RoyGBivensAction
Zensunni Scientologist
Married to a tomboy, so I have that going for me, which is nice.
User ID: 3756
Before numbers were 280 total test
What's your age? That seems quite low and a good thing you're starting TRT.
"πΊπΈ (Heritage American)"
I cast a side-eye at all the Catholics and non-Hajnal Euro types around here.
The Mayans were right and the world ended in 2012
It ended in 2016 when Bowie and Lemmy died. Somehow, they were holding reality together.
Right now I kind of wish this place had location markers, or at least an optional flag we could choose.
There was recently a discussion about this, and given the number of expats, we would need a dual flag system to mark country of origin and current location.
I'm not sure your family history would address it, but I've been curious about what keeps people in JW (Where I am, I see recruiting fliers and the pairs standing around with literature frequently, but also "do you need help escaping JW" fliers, too). The organization as whole in the US seems perpetually stuck between cult and major religion with more of the drawbacks of the former than the benefits of the latter. To be blunt about the cost/benefits and not the theology, Mormonism is an obvious set of big benefits, many adherents are some of the happiest, most productive people I've ever met, and the costs aren't all that steep. I cannot say those things about JW and the adherents I know. Perhaps a question for Sunday.
So you have to politely reject without either insulting your friend or the referral.
In the long-ago pre-covid times, a female friend of mine tried to set me up with one of her friends, and was describing her. I pointed out a glaring red flag that was obvious even in my friend's super-glowing description, and the response was "well, if you're going to have standards like that [i.e. any standards], prepare to die alone." She couldn't have created a better summary of the dating market if she tried.
This has been a recurrent issue and there's obviously something fundamentally wrong with my deadlift form
It might also be that your hamstrings are too tight more than anything about your form. Even good form with tight hamstrings can aggravate your lower back.
Reduce screen time via a combination of hard locks and behavioral change
You might have already taken this step (I don't recall from your past posts), but a simple way to drop screen time is to never take a phone into the bathroom with you.
Gas prices going up $0.50 overnight was a real kick in the balls, but I am doing my best.
A month ago (because I'm a nerd and track it), I paid $1.20/gal less than I paid today, and I only got today's half-tank because otherwise I'll be paying even more in a week. One of those days where I think about the headline from this Onion article.
Iβve been banned 23 separate times
Incredible. I barely interacted with reddit and usually lost interest before any given account could be banned, but once one got the hammer, I've never gone back.
One's workplace might be good for this but huge risks there.
This one is something of a funny disparity. As an employee at various state government agencies, the hammer of HR has always been hovering, especially with any perceived "power disparity." An attorney dating a legal secretary could expect to be fired if it goes south, even if the attorney wasn't the supervisor. On the other hand, I've seen HR turn a very blind eye to 2 attorneys dating, even when one was the supervisor of the other (until it became so public and such a problem internally that they had to do something). Huge, huge risk for an attorney to date a non-attorney, even if historically that kind of intra-office thing led to marriages.
But small firms? The stories I've heard (from reliable sources) make half of them sound like a continual frat party (especially the ones that are a bunch of solo attorneys or partnerships sharing office space--one I'm very familiar with had a legit "who's the father" freakout among the attorneys with a secretary). This is not all that surprising given the personality types involved, and also that plenty of women get jobs at firms looking for a lawyer husband. You've mentioned being at a small firm, so even if yours is professional, I bet you know of some that aren't (which means you just need to get invited to those holiday parties...).
It's been many years since I saw it, but he was a villain in Under Siege and I remember him being noteworthy. Also the villain in Blown Away, but again many years since I saw it (edit - I remembered now that his accent was really bad, though). I think Cobb would count for him playing against type.
Three Burials and Valley of Elah might be too similar to the authority role you describe.
On a second watch I was struck by how vacant and anonymous Harrison Ford's leading man turn is: Tommy Lee Jones is the film's real protagonist, and steals every scene he's in.
Tommy Lee Jones can Act and ends up being the protagonist in almost all his movies. Harrison Ford kinda shows up, and kinda showing up and being Harrison Ford turns out to work sometimes. I could probably count on one hand the number of times it's worked since 1983, though.
Curious if any of the sequels are any good.
I remember the 4th one being a nonsensical mess plot-wise, even by action film standards, but being very competent as an action movie. There's a part involving a chase in a dust storm, and the direction is such (by Brad Bird) that it's easy to keep track of everyone and what they're doing despite it feeling like it should be a confusing mess. Oh, and Cruise climbs some big building.
I recommend re-reading the books in reverse order when you re-read it someday.
When I lived in a city, I used to go to yoga 3x a week. The intro classes were generally 60% women, but intermediate/advanced classes could be 10-16 women and 1-2 men.
For the intermediate classes, the other regular guy and I would show up early, BS some, set up our spots, and start doing some warm-ups. A few women would trickle in. 30 seconds before class started, 6-10 women would show up and unroll their mats. The second class ended, they'd roll up their mats and bolt.
