Datasets:

minkyungpark

/

SHP_test_expanded

like 0

tksj8r

changemyview_test

CMV: Too many people in America are more than willing to throw out the presumption of innocence for specific crimes. This is spurred by the Deshaun Watson case, and subsequent signing by the Cleveland Browns. Before I start, I want to be clear, I'm making ABSOLUTELY no judgments on his guilt or innocence or the integrity of his accusers. However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial. That is a BIG DEAL. Like grand juries really don't need much to move something forward. He never even had official charges brought against him. The public has seen no evidence, just knows there are accusations. The grand jury saw the evidence the prosecution had, and decided there wasn't really enough there. But so many people are acting like no team should have signed him after this happened. If we are a country (if you live in the USA anyway) who believes in the presumption of innocence for the accused, then we shouldn't want others punished, even by their employer, based on just accusations. Especially ones where there is a legal investigation and there isn't found to be enough evidence. Hell, in many states, asking if you have been arrested isn't even allowed on applications. They can ask if you have been convicted of a felony, but many places have decided that an arrest enough shouldn't bar people from employment without a conviction. I'm just a random dude, but I've been arrested twice, and both times the cases were thrown out. I'd hate for my company at the time, or even a future employer to look at that and use the "well, SOMETHING bad must have happened for him to get arrested, so we shouldn't hire him". And I think that same grace to be applied to everyone. Granted neither time was for sexual assault or anything. But should the crime matter if there isn't evidence? The problem seems to be WHAT he is accused of. But I don't really think we should have different standards of "innocent until proven guilty" based on the crime. And look, I get he is a public person, and they are held to different standards. But should they be? Its still a job, and people want him punished based solely on accusations. But, by all accounts, we should be treating him as innocent. And to reiterate. I'm not saying his accusers are lying. But should he, even in the court of public opinion, be treated as a criminal? Absolutely not.

i1t3kbz

i1sc3sw

> However, the facts are a grand jury heard all of these cases and didn't find enough evidence to even bring them to trial. That is a BIG DEAL.... It may be a minor point but you shouldn't put too much weight on the findings of a grand jury. There is a famous quote that a grand jury would "indict a ham sandwich," and the same retired judge (if also convicted criminal) went on to state that they "operate more often as the prosecutor’s pawn than the citizen’s shield." The point of that quote is that a good prosecutor completely controls the grand jury, with them issuing indictments if and only if the prosecutor wants them. At the risk of getting into politics, grand juries were developed as a way to protect rich, white men from the criminal justice system, and US history is full of examples of them being used as cover for prosecutors (i.e. to justify decisions to prosecute usually non-white men when there was minimal evidence, and justifying decisions not to prosecute - often police officers or other people in positions of power - despite overwhelming evidence). In the US the prosecutor gets to decide what the grand jury sees and hears and as the jurors are bound to secrecy there are virtually no checks in place to ensure the prosecutor makes the best case possible (or doesn't exaggerate the case). If you want a good example, the grand jury investigating the killing of Breonna Taylor failed to return an indictment of homicide against the people who killed her. The Kentucky Attorney General stated that the grand jury had "agreed" that shooting her had been justified. However some of the jurors risked breaking the law to comment on this, which led to the transcripts being unsealed (over the AG's objections) and it turned out the AG had refused to let the jury consider homicide charges (despite them asking about it), and muddled up self-defence laws. The US is one of two countries that still use grand juries - the other being Liberia (whose constitution is modelled on the US's). That the US uses them is a quirk of historical timing more than anything else, but for over two hundred years they have been used to protect the powerful and persecute those without power.

There are three things I think we ought to mention about this. First, sexual assault cases are notorious for being difficult. The fact that a grand jury did not decide to move for criminal charges or that people at large are not necessarily convinced by that isn't particularly surprising in itself. It's not difficult to understand, I think. We also want to keep in mind that people can do *bad things* that aren't necessarily *criminal things* and we can judge them on that. Second, the man did benefit from presumption of innocence, that's why he's not facing criminal charges. Besides, there are still 22 civil lawsuits pending, I believe. Third, there are obviously limits to presumption of innocence. It's a legal standard upheld by the court for very good reasons, but you can't expect public opinion at large to abide by it as strictly. It's well understood that the legal system is meant to clear a very high bar, because the consequences are so dire. Most people out there understand that, because of how the legal system is structured, you can do bad things, even criminal things, without ever being convicted in a court of law. While these standards are very good in the narrow context of a courtroom, I don't think they're necessarily practicable in the world at large.

3vyga5

changemyview_test

CMV: The second amendment is not an effective way for the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical regime emerging in the United States I hear two primary reasons for people citing the need for individual armament: personal defense and so the citizens can protect themselves from tyranny. I think the notion that the citizens could potentially protect themselves from a tyrannical regime with the military capabilities of the United States is ludicrous. I think the discussion has to start with a few acknowledgements. First, in the scenario I am discussing, the United States military would have to be backing the regime. Tyranny cannot exist without a virtual monopoly on force and a citizens rebellion would not be necessary if the military opposed the regime. In that scenario the military could effectively overthrow the tyrant via a coup d'etat. Second, tyrants act like tyrants. We should expect the tyrannical regime to have minimal regard for human rights and to do virtually everything in their power to crush the opposition. We should expect the regime to show similar levels of restraint as we've seen from other dictators when they have crushed past rebellions, only with the enormously enhanced military, intelligence and surveillance capabilities of the United States. Third, there would be minimal potential for external intervention or assistance. Even in the case of a citizens rebellion, other countries would be extremely wary of arming rebels and potentially starting a devastating war with the United States. With those ideas acknowledged, I fail to see how armed citizens would stand a chance against the strength of the United States military. Assault rifles don't stand a chance against helicopters, drone strikes, tanks and air raids. At best, the citizens could start a guerrilla war, but I have a hard time believing that given the United States' massive capabilities that guerrillas would achieve any substantive victories or gain any momentum. _____ > *Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our* ***popular topics wiki*** *first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*

cxrsavb

cxrrdxr

I think you *vastly* underestimate the effectiveness of guerrilla warfare. There are more than 300 million guns in the U.S. And millions upon millions of veterans. And our armed forces only have a couple million soldiers, some fraction of which would undoubtedly defect. Air strikes work against hard targets. There's a *reason* why all wars that anyone wins ultimately come down to soldiers with rifles on the ground. And those soldiers are vulnerable. The armed forces don't actually have enough *ammunition* to kill everyone with a gun, even assuming 100% hits and optimal use of all our bombs. There aren't enough drones (nor is it possible to make enough) to watch for all of the people that would be guerrillas. Nor enough force to protect the ammunition factories without destroying them in the process. Nor the National Guard armories.

I think the Vietnamese, Afghans, and Iraqis would disagree with you regarding the effectiveness of the U.S. military against a determined insurgency.

apk8ur

changemyview_test

CMV: Dr. Phil and similar TV shows are the modern, socially acceptable equivalent of circus freak shows Old circus freak shows took people with unusual disabilities or physical conditions and put them on display for people to gawk at. Today (at least in first world countries) that kind of thing would be unacceptable because of how degrading it is to the "performers". Shows like Dr. Phil are not much different from a freak show. Many people appearing on the show are clearly in need of therapy and Dr. Phil is a psychologist but I feel like this is just a facade used to make viewers feel like this is an acceptable way of presenting people with mental disorders on television. I don't feel like any therapist would recommend for a therapy session to be conducted in front of millions of people. On top of that recently it appears that people are being rewarded with social media stardom for their unusual behavior which is probably the opposite of what is needed for their health. And just to be clear I think it is important to show people with mental and physical disabilities in media and there are respectful ways of doing it. Dr. Phil and similar shows are just not it.

eg941p4

eg9aleb

People Approach Dr. Phil to be on their show. He just facilitates. Old time Freak shows used to find people then present them for the world to see. I think this a large distinction.

I don't know "freak shows" but I do believe that Dr. Phil is based on the same sort of sensational and often salacious presentation of the skeletons in people's closets as Jerry Springer. It's very base, and I think it quenches the same thirst in people as listening to gossip, and I don't think it's altogether healthy, psychologically speaking. That said, Dr. Phil isn't looked at as being trashy because he is supposedly doing it to try to help people, but I have a hard time seeing it as being very much different in the end. This is all my own opinions though, and I find almost all daytime television to be quite trashy, and avoid it as such.

t9pkz0

changemyview_test

CMV: The DSM can be more harmful than helpful and it's overused Now, to make it clear, I'm not saying mental illnesses aren't real and that diagnosing people with them is pointless. But, the culture surrounding it, both inside clinical settings and on the internet, doesn't help people. It creates a culture of diagnosis, over actually helping people. It treats mental illness in a very medicalized way, when mental and physical illnesses shouldn't be viewed in the same way. They should be viewed with the same amount of respect. On the internet, specifically amongst teenagers, but not always, it becomes diagnosis olympics. I fell into this trap as a teenager, of becoming fascinated by what I could potentially have, as well as mental illnesses in general. Nothing wrong with that, looking into the mind is fascinating, but looking into it through that lens can lead to problems. It's not even people self-diagnosing that's necessarily the issue, cause sometimes people just know themselves, but rather viewing the mental illness as the explanation to all their problems. People behave as if these labels came before their actual experiences, when it's the opposite. Nothing really changes when you get diagnosed, people just feel comforted by it, because it is human nature to want to categorize things. I think a diagnosis can be helpful in understanding how to treat someone, and give them context into what's going on, but it's not the full picture by any means. In psychiatric hospitals, this is especially an issue, in which diagnosing people becomes the priority over actually helping them, so that people can be given meds, then sent away, since there's not enough space, and everyone is emotionally burnout (I know, that's a simplified view of what's going on).

hzvz7nh

hzw23no

Speaking from professional experience, the DSM is a tool whose purpose is mainly twofold. First to use a standard set of diagnostic tools to help accurately diagnose a client and to develop the appropriate treatment plan. Second to use amongst other clinicians so that if a client goes to see multiple clinicians, the treatment regime stays consistent and each clinician doesn't have to start the diagnosis process over and their treatments aren't wildly different. In essence, it's a tool that professionals use to do their job. The fact of the matter is most common people don't even know what the DSM is let alone what it stands for or what its purpose is. The fact that clinically meaningful terms such as depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and bipolar have made it into the general lexicon isn't the fault of the DSM. While I agree that pharmaceutical interventions are overused, especially in the US, the same could be said for general medicine.

The DSM was never intended to be used by people who aren’t practicing psychologists or psychiatrists. Much like medical texts are intended for doctors, the abuse of professional texts by laypeople isn’t the fault of the textbooks, they are usefully for actual professionals. The problem is with armchair amateur psychologists that treat the DSM like it’s a bible when it’s literally amended version to version to best serve the professional community and their patients. What you’re describing sounds more like pathologizing human behavior. It’s typical for someone with a hammer to see a problem as a nail. Again human behavior is hard to correct, even in the professionals we trust to treat our mental health. Still, a flawed system with concrete scientific basis to improve itself is better than no system at all.

pklzob

changemyview_test

CMV: The work-from-home push by white-collar workers will eventually lead to massive outsourcing that will hurt future generations of wealthy western nations. For some generations older than mine, when they were in the workforce there was an abundance of factory jobs that provided millions of people the opportunity to earn a solid middle-class income and provide for their families. As a result of both automation and the outsourcing of labor to countries with cheaper labor, these jobs are all but gone and the middle class is a shell of what it once was. An argument that I've heard in defense of this, is that it allows for these wealthy western nations to focus more of their workforce on higher-paying professional services or white-collar jobs. Even if you assume that that statement is true, I don't see any reason why the same thing that happened to manufacturing jobs won't eventually happen to white-collar jobs that can be completed 100% virtually from home. ​ With COVID, many jobs were forced to adapt and at least temporarily adopt a work-from-home setup. Once employees began work-from-home, many realized that there really isn't any reason to come into the office, and now won't consider any jobs that require them to come into the office 5 days a week. I think this will be a good deal for workers in the short term as it potentially gives them a little more flexibility, cuts down on their commute time, and potentially allows them to move further away from the office to a lower cost of living area. But if a job can be completed 100% from home, what's to stop employers from doing to professional services what they did to manufacturing jobs and outsourcing the work to individuals who don't expect as great a salary in return? I don't imagine this will be an instantaneous or overnight transition but it's not like people from places where the labor is cheaper are incapable of learning any job that people in wealthy western nations can. That's not to say there won't be any challenges for the outsourced white-collar jobs but the cost savings would likely make the challenges worth it in a lot of cases. ​ So Reddit, CMV - future generations of wealthy western nations will see a similar reduction in white-collar jobs that can be completed virtually, that millennials experienced with manufacturing jobs.

hc4cuw1

hc4f0di

My best argument against this is simply that most outsourced work is done in country’s with very little access to top tier education & without that many of these “white collar jobs” are out of the question for being outsourced.

