arlaerion

joined 2 years ago
[–] arlaerion@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

that the law only requires vehicles to stop for pedestrians already in the crosswalk

Where I live it's different. If someone wants to cross at a crosswalk, they have the right of way. If a child want's to cross anywhere, they have the right of way. Not on freeway (Autobahn) or highway (Schnellstraße) of course.

Also there is the Vertrauensgrundsatz (trust principle?). If yo cannot trust someone to know the laws or follow the law (children, visibly under influence, ...) treat them as such. Keep distance and keep slow, give right of way if necessary.

[–] arlaerion@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 months ago

In two of three final reports there are bombs worn or placed by the attackers. In two of the reports the final assault was started by government personell (either directly, letting it look like the hostage takers started it, or by killing the guy on a dead man's switch). In one report it was classified as a suicide attack from the start.

The dead man's switch was confirmed by one of the surviving attackers. He also was the one speaking of a dispute between the attackers concerning the target building (school vs. police station).

[–] arlaerion@lemmy.ml -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

They wore explosive belts. That's why i supect they intended to blow themself up. Sure, I could be wrong. But then you got to find better sources.

[–] arlaerion@lemmy.ml -5 points 2 months ago (4 children)

Why are you getting cynical now?

I asked where it states that Putin bombed the school. Your own source contradicts your comment. So please explain.

[–] arlaerion@lemmy.ml -3 points 2 months ago (6 children)

Where in that article does it say it was bombed deliberately? And by Putin?

The first explosions were the bombs placed by the attackers themselves. The fighting afterwards was as expected.

[–] arlaerion@lemmy.ml 4 points 3 months ago

America does WHAT now?

[–] arlaerion@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

There was a massive tsunami in the area killing almost 20k people, the power plant was not their first concern.

The guy died 4 years after the accident from lung cancer, not very common in nuclear power.

[–] arlaerion@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) (3 children)

I never agreed that its outmoded or old tech.

At Fukushima Daichii died one worker of radiation poisoning and one in a crane incident. The evacuation killed 51 more. Scientific consense is, that the loss of life and cumulative lifetime would have been lower if there was no evacuation.

[–] arlaerion@lemmy.ml 1 points 3 months ago (1 children)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airship_accidents

For the total number of airships, the loss of life (and airships) is quite high...

[–] arlaerion@lemmy.ml 2 points 3 months ago (8 children)

I explicitly wrote "civil nuclear power". I know there were big incidents, especially in early military nuclear sites. Windscale and Kyshtym are two of those.

 

J. Trittin: "It was clear to us that we couldn't just prevent nuclear power by protesting on the street. As a result, we in the governments in Lower Saxony and later in Hesse tried to make nuclear power plants unprofitable by increasing the safety requirements."

view more: next ›