currentlywithoutimagination
38133
882
64
Absolutely no original content here
¡Dios mío!
MidnaDS
#1 Careful, this is not true everywhere. In Germany, you can freely choose which lane to take when you turn like this. Unless there is a sign that says otherwise.
This is especially important if two cars come from opposite sites, one turning left, the other turning right. The person going right gets to chose his lane first and he may very well chose the left of the two lanes, meaning the guy turning left has to wait.
RMWX
I would say #7 is an “easy” way out. But lacks the logistical, health considerations, and well just practical considerations of living close to that many people on a large scale. Looking into more environmentally friendly designs, spacing, and designs that protects animals habitats are more desirable than this. Plus everyone that’s lived in that apartment has had that one neighbor. I want a private space for myself. And it’s achievable. Don’t settle for easy.
RMWX
Also I want my dogs. And my other animals soooooo nah I’m good.
kimbozo
#7 well, i actually just think we should sink florida into the ocean
cytherians
We don't need to sink it. The ocean is going to drown it, because inhabitants have been mercilessly careless about stewardship of the environment.
And Republicans are still in "climate change denial" so they can drink salt water for all I care.
HairyChairstepper
#7 no fuck you. I'm living in cramped apartments with filthy humans
kd7uns
Apartments suck 90% of the time, and I feel like (in the US at least) we're not running out of land any time soon.
vDorothyv
#7 i really don't want to be in a box with 99 other Florida households
Jimbo64
Well, you wouldn't need to drive anywhere to get meth.
MechKelly
#7 you can have houses while keeping nature with a little planning. Tree lined streets and way better at keeping the area cool too.
PunkRage
#7 I agree it's better for nature, but I can't stand being around most people
MonkeyWithAHammer
#8 Yes.
Ionico
#7 I'm on board. But if even 1 single rich person manages to excuse themselves from the same building and live in a mansion on a ranch, you've created a prison for the poors and a huge inequality. So solve that first or it's the burden of the poor to save the environment, not the rich. Who have the moat impact even now.
Sticklebrickk
"I just want a place to raise my kids."
"Yeah, sure. You know you can take them outside at any time."
"Yeah, but I also want my privacy."
"You can do that outside."
"I just want a place where I can grow stuff and not be disturbed."
"Outside."
"Yeah but I just want to go for walks and stuff, too."
"ARE YOU EVEN LISTENING"
Illinifan88
Medium density is the best. Three, maybe four level buildings. Takes up more space than massive apartment buildings, but it's a much more human scale.
Even in "great cities", no one wants to live downtown. Zero intermediate green space, can barely see the sky, tons of people and sound.
The best neighborhoods are those with street level business space with apartments above. Look at Renaissance cities in Europe. Prime examples.
TheJuiceLoosener
Yeah, it's a shitty conundrum. There needs to better social control structures first (aka steeply escalating taxes on non-primary residences, no corporate ownership / trust shenanigans, etc.) before we can do it right, but if that's not happening, do we just continue the status quo forever?
SubTrout
I feel like a shitty liberal because I love the idea of apartment living in theory, but every apartment I've ever lived in has fucking sucked. Beyond just bad managers and crazy rent hikes, I've always had the luck to be surrounded by the loudest shittiest people that you have to share walls with and make being home miserable.
cercle
I felt the same way until I left the US :) apartment and neighbor problems obviously still exist but basically trivial now. Also US walls are literally cardboard.
Spiderbutts
Yeaaah...I LOATHE sharing walls with people. Finally getting lucky enough to buy a house 100% solved my roach and ant problem in Florida. You could not PAY me to live in an apartment again. My ideal living situation is a cozy home far away from other people. Between the bugs the messy tenants attract and the constant noise, no thank you.
chickadeedeedeedee
What NeverConfused said, and also they’re built as cheaply as possible, so sound travels REALLY WELL. So basically the problems are unregulated capitalism again.
cearrach
You could say similar things about public transit.
SubTrout
Yeah but that's a bus. You don't live on a bus, it's just a trip.
