jkf
17hr ago
I was in a grade 8-12 high school covering the transition to the 90s, and it'd take a lot of convincing to be made to think that the preceding cohort were having less sex than we did -- from what I can tell the 70s were also highly unlikely to have been less wild than the 80s.
In support of your hypothesis I've heard that the 60s were a bit overrated in terms of free love -- but probably still easier to get laid than now.
jkf
19hr ago
At best, all they accomplish is to take votes away from the main party candidate that's closest to their views, thus ensuring that the one further from their views wins.
The interesting thing about RFK i guess is that both other candidates seem about equally far from his views; kind of different axes but not really.
jkf
19hr ago
Way before that -- discussion on the SSC subreddit itself was vibrant as heck, and Reddit was not being a problem at that time. The NYT on the other hand reached out to cancel Scott, so he got uncomfortable being associated with certain elements. (HBD mostly AIUI, which I think he probably still basically agrees with in the weak form)
jkf
1d ago
It's because they don't know how to do those things, and think it beneath them to learn.
jkf
1d ago
If your windows are old and drafty it does for sure -- if they aren't it might create some dead airspace I suppose, which is R-... more than just a window?
jkf
3d ago
Unless you are Clarence Thomas, I think there is some confusion going on here...
jkf
5d ago
If you meet Clarence Thomas walking your dog, you don't live in the average American neighborhood.
Doesn't his mom live in some lower-middle-class borderline shithole southern hood? There was some controversy around him selling her house to a wealthy acquaintance for high five figures as I recall.
jkf
8d ago
I'm not familiar with the logistics at Wawas, but it may be worth considering the chances that you run into the person who's hoagie you are trying to steal -- and while store security is unlikely to beat you up for stealing a sandwich, the same cannot be said for some hungry trucker?
jkf
8d ago
As far as avalanches: there are relatively broad valleys as much as a mile or two wide with meandering rivers there.
There are but those are probably not the ones that you are going to need to travel in if you are planning to cross the mountains. A class three (moderate) avalanche can indeed self trigger and run over half a mile; you are not going to want to be travelling on ridges. (especially if you are pulling a sledge)
Local info would be good, but probably people don't snowmobile around up there for fun; it's pretty remote for backcountry skiing, but those are the people you'd want to talk to -- I'd be very surprised if they told you it was safe to cross the range by yourself. (or without a transceiver in a group)
jkf
8d ago
No offense, but from a fashion perspective you really need something like this:
(I just had to check that croakies are still a thing -- apparently yes!)
jkf
8d ago
-
It's probably pretty compact for skiing on, with various layers due to wind or melt events. Don't consider snow caves, take a tent. (also note bene that the above is a perfect description of snow that is likely to (unpredictably) slide off in refrigerator-sized chunks from any slope > 30 degrees or so)
-
Based on Google Earth there will be more like two passes, and there's maybe sort of a plateau there -- if you don't already know which passes are passable, you will probably not find out until you are past the point of no return (avalanches, see above -- they can run a lot further than you probably think)
-
Unlikely
-
It probably won't matter much -- if you are in a potentially hazardous avalance area travelling next to the river, you will also be there when you are on the river. You are by yourself -- any avalanche you are involved in will probably kill you DRT
-
Depends on the weather
-
Add a tent and some boots that fit to your list
jkf
8d ago
I'll walk back my earlier comments in part, in that skis are indeed a reasonable pick for this area -- you will however need boots that fit, and the plastic ones you have are not what I would choose.
People use something like this: https://www.alpinasports.com/en/nordic/backcountry/alaska-75-50082
They are even called "Alaska"!
You can get neoprene booties to go over them, but if you are making enough miles to get where you are going before running out of supplies, cold feet will not be your problem.
