It is at least as plausible as the scenario you made up. And the word you want is "alludes"
You've driven me to this, you monster...
Here's the intersection:
No stop sign. The cyclist did not have to stop. Why do you think it's more likely that the cyclist was attempting to overtake the ambulance rather than the ambulance overtaking the cyclist?
The article doesn't state much, but you're willing to make a lot of assertions about the situation anyway. In your last comment you said there was no way the cyclist wasn't at least partially at fault. I replied with a possible scenario where the cyclist was not at fault. The bicycle doesn't have to stop at the intersection if there's no stop sign. I don't see one in the pictures in the article. If the ambulance didn't see or otherwise ignored the cyclist, a right hand turn directly into the cyclist is a very real possibility. That happens far too often.
All I'm saying is that there is not enough information in the article to ascertain what actually happened, and yet you're very eager to blame the cyclist. You have a clear bias, and your conclusion, while possible, is not the only one that can be drawn from the limited information in the article.
That means that at best the biker was partially at fault.
I disagree. I think a likely scenario is that the cyclist was riding close to the right curb, and was being passed by the ambulance that then makes a sudden right turn, turning into the cyclist, as the article states. How would that be any fault of the cyclist?
You're asserting your view based on an ambiguity. The picture and story could easily depict the ambulance overtaking and turning into the cyclist. You seem dead set on making this the cyclist's fault when that assertion is just not supported by the facts given in the article.
You mean the part of the article where it says the ambulance "turned into him"?
You're making assumptions based on vague wording in the article and your preconceived notions of cyclist behavior. You don't actually know what happened.
Trying to come up with a few that aren't on the list:
Wings of Desire (Der Himmel über Berlin) - Just a beautifully touching film, with a unique style and a great cameo of Peter Falk as himself. Much better than the English Language remake (City of Angels)
Come and See (Idi i smotri) - Hard to watch, but an incredible portrayal of the horrors of war. Not a feel-good film at all. But an amazing feat of filmmaking.
My Dinner With Andre - It's ironic that the movie that Roger Ebert referred to as "entirely devoid of clichés" has become a cliché. I'm not sure how well it's aged for modern audiences, but I first saw it in the 80's, have seen it at least a dozen times since, and it still really gets to me. I empathize heavily with both characters in the way that they search for meaning in life, and I could listen to Andre Gregory tell stories all day.
Stop Making Sense - A stellar concert documentary. The first time I saw it was a midnight screening where the audience got up and danced through the whole movie. David Byrne is hypnotic.
The Decline of Western Civilization - Amazing look at the Los Angeles punk rock scene of the early 80's
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? - A classic stage-to-screen adaptation. Elizabeth Taylor and Richard Burton chew the scenery for a few hours while their guests Sandy Dennis and George Segal try to make sense of it all. Amazing acting, great cinematography that really leverages the closeup. A must-see.
The Lion in Winter - Sort of a medieval version of the above with Peter O' Toole and Katherine Hepburn. Also see a young Anthony Hopkins and Timothy Dalton put on stellar performances. Like Virginia Woolf above, this is acting with a capital A.
The Triplets of Belleville (Les Triplettes de Belleville) - A unique animation style and a unique story. A really fun watch.
My brother-in-law is a Dickens scholar and he agrees with you.
Not working for me on multiple sites. I don't get this tip.
Does this actually work? I just tried it on a story on The Atlantic website and I just got a print page that looks exactly like the locked paywall page (i.e. not the whole article).
I use the web archives extension for firefox to easily get the archive.is version of pages. Unfortunately, doesn't work when I'm using a vpn, but otherwise works like a charm.
EDIT: I found this comment on the previous thread:
https://lemmy.world/comment/13080227
"The idea is you quickly press print before the paywall loads, so you can read the full article"
That may work in some cases, but not all. Because not all paywall pages behave in a way where this is functional. The Atlantic is an example, it produces a partial page if you're not past the paywall, so ctrl-p doesn't work. The web archives extension still works though (I use it to easily access archive.is) and the extension is available on mobile firefox as well.
I have also used 12 foot ladder in the past, and it works well. In fact, testing it now, it seems to even work when I'm using Proton VPN. archive.is does not work for me through the vpn, so I may switch back to 12ft.io. 12ft.io just has you append the paywalled url to their url, so it should be easy enough to make a bookmarklet.
I've been using simple cold water models for over 10 years now. But I really like this upgrade in design. Same basic simplicity, but it looks a lot easier to keep clean.
I hate bidet hate. If I upend a bowl full of brownie batter on a shag carpet, I'm not going to "clean" it with dry paper towels. Use your heads, people!
The downside to installing a bidet is I now hate pooping without the home court advantage.
I clicked on this thinking it was going to be a link to one of the $200+ electric models, but this is actually a relatively inexpensive upgrade I can get behind (pun?) It looks like it's a lot easier to keep clean. Thanks for this.
Your takeaway from my reply is that your instinct was correct? You're going to make a great conspiracy theorist.
My pet conspiracy theory is that it was already known within the political campaigns that these misinformation campaigns were happening and they chose to at that point publicize them and use that as their scapegoat. Same with the Russian spies they publicly outed that trump spoke with.
Your framing is off. It's not a conspiracy theory. It's true that it was already known. The FBI investigation of Russian interference began before the election, not after. The investigation was being publicized before the election.
If you want to nurse a conspiracy theory about it, whatever. But you're going to appear ignorant when you advance a conspiracy theory without doing the bare minimum of research into the known facts. You're just creating a fictional narrative based on your "suspicions." You're not being "real." You're being ignorant.
I’ll never understand why people attribute to the Russian government what was in the obvious best-interests of the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
Maybe because there was a demonstrated and provable coordinated effort by the Russian government in the 2016 election to get Trump elected? Look up project lakhta. Russian election interference and the efforts of the domestic conservative movement can (and do) exist simultaneously.
What do you have against attributing to the Russian government actions that are demonstrably attributable to the Russian government?
I remember years ago some blogger would eat lots of weird things and review them and he had an article where he tried different dog treats. He said something along the lines of "I now know why dogs lick their own asses. It's to get the taste of Beggin' Strips out of their mouths."
I have quite a few old Android phones sitting around. From Samsung S3s to a OnePlus 6. I'm interested in using one offline in my car for GPS, to avoid Google tracking. Anyone have good recommendations for a GPS app with directions that I can use offline. I'd like to be able to download the data for the entire U.S., that I would periodically update over wifi, so I'd like this process not to be too onerous. Anyone else doing this?