venezuela for a while now and the people there aren’t happy. Lots of people have been fleeing to Colombia for a while now and there are solid signs the election results were made up.

Yeah, I’m learning on an old mini, which is a great car to learn on because they made basically the same car for 40 years and it’s one of the most heavily produced cars of all time. I can buy every part for it for a reasonable price from one of 15 online retailers, about 5 of which are in Australia. However, if that wasn’t the case it would be quite a bad thing to learn on because you’d just spend all your time chasing parts.

Something like that, an old Toyota or a bug would be a good car to learn on

For YouTube stuff, d3sshooter is pretty good. He’s an older bloke that really knows his stuff and does detailed videos about how to do specific jobs on his cars (e.g. I followed his video when putting together the hubs for my mini). This is also a more expensive way to do it, but restoring an old car isn’t a bad way to go. You’ll learn a hell of a lot from it and they’re a bit simpler and more approachable than a newer car

Over the past 5 years the monthly road deaths here in aus have been going up, because of the prevalence of those massive cars

How are mini that high up? It makes no sense. The BMW minis (everything from the last 20 years) are notoriously unreliable. The old ones aren’t great either but they aren’t stand out bad for the time. Cool little cars, but complete shit mechanically.

They have the right to defend, not to genocide. The vast vast majority of the people they’ve killed in Gaza have been civilians & they’re committing a war crime by cutting off the water to Gaza. That’s not self defence

Because they want an excuse to do it in the eyes of the international community and the less extreme of their own population. So they systematically oppressed the Palestinian population, which of course bred terrorism. They then made it more difficult for a peaceful Palestinian government as well, which made Hamas more powerful.

They didn’t listen to the warnings from Egypt that this attack was coming. Now they have the excuse they were waiting for to genocide the Palestinians.

If your country was being systematically dismantled by a much wealthier more powerful neighbour do you really think that you wouldn’t want to lash out? What Hamas did was terrible but it was a result of the long running actions of Israel

Because we could use the money spent on nuclear to build more renewables and supporting infra (storage and transmission) than if we also built nuclear. The renewables will snap be finished and replacing the fossil fuels a lot sooner than the 10-15 years for a nuclear reactor.

If you look up studies into it you need a lot less storage than you’d expect to run a fully renewable grid, as the scale of the grid stabilises it to weather fluctuations. Winter also is a problem that can be overcome. That gencost report is a decent starting point, there are plenty of other studies into it though. The low cost of storage is also especially true if you’re looking at the first 99% of the grid.

Maybe those studies are wrong and nuclear would be economic for that last 1%. However, if we can get to 99% years earlier by just building renewables then discover that it’s harder than expected to get to 100 (somewhat unlikely, especially as more storage tech is developed), we can build nuclear then. The net carbon from getting off the majority of fossil fuels years earlier will probably make it the better decision anyway.

Also just noting that my views are based on what I’ve read about Australia so you should also find peoperly researched cost analysis for your country. Also for renewables to work well in smaller countries they’ll need to develop more interconnects their neighbours etc.

Hydrogen works well with a renewable grids because you can take advantage of the times there is excess energy production so that power doesn’t just go to waste.

We do need to be careful because hydrogen is often sold as a pipe dream by gas companies to convince us to use gas (e.g. “this new gas turbine power plant can be converted to hydrogen”, even though that’d be a workload less efficient than fuel cells).

As for its use in transport, it looks like battery electric vehicles have won that battle for personal vehicles. Both have their advantages but in practice there are few enough fuel stations for hydrogen and enough chargers that that’s not going to flip.

However, batteries are entirely unsuitable to long distance, high load transport like trucks. Ideally they’d be replaced by rail, but that’s not happening anytime soon in many places so hydrogen likely will be the solution there.

For processes like that though, nuclear would make the electricity too expensive to be economic, renewables wouldn’t.

The cost per MWh produced over a year, with grid + storage costs, is the number that matters. Wind and solar combined are much cheaper than nuclear there. For a source look that the most recent csiro gencost report. It’s produced by the Australian national science body and basically says that in the best case if smrs reach large scale adoption and operate at a very high capacity factor… They’re still way too expensive for the power they produce when compared to wind and solar with transmission and storage.

To get off fossil fuels faster it needs to be economic, and nuclear isn’t economic. Renewables are

And that opens up opportunities for energy intensive industries like aluminium or hydrogen production to run whilst there’s an excess of energy

Probably because there have been a lot more make chess players in general historically. It’s still a long way from an even split today and was probably even more imbalanced.