There was a big wave of international outsourcing in the early 2000s. For some companies it worked, for many it didn’t. Having workers in different jurisdictions, cultures, time zones is very different than having local people who work from home.

v25qi9

changemyview_test

CMV: The theory that eliminating tipping would cause the restaurant industry to collapse is a conspiracy perpetuated by waitstaff and the restaurant industry Tipping is optional. Period, point blank, no ifs, ands, or buts. It’s a customers choice whether they want to tip or not and how much. The idea it is mandatory is solely based on guilt and societal pressure to conform at the detriment of the customer and the benefit of the business and waitstaff. The customer experiences unnecessary pressure to pay an arbitrary amount of money simply for going out to eat. Meanwhile the waitstaff benefit by making often more than minimum wage. Even more so the business benefits by having the customer pay their employee wages and put pressure on the waitstaff to turn over tables further making them more money. Imagine if Amazon decided to implement this pay scheme. They decide they’re going to pay their workers less than minimum wage and you foot the bill by adding a tip to your order. People wouldn’t stand for this and would be at Amazons throat. So why in this instance is the customer, who just wants to sit and eat, the enemy, instead of the person who decided to start a business and have someone else pay for it? As well back of house usually isn’t getting tipped and some of them make less than the waitstaff. Where’s the outrage? People keep pushing the idea that somehow eliminating tips is going to lead to the collapse of the restaurant industry or food prices are going to skyrocket. If this was the case why does it seem every country that doesn’t have a tipping system is doing just fine? The tipping system in America is propped up solely by the false narrative that it is necessary. It’s a conspiracy perpetuated by the restaurant industry and waitstaff and is just as credible something like the flat earth theory. >What would change my view Some kind of credible information that the entire restaurant Industry would collapse and not individual business that just can’t support themselves OR That tipping is somehow a necessity

iaqldbe

iaqjcdv

you aren't legally obligated to tip and you'll face no legal repercussions for not tipping. In that sense, it is optional. Not tipping in areas for which low income earners depend on tips is morally reprehensible and people will continue to morally condemn and judge you for it. Not viewing you as an immoral person is optional. A service industry that didn't depend on tips is very conceivable. In most if not all of Europe, tips are much less expected. It is reasonable to want to switch from the US system to the European system. It is not reasonable to make some of the lowest wage earners pay for that transition. If you don't like the culture of tipping, you can campaign for laws that don't exempt service workers from minimum wage, and you can boycott restaurants where tips are expected. But, if you, in order to try to change the country to the way you want it to be, decide the way to do that is for you to make no sacrifices at all, and instead inflict that burden on some of the most economically vulnerable, you taint your own cause.

You’re incorrect, the tipping system is propped up by businesses that want to pay their workers sub minimum wage. It’s a loophole where they can pay them less and put the responsibility of paying their workers a “fair wage” more directly onto customers Wait staffs don’t want less guaranteed wages in the hopes their tips might make up for it

z32qlz

changemyview_test

CMV: Telling random people to smile is rude and inconsiderate of their feelings My view is that when people tell others to smile it's often comes from a place of selfishness rather than wanting that person to express themselves how they see fit. People want to see others smile mainly for aesthetic purposes than anything else. When you see someone down the street you have absolutely no idea what trials & tribulations they've faced, their life story, what they are currently going through and so on. So I think it's extremely dismissive to tell someone to put on a mask which is a smile because it personally looks appealing to you rather than actually try to brighten that persons day in any other regards. Like imagine if something tragic just happened to you where you lost your job, a love one got into a car accident or something in which it negatively impacted you. How would you feel if someone randomly came up and told you "smile!". Me personally it would piss me off quite a bit. And on top of that nobody owes anyone anything when it comes to facial expression. How one chooses to express their face has no impact on anyone else's well being. Peoples faces aren't here to make someone else feel better so I feel like telling someone how they should handle their facial expression isn't any different than telling them how they should dress, walk etc. in my opinion telling people to smile comes from a form a narcissism in a sense that you want others to express themselves just for your own personal benefit. Because you find someone smiling more aesthetically pleasing than someone who doesn't look happy. Well what do you guys think?

ixkkcbw

ixjqwmi

Man you must hate professional photographers

i wouldn’t call it rude i would just say it’s kind of uncomfortable. I’ve been told by random men walking in public numerous times things like “smile honey” and stuff and it just made me uncomfortable💀 however in their mind, assuming they’re not trying to b creepy, they’re probably thinking that they made someone who may have been having a bad day feel a little better

b3si2w

changemyview_test

CMV: A non-black person having an afro is not cultural appropriation as a haircut is not culturally exclusive I should preface by saying I would just like to objectively understand the other sides arguments. Recently i was told that by impersonating someone like Bob Ross with an afro, that this is would be cultural appropriation and thus insensitive towards African American. I don't believe this is true because A. He is not African American (the perceived targeted race), B. An afro - or any hair style - should not be intrinsic and exclusive to one single race. This was a hairstyle that was largely prominent in the 70s and 80s. As well, and most importantly, most people regardless of race can physically grow an afro if they grow their hair long enough. I know I can and I'm not black. Should I be frowned upon for growing my hair long naturally, or cosplaying as someone who themselves looks a certain way with no intention of misappropriation and insensitivity towards a particular group? Thanks

ej1uxv6

ej20cdh

Other people definitely have curly hair. But the question is, why call it an Afro if you are not specifically making reference to African Americans or people of African heritage.

Not my argument, but I can try to parrot something back to you. ​ 1) Since the 1960s (and even before then) African-Americans have been penalized for their manner of dress - be it their hair, their nails, their shirts or whatever. Black people have lost jobs, people have lost promotions, due to having "wrong dress". ​ 2) In the modern era, white people can now wear those same manners of dress - without penalty. ​ 3) Being penalized for something, for 60+ years, and then for someone else to do the same thing you did, and receive no penalty - feels wrong somehow. ​ You could argue whether the word which best describes this is cultural appropriation or not - I would personally use the term double standard - but do you at least see what some people are mad about?

hmfypp

changemyview_test

CMV: In the extreme long term (over thousands of years), if humanity had never invented religion we would be in a significantly worse place both academically and technologically than we are now Whether Mosques, Synagogues, Churches, or Temples; religious establishments had pushed humanity to expand our knowledge of the physical world by developing maths such as geometry, engineering, and other sciences, including anatomy from the artwork on the inside of these religious establishments. Keep in mind, many if not most religions that inspired these things wouldn't be agreeable with Western Fundamentalist Christianity, but religion is one of the things that always gets funding in many societies to achieve things like large temples that required unique ingenuity that may not have been seen before. Yes, the Romans, for example, built many non religious structures that puzzled even much more recent explorers long after the Fall of Rome- but the thing that preserved much of the Roman information was the Christian Monastery and then the Islamic Monastery. Even in early, rural, America; Christianity played a part in challenging and developing the intellectual side of humanity. Over generations, even people who were incredibly poor would pass down the family King James Bible, which is now what we would consider at an eighth grade reading level. Although it is pretty much standard to finish High School and most likely get an associates degree these days, if you could read at an eighth grade level in revolutionary America, you were pretty well educated compared to the rest of the world.

fx4x0f7

fx4ya6o

> religious establishments had pushed humanity to expand our knowledge of the physical world by developing maths such as geometry, engineering, and other sciences What...? Where did you get this? Most of those were begun despite religion. Some of them were begun by groups that practices religion but only because the vast majority of people back then practiced religion. There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that religion encouraged it. You also forget that a lack of religion isn't .... nothing.... People would still be curious and resources and time would be spent on other things, things that very well (and most likely) would promote curiousity even more. Look at the **core** of religion - it is to accept something as the absolute truth. That is **the exact opposite** of science.

Your whole argument depends on one very unrealistic assumption, and that is that if religion was never a thing or, at least was never as influential as it is, then no one would have paid or incited for technological/scientific advancements; and that is just unrealistic considering how many of those advancements where impulsed by warfare, economic gain, or simple curiosity of, generally, a wealthy person. A clear example of this are the Greeks and Romans, I know that you addressed that too, but you forgot the fact that a lot of the pre-Christian era knowledge was destroyed for contradicting Christian doctrine, not to mention, that again you're assuming that if the church wasn't there no one would have done the same, which is a baseless assumption and imo a very unlikely one at that, giving the advantage that such knowledge could bring.

78j7oe

changemyview_test

CMV: Capital Gains should be taxed the same as ordinary income I consider myself a libertarian and therefore am fiscally conservative. However, given the debates over the tax code overhaul, I truly believe we need to go back to the days of capital gains being treated the same as ordinary income. This would generate more tax revenue than by eliminating the SALT deductions (state, local and property taxes). I believe the SALT deductions are necessary because you shouldn't pay taxes on money spent paying other taxes. I do live in one of the so called donor states so my federal taxes will go up under Trumps plan, but I've been in favor of changing the capital gains tax ever since I graduated college with an accounting degree back in 2008. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*

dou8j91

douqmpb

I have never really understood the macroeconomics of tax policy, but as a libertarian why would you want the government to generate more tax revenue?

Honestly, increasing capital gains taxes or (ideally) just counting capital gains as income for the purposes of income taxes only makes sense if we drop corporate taxes altogether. We have the highest nominal corporate tax rate in the world. No one pays the nominal tax rate because the tax code is riddled with exemptions and credits and discounts. Some companies have played that game so well that they pay nothing in taxes, and a handful get a net positive payment. Which is dumb. More generally, corporate taxes are sold as a "tax on the rich" but that's not how it works. When companies are taxed they raise prices as much as they can so it isn't the company that pays the tax. No, I pay that tax. Yeah, the company sends in the check but I'm the one out the money. If the company can't raise prices because we collectively won't put up with that then it's the workers who are turned down for raises or don't get hired or might get laid off. If companies can get away with some 'belt tightening' to make their earnings numbers look better to investors then you bet your ass that belt is tightening. It's only when neither of those things are possible, when prices are as high as they are going to go and the belt is as tight as it's going to get, when the person paying the tax is the shareholders of the company. But are all shareholders rich? Well, once upon a time they were, but now some of the biggest shareholders around are the funds that pay out retirement and pensions. So, you hit retirees and current workers as much as you hit rich folks. So, what tax does generally hit rich folks? Capital gains. Why? Because it's on the other side of the equation. It's taxing rich people directly where they can't shift its responsibility to anyone else. So, why is the Capital Gains rates lower? Well, there are two reasons. First is to encourage investment, a gentle nudge towards putting money to use instead of gold-filled swimming pools. And that does work... sorta... during specific parts of the business cycle. The other reason is a fairness argument. So, you make a dollar by owning a business, shrewd planning and a not insignificant amount of design work pays off. Only that $1 you made gets taxed 35% when it leaves the company and gets hit *again* when it enters your hand? Possibly as much as another 35% if we're using income tax brackets. Well, fuck that. The Federal government gets a full 70 cents on the dollar? And then States sometimes get another 15% and occasionally a city asks for 10%. So now, fuck. I got a whole shiny nickel out of that dollar I made. While unfairness should happen to rich folk every so often there's a point beyond which it's just dumb. We would be better off if we taxed capital gains as income dropped the corporate tax altogether to take the boot off of the dollar store shopper a bit and stop the whole "double tax bonus" crazy train. It should even out revenue wise over the long run. But, we'd come out big ahead if we were to do something crazy like issue more grants to businesses starting in economically depressed areas and gave tax breaks to start ups instead of to the biggest companies in the world for their second or third headquarters.

we5x1a

changemyview_test

CMV: I think many people that claim they're non binary are faking it. The majority of people that claim non binary identity AND aggressively insist on they/them pronouns are phony. Seems that many are privileged white people that are ashamed or embarrassed by their perceived oppressor status or perceived lack of "exoticness". It's an incredibly easy way to join a minority group with little effort. An actual non binary person wouldn't care what strangers or acquaintances refer to them as. They know it's never an intentional way to disrespect anyone. It's just the natural flow of language. Just like saying a foreign name or place while still having your native accent in pronunciation.

iimf351

ilry7v3

If I accidentally misgendered you by calling you "Miss Eddyshorts" when you’re a dude, or "my boy Eddyshorts", if you’re a woman, would you correct me? I'm a stranger, and it's not intentional. It just may not be accurate. But for argument’s sake, let's say it *doesn't* bother you, and you're cool with accidental misgendering — does that make you NB now? Pronouns aren't the defining factor. I bet you insist on pronouns in some way too. **FTR, you referred to NB folks without using any gendered pronouns throughout this entire post.** So using they/them when you don't know someone isn't that hard, eh?

