Tickets/Voucher for a rock climbing centre could be up his alley.

If you want something that will last you could get him a powder bag, or his first Carabiner as well.

Be prepared that the climbing place might not let him use the Carabiner in conjunction with their equipment though, so it might sit around until he got his own harness if he ever went that far. Powder bag would be all good.

Welcome!!! Come over to Aussie Zone for a banter anytime you like!

So, further to mu previous comment, no you shouldn’t need to create an account on each instance you want to explore. At best creating an account on the instance might make navigability better.

Mastodon is single developer

I think he has a few people with him now. But i listened to the interview at the start of the year, so i’m starting to the detail.

Exploring instances should be as easy as looking up any other website. At least to get their ‘local’ front page. Or just navigate to them through that link above.

As an example you could look up jlai.lu, a french instance. They’re pretty active.

No idea on Mastodon myself. I’ve heard a couple interviews of the developer, seems like a cool guy. But thats about all i can say.

I’s playing round with this instance and community finder the other night, works really well. Might be useful to find a more active community that you’ll enjoy.

https://lemmyverse.net/communities

The instance could be a problem if you scroll through the ‘local’ feed often and thats where you see a lot of things you don’t wish to see. A European or special interest instance might suit your context, (Portuguese?), better.

I spend more time on my ‘local’ (aussie zone) feed than ‘subscribed’ or ‘all’ and its definitely nicer, so a move like this can work.

But you could also optimise your own ‘subscriber’ feed as another option.

Oh man, head off any newscorpse attack, i think your on the money, at least partially.

A roadway allowed multiple speeds across the lanes could be how to get around this.

If the citizens of a transport zone don’t like the rules as they stand, ie, one single speed for all lanes, they should lobby to vary them.

Apart from cases where multiple speeds happen, the speed limit is the speed limit, the person behind contravenes rules if they speed, use the shoulder, etc. They’re in the wrong, they have agency, and decide to cause the unsafe situation.

The person ahead, as that video showed to the tune of straight funktown, may cause worsened traffic conditions, but they’re not the people being dangerous on the road. (Assuming they are going within the range of the expected limit)

1. Often people use those lanes to speed. If a car ahead is overtaking at or within a reasonable range of the speed limit, but not at the speed the speeder wants to travel. The speeder must be patient, they don’t get to dictate what manoeuvres are happening ahead.

2. The argument you present at the end isn’t logical,

… Always do the safest thing.

I can largely agree with this sentiment, but you say before,

People who sit in lane 3 at 69mph are breaking the law and likely to cause an accident by forcing people to pass on the wrong side out of frustration (yes illegal but they will do it)…

If undercutting is the most unsafe thing for the person behind to do in the situation, then as your sentiment captures, the frustrated party undercutting are still in the wrong.

They are in the wrong because, they have failed to ‘always do the safest thing’ in the given situation.

3. Never be the reason someone else does something stupid on the road.

Nice sentiment again, but it implicitly assigns a rigid cause and effect regime to a situation where the ‘frustrated party’ behind has their own agency and likely as much training. There is no necessity that they undercut, it is a choice the party behind makes. The cause does not necessitate that effect, at best it could contribute.

In essence the sentiment shifts the blame from the person causing a potential accident (the undercutter), to the person ahead who, at worst, is causing poor traffic conditions.

Speed limit is the speed limit. End of.

If someone wants to go above the speed limit in the fast lane, then they’re contravening road rules.

No matter what social norm people believe there to be, it doesn’t have precedence over the speed limits.

In a case where the the car in front is going slower than the speed limit, it would be good etiquette though to move over.

so why not?

Did you mean, why not criminalise them?

If so, because theres lots of experiential evidence that it doesn’t work to change criminal behaviour, and as drag alludes to, plenty of evidence now that the criminalised children are locked into a cycle of crime throughout their life.

Their life of crime becomes a cost to you and I, and all those who are victims of their shit behaviour, as well as the State. Its a cost i’d rather pay once through proven crime prevention pathways.

And the above only considers their direct impacts on people personally not even to consider the moral, humanist, or economically efficient use of a nations resources as elements here.

• Wheres the CLP’s case that a policy like this is going to work this time?

• What are their targets for acheiving the change?

• If those targets aren’t met and peoples cars are still getting stolen, or worse, will they own their policy mistakes, or will they blithely double down on this flawed and absolutist policy?

To paraphrase the post,

We people have always been ignorant, we just keep the receipts now.