Opinionhaver @ Opinionhaver @feddit.uk

A contrarian isn’t one who always objects - that’s a confirmist of a differ

---

Read more

Posts

21

Comments

1,074

Joined

6 mo. ago

If there’s a 70 cm tall child standing in front of the vehicle, then in either case the child either would or wouldn’t be visible - there’s effectively no difference. It doesn’t really matter whether you can see 2 or 3 meters more of the road surface from one vehicle or the other. In both cases, the hood height is the same, and that’s what determines the safety in the event of a pedestrian collision.

Also, with a van, the rear visibility is greatly reduced compared to a pickup. You could say that can be compensated for with cameras - but that same argument applies to the front visibility as well.

Let's also keep in mind where this discussion started from: a commenter was taking issue with clean, scuff-free pickups as if a work truck couldn't look like that.

Which points exactly?

What's your point? That thing is bigger than my pickup.

I'm not American either - I'm from Finland. I’ve been to the Netherlands, and I can’t quite imagine owning a truck there either.

However, your criticism was about clean, scuff-free trucks broadly. If you had said that you judge people for owning a truck when they have no practical need for one, I wouldn’t have any issue with that. But that’s not what you said.

I don’t own one of those gigantic American trucks, but a mid-size one - think Toyota Hilux, Ford Ranger, Mitsubishi L200, Nissan Navara, or Isuzu D-Max. The external dimensions and hood height on those are comparable to similarly sized work vans. So when someone needs a vehicle capable of hauling cargo, it’s basically a choice between a truck and a van - and there’s not much difference between the two in terms of pedestrian safety.

I’d even argue a truck might be safer, because you generally have better all-around visibility. Vans tend to have very limited rear visibility due to the enclosed cargo area. You could argue that a van is more convenient for hauling certain types of cargo, but that’s a separate discussion about practicality - not safety.

Not desperate enough, apparently. I’ve yet to see any of the people who were absolutely certain yesterday that a nuke was going to be dropped admit they were wrong.

The only voter demographic that saw a decrease in the last election compared to 2016 was white men. If you’re going to cry “rigged election,” then you’re undermining democracy in exactly the same way the MAGA crowd does.

I’m sure the military has plenty of other options.

The other option is the GBU-57 bunker buster bombs, which is what they used - but a single bomb like that isn’t capable of reaching deep enough on its own. So they had to use a significant portion of their stockpile to achieve their objective that way.

The alternative would have been to drop in special forces and have them break into the heavily defended facility the traditional way.

It would help to some extent, but they’d have to keep bombing the facility consistently - and indefinitely - to keep it out of service.

US Reportedly Assesses It Would Need to Drop Nuclear Bomb to Destroy Iran Nuclear Facility

Well, they did it.

No they didn't. It was conventional bombs, not nuclear.

Most likely not. Depends how serious they are about it and how big of an factor it plays in their daily lives. Belief in god, to me, is an indication that a person is not capable of thinking rationally. At least not to the extent that I'm expecting from a parther. I don't want to be with someone who can't be reasoned with.

This applies to vans just as well though. This Ford Transit is little over a meter longer than a Toyota Hilux so these pictures are roughly to scale.

Could go both ways, really. A good part of the population - especially in big cities - is quite fed up with the Islamist regime, and a large number of them likely aren’t too thrilled about the prospect of it building nuclear weapons either. It might not be the way they would’ve preferred a regime change to happen, but if it looks like it’s about to happen, they’ll likely seize the opportunity.

True, my bad. Many of the most commonly used vans here can tow 2500kg as long as the trailer has brakes. Anything more than that is rare though. Even many of the other mid-size pickups can't tow 3000kg.

Working with your hands is a good way. I feel like online discussions often forget that people like this even exists.

I don't see why it would be a bad thing. There's probably more to gain there than to lose if you want to think it that way.

I go discgolfing with one of my customer regularly.

Hood height, engine size, and the physical exterior dimensions of many vans are similar to those of pickup trucks. When used for work, it often just comes down to personal preference. One key difference is towing capacity - most vans are limited to around 750 kg, whereas trucks typically offer much more. Mine can tow up to 3000 kg.

Edit: Also, rear visibility in a van is much worse due to the enclosed cargo area. With a truck, you pretty much have 360-degree visibility.

Do you judge people driving clean, scuff free vans as well or only truck drivers?

I use my truck for work but other than having a roof rack you probably wouldn't be able to tell it's a work truck from the outside. When it gets dirty, I wash it, and when it gets dents or scratches I fix them. I don't want it to look like a beater.

President Donald Trump is not considering using a nuclear weapon, The Guardian reported on Wednesday

There’s no need to lose one’s mind over this. The headline isn’t saying a nuke should be used - it’s simply pointing out that a nuclear weapon would be the only thing capable of reaching a facility buried that deep under a mountain. The next best option would be the GBU-57 bunker-buster, but the U.S. would need to use a significant portion of its stockpile, since you’d have to hit the same spot multiple times to drill that deep. And even then, you’d likely only damage one section of the facility, with other parts protected behind blast doors.

The ads-based business model is one of the main reasons so much of the internet sucks so bad. It should either be completely free or run on donations or subscriptions.

I don’t have an issue with YouTube ads because I’ve never actually had to see any - thanks to adblocking. But when they eventually figure out how to prevent that, I’d rather just pay a monthly fee than deal with ads. I think their pricing is completely reasonable, and I can’t morally justify blocking ads - I do it because it’s easy and free. Honestly, I’ve subscribed to services that cost more and give me less value than YouTube does.

Lighter fluid works great as well