NeverConfusedForNaught
I think it's mostly that apartment buildings are mostly situated in dense areas and there's usually nothing to do outside that doesn't cost money, little to no places to just sit around outside. And they have to be close because you have like three hours on a workday to yourself so where are you going to drink and sing songs of your ancestors? Inside.
SubTrout
The destruction of 3rd spaces continues. Not that it's the best place, but we still have a big local mall, and I've seen signs posted that on weekends anyone under 18 has to be escorted by an adult after 6pm. It's like, what the hell, where do you want teens to GO? The mall is at least a safe indoor place for them to hang out for a few hours and feel some minor degree of autonomy out of the house.
Nachocuban
While it's true they need spaces to go, I worked in a mall for years and the absolute assholes that kids can be when unsupervised is insanely high.
SubTrout
I'm a retail survivor myself at a store that had 2 local colleges within 5 minute driving distance, I'm fully aware (unfortunately). As an adult I at least try to give them the benefit of the doubt, since as long as they're not breaking stuff or harassing people, teens are generally harmless dumb since you're supposed to be at that age.
RavenBlue
Where are the apartment dwellers supposed to park? Americans drive everywhere. In reality it would be 1 apt building and the rest of the area would be parking lot.
currentlywithoutimagination
Public transportation!! Just imagine... door to door service, 24/7/365. Trains. All the trains. Also busses etc, but we'll also get creative once we don't have our beloved cars.
You know those ski-lift-like skyrides at amusement parks? They could fly us around across nature preserves, or between city halls.
Also 5 minute neighborhoods. We build everything we need in an accessible distance from housing and commute everywhere else.
I have a dream! Lol
SuperSaiyanYamcha
Walkable cities, reliable and cheap public transport, bike lanes.
I mean, unless you’re NOT looking for actual solutions and will just counter anything I say with “but what about X?” at which point I’ll point to how there will likely always be a need for some form of motor vehicle, and the point is to LESSEN the impact, not completely eliminate it.
kaarbaakimgr
Well…that’s not part of the diagram. Unless you’re just virtue-signaling anti-American tropes.
awholelotofnothin
Underground parking structure. Or tiered parking structure like apartments.
SonnyVabitch
There would be schools, shopping, restaurants, etc. within walking distance, and a bus stop of six different bus routes for those who need to travel further. This is a solved problem in 39 of the 40 most developed nations on this planet.
seekerrr
I know American cars are unreasonably huge but I don't think they are as big as houses? 🤔
Ultratoxic
Public transit, bicycles, car rentals for long trips, ride-share or city-maintained taxi/shuttle services. Americans only drive everywhere because america invented the automobile and then built all their cities around it. It's a policy choice that we could un-make if we wanted to.
VindictiveBathToaster
#25 can I cancel my subscription please?
FoxPesdassi
Why the heck does Shia LaBeouf get such high Wisdom?
currentlywithoutimagination
He's the Master of Vibes?
meowingintensifies
saving for reasons
Divinyll
#1 yes! thank you!
whiskeywonka
#1, those 'incorrect' turns would be based on the signage which is not shown. Yes, you should assume you turn into the closest lane but there are legit reasons to have the option to turn into other available lanes.
TheFishFace
What's the rationale anyway? If you have the green light, who could you be in conflict with?
Compare that to if you have to turn to a specific lane and then change lane, it means you have to make a lane change when you DON'T have the deconfliction lights - stupid.
temotodochi
Also in finland exception turns are legal and useful if the next turn is just right afterwards. If your lane is the only one turning left or right at that moment, you can take any lane out.
mrlongjohn
Not only legal, our driving school taught us to always do it when a) you are going to drive straight, because doing the exception turn puts you on the correct lane right away and b) if your next turn is on that side. Lane switching is more prone to collisions than exception turns.
pareidoliaperson
If there are two lanes to the right and two lanes there as well then you stay on your lane and choose your lane before the traffic stop.
idrinkcheapbeer
I accidently made the left turn red arrow once and cut off a car of "jump out boys". They were plain clothes officers from the Asbury Park police department. The "Tactical Narcotic Team" I swear to fucking god they had windbreakers with "TNT" on them. They were NOT happy with me. Plus, I had a dime bag on me. It wasn't a fun night.
