5,629 karma · joined March 2, 2012
In terms of function though, the "hairy arm" is the complete opposite though: it's not to make sure reviewers are paying attention, it's to distract meddling reviewers from the changes you don't want them to veto.
If you're talking about Canada, none of that mess comes from a plethora of choice, it's just the result of American cultural and economic influence, in addition to history. Yes Canadians are well versed in both systems but it's not like we particularly like having to deal with US units in our lives.
> By contrast, the "foot", which is literally named after the device used to approximate it. The median human being has two of these.
It seems odd to criticize the metre for a lack of accuracy against historical basis when the modern definition is accurate to within 0.02% of its historical basis, and yet praise a unit that, if measured by its historical basis, would be off on its mean by around 20% and vary by 40-50% amongst the population.
Here's a video from Minnesota timestamped to them talking about exactly this scenario in detail. Namely, yielding to all lanes of cross traffic: https://youtu.be/CEhNboz5GPk?si=LxdVQZx0MHrYhl8w&t=196
> With multi-lane roundabouts, it is important to stop for vehicles in all lanes of traffic. Wait until there is a gap in all lanes of traffic and then enter slowly. Never try to enter alongside cross traffic or assume any driver's intended path. One of of the most common mistakes people make when entering a roundabout is failing to yield to all lanes of traffic. Yield doesn't mean just slow down or merge. Yield means that you must wait until all traffic in the roundabout has cleared before proceeding. Make sure that no one is in either lane of the roundabout and then proceed.
The video also has a good overhead view that is better than most at showing the scale of the roundabout. The important thing to note here is that to enter the roundabout, you have to cross the lanes that are exiting, not merge into them. So you are yielding to all exiting lanes.
No, they have to yield to YOU because you're already in the roundabout. It's hard to believe, but trust me, this is just how it works and all of the links I've posted agree. The reason why it works is because when you're in the situation you describe, for the person entering at the second exit to be a factor, they would have to be entering as you're already alongside the second exit and in the process of exiting at the third. So they need to be yielding to you as they will be crossing your lane. Part of waiting for the gap is waiting for the exiting traffic to clear. Not for only YOUR lane to be empty.
Yes, in that case a driver not understanding the rules of the road (that you can't take the first exit from the inner lane, which is usually clearly signed) could cause an accident. The exact same way turning right from the left lane in a signalized intersection can cause an accident. The question is, what's the damage of an ignorant driver and how fast do people learn? The research indicates that right-of-way incursions in a roundabout result in dramatically fewer injuries than right-of-way incursions at other types of intersections, and the research also indicates that contrary to your belief, drivers actually do learn how to use them.
The person following the outside route from 90 must yield before even entering. It's very confusing until you're actually in them, but they're small enough that what you're saying usually isn't really a problem (at least in well designed roundabouts). When the car at 90 enters the roundabout intending to take the 270 exit, they yield to traffic in ALL lanes that might be exiting. Not just traffic in the outer lane. If they were intending to take the 180 exit, they only need to worry about traffic in the outer lane (or people incorrectly changing lanes when exiting).
This is not true with most roundabouts in North America at least. If you look at the diagram GP posted, you do not change to the outer lane to exit. You exit directly from the inner lane. In fact, you NEVER change lanes in a roundabout. The reason this works (where the inside lane crosses the outside) is because the roundabout is small enough that the traffic in the outside lane has to let you exit as part of yielding to enter the roundabout in the first place. After that, as long as everyone respects which exits they're allowed to take from which lane, there is no more crossing traffic. In practice, if you are in an inside lane, you want to keep an eye on the outer lanes to make sure someone isn't trying to take a later exit than they are allowed.
From GP link:
> Do not change lanes in a roundabout
> Do not travel in the outside lane further than allowed as it may create a hazard for the vehicle exiting the roundabout from the inside lane
I can't speak to the area you live, but where I'm from we get along just fine. Yes sometimes you still get the odd unfamiliar driver that doesn't understand them, but for locals there's a critical mass where roundabouts stop being avoidable and you adjust.
See also: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/safety-at-two-lane-roundabo...
e.g. for a standard two lane roundabout with four exits, if you enter in the left lane, you can exit directly out of the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th (i.e u-turn) exits, but always in the left lane of the exit. If you enter in the right lane, you can exit out of the 1st or 2nd exits, but always in the right lane of the exits. With this design cars travelling alongside you can never cross your path, only cars entering the roundabout ahead of you can cross your path and it's their responsibility to yield.