Nonbinary isnt even real. It was made up by people who arent gay and arent trans but wanted a way to feel special in the lgbt community. Now they insist everyone else accept their stupid beliefs because they're some minority group thats oppressed. They make real trans people look ridiculous

hpxtr9

changemyview_test

CMV: America needs a populist political movement that focuses on widely agreed upon political and economic reforms instead of wedge issues and culture wars According to polling data there are a great many political and economic reforms that are widely supported by the general populace and would be beneficial to the majority of Americans. Statistically most Americans support things like higher minimum wages, ending citizens united, a more socialized healthcare system, electoral reform, and an end to outsourcing and free trade agreements. However instead of focusing on these areas of common ground most politics and political movements focus on issues that are both widely divisive and much smaller in scope such as abortion, gun control, which bathrooms people should be allowed to use, and how different groups are represented in the media. ​ ​ The result of this is that people continue to be politically divided in spite of the large degree of common ground many of us have politically. By contrast an agenda of political and economic populism could both unite people and lead to real progress for many. Not only are political and economic reforms fairly universally supported, but they can also be argued for through appeals to rational self interest unlike a lot of wedge issues and culture war stuff which are heavily subjective and difficult to sway people on. ​ ​ Obviously achieving this wouldn't be easy but I think it would still be the best way to achieve tangible progress on political and economic reform in this country instead of the perpetual gridlock we always seem to be in now.

fxug2av

fxuhm6e

The problem is that wedge issues aren't wedge issues because every politician necessarily makes them a big issue of their campaign. They're wedge issues because they're easily deployed against your opponents and everyone is required to have an opinion on them. Your centrist-populist party guy can run on those popular issues but he's going to be asked about abortion and gun control and trans rights. And the "Mr. Populist won't say his opinion on abortion" headline is worse than just saying an opinion on the issue.

The issue with unified left- and right-wing populism that completely ignores cultural discourse is that although both sides may end up agreeing on the *problems*, there still lies a significant gap to bridge with regards to the *solutions*. The Nazis, for example, were environmentalists. Instead of increasing regulation of industry, as most liberals/leftists would advocate, they laid the blame on Jews, Poles, and other minorities. It's debatable whether they truly even believed in environmentalism, or if they were just using it as a thinly-veiled excuse for their bigotry. Another thing is there is no guarantee that both sides will work together long enough for actual progress to be made. Trump's rhetoric in his 2016 campaign was grounded in populist rhetoric - he even called for raising taxes on the rich. When it came down to the actual policy, however, it ended up being just that - rhetoric.

ffc2o9

changemyview_test

CMV: Anti-vaxxers who have a child die to a preventable disease should be charged for murder/manslaughter at minimum. At this point in technology, where almost everything is available for public viewing on the internet, there is no reason for anyone to be an anti-vaxxer. There is literally tens of thousands of legitimate scientifically proven articles on why vaccines are a good thing and less than 100 of the opposing argument in the same category. Therefore, it is due to pure negligence that someone has this viewpoint and should be treated the same or more harshly than someone, for example, who leaves their kids in their car on a hot day. Pure negligence and stupidity. They should receive almost no empathy and should be jailed on the spot. It is too ridiculous a point to still be making. If you have a different argument, be my guest.

fjxhm7o

fjxgt3v

Manslaughter requires direct participation in the person's death, so does murder. A more appropriate charge would be criminal negligence. Negligence is the absence of action. You can not convict someone for murder without them actively participating in the death. Unless the parents deliberately infected the child, they took no active part in the death. It was their lack of action which was a contributing factor. On the other hand, negligence has been used to punish circumstances where parents refuse medical treatment for their children. These two Canadian parents were found guilty of criminal negligence causing the death of their 14 month old child. They basically refused to take him to hospital, and tried to use various natural remedies, until it was too late. He eventually died of what should have been a treatable infection. They were sentenced to two and a half years in prison. ​ Basically, you can't convict someone of murder or manslaughter for being negligent by taking no action. Murder and manslaughter require you to play a direct role in someone's death. Criminal negligence causing death would be the appropriate charge. ​ That being said, I don't think refusing vaccination merits a criminal approach like this. Edit: For those interested, here is the transcript of the full court judgement for the case mentioned above. Fills in a lot of details. The most pathetic/infuriating part were the searches the parents conducted online: ***"can cabbage leaves cure gangerene?"*** If you search for that, and dont seek medical care, then you are responsible for what is happening to your child in my mind.

Anti-vaxxers are fucking idiots and and recklessly dangerous, BUT they wholeheartedly believe beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are protecting their child. Against a huge conspiracy. If you believed that people were coming to kidnap and murder your child, and the police said they didn't believe it and to forget about it, what would you do? You might improve your home security, you might even attack people you didn't know, who were trying to get close (on their way elsewhere walking past your child) If you had a mental illness and believed this, your actions would likely be the same. But probably should not go to jail for this. People who genuinely are trying to do things which they believe are good, should have a punishment, mitigated by their intent. Anti-vaxxers, though dangerous, should be treated as well meaning idiots. Mandatory vaccination, is the right response.

690tz0

changemyview_test

CMV: Trump could go back on almost all of his campaign promises and still retain the support of most of his supporters Before the election, many Trump supporters said that they supported him for his policies not his personality. I don't think that is true. Since the election, he seems to have struggled to get anything done even with about as favourable a situation a President could have. He's argued for healthcare changes that takes insurance away from people despite promising to do the opposite. He's gotten the US more involved in Syria despite promising the opposite. He has claimed credit for keeping jobs in the US that were never going to leave and creating jobs that were already planned. He decided the low unemployment figures were real when he won the election. He claimed to "drain the swamp" then gave his family important jobs. He said Obama was wrong to use executive orders then did so. He still seems to be trusted by his supporters. Likewise, when he argued that Obama wiretapped him, I thought that Trump supporters would find a way to believe him. They did. I think that Trump could do the exact same things as Obama and effectively do no actual work but as long as he offends the left and minorities, he will retain the support of >80% of his current supporters as the media they watch and their own bias will convince them that everything is getting better and Trump is doing a great job. What would CMV is proof that Trump's support is down to his policies and not his behaviour and that his support is capable of changing their minds and will not follow him blindly. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*

dh2t9v6

dh2wp2s

Clarifying question. Do you think losing roughly 20% of your base is a small thing? This is a massive failure for any politician, especially one who can only win by the narrowest margins in the first place.

I would argue that your premise does not have a strong base. While 80% is still a supermajority, losing 20% of his supporters would mean landslide victories in states like Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, etc. where Trump only won by a small margin. These three states alone would lose 46 electoral votes and be enough to lose the election.

pddz0n

changemyview_test

CMV: Affirmative Action for college admissions should be based on socioeconimic status, and not race. Title. I'll use myself as an example to start. I'm Lumbee Indian (card-carrying), and thus college is free for me from many instutions. The issue arises from the fact that I don't live in Robeson County, North Carolina, where much of my family does, and where the Lumbee tend to be poorer than white people, on average. I live in Minnesota, am moderately well-off, and have never faced racial discrimination, (mostly because my dad is white and I got his genes.) But I still get free college, despite my grades being average at best. This is why I believe that college admissions shouldn't look at you're race, but at the wealth of your family. Race doesn't generally cause people to get poor grades and test scores, but the wealth of their parents can. A white kid with a single mother who works as a janitor, but has a 3.8 GOA and a 30 on the ACT would be more qualified for university than Malia Obama, if she had the same numbers. Race can be a factor, but it isn't always a factor, and colleges should recognize that.

hapo08d

hapqosn

I honestly can't see how AA for race isnt racist. Its literally handing out privileges based on skin color. Economic status is clearly the better option, but america is obsessed with race for some reason.

You seem to misunderstand the goal and history of affirmative action. That's okay. Most people do. The goal is not to create a level playing field. The goal is not to 're-correct' for prejudice. The goal is not even to benefit the "recipients" of affirmative action. **The goal of affirmative action is desegregation** Brown Vs. Board of Ed. found that separate but equal never was equal. If that's true, what do we do about defacto separation due to segregation? We need to have future generations of CEOs, judges and teachers who represent 'underrepresented' minorities. What we ended up having to do was bussing, and AA. Bussing is moving minorities from segregated neighborhoods into white schools. The idea is for white people to see black faces and the diversity that similar appearance can hide. Seeing that some blacks are Americans and some are Africans would be an important part of desegregation. **Affirmative action isn't charity to those involved and it isn't supposed to be** A sober look at the effect of bussing on the kids who were sent to schools with a class that hated them asked that it wasn't a charity. It wasn't even fair to them. We're did it because the country was suffering from the evil of racism and exposure is the only way to heal it. http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2016/10/06/496411024/why-busing-didnt-end-school-segregation Affirmative action in schools is similar. Evidence shows that students who are pulled into colleges in which they are underrepresented puts them off balance and often has bad outcomes for those individuals. The beneficiary is society as a whole. AA isn't charity for the underprivileged. Pell grants do that. AA is desegregation. Race matters in that my children and family will share my race. The people that I care about and have the most in common with share these things. This is very important for practical reasons of access to power. Race is (usually) visually obvious and people who would never consider themselves racist still openly admit that they favor people like themselves (without regard to skin color). Think about times you meet new people: - first date - first day of class - job interview Now think about factors that would make it likely that you "got along" with people: - like the same music - share the same cultural vocabulary/values - know the same people or went to school together Of these factors of commonality, race is a major determinant. Being liked by people with power is exactly what being powerful is. Your ability to curry favor is the point of social class. Which is why separate but equal is never equal. So the question is, without the ability for schools to *do* something about de facto racial segregation, how do things change?

fof2q9

changemyview_test

CMV: r/FemaleDatingStrategy is a toxic, hateful sub filled with bad advice and shouldn't be viewed as a positive community on reddit. I'm writing this because while in my experience condemnation of or at least acknowledgement of the toxicity, hatefulness, and bad advice-full-ness of "manosphere" subs or communities focused around The Red Pill, Pick Up Artistry, or Men Going Their Own Way is nearly universal among people who are not in those communities, I have seen a fair number of people who are not r/FemaleDatingStrategy users come to the defense of FDS with comments like "oh they're just focused on helping women not get taken advantage of and ensuring they get the most out of dating, there's nothing wrong with that!" This kind of positive outsider view of FDS culminated in an article the Wall Street Journal published about FDS in which they praised the sub for offering "actually practical advice in the age of dating apps," because "Today’s Tinderella must swipe through a lot of ugly profiles to find her prince," and claiming that "The strategies that FDSers endorse, particularly for online dating, are backed by scientific research" and concluding that "If love is a battlefield, communities like Female Dating Strategy are trying to better arm some of the combatants." I find it very hard to believe that a major publication like the WSJ would ever publish a favorable piece about a community like PUA or TRP the way they did for FDS. I looked. I found a bunch of major publications who dove into why PUA, TRP, and MGTOW are toxic, hateful, and filled with bad advice, but none praising them. This double standard maintained by many redditors and apparently by the writers for major news outlets in condemning TRP-like communities but not their female equivalents is, more than anything, what prompted me to make this post. It also means that if your counterargument is anything like "well but TRP is toxic!" it will not change my view on anything, because I agree with that already. To the meat of why FDS is toxic, hateful, and filled with bad advice: First it's worth looking at who uses FDS. According to subredditstats.com, r/GenderCritical, reddit's largets TERF subreddit, has a user overlap of 151 with FDS, and is ranked as the most similar sub; r/PinkpillFeminism, arguably reddit's largest and most overt misandristic subreddit, has a user overlap of 482 with FDS, and is also ranked as the most similar subreddit to it. In short, TERFs and misandrists are respectively 151 and 482 times more likely than the average reddit user to frequent FDS; FDS is, therefore, largely populated with transphobes (note it is "female" dating strategy, not "womens" dating strategy) and man-haters. As for hatefulness, FDS maintains a host of dehumanizing terms for men, the most popular of which is "moid," meaning a "man like humanoid," meaning, "something male but not entirely human." Another favorite is "scrote," obviously referring to and reducing men down to their testicles, which can be seen in popular FDS flairs like "The Scrotation," or "Roast-A-Scrote" or "Scrotes Mad." Finally, "Low Value Male" (LVM) and "High Value Male" (HVM), which is a way FDS divides up men, not unlike the famous 1-10 scale many women find so degrading, like cattle, into groups that FDS sees as having something to offer them (height, a six pack, a six figure salary, a nice house, nice car, a large penis, etc.) and those who don't; if you lack those things, you are a "low value" man, according to FDS. So lets just stop there for a moment and recap. Imagine there was a male-oriented reddit sub that had nearly a 150x - 500x user overlap with openly misogynistic and transphobic subs. Imagine they routinely referred to women solely as "non-human female-like creatures," or "vulvas" or "holes" or referred to all women who weren't 120lbs or less with DD breasts and mean blowjob skills and a passion for anal as "low value." Right there I think that would be more than enough to say that this hypothetical sub is toxic and hateful, not deserving of praise. But FDS is also chalk-full of shitty advice. * They make fun of men who are passionate about physical fitness (despite demanding men be fit) * "If we’re not fucking, I don’t want to cuddle. If you’re not taking me out, I don’t want to see you." * They unironically support forced vasectomy * They think men who aren't immediately pushing for sex must have weird-looking or "dysfunctional" penises * They think that men will always treat women in their present exactly like women in their past and shouldn't be given any amount of time to decide if they want a serious relationship with women * They think that men have nothing to offer except money and attractiveness * They think that small penises aren't "normal," are useless in bed, and women shouldn't be with a man who has one * Men are "the fucking worst," "trashy, overly sexual, disrespectful ass garbage," "too timid," "intellectually brain dead," "boring," "uncreative and lack curiosity," "unattractive," "shit as sex," and "negligent." * They think that men should be "instantly" in love with them or they're not worth spending any time on I could go on but I'm getting tired of linking stuff from there. I think you get the idea. The final bit of toxicity and bad advice-nature of FDS took me a while to realize. I'm subbed to a lot of subs dealing with gendered and dating issues: GC, PPF, FDS, TRP, MGTOW, etc. As I said earlier, I regard the male versions of these subs as toxic, hateful, and counterproductive, but one (fairly common sense) thing that they get right is that self-improvement is a major prerequisite in regards to having success with women. Advice like "lose weight, lift, get a sharp hair cut, upgrade your wardrobe, get a high paying job, get a nice car, and develop an interesting and entertaining personality" is a dime a dozen on PUA and TRP-type subs. And it's not bad advice; if a guy isn't having luck with women, it makes sense to conclude there's probably something about him that needs to be improved so he'll have better chances. It took me a while to notice, but FDS is totally bereft of any advice of this sort. They are not self-critical or interested in any true self-improvement. Their view on this is that all women are, by virtue of being women, automatically maximally awesome and desirable and deserving of Mr. Right or Prince Charming and the only "self improvement" required is that women realize this and stop settling for anything less. You will not find, or at least I haven't in like 6mo of being subbed there and *looking,* any posts telling women to work on their appearance or personality in order to help maximize their chances of success in dating. I would argue that this is both toxic and, in regards to dating, textbook bad advice; if you're repeatedly having bad interactions with the opposite sex the most logical thing to do is to examine the common denominator (and also the only thing you really control in the equation - you - and see what you could do improve yourself. FDS skips that step entirely. TL;DR: FDS is a toxic, hateful cesspool and a self-reinforcing echo-chamber of bad advice and should be regarded as such, not praised.