Imustupvotealltacos
It's legal in other states too, like mine. The person with the green light has the right of way
daychilde
Also, the "correct" left turn path is close but still wrong as it puts you in conflict with oncoming left turn car.
whiskeywonka
As drawn, yes, but in reality no, they run the lanes pretty close to each other. Also some places do not have the turns go at the same time (when that happens, it would allow you to turn into either lane as needed)
apairofpetducks
What is correct, then, in your opinion?
Rovylern
A larger quarter circle that starts/ends at the wider road. This minimizes the straight distance and (generally) prevents turning after the center of the intersection.
ItsTwoRaccooooons
That is the only reason I could possibly think the left turn "incorrect" one has any merit.
Rovylern
The flaw in the drawn-in "incorrect" left turn is that it crosses the center median and into the lanes of oncoming traffic.
backrideup9
No. Cars turn into the lane closest to them. Full stop, no discussion. No assumptions. If you're doing it any other way, you are an asshole and I hope you hit a rich guy's car.
Fanner50
“Full stop”?
Easy way to spot a self important turd.
Waschbaerkoenig
Maybe where you live. Here in germany, you are free to choose the lane you want to use when only one lane turns into a two lane street. So for Germany, you and the whole of #1 are wrong - except for the added arrow.
dohcohv
Why?
It's legal in NV because there are intersections where after you make a left, you may have to make an immediate right turn. Several service roads near freeways do this.
If there are multiple left turn lanes then they follow the pattern of leftmost goes into leftmost, second leftmost goes to second leftmost and so on. If there are two turn lanes turning onto a 3 lane, the outer turn lane can go into either the 2nd or third lane.
dohcohv
I guess it would be impossible to get onto the highway from this intersection since it's a single left turn.
dohcohv
It would also be impossible to get off this highway, as the furthest left lane goes to a left turn that goes right back onto the highway with a solid white line which means you can't change once you enter the lane.
iquestionthepinappleeveryday
I can think of and intersection that I use almost daily that says you’re wrong. In this scenario that lane “closest” to me is intented for this those planning on getting on the freeway. The further lane is for thru traffic. I would never intentionally get into the freeway lane first when my intent is to continue thru traffic.
dohcohv
There is one intersection like this with an offramp near where I live. If you take the off-ramp and the only left turn lane, the furthest left-lane goes back on the highway you just came off in the opposite direction, and has a solid white line which isn't supposed to be crossed.
Imustupvotealltacos
Perfectly legal in my state. The person with the green light has the right of way
Rovylern
Same here and right turn has right of way over an incoming left turn from the opposite direction and into the same direction.
CaptainScarfish
#4 For the sake of all the gods, don't ever get any medical advice from memes.
SkamanSam
This chart is total shit, too. I really hate it. Align the dots, goddammit!
currentlywithoutimagination
This is actually in here cause I want to fix it! Though it would be a fun article to do some cosmetic mythbusting
Smidge204
#2 Jeremiah 10:1-4 (Paraphrased): "Don't cut down a tree, drag it into your house and decorate it; That's some filthy heathen bullshit."
M4UsedRollout
It’s talking about making idols to gods. Probably specifically Asherim, or decorated poles to Asherah, God’s mother/wife (depending on the tradition). It’s got nothing to do with Christmas Trees.
Smidge204
It has as much to do with Christmas trees as anything else, because decorating evergreen trees in December has absolutely no Biblical basis either. Building an idol is building an idol, even if that idol has been co-opted by Christians for centuries. 17th century Puritans out front should've told you, heathen.
M4UsedRollout
It’s not an idol. They don’t worship the tree.
And you’re right, there is no biblical basis for the Christmas tree. There’s no biblical basis for the Trinity either. Lots of Christian traditions and beliefs are not biblical.
But that doesn’t mean they are pagan in origin either.
