Price is also a major factor. Restaurants won’t balk at paying thousands for an industrial grade dishwasher if it can replace or greatly reduce the demand for a human dishwasher. Even at low restaurant wages, it doesn’t take long for a $6000 dishwasher to pay for itself. On the other hand, if the only dishwashers available cost that much, if there were no dishwashers at a consumer price point? Most people would just go without one in their home.
Quick, someone call Alec to do an hour-long YouTube video investigating this!
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLKI-5kTBAGwlm_CbFva49Z7J81rRsnyAN
You know, I don’t have kids of my own, and this is going to sound incredibly out of touch, (cause it probably is.) But like…how are the kids doing?
In the world I inhabit, I don’t interact much with kids beyond brief interactions when they’re tagging along with their parents. I don’t really have a lot of 14-18 year olds I know that I can sit down with for a heart-to-heart conversation. By “how are they doing,” I mean, how are they handling, what are their thoughts on The Situation? The creeping fascism. The potential climate apocalypse. Ever-widening inequality and a keen awareness of just how unaffordable basic shit like home ownership now is. The worry/potential of mass AI-induced unemployment. The threat of the everpresent surveillance state. Etc.
Like, seriously, it’s hard enough to stay sane in this world as an adult. I’m more than twice the age of a high school graduate. I’m no great bastion of mental resilience myself, but I’m definitely more capable of handling things now than when I was a teenager. So if it’s hitting adults this hard, damn. How is it hitting the kids? I graduated high school in 2006. Back then, it was hard enough finding your foot as an adult and an independent human being. But then, there was still a clear and reasonable path to home ownership. Fascism wasn’t even on the radar. Neo-nazis were cringe weirdos that even the Republicans in power wanted nothing to do with. Climate change was far enough away that a reasonable and hopeful case could still be made. Rights, prosperity, and democracy as a whole were or at least seemed on the rise.
For anyone with a lot of present experience interacting with a variety of kids in that age bracket (enough to get a general sense of the common approaches/attitudes), just how are kids handling all this? Are they doing alright? I think I’m mainly thinking about 14-18, high school age. Old enough to really comprehend the magnitude of these issues, but still firmly in the vulnerability of their teenage years.
I don’t know. Maybe I’m just looking on the past with rose-tinted glasses. Maybe back then I just didn’t pay as much attention to the troubles of the day. There were plenty of civil rights abuses in the post-9/11 era, and they never really stopped. But even by objective measures like housing cost to income ratios, the cost of education, etc., it’s clear that things are going to be objectively much more difficult for the class of 2026 than the class of 2006. And I worry for them.
Sometimes pirate crews started as mutineers. A merchant or navy ship has a captain that severely mistreats his crew. Eventually they get sick of him and maroon him somewhere or throw him overboard. At that point, everyone on that ship has probably already committed a capital offense (especially if it’s a navy ship), so they literally have nothing to lose by becoming pirates at that point. If they’re ever caught, they’re already dead. Initially on the boat are just the folks who happened to be there at the time of the mutiny. But some filtering happens over time. Those who don’t actually want to be pirates eventually slink off at one port stop or another. And new recruits are found via quiet conversations in port taverns. A lot of recruiting probably happens through personal contacts, “oh, we’re going to port X? Why I have a cousin there that might be interested!”
Also, often pirate ships started off as privateers. A privateer is just like a pirate, except legal. Let’s say Britain and France are at war. Britain issues letters of marque to any ship with captain and crew willing to raid French shipping. This is a way for the British crown to target French shipping at a fraction of the cost of having the Royal Navy do it themselves. (It’s the Age of Sale equivalent of German U-boats raiding British shipping during WW2.) If such a privateer is caught by the French, they’ll still be treated like pirates. But as far as the British are concerned, what they’re doing is completely legal. They can go steal a French and ship then sail into any British port and unload their plunder. It’s all completely legal and a culturally accepted part of warfare. As long as the captain had their official letter of marque, the harbormaster in any British port would let them participate freely and openly. As far as how these privateers got going? Simple capitalism. Some people with cash to invest would invest in a boat and crew, and attempt to make a profit from the conflict.
And that’s all well and good, except what happens when the war ends? Those letters of marque were only good during wartime. And privateers don’t get military retirement benefits. There’s no pension or these folks. (Not even whatever pitiful equivalent existed for Navy sailors at the time.) Men who were risking their lives sailing the seas, plundering commerce in Britain’s name? Well they’re now all out of a job. And even if what they did was legal, it still carried a stigma. Job prospects may be quite poor for a former privateer, and it certainly won’t be as lucrative. So, quite predictably, after the wars ended, often times the privateers just kept doing what they were good at. So many pirates were simply privateers that had been cut loose by their respective governments.
Frankly I don’t see how reverse passing is any more dangerous than forward passing. If anything it’s less dangerous as it requires less road distance.
Is this one of those things that just feels dangerous, so therefore it must be?