flfdogz

fleu09a

As a woman who dates women, I can confidently say that if I ever tried using those "dating strategies" or that kind of hateful terminology with another woman it would immediately be seen as disgusting toxic behavior. That tells you that it isnt about "dating" at all. Those women are just horrible toxic people who contribute to the overarching patriarchy and gender inequality in society.

So I think that the situation with the WSJ is relatively easily explained. The WSJ is a newspaper with a conservative editorial page, and as such it tends to publish content that leans conservative. Most of the ways in which FDS is toxic/hateful are just it affirming traditional gender roles: things like being trans-exclusionary, saying that men must pursue women, men must pay for dates, discouraging women from having sex for pleasure alone. These things, while toxic, are all attractive to conservatives because they affirm and support traditional models of gender. And conservatives have never particularly cared about gendered slurs (that's mostly a left-wing thing). So it's not surprising to see an essay supporting this group in a conservative-learning paper like the WSJ. On the other hand, the male-focused other groups that you mention do not enforce and support gender roles and narratives. Groups like MGTOW are explicit in their rejection of those roles, but other groups like PUA also undermine them in other ways. This makes these groups unattractive to conservative news media, which is why we don't see papers like the WSJ supporting them. (Both types of groups are of course unpalatable to more liberal media outlets because of the misogyny/transmisogyny.)

7zu6h2

changemyview_test

CMV: Erik Killmonger in Black Panther is the rightful heir to the Wakandan throne So the specific rules of ritual combat are not completely elaborated on, but we can make some assumptions as to its rules based on the movie: 1) Either one of the leaders of the five tribes or someone in the royal bloodline is allowed to challenge for the throne. 2) Neither warrior is allowed to use any of the magic powers (either the Black Panther suit or the special healing herb) 3) External interference to help either warrior is not allowed and disqualifying 4) The first person to "yield" or be killed is the loser of the fight. In the battle Killmonger was clearly the superior warrior and defeated T'Challa, but because of interference from Zuri to save T'Challa's life, Killmonger wasn't able to deliver the killing blow. Further, when T'Challa was thrown off the waterfall, M'Baku of the Jabari tribe interfered to keep him alive. Both of these should have disqualified T'Challa. When T'Challa mortally wounds Killmonger later, it's with the Black Panther herb as well as the Black Panther suit, as that's not the legitimate ritual combat. _____ > *This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please* ***read through our rules***. *If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which,* ***downvotes don't change views****! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to* ***message us***. *Happy CMVing!*

duqvwel

duqwqul

Killmonger was the rightful king. For a little bit. T'Challa userped the throne back in a mini Civil War, not by ritual combat. Ritual combat is apparently not the only way to become king. Basically, you're not wrong, but Erik is dead so he can't really be king can he?

The film establishes that the one competitor wins the ritual combat when the other either dies or surrenders. T'Challa did neither. That's why when T'Challa returns, he tells Killmonger the ritual combat is not over, since he's not dead. There's not a lot he can do about the fact that Killmonger refuses to continue the challenge. Since Killmonger never technically defeats T'Challa per the rules of ritual combat, he's never the rightful king.

5e0tv7

changemyview_test

CMV: I don't think my uphill battle as a black female PhD student is worth it I see other women having a decent time.They have children, they have boyfriends, they have worries but they are fairly typical. It seems boring but they are extremely happy from what I can tell. There is probably something wrong with me. I do like clothes I suppose and do likes being presentable but I do not like shopping and it is not a huge deal to me. I want to be normal. Like what do most other women major in? How do they not like Mathematics, Physics, Engineering and CS? What do most women do? For fun? How do other women have time to dedicate a lot of time to fashion and beauty and for it to be lucrative? How do other women not spend hours on a computer? What are their dreams? A lot of my social media friends are bartenders, beauty bloggers, office assistants in their mid-twenties--is this fulfilling? I already knew I was a freak when I was a child. I don't like rules. I don't like society. It is quietly against my goals. I am painfully honest and I treat everyone the same--whether you are a clerk at CVS or an esteemed professor at Harvard. I don't think I am intelligent but somehow I found myself at Ivy Leagues and MIT. I want to inspire students like I was inspired but I don't think it's worth it. I feel I am less productive because I fantasize about what life could be like. I don't think I can have it all--especially as a black woman. I am a commodity in my engineering field but in the real world it's not like it makes me more attractive to men (probably less) and more fun and relatable.

da8u423

da8t7i6

I bet if you got inside the minds of all your friends, I bet they wish they could be as smart, determined and as motivated as you. Have you considered how different you and your friends will be ten or 20 years into the future. Do you know what percent of all people get into a PhD program? Do you know what percent of those people are black and female? I believe you are one of the very few, and you should be very proud of everything you've done so far and all the great things you'll be able to accomplish with your brain. I wish you luck in all of your future endeavors and I hope you find what you are looking for. Semper Fidelis.

You can't force yourself to want what others want in pursuit of normality. Accepting yourself and your desires is what you need to work on - which may include seeing a therapist and it's not because you are a freak, more people could use it than most people realize. Many people have inner lives that you just don't see, as they don't see yours, and people aren't always as happy as they seem with their seemingly normal lives. If you pursue normal, you'd be amongst those people just living a boring life and hating it inside. This also means accepting that yeah, maybe you won't be attractive to some men because you've taken up a career that isn't seen as feminine. But it's not about how many men you're attractive to, because it's not going to be fun living with one that wouldn't be able to handle whatever interests you have anyway. If anything it's good to filter out the ones who are wrong for you so that you find those who are right. Acting normal and giving up on your own genuine interests isn't going to help with that. It's a recipe for disaster - I've seen these kinds of couples in my family, you really don't want to be like them.

qe4x5l

changemyview_test

CMV: I think male prisoners in danger of being victimized by other male prisoners should be placed in a third, separate place. I'm specifically talking about trans women, but I wanted to make the title open to show I'm not singling them out. We know that they are at higher risk of being assaulted in prison, but I don't think we should be placing trans women in women's prison either. There's one issue that with no hard barriers to being accepted as a trans women (as in all it really takes is to say "I identify as a woman", opportunistic cis men will falsely identify themselves to get access to women, and another issue's that a significant proportion of trans women in prison are also sex offenders, (48% of them in UK were sex offenders, as opposed to 19% for males as a whole). So I think there should be a third facility to house trans women inmates, and possibly other male inmates in danger of being attacked or murdered, instead of distributing condoms for female inmates to get ready for the influx of male prisoners (https://www.google.com/search?q=trans+women+in+prison+condom&sxsrf=AOaemvJ0MP4HstY6ui_9KuzTKlpL_h-Nng:1634995297759&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiym7qP0ODzAhVV6p4KHanDB70Q_AUoA3oECAEQBQ&biw=1440&bih=692&dpr=1)

hhqo6a7

hhqoc8a

I've always thought jails should be separated by crime or physical stature.

Arent there are already protective units within most prisons for vulnerable prisoners? Also the stat about trans offenders is pretty worthless given the sample size is so tiny

tk4wti

changemyview_test

CMV: Trying the door to a public bathroom before knocking is ridiculous This is one of my biggest annoyances, and I want to see if there are any reasons I shouldn’t be annoyed. With a single person public restroom, about half the time people just jiggle the knob without even knocking. I always lock the door, but in some places with the push lock if isn’t as sturdy, I’m worried if it didn’t work properly someone is going to barge in. There is no reason to not knock. If you knock and don’t hear anything, that’s when you try the door. There’s no reason someone shouldn’t knock first and immediately jump to just trying the door. This is how you walk in on someone.

i1o6r2a

i1o41we

I hate when people knock. Then I have to say something. That’s the last place I want to speak to a stranger. You might as well announce “I’m shitting in here!” It’s crude and embarrassing. The lock is its own form of communication. It says no so I don’t have to.

I mean, it comes down to an assumption that whoever's in there would've locked up. They aren't jiggling doors to try and catch someone with their pants down. There's always the chance that whoever it is has poor hearing and knows they wouldn't hear an "Occupied!" Or they were operating on autopilot and forgot to knock. Or they didn't realize it was a single-room restroom and thought they were entering a multi-stall one. I find in general that when I get pissed off about stuff like this it has more to do with my mental state than the rudeness of people around me. Think of it as an exercise in extending patience and empathy to strangers. Staying zen when someone jiggles the handle will build that muscle so you can have patience when you need it, like when dealing with kids or driving in New York.

61f3hs

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: I heard that recycling plants use magnets to sort aluminium from the rest of the rubbish. How, when aluminium isn't magnetic, does this work?

dfe2lab

dfe2xpw

Everything is magnetic in a strong enough field. Even this frog

In a word, electromagnetism. You're probably familiar with electromagnetism, it's creating a magnetic field by running current (in other words, moving electric charge) through a conductor. You can make a simple electromagnet at home to show that this works. The opposite also happens, when you move a magnetic field across a conductor it will induce current. This is how we generate most electricity: steam from burning coal, water from a dam, or wind is used to rotate magnets past coiled wires. So, now, what happens when you try and move a magnet across a piece of aluminum, which is conductive. As the magnet – and its magnetic field – move, it creates electricity (specifically called eddy currents) inside the aluminum. These currents, in turn, create a magnetic field, and this magnetic field opposes the motion of the magnet. This can be used then, to separate metal from non-metals. By rapidly moving magnets (or using a quickly changing electromagnet), conductive materials are induced to move, and a setup is made where metal objects will be thrown forward, and non-metals fall from gravity. This, then, is the eddy current separator.

p29xkn

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why can't morbidly obese people just get hundreds of pounds of fat and skin removed surgically in a small series of procedures?

h8imldv

h8in3up

They can. But it’s very expensive procedures. Depending on the country you live in, it may not be covered by health insurance. Most people don’t have that kind of money.

>Why can't morbidly obese people just get hundreds of pounds of fat and skin removed surgically in a small series of procedures? Any surgical procedure carries serious risks for the life and general health of the patient. Liposuction is even on the more dangerous spectrum and the resulting trauma for the body has serious side effects for the patient down the line. You never "just" receive a surgical procedure. It's **always** the very very very last resort for anything. Not to mention that obesity is a symptom, not an underlying condition. Removing body fat does not change the eating/exercising habits or the socioeconomic circumstances of the patient and will therefore not have any health benefits.