Other dude was a married 50something grandfather. I was in a relationship and not looking. I barely talked to anyone besides him. The two of us were hardly putting out predator vibes. Even so, a good half of the women attending class were like frightened gazelles approaching the watering hole. Some had rings on, some didn't, but some without might've been married and just avoiding a ring for comfort during class. Even so, some of them must've been single.
I always wonder just how many of the single ones complained that they couldn't meet anyone, but even in strongly gender-segregated hobby environment, they didn't spend 1 second longer there than they had to.
I know of an upsetting number of women whose lives are basically "work/school, outings for shopping and then... staying in at home, nose shoved in their phone with a TV show on background." They're being 'social' in that they're texting/chatting with a bunch of people, but their actual social presence IRL is virtually nil, and it is VERY hard to coax them out of this cocoon.
Ask me how I know. Female shut-ins are an increasing phenomenon, I think.
I don't know if it's increasing, but it's certainly a contributor to every public social space being a sausage-fest. "The elites don't want you to know this, but women are only 20-30% of the population" might not be factually accurate, but it's directionally correct.
On the other hand the tax there aren't that many people like me, I pay a shit ton of tax and there are a shit ton of these "natives" who make bad decisions that society (read: taxpayers like me) end up subsidizing and we're supposed to just sit and take it.
Assuming you have citizenship elsewhere, you could move elsewhere and not pay those tax rates. Natives who complain about funding migrants don't have that option.
I still don't understand why Woodstock occupies such a vaunted stature in the American imagination.
The stuff around Woodstock is "good ol days" type remembering by Boomers (including by plenty who weren't there) about how great their early 20s were (basically an Onion headline about some guy remembering how great and trouble-free the world used to be, which just happened to be when he was 22). It got cemented by a hagiographic documentary released in March 1970. If you watch the original with none of the later extras, it looks like a 3day party with amazing music.
In hindsight, it was easy to paint as the highwater mark of the 60s. Altamont was December 1969. The Manson murders were summer 1969 but the trial didn't start until summer 1970 (which is amazingly fast by modern murder trial standards). Not hard to pull them together into a death of the 60s montage.
I like pointing out that the summer of love was 1967, and there were already people calling BS on the whole thing at that point. Also worth noting that HST claimed the highwater mark was SF in the mid-60s, not anything about Woodstock.
They are surrounded by hangers on and a rotating scene of BPD groupies
First it was Thielbux, and now it's BPD groupies. Where do I sign up for all these benefits of being an online right extremist?
A very frustrating point that many online commentators overlook. I wish this guy would update his map with newer data (that one uses 2012). Once you set the limit to under 40-45, basically everywhere is a sausage-fest.
Apparently there aren't supposed to be any "hard" guesses on the Ishihara plates (bubble numbers), but four of the plates took me more than five seconds to decipher.
Huh. Several plates took 5+ seconds to decipher, and 3 were totally unreadable to me, but the results said normal vision.
A few articles that will live in my head forever:
Stereotypes Are A Real Time-Saver
Area Man Goes And Gets Himself Hit By A Goddamn Bus (I especially think of this one whenever someone manages to get hit by a train--what, did it jump the tracks and chase them down?)
And this one I thought was the Onion, but it's actually some other site:
'I Deserve a Little Treat,' Says Woman Who Has Never Denied Herself Anything (occurs to me anytime I think about treating myself to something; remarkably effective at killing the urge to do so)
If the year is 1913, this is the right time to join the bolshevik party, and when the boog comes, you are not class enemy, but distinguished comrade and old revolutionary veteran.
Who then gets purged in 1933-38...
- Prev
- Next

The supreme court of my state has repeatedly had to wrestle with the definition of jurisdiction because prior iterations of the court threw the word around willy-nilly to mean at least 4 different things. I think the historical cases discussed above show the same problem. The word is used to mean a variety of things. I think relevant usage/definitions from the time of the drafting of the 14th would be more helpful than a bunch of cases 50+ years before that.
The Indian Law cases are particularly bad for jurisdiction meaning different things. Somehow, Indians weren't under US jurisdiction that would've made them subject to the 14th amendment, but they were also under US jurisdiction by 1885 for the Major Crimes Act that made a number of crimes committed on the reservation by Indians against Indians into federal crimes. That basic disparity in the Indian law cases means some people in that time period were already looking at jurisdiction for citizenship and jurisdiction for criminal offenses as two separate things, so saying an illegal alien isn't subject to the 14th isn't automatically a bar to criminal jurisdiction. Sure, Indian tribes are different, but it's still an analogy that could be applied.
I'm not a scholar and don't have particular insight into this issue. Ultimately, I think it's dubious for the Executive branch to make any declaration like this and Congress passing a law would be a much tougher call.
More options
Context Copy link