The thing that most often causes problems is people in the outer lane NOT exiting (e.g. thinking they can take the third exit from the right lane) and swiping the car in the inner lane correctly taking the second exit.
There seems to be quite a bit of literature that flatly disagrees with this statement. Perhaps you could add a source? The conventional wisdom where I'm from is that multilane roundabouts don't reduce the absolute number of crashes (and might even increase crash rates), but they still dramatically reduce the severity of crashes.
Canada:
> However recent data in the United States and Canada are showing that collision frequency at multi-lane roundabouts is often higher than expected, and sometimes higher than the prior signalized intersection. This trend is worrisome given that roundabouts are often constructed as a means of increasing safety. The good news is that fatal and injury crashes are almost always reduced with roundabouts, even if property-damage-only crashes are not.
https://www.tac-atc.ca/sites/default/files/conf_papers/weber...
Netherlands:
> Multi-lane roundabouts. These are less safe than single-lane roundabouts, but still safer than other types of intersection [22]. Multi-lane roundabouts are less safe because they have a larger number of conflict points, they are more complex, driving speed is higher, and they have a less sharp entry angle [23].
https://swov.nl/en/fact/roundabouts-how-safe-are-different-k...
US:
> Roundabouts force drivers to slow down and all but eliminate the most severe types of intersection crashes — right-angle, left-turn and head-on collisions. Single-lane roundabouts see fewer total crashes of any type.
https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/safety-at-two-lane-roundabo...
> The authorization server SHOULD require the client to provide the complete redirection URI (the client MAY use the "state" request parameter to achieve per-request customization). If requiring the registration of the complete redirection URI is not possible, the authorization server SHOULD require the registration of the URI scheme, authority, and path (allowing the client to dynamically vary only the query component of the redirection URI when requesting authorization).
> The authorization server MAY allow the client to register multiple redirection endpoints.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6749#section-3.1.2....
Either the redirect URL is statically configured, or it's accepted as a query param to the auth request, and subject to a strict whitelist. It's not a secret from the user, but even for a SPA it is usually transient so you don't have the user sitting at some ugly URL with "?code=abc123...". Typically you would use the state query param to retain any context needed to redirect the user to their desired destination, but that would be after the redirect endpoint uses the passed code to fetch the token and store it somewhere locally. In this case apparently the redirect endpoint allowed redirecting to entirely different applications by simply forwarding on the sensitive query params, but did not validate that those destinations were on any whitelist.
The second best use I could think of was automatically controlling outdoor lights in the evening, given that my front lights are on a different floor than my main living area. But I never really bothered with that.
I mean, this statement IS qualified. The word "wrong" is doing some heavy lifting. Part of what makes an abstraction wrong is when it is expensive to use as tiny differences emerge in the requirements.
The best you can hope for is some answer down the page that says something like "to answer the actual question..."
That said here is an incomplete list of things in the greater system that self-hosters frequently need to think about, and that AWS sometimes does a good job of handling for you:
- Routing/DNS/Static IP
- Administrative access control
- Firewall
- Load balancing
- Redundant storage
- Server failover
- Power redundancy
- Network redundancy
In particular, some of these things benefit a lot more from economies of scale than the server hosting itself.
When I made the switch, I was reliably about 95 WPM (touch type) in QWERTY and topped out at around 105-110 in Colemak.
Throughout, I never fully abandoned QWERTY. It was certainly difficult to switch between them, but my office environment was collaborative enough that not being able to maintain some level of competency in QWERTY really hurt.
Eventually, I switched back to QWERTY because there were just enough things annoying about "being different"--NOT because Colemak in itself was bad. Things like configuring keybindings for things like VIM, where half the shortcuts are positional (e.g. homerow navigation) but the other half are mnemonics (next) and now in Colemak they can't be both. And just in general, sharing your hardware with others and vice versa. Colemak was beautiful, but sometimes the imperfect standard is better than the perfect thing that nobody uses.
Switching back to QWERTY I was back to full speed in a few days. That, to me, is the biggest reason I'd encourage anyone to give Colemak a shot. You don't just lose your QWERTY muscle memory, it just hibernates a bit and is groggy when you wake it up.