Smidge204
Christmas trees - indeed the entire holiday - is absolutely pagan in origin. that aside though, the Bible is pretty clear that worshiping false idols is bad and expressly forbidden, but even adopting the habits and traditions is still bad and expressly forbidden. You're not supposed to make statues, paintings, engravings - anything, really - even if you don't intend to pray to it. You know what iconoclasm is, right?
M4UsedRollout
Step into any church and you’ll see how seriously Christians take the prohibition on graven images. By and large, Christians do not consider an object an idol unless it represents a god that is to be worshipped.
Sure, you have the puritans, who are in line with your view. But on the other hand you have the Catholic Church, who worships crucifixes, statues of Mary, and images of the saints.
M4UsedRollout
I understand that they resemble pagan traditions. But for most Christmas traditions, there is no clear line from those pagan traditions to the Christmas ones.
Mistletoe was a Saturnalia tradition. There’s documented mentions of mistletoe going from then to now. Mistletoe is pagan.
Christmas trees originated in Germany right before the Renaissance. They were not a revival of Roman traditions. Yule trees were not a thing in Germany, at least not at the time. Christmas trees are not pagan.
Trankia12
#38 obligatory: khajiit has wares if you have coin.
TheOnlyTwin45
#43 any source for higher res?
Notwhoyourethinkingabout
My favorite part is when there are double left lanes and the person on the left cuts their turn so badly they end up in your lane, and then get upset that you're in their way
ArisCarroll
#7 id prefer about only 10 houses spread apart very far and a mall and gas station closest to the one house that would be mine and as much of the forest intact because i like to do my jogging in the forest......
My lord that has to be the bougiest thing I've ever said
divingin
#1 is incorrect in California. Turns onto a multi-lane cross street may end in any available lane.
quzar
#41 - This is the 'Rose diagram' that Florence Nightingale used to explain the causes of death during the Crimean war (1853-1856). It was used to show how people were dying due to disease contracted while treating wounds in hospitals rather than from the wounds themselves.
Fantastic BBC documentary on the subject: https://youtu.be/7Y8z6PZmD30 from an even more fantastic series called 'The Beauty of Diagrams'.
currentlywithoutimagination
Im absolutely watching this, thank you!
#dataisbeautiful
Notwhoyourethinkingabout
#1 my favorite part is when there is a double left
Rovylern
In California, in any multilane situation, the inner lane(s) maintain the start order. The outermost turn lane can choose from any remaining lanes. 2 lefts into a 3? Leftmost to leftmost while no.2 can choose between lanes no.2 and no.3
TaiPan87
#11 This chart is WRONG AS HELL. Lentils do not have more protein per 100 grams than 100g of chicken. They are definitely cheaper, but not higher in protein.
currentlywithoutimagination
Thank you for catching! I definitely didn't source check that one.
Walmart fuckin ew
Waschbaerkoenig
chicken breast: ~25g/100g
lentil: 26g/100g
BUT
boiled lentil: 10g/100g
So the chart is somewhat correct, but since no one eats raw lentils without regretting it, it is also pretty misleading.
TaiPan87
You like smooth lentils? Me I like my lentils extra-crunchy.
djhash
#1 some states do not dictate which lane to turn into. See California, Missouri and Texas. https://driversed.com/driving-information/driving-techniques/making-right-and-left-turns/
BlackStealth08
That I'm okay with. What I'm not okay with is people using the oncoming lane to make a wider left turn. I've almost been hit because of that.
ProppaGanda
#7 for an existing real life example of how massive damage to natural land US type of sprawl can cause (it's the same scale):
Fifofu
In theory I'm a big fan of apartments if we were civilized with advanced construction regulations. Unfortunately, we don't live in 2d. We do need green. But we also benefit from blue skies, fresh air, and not trapping the soundwaves of the drummer upstairs. We also need to mitigate effectiveness of Russian projectiles. And flexible working hours so we aren't downstairs all at the same time.