8gc6vv

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why does terrific mean good and terrible mean bad while both horrific and horrible mean bad?

dyahg2p

dyahea5

It's usually a good bet to google {the word} etymology when you're not sure why a word is what it is. A complete answer from the first result: >The meaning of terrific has actually changed over time. According to EtymOnline: >1660s, "frightening," from L. terrificus "causing terror or fear," from terrere "fill with fear" (see terrible) + root of facere "to make" (see factitious). Weakened sensed of "very great, severe" (e.g. terrific headache) appeared 1809; colloquial sense of "excellent" began 1888. >So terrific started out on the same lines as horrific, but then gained a positive colloquial sense in the late 1800s. The phenomenon in which a previously bad word takes on a good connotation is discussed here, in which it is called amelioration. >Amelioration (which has occurred for terrific, wicked, luxury) is a type of semantic change. While it is unclear what precisely happened to terrific, there are a few ways in which this change can occur: >Linguistic forces >Psychological forces >Sociocultural forces >Cultural/encyclopedic forces >You can read more about it here. It has been suggested (though there is little proof) that terrific became "good" because of an association with the popular media via King Kong. Other than this theory, though, it is clear that terrific underwent some kind of semantic change between the late 1800s and early 1900s. In 1930 Popular Science was still using the term to mean something "frightening", and by the 1940s it was used mostly to mean "good".

Ahoy, fellow redditor. Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained: 1. Why is horrific == horrible, but terrific =/= terrible? ^(_9 comments_) 1. Explain like I'm five years old: Why do both "terrible" and "horrible" mean something bad, but "terrific" and "horrific" have two completely different meanings? ^(_12 comments_) 1. How come the words 'terrible' and 'terrific' have exactly opposite meanings, whereas 'horrible' and 'horrific' means the same? ^(_18 comments_) 1. Explain how English words can seem to be so similar, yet be near opposites: terrible vs. terrific; victor vs. victim; awesome vs. awful etc. ^(_4 comments_)

6hzpw1

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: In the song "Taxman" the Beatles complain about the then 95% tax rate for top earners in the UK. Why was the tax rate so high back then, and was the rate sustainable?

dj2iu2j

dj2hif1

Why were taxes so high? World War II. All the military equipment, all the soldiers' pay, all the medical expenses, all the expenses had to be paid, somehow. That somehow was with debt. Debt that had to be paid off by the government over the next 20-30 years. So, during WWII, the British government (and ALL governments, actually), sold massive amounts of debt (war bonds) to everybody and anybody. Years later, that debt had to be paid off. With interest. To raise the amount of money needed to pay off that debt, the tax rates had to be ridiculously high, especially on high earners. Remember, England was VERY hard hit by the war. Rationing did not end until the mid 1950's. Even the US had tax rates around 90% on top earners, in order to pay off the US war debt, pay for the rebuilding of Europe, and maintain the military at war footing for the first couple decades of the Cold War. And, during that time, the US (and the UK) paid DOWN their massive deficits to more sustainable levels. So, the whole debt crisis thing we keep talking about today, we KNOW how to reduce the debt. We just don't wanna. Were taxes that high sustainable? Short term,yes. Long term, there wasn't a NEED to maintain the tax rates that high, once the hump of paying down the War Debt was gone.

Its important to note that not all the income of a top earner was taxed at 95%. Income taxes usually work by brackets. Example with made up figures: Your first $18,000 is taxed at 10%, then $18,001 to $75,000 is taxed at 15%, etc. In the U.S., the highest bracket currently is ~39% starting at ~$418k, so only income above 418k actually gets taxed at the highest rate. I assume it works/worked like that in the U.K. too, where only income above a certain amount was taxed at 95%. I wanted to point out tax brackets because I've run into so many people who don't realize that they're a thing. As far as if it was sustainable...¯\\\_(ツ)\_/¯ I have a feeling political ideology will drive the answers in here because economics is hard and confusing and usually doesn't give clear cut answers. edit: fixed some typos. Rushed this answer then jumped in the shower so I didn't do any proofreading.

yht5gr

explainlikeimfive_test

Eli5: Why does ceramic break tempered glass so easily.

iufnsaz

iufpv5m

Tempered glass is under very high internal stress from the process of cooling it rapidly. Ceramics are harder than glass so the impact of the two mostly transfers the force to the glass which causes the stress of the internal glass to exceed its ability to hold its structure. AFAIK.

Ceramic is very hard. Not in the general, colloquial sense of hard, but in the Mohs Hardness Scale. That scale measures whether or not something can scratch something else. Diamond is the hardest on this scale - not because you can't break diamond. Diamonds are pretty brittle, you can easily crack or shatter them with a hammer. But you can't *scratch* them. Tempered glass is made by putting the glass in tension. You cool the glass so that the outside shrinks, compressing the still-hot inside. When the inside then cools, the outside is frozen in place so the inside pulls tightly on it the inside contracts. The glass pulling on itself keeps the molecules from moving, and holds it all together strongly so it's very hard to break. By scratching the surface, ceramic breaks the tension, releasing *all* of it throughout the glass.

8n1nvp

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why can you get food poisoning from cooked chicken that has been left out for 12 hours on the counter, but not from a piece of chicken that has been stuck in your teeth for 12 hours before you brush?

dzs2xy4

dzs26g4

The difference is which type of bacteria grows on the chicken. Since the chicken is cooked, any bacteria on/in the chicken was killed, meaning that only environmental bacteria will grow on it afterwards. On the counter, bacteria from people touching the counter, dust and air, and all the other things that may be in the kitchen could make its way onto the cooked chicken. Some of this bacteria may be harmful, potentially causing food poisoning. In your mouth, there are loads of bacteria already present, all of which (assuming you’re healthy) are not harmful to you. When chicken is stuck in your teeth, it’s almost guaranteed that the bacteria growing on it are from your mouth and not harmful to you. Also, if a bit of bad bacteria have made it onto the chicken, it’s likely that they will be out-competed by less harmful bacteria already in your mouth. TL;DR: Mouth bacteria are generally less harmful than counter bacteria.

A tiny piece of chicken stuck in your teeth for 12 hours could develop bacteria, but it would be a very tiny bit of bacteria.

4y15fn

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why are removable batteries for electric cars not a thing? I was reading in r/science about how 'range anxiety' is keeping people away from electric cars. (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/4xym1e/range_anxiety_is_scaring_people_away_from/) So I was why are removable batteries for electric cars not a thing, but no one has responded. Charging technology is getting better, but still the best we can do is wait 30 minutes at a Tesla station to get about 100 more miles. So is there a technical reason why instead of charging stations for the cars, we don't have charging stations where you drop in, quickly pull out your battery and swap it with one that is already charged? I understand that weight could be an issue, but if you divide it up into multiple batteries that weigh no more than say 20lbs each, that would be manageable and allow the average person to be able to change it out (or you could use attendants). Seems a system like this would allow you recharge as quickly as you can currently gas up.

d6k99x1

d6k419q

As someone who has changed out batteries in Chevy Volts and Cadillac ELRs I can tell you that it is not an easy process. There are a ton of safety measures that they make us follow. We have to have special gloves to handle any of the high voltage system. We have a special table fixture that we use to lower the batteries out of the car. Once the battery is out of the car, it is still in a special sealed box that has approximately 100 bolts holding it together. Once you have the bolts out, you have access to the actual batteries. There are 4 sections to the battery that you can replace. Each section has 30ish cells in it. If you wanted to replace 1 of those sections, you have to disconnect everything and go through all the same safety procedures and checks. You can then physically replace the section. Once you have installed the new section, you hook all the connections back up and install a battery "balancer". It balances the charge across all the sections so they all have the exact same charge which is important due to the face that a .1v variation will set a code in the computer. After all that, you put the lid back on the special box and perform a pressure test to check for air leaks. You can then install it back into the car and hook everything back up, again following the safety procedures. All in all, it can take anywhere from 4 hours to 2 days to install a new battery depending on what exactly you find wrong and how long the "balancer" has to run.

Car batteries are large and heavy, so it's not as easy to swap them out. Also, since those batteries deliver *a lot* of power and get hot, most of them have an extensive cooling system. When you're removing a car's battery, you're not just disconnecting the terminals, you're also disconnecting a liquid cooling loop. It may need to be drained, dried, whatevered.

x9obut

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: If WhatsApp messages are end to end encrypted, how can WhatsApp show me the code used to encrypt those messages?

inp5tfe

inp909f

This is one of the great accomplishments of modern cryptography. The ability to show you exactly how the encryption happen. Modern encryption uses one way functions. Mathematical functions that are trivial in one direction, but we know of no way to reverse them in any kind of reasonable timeframe. Since you don't know which random numbers (generating these in an unpredictable way isn't particularly hard) we're used in any specific case(ie. for any given message), you're left with having to reverse an irreversible function to get the "secret"≈key. (Authentication then works through proving that you know that solution, by giving what are essentially "examples/transpositions" without ever passing over the actual solution.)

Public keys and asymmetrical encryption to exchange a symmetrical encryption key. When I want to send you a message, my devices generates 2 encryption keys. A (private) and B (public). Messages (plaintext) encrypted with one key (ciphertext) can only be decrypted by the other key. You cannot decrypt using the same key it was encrypted with. To simplify it we will use a substitution cipher. The most basic of all ciphers/encryption. The “A” key will increment each letter by +1. So D -> E, E -> F, and so on. The “B” key will increment by -1, so P -> O. A Key + BOOBS = CPPCT If we try to decrypt using the A Key A Key + CPPCT = DQQDU = wrong Now the B Key B Key + CPPCT = BOOBS = correct It’s important here to point out that modern encryption algorithms are vastly more complex, and as of now the most complex of them have yet to be broken. The keys generated are complex enough to avoid collision, or when someone else’s key pair might accurately decrypt your message. Ok, now that we have our keys, we always keep one secret and only known to us, the private key. Use encode the message we want to send using our Private key(A). Along with the encrypted ciphertext we will send our Public Key (B) in clear text. Our friend gets the encrypted message CPPCT and our B Key. They decrypt the message, B key + CPPCT = BOOBS. It makes them laugh. They want to send us back LOL. They use their B Key and at the end of the message they include their Public B key, but this time they encrypt their B key with our B Key. Since my Private Key A is the only thing in existence that can decrypt messages encrypted with my public B key, the sender knows I’m the only person that can read the message they sent. I use my Private A key, decrypt their B key they sent, and use that to decrypt their message “LOL”. Now that we have exchanged keys, and have a secure method to exchange messages, anytime I want to send my friend a message, I encrypt it with their Public B key, which ensures only they can decrypt it with their private A key. The problem is asymmetrical encryption like this is slow. Using the secure exchange we setup we mutually agree to start using a symmetrical encryption method and generate a key to use (Key C). Symmetrical encryption uses only one key for both encryption and decryption, and is much faster than asymmetrical. Going forward we can both just use Key C to encrypt our communications. What’s cool is that even if someone got an exact copy of that first message, it doesn’t matter. When my friend returns the message, which includes their public key, the message is encrypted with my public key. Using my Private key is the only way to decrypt the public key they generated and sent for this session.

ybeph1

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why are YouTube videos in 480p resolution almost always larger (in file size) than those in 720p resolution? 480p use a slightly higher bitrate, but why does that make sense?

itg0yct

itg5jpj

Can you clarify your question? Are you asking why would youtube do this, or how can 480p video be larger than 720p?

are you comparing the same video? Download it at 480p then again at 720p and confirm which is larger simple videos with a lot of the same colour and less noisy content will have smaller filesize s as they compress much more

vaz4h2

explainlikeimfive_test

eli5: Sugars are carbs. What is different about sugar that requires it to be listed separately on a nutritionql label?

ic5bu70

ic5i2dv

The idea is that we need to have sugar called out specifically because its the type of carb that we most often consume too much of. The callout is for awareness, education, and tracking your intake of sugar. "50 carbs, but 45 of them are sugar" versus "50 carbs, 5 of which are sugar". Very important to be able to see the difference, hence the callout.

Not all carbs are equal. The two act very differently when consumed. There are some carbohydrates humans cannot even digest because we lack the enzymes, don't chew our cud, and lack the hind-gut fermenting microbes horses and pigs possess. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u0q4XMzuzV4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kWWTpe86ja https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yg5\_SmLCps If you eat an amount of refined sugar equal to what is in an apple, it's absorbed in the stomach in minutes, but if you eat an apple, those intra-cellular carbohydrates are still being absorbed in the distal small bowel hours later. The gut bacteria treat it differently, the liver treats it differently, the pancreas treats it differently, and on top of that, you get vitamins, other anti-oxidents, and fiber. It's true there is little practical difference between refined sugar and something like refined white flour, which is too prevalent in the Western diet, but between, say, sugar and a yam, there is a whole cascade of enzymes, hormones, and time that make a difference.

