https://www.revk.uk/2023/03/bed-sensor.html?m=1 has another take on the idea after frustration with a "smart" & expensive Withings solution drove him to something different.
794 karma · joined April 11, 2014
I'm not surprised it's a similar tale with video delivery.
In my experience, what frustrated me most was predictable stalls every 10s or so. I don't see that much any more.
The relevant chapter does seem to be labelled "right of way": https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.x...
...but again it never grants the right of way to anyone. It only instructs people to yield if safe: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...
before in https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....
> The provisions of Section 21806 shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons and property.
Although https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... seems to exempt them from those regulations if on blue lights.
Given that 21807 only clarifies they are not "relieve"d from a duty, I'm hoping that duty is still present from a different location...
I'm afraid that's just the case in the UK.
> The Highway Code is essential reading for all road users
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-t... in addition states:
> The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.
The point here is just because you think you're in the right, you still have to do your best to avoid conflict. If that means you should give way to someone that should have given way to you, then you should give way.
I think this is really sensible. It puts the emphasis on everyone to avoid accidents and conflict. Nobody has "the right".
Just be nice to everyone...
I was asking for a source to your statement that "They have the right of way". I'm interested, because if so it would be a difference between countries that surprises me.
Everything else is perfectly reasonable to me.
I asked if this was true, and gave my understanding of my own country's laws, where emergency vehicles do not have a right of way.
I'm not arguing that exercising caution implies a lack of a right of way. I'm stating that in the UK although you should give way to emergency vehicles, they do not have a right of way and so exercise caution.
I understand other countries might be different, we're all surprising and different. That's why I asked my original question.
The relevant UK Highway Code section begins (https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-t... ) with the following:
> The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident.
Of course we should give way to emergency vehicles, and take care of ourselves. I was simply challenging the op about emergency vehicles having right of way. I don't believe that's the case in my country (UK) and I was politely asking if it was true in theirs.
I would love to know why your understanding is different?
Is this true in the US?
It sounds surprising to me. Here in the UK they don't get "right of way" by my understanding of the highway code. When approaching a junction they intend to pass through on red, you'll see vehicles slow to a crawl, quadruple check everyone is "giving way" (not the same as having right of way) before crossing.
Edit: "Rule 219" is the most I know about, and it explicitly warns:
> Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you.
Not much. An interesting Azure DevOps RCE bug bounty discovery being my claim to fame.
The email I received is slightly different and doesn't include set dates, it just says "after the first year" which could be tomorrow.
I've emailed them asking for clarification.
I pay for Fastmail, but use several of the gandi basic mailboxes for other reasons. I could live with those disappearing. I hope this doesn't also remove the 'forwarded addresses' though.
Who is "We" here?
I think it would be reasonable to claim the two main parties come from very similar backgrounds. Both seem to be happy continuing with maintaining their status quo.
Without their consent, is it likely or possible to see a third option rise?
* https://www.caa.co.uk/passengers/resolving-travel-problems/d...
* https://www.caa.co.uk/passengers/resolving-travel-problems/d...
It sounds a bit confusing as to whether you were cancelled or delayed, or accepted an offer etc. but I wouldn't accept $24...
I learnt a lot. My goal was getting something working that the ttrss android app would connect to and I reasonably succeeded there, running it for a few years.
I went back to hosting the full ttrss application at some point.
What is "extended range mode" sorry? I'm aware of preconditioning, setting departure time etc.
Last I looked, it wasn't fun to self-host anyway. Vaultwarden ftw!
It took almost 4 months to get through to someone who would accept my problem wasn't forgetting my password.
In the end, I was pointed to their third provider and told "sort it out yourself, not our problem". Thankfully that other company had a reasonable-ish appeals process...
...obviously I got relisted in their db a few times but things seem to have calmed down now.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2021/01/my-trial-and...
> 5. The court order protecting identities did not come into being before 10 March 2020. Most of the Crown’s alleged examples are before this date. We absolutely deny my articles enable jigsaw identification, but even if they did they were not illegal at the time of publication.
together with:
> 6. Up until 10 March 2020, had I wished to publish identities I could have done so quite legally in the articles before that date which the Lord Advocate cites. Unlike England, there is no law in Scotland barring publication of witness identity absent a specific court order. The fact I did not do so in the year between my learning identities and the ban coming into force, in several articles on the case where I could legally have published the identities, make nonsense the Lord Advocate’s contention that I deliberately gave clues.
Much has been made of point 6, and I can understand not being convinced by it.
But is there not truth to point 5? I guess not, since he was found guilty. I'd be interested in reading why this was discounted.
I understand that if Sony go ahead with server shutdowns, there's a risk that when your PS3/4 battery fails and is replaced, you still won't be able to play games you've paid for offline.
I have been involved with other bounties on that site in that time, related to other companies & products.
I suspect if I had "broken their (Hackerone) policy" with this issue in that time, there would have been problems receiving a reward from the other bounty programs relating to different companies...
This isn't the only reason I haven't publicised the issue more widely, I've had other things on my plate, but it is a consideration.
I'll second that.
I discovered and reported a vulnerability with the Steam client's Bluetooth pairing process via hackerone.
The issue was confirmed but decided "out of scope" as apparently "within bluetooth range" runs afoul of the bug bounty's "require physical access" exclusion.
8 months later (I haven't exactly kept on top of this) they're still demanding I keep it confidential. I'll follow it up...