What would a photo do? Prove to your insurance you put your vehicle in a situation that it could be damaged? Your insurance has clauses to prevent paying out in those situations.
You’re asking for trouble and a fight and potentially a bill that you created for yourself actually.
So you’re intentially putting your car in a situation where it can be damaged, and you’ll admit that to your insurance so they can not pay out to you?
They would ask why you parked there and not somewhere else. Taking the picture proofs your intent even….
Insurance isn’t stupid they know these games and people do this stuff intentionally all the time, you’re not going to have an easy slam dunk victory. There’s plenty of precedent from people thinking it’s a smart idea before. Give your insurance clauses a read, there’s clauses about you not putting your vehicle in situations, doing everting you can to avoid a collision…
Sometimes you don’t have a choice. Either park there or nowhere. Examples include, but are not limited to: designated parking spaces, or full parking lots.
Insurance isn’t gonna pay out either way. In this situation they’d say they don’t have enough information to determine who is at fault and close the claim.
Goes both ways, the clauses also prevent people from abusing the system and intentionally damaging their vehicles to get repaired.
If you have a legitimate claim, there is nothing you should worry about.
I’m glad my premiums don’t go up because someone intentionally hit a car marginally in their lane “because I had the right of way”, instead of just moving slightly over to avoid the collision.
This is already the way it is. At least where I work, the people who park across multiple spots do so at the far end of the parking lot where nobody else is parking.
The point is less about body shaming and more about shaming the person’s “small dick energy”. Eg the kind of behavior you’d expect from someone who thinks dick size matters a ton and would buy nice things to try and compensate for their lack of size.
Hmmm. I feel like one of those words is far more charged than the other, but I agree that it’d be nice if we had better alternatives. The problem is that it’s making fun of a certain specific attitude that some men have that tends to extend to high levels of care about the size of their junk, and there’s not quite an equivalent concept for another topic. I mean, it’s basically a way to call someone “insecure about things about yourself that you can’t change or control, so you spend your time grasping at whatever material gains you can in order to try and have some semblance of Identity beyond those insecurities”.
Yeah, I’m also gonna need some sort of evidence for that claim. Sure there are vehicles that are wide but that’s by no means the standard. Hell, I bet the truck in the picture isn’t even much more than 6 foot wide. A modern Corolla is about 6 foot wide.
I mean he doesn’t owe me anything, strictly speaking. But he’s the one making a claim. The burden of proof is on him.
Also, why did you write this comment? Just to be petty and spiteful? Think before posting useless and mean comments next time and then you might actually have something meaningful to contribute.
Not who you were talking to, but out of curiosity I googled. Obviously this differs based on year, but current model Silverados seem to be 75-80" (1.9m-2m) with Corollas averaging 70” (1.8m), neither including mirrors I think and mirrors on these type of trucks are often extended.
I looked up the same thing actually and the Corolla dimensions included the mirrors. So, I would assume the same for the truck, though that could obviously be wider if the they have extended mirrors because they tow frequently.
Perhaps it’s because the mirrors on trucks are so frequently modified. So, it’s more meaningful to tell you the width minus mirrors rather than width with the mirrors that will get removed anyway. And the contrary being true of the Corolla of course.
I want to make the, “free”, moniker illegal. Advertisers have to pay money for ads and they get that money from us when we buy their products. In addition to having to look at ads, we also have to pay money for the privilege of looking at them. Any ad supported service is objectively not free. No thanks.
Any ad supported service is objectively not free. No thanks.
Well of course not, why should it be free? Neither Meta nor Google, TikTok etc. are charitable Organizations, they are businesses with the intent to make money. Either you pay or you see Ads, or don’t use the service, it’s that simple.
At least home wifi isn’t as insane as cellular here I guess. We get American ads on the break room TV at work, their cellular plans are pennies compared to what we have to pay north of the border
I would normally be ok with paying for a service that offered something I valued if it meant they weren’t also going to make money from me as a product. This pretty much just says it won’t use your data for displaying ads. That’s the least important thing to me. I am more concerned with them selling my data or giving my data to organization that are planning to harm me with it. If an app was actually useful and being updated with new user centered features rather than only new monetization features and additionally would agree not to sell my data, ever, and to let me actually delete that data on request, I’d be happy to pay that much.
It’s Meta’s nonsense reply to being forced by the European data protection authorities (EDPB) to get consent before processing users data, which they should have from the beginning: edpb.europa.eu/…/edpb-urgent-binding-decision-pro…
Yup just wanted to comment that it’s basically the “Yes you can track me” button vs the “I will pay” button. A lot of news sites already do the same thing. Not a paywall with content you can only see when payed but a pay or give consent to ads (which means tracking)
Phone got stolen last year. New phone, installed instagram, tried to log into account, but locked out.
Instagram tech support told me I either had to: 1) take a photo of myself, they’d check if it matched any selfies in my account, or; 2) I had to associate my Facebook profile.
I’m security conscious enough to not post selfies online, nor use Facebook. Goodbye instagram.
Twice I’ve been blocked out of my account, the first time it was because I was accessing from too many different IP address (VPN). The second time.I didn’t even bother to contact support and was willing to loose my account.
Also, I recall many years ago in the early days of the app there was an app update that would straight up not work on my phone and had to sideload an old apk in order to keep using it. And according to google I wasn’t the only one.
Took me a few months of manually testing new updates until a newer version worked for me. Not to defend Facebook or Twitter, but a fuck up like that one would never make it past their QA teams.
Well to be fair I’m still enjoying Mastodon a lot and Pixelfed too (which is the better Instagram replacement) but pretty much everyone I follow is somebody I don’t know in real life. Instagram is great to see what your extended circle of friends is doing.
mildlyinfuriating
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.