76i19b

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: If electricity speed is about 300,000 km/s, why does ping of internet depend so much on the distance?

doe8ddd

doe5rsp

Imagine that all cars, freight ships, trucks, and airplanes would move at light speed. Now think about how long it would take to send a package around the world. Of course it would be faster now, but it wouldn't come close to the speed of light. _Moving the package_ would take almost no time, but the package would still spend a significant amount of time being inspected, loaded, unloaded, etc... This is essentially how the internet works, too. Many of the same words are used here as well: traffic, package, destination, route, ... The information _moves_ at light speed, but spends a lot of time being _routed_ or even queued. Just like you don't have a dedicated road to every person on earth, data packages have to manoeuvre through a network of shared connections. Imagine you're a router in such a network and you receive a package labeled with the destination "216.58.207.78" and you're connected to five other routers. You're gonna have think about where to send this for a bit unless you would want to send it to all of your router friends, which would make the internet wildly inefficient. On top of that, as several people already pointed out: When looking at the scale of the earth the speed of light suddenly becomes significant. Going from Los Angeles to Berlin at light speed will take 31ms. Go back and forth (that's what a ping does) and you're at 62ms. That's already enough to ruin most online games. The overhead from routing roughly doubles the travel time, so in practice you would be working with a ping of around 124ms, which will make the game feel like you're wearing oven mitts. EDIT: As /u/HakushiBestShaman pointed out, the information doesn't actually travel through the cabel at light speed, but quite a bit slower at around two-thirds light speed. Taking that into account it seems that the overhead from routing is quite low for long distances along _common_ routes, e.g. US<->EU.

The latency comes more from the various bits of hardware the signal has to pass through, than from the wires. Even so, if you're going halfway around the world at the speed of light without detours, that's 20,000 km / 300,000 km/s = 66 ms (edit: in each direction, so the ping time would be +133 just from distance) which is already a pretty respectable ping time.

3o13w0

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: My whole family caught the same nasty stomach bug. Some of us threw up a lot, others only pooped. What was happening in our bodies to cause the different course of actions?

cvt4710

cvt40y6

In a lot of these bugs, children tend to vomit more and adults tend to have diarrhea more, so age might have something to do with it. There are also people who vomit easily with stomach bugs, while others rarely do, so there is an individual "strong stomach" factor as well. Our family has both kinds of people. There are also people who have a genetic resistance to Norovirus. 23andMe used to report on this back when they were allowed to give out genetic data related to health.

this recently happened to my husband and I. the only thing I could figure is that a slight variance in the pH in our digestive tract caused the bacteria or virus to thrive at different points in our guts and to varying degrees (I profusely had The Brown Water Floweth and he barely had stomach upset). the pH changes through our digestive tract and these bugs will find the right pH and begin to replicate. I can guess that it remains relatively the same person to person but with slight variances. that's my theory, anyone who knows better correct me if I'm wrong.

1kq5by

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Since we're aware of the elements required to create water (H2O), are we able to do so? Are the elements scarce/abundant? If not/so, why don't we just create water and supply it to places in need? This might be a dumb question, but it seems so simple...which might be exactly why it isn't...

cbrjxe3

cbrk9rw

We don't need to make water. 70% of the Earth's surface is covered with water.

TLDR: water is more abundantly available than its components.

w2035q

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: when we get stressed, and have adrenaline and cortisol run through our system, once we calm down where do those hormones go?

ignh3qx

igncq08

Systemic chemicals and hormones are mostly broken down in the liver. In addition, individual cells of many types can further process many steroid hormones - so cortisol (which is a steroid hormone = basically a fat based hormone) can be further metabolized in neurons to make a neuroactive version that does not affect gene transcription (making proteins) but membrane receptors. Particularly an inhibitory one called GABA receptors, which also helps “calm down” activity. These work in manner very similar to barbiturate and benzodiazepines and are in fact currently manufactured as anti seizure meds, among other things. Adrenaline is a no steroid hormone, cant get into cells and so binds to some receptor on the outside of cells, briefly, and then unbinds and is broken down. Cortisol is more complicated - it can get into cells, it can be further processed or metabolized in cells, and these metabolites may also be active. In addition there is activation of the opposing neural system (sympathetic and parasympathetic ) which will actively antagonize the effects of the hormones - decreasing heart rate for example. So there are many homeostatic mechanisms that restore the resting functions after a stressor.

We generally have sites in the body where certain chemicals are ‘re-absorbed’ and their effects nullified. Anti-depressants and anti-anxiety medicines will block these sites and cause things like serotonin to remain in your system and build up. Your body releases compounds and removes them, and will do this at various levels constantly. Edit. Im wrong, stop upvoting lol

qqd7kr

explainlikeimfive_test

[eli5] Why do you have to clean ships underbelly from barnacles?

hjzg3gz

hjzh126

To reduce friction. The barnacles cause more drag on the ship, slowing it down. I know this is one of the reasons, unsure if there is more. Correct me if I'm wrong, or forgetting something.

In ships the build up of barnacles is a type of fouling Fouling is anything that builds up on the underside of the ship and gets rid of the streamlined hull. The barnacles make the ship a lot rougher so the water doesn't flow as smoothly and skin drag is increased, the increase in drag means an increase in required power and fuel consumption to maintain the same speed. They'll also grow quite a lot so you can end up with *a lot* of barnacles on the underside of a ship Modern cargo ships live and die by their efficiency. A build up of barnacles means significantly more fuel burned on a journey across the pacific ocean so big ships generally have anti-fouling coatings on the bottom that can keep barnacles from taking hold or multiplying

yvx48k

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Can a person feel pain or other sensations in a transplanted organ? And if so, how do the severed nerves connect to the rest of the body?

iwgnss6

iwgl94s

With a heart transplant the new heart is said to be de-nerved. It has no nerve connection so it does not respond to your body the same way your native heart would. However another user said that this means your heart rate won't change based on actively which is not true. Your heart rate does change, just with a significant delay because it is controlled through hormones rather than your nervous system. It is true that because your heart had no nerve connection you won't feel a heart attack is the same way.

The severed nerves aren't reconnected. For most organs, this isn't that much of a problem, as they don't need much control or give feedback. For heart transplants, the control of heart rate is lost. Heart rate won't go up with exertion and won't go down with rest, but will tend to stay at a medium rate. It also means that if someone has a heart attack in a transplanted heart, they won't feel the chest pain symptoms, which can make it difficult to recognise.

yptyvd

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why do some animals, like sea turtles and salmon, lay eggs away from their natural habitat? This might be a strange question, but why do sea turtles lay eggs on land and not for example dig up holes inside the ocean? They live their whole lives in the ocean, so why do they lay eggs on land? Why travel so far just to lay eggs? Same goes for some salmon, why do they leave the oceans and lakes, and go upstream on rivers and not lay their eggs where they live? It is probably something to do with protecting their offspring, but it seems to me that they still have predators that hunt their offspring fairly easily where they hatch/lay their eggs, so maybe there is another reason as well?

ivkwimk

ivlhcty

I don't know about fish, but turtles lay their eggs in sand so the embryos can breath. Sea turtles have to come up for air every so often.

For salmon, the rivers that they spawn in have fewer predators and more cover than the ocean, which allows the young salmon to mature some more safely. When they get to a larger size, the ocean has more food than the rivers.

xwau2c

explainlikeimfive_test

eli5: Why were laugh tracks so widely used on sitcoms in the past? Did people not know when they were supposed to laugh? I’m rewatching some older sitcoms and the laugh track is so odd to me. I remember thinking nothing of it growing up, but now that I’ve been watching sitcoms without it, it feels completely pointless. Who thought it was a good idea and why?

ir5dr1h

ir5djw0

Originally sitcoms were filmed with an audience, and you would hear their reactions. In the 60s, TV networks tried inserting laughter into sitcoms, and discovered that focus group audiences found the shows much funnier than with only "natural" laughter. So yeah, it does work. Laughter is contagious. Humans are weird.

Sometimes the audience reaction isn't loud or sustained enough to be worth using in a broadcast. A quick guffaw or chortle can be more of an disruption of a scene than a laugh that goes on for a few seconds. And sometimes a joke just doesn't land, but they need to fill in the pause that was supposed to be there for the audience reaction. Hence using a laugh track to "sweeten" the reaction. Something that doesn't get talked about too often is that there's also the reverse, where audience laughter gets toned down (desweetened) if it's too loud or goes on too long.

8c4bny

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: How do nurses, drug users, etc inject a drug directly into a vein? How do they know the needle tip hasn't gone through the vein or even missed it completely? I'd imagine most veins are less than 5mm in diameter, that's a pretty small target to land the tip of the needle in. How do they do it?

dxbzt0y

dxbzn8p

The "flash". Before pushing in, you draw back on the plunger. If the needle or catheter is in a vein, blood will easily be drawn back into the tubing or syringe and then you can push the medication or fluid in once you see that. If you're not in a vein, you won't easily pull blood out when drawing back.

im pretty sure they pull back on the plunger when they think they are in a vein. if blood comes through, that means they are in a vein.

xtofw1

explainlikeimfive_test

Explain like I'm five years old: Why do smaller aircraft tend to have their engines on their fuselage while larger ones tend to have them on their wings?

iqqv0x0

iqqwa8s

Ground clearance. Larger landing gear weighs more. Small planes can't carry as much weight without massive losses to fuel efficiency and range. So they have smaller, size appropriate landing gear. This puts them too low to the ground for under wing engine placement.

Smaller aircraft often only need one engine and you want that engine in the center of your aircraft. Larger aircraft will often need two engines or more and so you can't put two engine in the center, that's just too big and wouldn't leave you enough place for the pilot. Usually in that case, they will put those engine either under the wing or behind the aircraft on both side (called Aft mounted- engine). Each solution have their pros and cons, but usually winged-mounted are preferred because the engine are close to the center of mass of the aircraft and they are easier to access for maintenance. One of the disadvantage is that you are limited in the size of your engine by the clearance under the wing.

xokddg

legaladvice_test

My lawyer said he got a charge dismissed but lied and actually plead guilty. He did get the other charge dismissed. I’m pretty upset that he lied to me. At this point is it even worth confronting him about it. Can he even do anything at this point for me after the case is closed ? Never was I in front of the judge. He went in and got me a plea agreement. To come to find out what he said wasn’t exactly true. I went into the court house to try to talk to someone about it. But, they said I need to talk to my lawyer. Can my lawyer even do anything for me at this point ?

ipzck5w

iq0aq3j

Lawyers don't plea for you. Did they make a bigger deal that you agreed to without understanding it?

It's not possible to enter a plea without signing your plea form, waiver of rights, and entering the plea in front of the Judge. So either you're misunderstanding what you did in court or something is incorrect. I recommend contacting your lawyer first and requesting clarification.

u1a9p0

legaladvice_test

[TX] Friend's dog is being abused, will reporting animal abuse launch a bigger investigation into his child abuse as well? Texas. A friend of mine (16 or 17) is being severely abused by his parents, physically and emotionally. CPS was called to his house one or two years ago, they didn't even TALK to him (they interviewed his BROTHER, who wasn't being abused) and left, and then his life became worse. Because of that we (as in his friends and classmates) are all reluctant to call CPS again. I don't know who originally called CPS or if that was the first time. His parents just got a dog a couple of days ago, and now the dog is also being abused (physically beat, kept in a small cage at all times). I'm wondering if we call an investigation on animal abuse for the dog, will they also look into the child abuse going on at home or is that ONLY the job of CPS? Should I ask him to start documenting photos?

i4cblwn

i4b10m2

A) Call CPS, B) Tell every single teacher you can about this, C) You might want to remind them that it is illegal for them to not report this to CPS, D) This applies to pretty much everyone in a school including the Lunch person.

You are young, and I know you are worried about your friend. The right thing in this situation is to call CPS again for your friend. And absolutely call Animal Control (google animal control and your city to find the phone number) and tell them you'd like to report an animal abuse case.