ProppaGanda
Again, same scale, same number of housing units:
ProppaGanda
CaptSchmidtGaming
nobody wants a lawn
MisterLemons
I do. Not nearly as much as I want a botanical garden (which I'm actively in the process of cultivating) but a small slice of land I can mold into a natural haven is just about the only thing in life I DO want.
cearrach
Those don't appear to be the same scale... Should probably have a scale on each
ProppaGanda
You can see that cars are the same size on both
cearrach
Maybe? But the width of the apartment buildings is about the same as the houses, which is odd. Most apartment buildings that I've seen, with units on both sides of a central corridor are about 50% wider than detached houses.
Also the roads on the top map seem a fair bit wider than the ones on the bottom.
CaptSchmidtGaming
the cars are the same size and thats not good enough for you
ProppaGanda
I made that map myself, it's absolutely the same scale.
Oogibah
Man I agree with the concept but holy fuck do I hate people and I hate the idea of living in an apartment.
Simonator
#1 All wrong, cars should be on the left.
currentlywithoutimagination
Thats racist
Simonator
Shouldn't be racing on public roads, that's highly irresponsible.
Leaveittojebus
#8 Yes.
TheAnswerWasAlwaysMoreLube
Whitemannatee
discotheque42
#7 Listen very carefully: Apartment living blows. Hard. I will never again share walls or floors with other people. The U.S. is far too big to force people to live on top of each other.
sundaymondayhippyday
/gallery/bbWXKC0/comment/2457377643
nachosyndicate
I agree. There is smart zone planning where people have choices and we can still be environmental. I’m not living next to a neighbor who does cross fit at 1am again.
cytherians
Apartment buildings are necessary when a lot of people want to live in the same location. There are highly desirable places to live. And if you don't build enough living space? Only the 1% can afford to live there.
FelonyRaptor
Loss of habitat probably blows too but only for the animals. No wait,
NeverConfusedForNaught
Apartment living blows for some people. Let's see if we can ask people happy with their apartment living to chip in a comment?
emu314159127001
Yeah. Fucking gypsum board? Why not make the walls out of paper? You can hear people making toast.
CorgisButtsDriveMeNuts
Exactly!
Apartment buildings, especially skyscrapers are fucking piles of garbage where everyone is angry and miserable all the time. It's only OKish if your alternative is to be homeless or so, but it shouldn't be anyone's idea/plan for a permanent living solution.
Valkor
getting rid of zoning and minimum setbacks, along with abolishing landlords is all we really need to do.
michiyl
There are ways to construct buildings where you don't notice other people around. It's just that it's cheaper/faster to not build that way.
zechor
This isn't comparing country living to apartments it is comparing suburbs to apartments. If you don't want to hear or see your neighbors go live in the country, but stop bulldozing our public green spaces so you can have a postage stamp yard with everyone so spread out that public transit doesn't work.
FrankJustice1
These suburbs weren't public green spaces in the first place. They were rural areas out in the country, usually farmland, and enough people wanted to live there that they went from very low density to just low density.
zechor
Yet another reason to deprioritize suburbs.
Look, I get the appeal of a 90's era childhood with kids roaming the suburbs but planning has to go out more than just 10 years. They aren't sustainable, they increase dependence on cars, and even if the land used to be farmland that is still important green space.
discotheque42
Except those postage-stamp suburbs are going in former farmer's fields, which is a transaction between the farmer and the developer. They didn't ask me. And if that's the only house available, I don't have much choice.
zechor
Macro vs Micro, you should make the best decision possible for your family, but cities should also stop prioritizing suburbs.
Override9636
I didn't mind apartment living, but I like living in row homes now the best. People forget that there is always Medium-Density residential options that aren't just apartments or single houses.
ImCommanderShepardandthisismyfavoritepostonthefrontpage
I used to live in a townhome. My only issue is that my neighbor kept their house at 80f year round and it made my house too warm too.
quietwalker
The only folks that want this are folks who think everyone should live in ultradense urban environments, and for some reason, like a religion, they want to push this lifestyle on everyone else, despite it's inflated expense and cost - not just financial, but personal.