What’s wrong with reverse passing exactly? It’s safer than regular passing as it requires less distance to slow down than speed up a vehicle, at least in my experience.
There are more atoms in a single water molecule than there are stars in the entire solar system.
Ok, so where’s your truck bomb, tough guy?
You are guilty of the mortal sin of Pride.
It’s fascinating to see people suddenly accelerate after miles of the same speed on a relatively empty road because I moved into the passing lane, or (conversely) slow down because they’re alongside a slow vehicle and not in danger of being under-passed by another driver.
This is why if I’m on a road with one lane in each direction, when I pass, I PASS. Nothing is more terrifying than when someone takes their sweet time passing, barely going faster than the car in the lane next to them. Plus then you have to deal with the people like you’re describing. They don’t want to go as fast as you, but they do want to prevent you from passing them.
What I’ve found is that this type of passive aggressive driver is also a coward. Let’s say they’re going 60 and I want to go 65. I come up behind them to pass. If I try to pass at 65, there’s a good chance they’ll increase their speed to 65 in order to prevent me from passing them.
I don’t give them the opportunity. As far as I’m concerned, when you’re passing in a lane of opposing traffic, speed limits don’t exist. If I’m risking a head-on collision, I want to get in and out of that lane as fast as possible. So instead of going 65 while passing, I’ll rocket up to 85 and rapidly pass them. The passive aggressive assholes are cowards and won’t speed up that much to prevent you from passing. So I rocket up to 85, get the passing over with before they can do anything about it, and then slow down to the speed I actually want to travel at. By that point, the slowpoke is well in the rear view mirror. They don’t tend to speed back up either. By then their monkey brain just sees you as another car on the road, far away from them, not a challenge to their ego.
There’s “don’t dress like you want to be assaulted” and then there’s “don’t look up your local sex offender registry, find the most violent rapist you can, drink a handle of vodka and eat three edibles, break into their house when they’re away, and tie yourself nude to their bed.”
I absolutely don’t blame rape victims for their rape, at least in any sane scenario. But if someone did the latter, yeah, I’m sorry, I’m going to say they asked for it. If someone literally goes out of their way to deliberately get raped, well then at that point it’s consensual sex, not rape.
or been aggressively tailgated while I’m overtaking traffic
Are you one of those people that creates a massive road hazard by trying to pass by driving a single mile per hour faster than the cars in the right lane?
Eh, I see nothing wrong with passing on the right. If you’re driving correctly, it shouldn’t even be possible for someone to pass you on the right.
You need to have your drivers license taken away. Cops openly brag about being able to pull people over whenever they want. They can do this because there are so many rules of the road, that it is literally impossible to drive without violating them.
So really, drop the bullshit “but it’s illegal!!!” cope. You violate the law every time you get on the road. Traffic laws are written to be selectively enforced. You make it illegal to speed and then leave it to officer discretion.
Hell, I say we throw you in jail for life. If every law was enforced against everyone who violates them, then everyone would be in jail for life.
You’ve committed enough crimes to get yourself locked away for life. Perhaps you shouldn’t appeal to the law so readily.
You must have been a hall monitor.
I use a maneuver that I call a “reverse pass.” I make them pass me whether they want to or not!
Turns out, when a vehicle is traveling at highway speed, it’s a lot easier to slow it down by 20 mph than it is to speed it up by 20 mph. This means it takes less distance. You can slow down in a shorter clear lane window than you can speed up.
If someone clearly wants to go faster than me but they’re too chicken shit to pass, I’ll force them to pass. When an opening forms, I’ll quickly move to the left lane, push hard on the brakes, drop my speed down, and move back to the right lane. By the time the dumbass has even figured out what’s happening, they’re already in front of me. They do not get a choice in the matter.
Yes. In practice it is legal to exceed the speed limit, as speed limits are written artificially low with the understanding that people will violate them.
“But it’s technically illegal” is a terrible argument. There are so many rules of the road, and you, like every driver, are constantly making minor violations of the law. If every driving law were enforced 100%, there would be no more drivers on the road within a matter of weeks.
There’s a reason it’s long been understood that cops can pull anyone over any time they want. Technically they can only pull people over for violating traffic laws, but it is literally impossible to drive without violating traffic laws.
I wonder if older houses seem more “hauntable” simply because they were built to facilitate air flow within them. Before air conditioning, homes had to be built to allow air to naturally circulate. Thought was placed into room, door, and window layouts to encourage air flow throughout the home, windows were designed to fully open, and transom windows allowed air flow even when doors were closed.
The point is that old homes were built to allow air flow. This means that there’s more opportunity for doors to randomly close and other things to be disturbed by the wind. Older homes also weren’t as sealed and insulated as well. They were designed assuming that some of the structure would get wet and then dry out. Older buildings were designed to undergo constant moisture cycling, while newer buildings try to seal out moisture all together. More dramatic changes in lumber moisture content means more creaks, groans, and other ghostly noises.
Simply because of how buildings science has evolved, it’s possible that older homes just more readily produce “haunting” sounds than modern ones.