I would worry quite a lot about avalanche danger as a solo traveller there -- not sure what the Brooks looks like on the ground, but based on Google Earth everything resembling a pass is quite exposed -- and when you are by yourself even a small slough could trap you enough that you will die through no fault of your own. (other than engaging in solo travel through exposed avvie terrain in the first place, ofc)
The fact that you think navigation errors are even on the table makes me think that you should do some better planning -- the original '100 miles through the forest' plan actually seemed pretty survivable with appropriate gear, but mountain travel is a thing where small mistakes kill even experienced people quickly.
jkf
12d ago
I guess I could imagine a certain kind of workplace clown writing "Ebola" on the SARS-Cov-II fridge in Magic Marker...
jkf
12d ago
Deontologists still have a hierarchy of values -- Kant may value truth over helping Nazis kill Jews, but most people just say "yeah, lying is bad but helping Nazis is worse" and carry on. This is still a deontological position, and definitely nobody is halting or catching fire over this dilemma.
jkf
16d ago
jkf
17d ago
Where’s the equivalent to cult control of income?
Ummm....
Maybe the way the cult will get you fired from your job if you get too heretical, or alternatively get you some sweet DIE points to help with a better job if you are one of the stunning and brave ones?
(I mean I don't necessarily disagree with your thrust here, but I'm not sure the line between 'regular social dynamics' and 'cult behaviour' is as bright as I'd like for literally anything these days. See "You know what nobody hates each other about yet?")
jkf
20d ago
It's the extension of jurisdiction to Italy that is key here -- if Italy (or Vatican City I guess) thinks that the treatment is literal torture, they could ban it.
What even are the mechanics of this -- is the state taking over custody of this kid? ie. if the parents show up with an ambulance and a bunch of Vatican doctors, the police will prevent them from moving the child?
jkf
20d ago
I don't really like the acceleration in generation classification; ie wikipedia is claiming '97-2012 for zoomers, which is only 15 years and a pretty aggressive cutoff for millenials to boot. For me to the extent that it's useful at all, a generation spans 20-25 years with the last 3-5 years being a bit of a no man's land/melange.
Millenial characteristics seem very present in people currently in their early 20s, and I predict that Zoomer ones will still exist in those currently being born. (although 'old enough to remember covid' will probably be a factor/cutoff)
tl;dr -- whatever the next generation gets called, hardly any of them are even in kindergarten yet, so we have no idea what they will look like.
jkf
20d ago
Normally people are free to take their baby to Italy if they want though -- the UK health system choosing not to treat the baby due to hopelessness seems fine, but actively preventing the family from seeking other options is a bit nuts. (and reflects a high degree of egotism on the part of the UK justice/health system, if not quite 'infallibility')
jkf
20d ago
Something to consider I guess is that this is an irreversible procedure taking place in and around puberty -- a time when many people are unhappy regardless. So the set one should be interested in is not 'people who are happy with their trans interventions' rather 'people who would have been happy anyways, and without the burdens associated with the interventions'.
jkf
23d ago
You're dealing with exceptionally stupid kids if they can't look at existing examples of MTF or even FTM trans people and thinking "oh shit I don't want to turn out like that".
If they even manage to advance enough to consider that question, the quick 'n easy answer is "oh no sweetie, that's just the toupee fallacy -- actually there's lots 'n lots of trans people out there that you don't even notice because they pass so well. OBTW that means you need to do this as early as possible!"
jkf
23d ago
while it probably does not cause as much damage to the individual as full-on transitioning
This framing is kind of pants-on-head, just so you know -- source: am circumcised, and am not convinced that there's any significant ill-effects, much less within orders of magnitude of lifetime sterilization and pharma dependency. (plus whatever surgical and social side-effects)
The problem that always comes up in this debate is that very few people are actually qualified to comment on what difference it makes to sexual pleasure or whatnot, but have strong opinions on it anyways for reasons that are unclear to me.
There has actually been the odd adult-circumcisee wander into these conversations; mostly on the reddit site IIRC. My recollection is inconclusive, but what I remember was one guy who said 'pretty much no difference', another who agreed, and one who chimed in to say 'somewhat worse'.
I personally can't know how much better sex might be if I weren't circumcised -- but, like -- it's pretty great? I'm not exactly some coomer connoisseur, but I struggle to think of a situation in which I've felt like *more *sensitivity would have been helpful? BJs with a condom on are lame I guess, but I'm not sure circumcision is the main problem there.
In short, to me this is like you are comparing tonsillectomies to kidney harvesting or something -- can you say what makes you think that the two things are even in the same ballpark?
Am circumcised, condoms suck -- I think you need to do some more field research man.
More options
Context Copy link