3tlco5

legaladvice_test

[Chicago IL] My therapist that my parents hired and forced me to see in highschool has decided to charge me instead of my parents for appointments I missed/was late for. So in my junior year of high school my parents discovered that I had a fetish they didn't like so they sent me to a pricey widely known therapist to try to cure me. I was forced to see him once a week for about 2 years. One day I missed an appointment because I was running late and my train was severely delayed. That day he told me he would be charging me the 150 dollars an hour that my parents were supposed to be paying because "he's helping me act like more of an adult". Over the course of 2 years I missed 4 appointments. Sometimes because of sports, sometimes because There was a miscommunication in scheduling. I never once blatantly blew off an appointment for the hell of it. Well Now I'm a freshman in college (So poor) and He keeps sending me invoices for the 600$ that I owe him. I'm a fucking kid. If I knew for a second that I would ever have to pay for my own therapy sessions, I wouldn't go to an expensive therapist! But I didn't have a choice. I never signed anything, and he never told me about this policy of his until I missed an appointment. The worst part is that recently he has been informing me that because I have not been paying up, that he is going to charge me 20$ a month interest until I pay everything off. So do I HAVE to pay this guy? Does he get to decide who owes him money and who doesn't? I don't even have 600$ to my name and this 20$ interest he pulled out of his ass isn't going to help. I really need to know what I should say to this guy. I'm at a loss. I've been ignoring his emails for months. please help.

cx78364

cx77oin

Legal or not, you need to file a complaint against this therapist. You can do so here: http://www.idfpr.com/Admin/Complaints.asp This is just not ethical behavior, if what you're saying is true and the entire story. Asking a minor (at the time of rendered services) to pay for the services requested by the parents is not OK. Now, if you were a minor at the time and you requested these services without telling your parents, then they would not be responsible for paying the costs. But that doesn't seem to be the case. I think the board would probably be unhappy with using money and the added stress of a debt you didn't expect or agree to as a treatment for something it seems like you don't need treatment for. This is, of course, assuming this is a licensed psychologist. If not, either there could be other things he is in trouble for, or he doesn't answer to the board. Do you know his credentials?

The guy can demand payment all he wants. I can also tell my neighbor's 5-year-old that he owes me a bajillion dollars. Both have roughly the same chance of being enforceable. This is because you were a minor when the services were performed. Your parents are responsible. I personally would tell the guy to pound sand and not contact you again.

f41bwq

legaladvice_test

[Massachusetts] Neighbor's and their friends are trespassing on my property to get to lake via my private dock, what liability am I looking at? I recently purchased a lakefront cabin with a private dock. The cabin is located at the end of a peninsula. This Sunday, I visited it and discovered about 10 people on the frozen lake and a giant pickup truck parked on my property. As I was getting out of my car, the neighbor (whom I never met) walked passed me with her two dogs and a pizza and approached my dock. I saw a guy from the group of ten meet her on my dock and she gave him the pizza. I told them they were on private property and that they were trespassing (even though there's signs saying so) and the guy seemed understanding, but the neighbor replied "I've been doing this for 8 years." At which point, I replied, personally I didn't care, but what I didn't want was the liability of someone possibly getting hurt. They didn't reply and I left it at that. They did move the truck but I left so I don't know if they moved anything back or continued to use my dock. What kind of liability and I looking at here? How should I best protect myself? Also, in Massachusetts, the Attorney General has decided not to prosecute some crimes, trespassing being one of them. I don't know what bearing, if any, this may have. Thank you.

fhnhlm2

fhnkoft

If they get injured on your property they may sue you, they might not win, but defending against the suit itself could be very expensive. I'd consider looking into fencing/gates which can control access when you arent there.

I strongly suggest buying homeowner's insurance for the property with decent limits of liability. Not being liable does not keep you from being sued, but insurance will cover legal fees and damages for you.

87y446

legaladvice_test

How can a man (discreetly)find out if his wife is still married to her previous husband in another state (Arizona)? My buddy "Fisher" has been married for 3 years. His wife "MaryAnn" mentioned in casual conversation that she fears she is still married to her previous husband in Arizona (Fisher & MaryAnn live in California now.) Important: she was in a coma for approximately one year and never received any kind of closure- her previous spouse was just gone. Is there some kind of a national divorce database that can be searched online or something? Fisher is considering hiring a PI but I think there has to be a more simple way to find out tactfully. Any advice?

dwgg8mm

dwggix6

Check the court marriage/divorce records.

She got married 3 years ago while not knowing if she was still married to a previous spouse who ghosted her while she was in a coma? And now the current husband wants to hire a PI to find out instead of just checking court records? Not sure why anyone is worried about being discreet. There's obviously no secrets to keep. Besides, it is highly unlikely that she is divorced and doesn't know it if all husband number 1 did was disappear.

9dsx9d

legaladvice_test

[Ontario] Walked in on a exec having sex with another coworker, what do i need to do to protect myself? I got a pager duty alert tonight, after getting a warning about one of our servers basically becoming unreachable. I arrived, and fixed the issue, but as i was leaving i could hear people faintly talking. So i thought it must be a coworker working late or something so i decided to pop in and say hi. Turns out it was one of our executives having sex with another coworker, in plain sight in her office. I immediately apologized and said i saw nothing and left really fast. Unfortunately not long after that she sent me an email stating we need to discuss what happened last night. A few things: * She is not my boss, as i am in IT and she works in a completely separate department * I have proof of me being called into work, and being asked by my direct boss if i could pop in and fix it. I am worried and wondering if i should tell my boss, or what should i do legally to protect myself?

e5k0eob

e5jzxh0

On a strategic note, if these people are habitual scumbags they may try to implicate you in wrongdoing by offering you something that compromises your integrity. Don't accept gifts - especially "intangible" ones - any time in the near future. Or at all, ever, but definitely not right now.

Not a lawyer but had some experience with Ontario employment law. Workers are pretty well protected. I would write down on paper everything I saw and file it away. This ensure you have a contemporary account of what happened, includes dates and times, etc.. In the unlikely even you are treated unfairly show a copy of the letter to HR. Keep the original in case you need a labor lawyer but you won't.

pynnud

legaladvice_test

Neighbor's dogs killed my livestock. I want to file a small claim petition in Texas, but do not know where to start. Animal husbandry is the main source of income for me. I raise show quality and rare breed rabbits and exotic poultry that I intend to sell chicks from. I have other animals that are strictly pets. Sunday night, around 10:30p, I caught two large dogs on my property attempting to tear through the fence of my goat pen. It is goat fencing on the exterior with electric fencing on the interior to keep the goats from climbing the sides and getting out when penned at night. I yelled at the two dogs and ran inside to grab shoes and a flashlight. When I came back out, one dog was trying to get through a fence surrounding the open sides of my loafing barn (a horse stable-style barn with an open front and partially open sides) and the other was trying to jump over. That barn houses my senior laying hens and my herd of rabbits (approximately 80 valued at $100-350 each). My husband was threatening to shoot the dogs so I ran them off our property. IMO, the dogs are just being dogs and their owners should have kept them on their property. I began checking fencing and making sure everyone was okay when I found that they had torn open the side of one of my coops and killed my 24 exotic birds. I bought them as chicks in May (they were not cheap) and they were to begin laying in November at which point I would have sold the chicks to supplement my income. The Ayam Cemanis are valued at $150-200 each when mature and the BLRWs are typically in the $60-100 range for a mature bird depending on which farms have them available. Additionally, the coop that was destroyed was purchased pre-covid for $450 +tax and is now listed for $1163.66 (tax included). In total, damages were $3,748.66 not included the upcoming loss of income. Police came out to my home and we told them what happened, we took a ton of photos, and gave them a description of the dogs. For those wondering, I am in the process of buying a donkey to live with my animals and investing in outdoor cameras. Then, around 1am, the dogs came back. One was on my back porch and another was trying to get through the fence into our rabbit barn again. This time, I was able to round them up with treats and secure them both to my dog's outdoor lead that keeps him from running off when we take him outside. They matched the description I had given to the original officers and I took photos of them and their tags with the owner's contact information. The officers attempted to reach the owners, but could not so the dogs were impounded and I was told to try to settle things with the dogs' owners on my own, but if they were uncooperative I could take them to Small Claims Court. I reached out to the owner to explain my account of what happened, share the photos, and explain the financial hit her dogs caused my family. I told her I did not want to go to SCC and would prefer to settle things on our own. I also told her that I understood that it was a lot of money so I could work with her if she was willing to come to an agreement. I sent her links to where the items were being sold and told her she could purchase replacements from anywhere she wanted so long that it was the same coop and the birds were the same breed, sexes, and at least the age of the ones lost. I also told her that as long as she could have the birds replaced by November she could take her time on the coop. In a nutshell, she told me I was SOL and she had no money. So, I want to move forward with SCC, but have no idea where to start. I live in Panola County, Texas. I filed two police reports and have numerous photos, the officers saw the damage and the dogs. Please give me any advice you can!

hevc2xv

hevt04d

\PDF warning\] [http://www.co.panola.tx.us/upload/page/2919/docs/JusticeOfPeace/JP2-3/CivilFines.pdf In short, you fill out the paperwork, pay the filing fees, file the paperwork with the court, await your court date, show up and present your case, obtain a judgement, then -- arguably the more difficult part -- figure out how to force the defendant to pay up, as small claims court doesn't put money directly into your pocket. Note that Texas *can* make it difficult to force defendants to pay up if they, a) don't willingly pay up, and/or, b) have the money just sitting in a bank account somewhere, as Texas really limits the methods in which a small claims plaintiff can levy accounts, seize assets, and garnish wages for non-exempt property and money. That shouldn't dissuade you from suing, it's just to set your expectations about the process of actually getting compensated afterward.

In addition to the small claims court route, don't forget about declaring a loss on both your federal and state income tax returns. You have an actual loss, a police report that should be enough documentation. If you take this to small claims court and are stiffed because there is no money - then this may be at least something to soften the financial blow.

aqr1k7

legaladvice_test

Neighbor rents attached townhouse next to us on AirBNB, wants to buy ours at way below market value since we are selling. Today they put up a sign on his property advertising it is an AirBNB rental for parties. Is there nothing i can do? Location: Ontario, Canada Our neighbour who i will just call Guy, bought the townhouse next to us last winter, it is a 2 unit townhouse since we are on a corner. He immediately flat out told us he was renting it on AirBnB, and told us that if he caused problems for his guests he would "come after us". The last year has been absolute hell for us, but apparently there isn't anything we can do about it. We have had to put up with his guests parties, guests parking and blocking us in our own drive way, guests pounding on our door at 4am because they locked themselves out, to people climbing and breaking our fence to get access to our pool. In December one of his guests tried to break down our front door, and in a drunken rage and proceeded to throw beer bottles through several of our windows, when he couldnt get into the property. That was the breaking point for us and we basically gave up trying to live here. We put up a for sale early this month, and immediately Guy was at our front door basically offering to buy our house for a fair bit below market value. When we refused he immediately told me i am a "dumb cunt" and i am "lucky he doesn't sue me for harassing his guests". Today we were having our first open house, only to discover this morning a large sign in the bedroom window saying "Proudly Hosting AirBNB, rent me via the App for your next party!". The sign looks terrible, but the first question i got today from pretty much everyone was "so your neighbour hosts on AirBnB?", so it worked. Instead we got a single offer for a lot less than what most places around here go for according to our agent. I am tired of this shit, and i am at wits end here. I loved this house, and both me and my wife wanted to start a family here. But now that Guy moved in with his rental company we can't live here anymore. Do i really have any sort of recourse here?

egi4nau

egi3zoh

Get copies of the arrests and noise violations, etc, and send them to AirB&B. They have policies on being a good neighbor.

Have you consulted a real estate attorney? There are some places that have laws against being in a position to directly drive down the price of a property in order to buy it themselves below market value.

bjh32y

legaladvice_test

Former grad student, considering suing my university for $14k unpaid wages (Texas) Long story short, I completed my graduate degree back in December and my graduate advisor still owes me $14,000 in unpaid wages for the work I did in their research lab during my last year of grad school. This professor paid me what they promised for the first few years, but then they stopped abruptly. The excuses for why I wasn't getting paid kept building up and changing over time, and as soon as I was on my way out the professor started stonewalling me, on multiple occasions literally just walking out of the room when I tried to talk to them. During the year where I wasn't getting paid, this professor also intentionally sabotaged my efforts to find work elsewhere. They lied about me in emails and over the phone with other professionals in our relatively small field of work. Multiple people in and out of the university contacted me and told me "Hey, I thought you should know this is what Dr. Professor said about you, and I know that's not true". I contacted the dean of my college, and they referred the matter to university legal affairs. I gave Legal copies of emails and written notes from face-to-face conversations where I was promised a salary, they asked me to come in and talk to them, I did, and then they did nothing. I informed them that this professor has done this to at least three other students over the course of at least five years. One of the other students had to drop out because, unlike me, they didn't have any external funding. I gave them piles of documentation, much of it taken from the university's own records, showing how the professor had falsified financial statements, employment records, grant proposals and reports, how the professor was paying students less than promised or nothing at all and using personnel money to buy equipment because they intentionally underestimated their equipment costs to make their grant proposal seem more competitive. University legal still did nothing. I contacted them again to ask if they needed any additional information from me, if they had planned or taken any corrective action, if they were planning on paying me my wages, no response of any kind. Granted, they have been busy the past few weeks with coaches taking bribes from celebrities, but I spoke to them months before that. As far as I know, at this point my only option is to just sue the university directly. They have a massive legal department and they've argued in front of SCOTUS multiple times in the past few years, so I have no idea if or how I should approach this, but the simple fact of the matter is that this professor owes me $14,000 in unpaid wages, I have written statements promising me that amount, they slandered me in professional settings, and they're lying to the university and the federal government about how they're using research funds. What are the odds of suing a top-tier public research university with a multi-billion-dollar endowment and coming out ahead? I'm in Texas if that's relevant.

em82rz4

em81b4m

I would also look into contacting the entities that provided him with grant money. It's a huge no-no to do what he's doing if the money is from places like NSF or NIH.