Perkunas687
I know some of those people personally. I can't express with words how much I dislike urban environments, it takes a toll on me mentally. I need space, as much greenery and fresh air as possible. Forcing me into city life would be killing me slowly, almost like a prison sentence. Don't know how else to describe it.
FelonyRaptor
Native animals need that space too, but fuck them I guess. We are a cancer on the planet.
Major28
The inverse of this can also be true. I got to walk the streets in the city after being stuck in the suburbs the last few months for work and the immediate mental health bump I felt was wild. It felt so nice to be back where things were happening and there were signs of human life everywhere.
Perkunas687
It can absolutely be the inverse. I wouldn't want to take that from you if it what fits you best.
zechor
I think that's the point here. If you want space, greenery, and as much fresh air as possible then it would be better to live in an apartment next to a state park instead of bulldozing the state park to build a suburb.
zechor
No one should be forced to live anywhere. In my perfect world all neighborhoods would be mixed income and mixed housing, but suburbs are particularly problematic. They require cars, they break up or completely cover existing ecosystems, they cover land with impermeable concrete or monoculture imported grass, they rarely allow local business, and they concentrate a narrow socio-economic band into an insular community.
Maybe keep the ones already here, but stop making new ones.
quietwalker
They only require cars if you're going out anywhere. Then we saw with covid, we really don't have to go out, especially not to dense urban areas.
Perkunas687
It's the difference between being made to live where you hate living with some visits to what you like, vs living where you are comfortable with some visits to what you like. 20-25% of people in the USA prefer city living, which means 75-80% want to live somewhere else, whether rural, small town, or suburbs. Physical and mental health benefit from access to nature, while city life carries with it some negative impacts (noise, too many people, stress, pollution, sensory overload, etc.). So 1/
Perkunas687
to say humans should be kept in high population areas that have negative consequences for mental and physical health, in the hopes that some visits (who knows how many) to nature have enough positive impacts for mental and physical health to balance or outweigh the negative city impacts, is not something I find to be compelling. It would be yo-yo-ing the wellbeing of people back and forth, with the hopes that the good outweighs the bad. My feelings are, people who like to live in cities 2/
cmdshift3
Let me grow wildflowers in my front lawn, you HOA fascists! I -PREFER- it when grass grows over the edges of the sidewalk. I want it to look like nature made it, not IKEA.
HamSlamwich
I had one rule with no flex when I was trying to buy my house: no HOA. I cannot imagine signing a 30 year agreement to do what random people decide is best. That is absolutely wild to me.
DTNemes
Just admit you cba mowing your lawn.
cmdshift3
I’m not the mower in our household, so I don’t have to anyway. I just hate bland geometric yards with grass that looks fake. I don’t mow or manicure my rural land because I prefer it not look anything like our home in town. I want the crickets and frogs to feel at home so they make happy noises at night.
DTNemes
I assumed you lived in a neighbourhood with parcels (~150m2) close to eachother.
cmdshift3
My house in town is in a cul de sac with about 1/3 acre, whatever that is in sensible units. It’s small and all the houses are too close to each other. I’d rather live in my cabin with no grid power, but it’s too far away from paying work.
ourari
Mowing a lot is harmful. Lawns are harmful.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/your-perfect-lawn-is-bad-for-the-environment-heres-what-t">stead">https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/your-perfect-lawn-is-bad-for-the-environment-heres-what-to-do-instead
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/goodbye-to-grass-more-americans-embracing-eco-friendly-lawns-and-gardens
DTNemes
Lawns are not harmful. We can't all live in a jungle. There are rules and guidelines set by your local area in one way or another.
cmdshift3
Those rules don’t exist for good reasons. Just read a little on the classist reasons lawns exist in the first place. Hopefully that will make them look a little less appealing to you.
ourari
You can balance aesthetics with a healthy environment. It doesn't have to be an unkempt jungle. You can have something similar to grass like clover and creeping thyme. They benefit the ecosystem, and you barely have to mow.
ourari
Look up research about lawns and mowing. Monoculture is harmful. The products used and resources required to maintain lawns are harmful. Rules and guidelines are the measure of certain people's preferences. They are not an indication of harm(lessness).