You can look into filing a wage complaint by seaching file wage complaint texas, on Google. If too much time has passed you would have no choic but to file a lawsuits. However, lawsuits are so expensive that it could be counterproductive to do so. You will need a lawyer and the lawyer will cost. One may be able to negoiate on your behalf to though.

8mxeit

legaladvice_test

Friend sent me a Cease and Desist for an app. A friend of mine recently sent me a Cease & Decist letter claiming that I stole his app idea. He claims that he told me about this idea, but I don't have any recollection of it. He also expects me to pay for damages done. On speaking to him, he said it's fine if I do it for educational purposes. He does not currently have an app and I'm on the verge of publishing. I don't know how to respond to this. I have worked for days on this app and have not found any patents of it. Please help as to what steps I should take. Edit :- The app was made in Seattle where I am a student.

dzr5nv8

dzr4xq8

He sent you a C&D, or his lawyer did? Either way this sounds frivolous.

--- > http://imgur.com/a/myIAb --- *I am a bot whose sole purpose is to improve the timeliness and accuracy of responses in this subreddit.* --- **It appears you forgot to include your location in the title or body of your post. Please update the body of your original post to include this information.** --- ***Do NOT delete this post - Instead, simply edit the post with the requested information.*** --- Author: /u/ktech99 Title: **Friend sent me a Cease and Desist for an app.** Original Post: > A friend of mine recently sent me a Cease &amp; Decist letter claiming that I stole his app idea. > He claims that he told me about this idea, but I don't have any recollection of it. > He also expects me to pay for damages done. > On speaking to him, he said it's fine if I do it for educational purposes. > He does not currently have an app and I'm on the verge of publishing. > I don't know how to respond to this. I have worked for days on this app and have not found any patents of it. > Please help as to what steps I should take. --- LocationBot 4.0 | GitHub (Coming Soon) | Statistics | Report Issues

ec02mv

legaladvice_test

[VA] My ex/daughters mother beat the daylight out of me yesterday in my own home, tried to strangle me & refused to leave after i said it over 20 times, i swatted her off several times as she kept on coming for me after i broke free. I had to leave my own home to get away. Note: We dont live togethe My ex has been trying to get back with me but i have not been interested. Shes been extremely bitter and resentful. Yesterday she came to pick my daughter up and my daughter was asleep (4month old) i told her she should let her sleep longer because she was passed out. My daughters hands were clasped together and you could tell this nap was something special. Usually in events like this my ex will go out and smoke cigarettes and ride around or go do something but she just stood there silently. My phone had instagram open and there was some random girl skateboarding picture from my timeline on it. She snapped attacked me clawed me against the wall. And thats when i started saying "leave" " get out of my house" she wouldnt leave and kept attacking me. Id break free and shed come right back nails first so wherever she grabbed me her nails would dig in first. I started swatting jer hands away, then she came for my face and i punched her the butt. All the while telling her to leave. She wouldnt still so i went for my phone she jumped on my back and started choking me i got my phone and recorded it. She brought me to the ground and had me in a choke hold and i literally could not breath i broke free and ran out of my own house. I walked around the block and came back and told her i called the police (i did.t because this is my second week living g at my new place and i do t want to get kicked out, i got kicked out of my last place because of her) She smacked me across the face jerked my daughter up out of her sleep and left and got charges pressed on me before i had the chance to go to the police. I had to go to work so i did t get to stick around and file mine but i am this morning. I was also arrested last night after work. What charges can i press? Do i have any protection or rights in my own home?

fb8cjkn

fb8vce5

Make sure to photograph any injuries/scratches on your body to use as evidence, as well as any property damage. What are they charging you with?

CPS investigator here. You should be concerned about the child welfare referral that is more than likely going to be made, concerning your child’s exposure to domestic violence. This is considered child neglect and it is a risk to your child’s physical, mental and emotional safety. Law enforcement officers are mandated reporters, so you should both expect a visit from CPS very soon.

mpuxxh

legaladvice_test

I solely own and pay for my house. Bf lives with me but pays less than $300/month for misc. bills. I want him out and have repeatedly broken up but he will not leave. I'm considering giving him notarized letter with 30 day notice. This is not Covid related. Will I be able to legally evict him? Location: Florida. My house is solely in my name. I pay the mortgage. Bf lives with me. He won't leave. There is a history of abuse. My plan is to rent out an Airbnb for a month after giving him the notarized letter so I don't have to have any contact with him. I think he will leave but if he doesn't, can I pursue eviction process with the Covid moratorium on evictions? It's not like this is Covid related in any way. Thank you.

guc66an

guc55y0

Under no circumstances should you leave your house with him in it.

You do not need a reason to end his month-to-month tenancy. Just a written notice to vacate (15 or more days). Then if he's not gone you take him to court. The COVID moratoriums are for people who can't pay due to COVID (at least in Florida). Finally a sheriff with a court order comes to remove him.

pi4nd5

legaladvice_test

How to help intellectually disabled cousin currently in prison into a more appropriate place? My cousin (23M) has been in jail since January for saying he had a gun and “trying to rob a store”. He didn’t have a real gun, just an air soft gun. The real issue is that he is severely intellectually disabled (mentally he is probably 4-5 years old, he was in special Ed his whole childhood). His immediate family is very poor and have hired a lawyer but he hasn’t been able to get him out. I feel like if anything he should be in a home or psych hospital because he is so disabled. I feel so bad for him in prison because I know he doesn’t know what is going on and I worry he isn’t being treated properly. I feel like it should be against the law to have someone that disabled locked away in an adult prison. Is there anything I can do or any laws I can use to get him out of there and into a more appropriate place? Are there any national organizations that fight for disabled people like him that we should contact? I have also thought about going to a news organization with this story. Do you think public outrage would help him? We are in Georgia, USA.

hboye5g

hbojrzv

Not a lawyer, but worked with this population in Georgia in the past Contact the Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities. Disability and Mental Health services are woefully underfunded and under-resourced in Georgia (really, everywhere). There are institutions in Georgia for individuals with developmental disabilities and mental health issues. However, the goal is to get individuals in the least restrictive environment, which, for many individuals, results in them then not having adequate support resources and ending up cycling back into dangerous situations or institutionalized.

Have you tried the ACLU? Legal Aid? ADRC? Work the phones, write letters, contact local politicians, be a pain in the ass.

yoeyi4

legaladvice_test

My dog was mauled and killed on my own property Yesterday afternoon my 8 year old lab mix was mauled by two pitbulls that came onto my property. We rushed her to the emergency vet but after several hours of trying to save her, we decided to euthanize, the trauma was too much and she was struggling and in so much pain. Unfortunately my husband and I weren't able to deal with the attacking dogs as we rushed her to the hospital. I have never seen these dogs in my life, I have no idea where they came from. I have both of the dogs on security camera and the attack on video. I've filed a police report and I hope things move fast. Will I be able to sue the owners, if found, for her medical bills? Could I also sue them for emotional damages, extra things? I am devastated and want to punish these irresponsible owners as much as I legally can.

ivdx78n

ive0ex2

Yes you would be able to sue them for the medical bills.

Not sure if there is any legal issues but maybe posting a description of the dogs on your local Facebook page might help you find the owners. If you have a security camera you can even post the video to a community safety page

cb3fqa

legaladvice_test

Neighbors kids won't stop destroying my yard. What options do I have? (IN) So ive been having issues with my neighbors kids playing in my yard. I've planted a tree which they rip the leaves off of to the point that they are killing multiple branches, they leave my yard filled with toys (multiple of which have been destroyed when I mow and hit them when they are hiding in the grass which is Great for my mower), and my wife caught them shooting off fireworks from our yard today. They get out my hose and play with it, and generally leave trash everywhere in my yard. I also have a fence up in my back yard and whenever I let my dogs out they taunt my dogs with sticks and won't leave them alone. I've called the police multiple times but they never do anything. Ive talked with the guy who lives there and he doesn't care. He watches them do all this stuff and refuses to stop them. I'm not sure if he's their dad or what because there is always like 3-5 different women coming over dropping off random kids as he's unemployed and just stays home all day. Im going to talk with his landlord next time I see him, but until then what options do I have? The property line is directly on the side of their house and it is a triplex to which they have an exterior staircase that is actually on my property. I'm thinking about putting up a fence in the front yard and changing the back yard to a privacy fence instead of a welded metal fence. What other options do I have?

etcrpn9

etcvdx0

--- > http://imgur.com/a/myIAb --- *I am a bot whose sole purpose is to improve the timeliness and accuracy of responses in this subreddit.* --- **It appears you forgot to include your location in the title or body of your post. Please update the body of your original post to include this information.** --- ***Do NOT delete this post - Instead, simply edit the post with the requested information.*** --- Author: /u/Mercarcher Title: **Neighbors kids won't stop destroying my yard. What options do I have? (IN)** Original Post: > So ive been having issues with my neighbors kids playing in my yard. I've planted a tree which they rip the leaves off of to the point that they are killing multiple branches, they leave my yard filled with toys (multiple of which have been destroyed when I mow and hit them when they are hiding in the grass which is Great for my mower), and my wife caught them shooting off fireworks from our yard today. They get out my hose and play with it, and generally leave trash everywhere in my yard. I also have a fence up in my back yard and whenever I let my dogs out they taunt my dogs with sticks and won't leave them alone. I've called the police multiple times but they never do anything. > > Ive talked with the guy who lives there and he doesn't care. He watches them do all this stuff and refuses to stop them. I'm not sure if he's their dad or what because there is always like 3-5 different women coming over dropping off random kids as he's unemployed and just stays home all day. > > Im going to talk with his landlord next time I see him, but until then what options do I have? > > The property line is directly on the side of their house and it is a triplex to which they have an exterior staircase that is actually on my property. I'm thinking about putting up a fence in the front yard and changing the back yard to a privacy fence instead of a welded metal fence. What other options do I have? --- LocationBot 4.6319918 & 17/64ths | Report Issues

He may be running an unlicensed day care. It looks like in Indiana they can be unlicensed if they have 5 or fewer unrelated children in their care. So if you think that there may be 6 or more children there, it may be worth a report to the FSSA. edit: I found a link to Indiana's Child Care Finder. You can check there to see if he is licensed or not.

won96g

legaladvice_test

how long will my mom be in jail for domestic abuse? my mom dragged me around the house by my hair. i told the police, i had video evidence and they took a picture of my hair literally coming off bc she pulled it out. she did this bc she wanted to kick me out, but she legally has to give me a 30-day warning. my 18th birthday was yesterday and i never got a warning or anything. they brought her to jail, apparently she has court at 11am. do you think she’ll be in jail for longer? i didn’t want her to go to jail i just wanted her to stop.

ikbxpij

ikbxu08

It's impossible to guess. You absolutely should support prosecution, testify honestly as to what happened, etc.

You did the right thing calling the police and glad you are safe for the moment. Do you have someplace safe to go to for when she returns? She could be back tonight or tomorrow, depends on a lot of factors like where you are and what she is charged with. But more likely she'll be given an order of protection not letting her to go the house since you're there. Do you have the number for victims' services?

wqlaly

legaladvice_test

Is it possible to earn US citizenship for my future child if I, the future father, am a US citizen BUT the child's birth certificate does NOT have me listed as the father (even though I am)? • The future child will NOT be born on American soil • The future child's mother will NOT be American • I am a U.S. born citizen • The country where the baby will be born refuses to issue birth certificates with the father's name on it if the mother and father are unmarried. (For reasons perhaps too long to explain here, it will not be possible to get a legally recognized marriage in the country) &#x200B; **Would a paternity test or something be enough evidence for the American government to give U.S. citizenship to the future child? Or is there another solution?** &#x200B; From what I understand, in order for the U.S. government to normally give citizenship to citizens' babies born abroad, the birth certificate must be provided. However, as I've explained, it will not be possible to get a birth certificate with my name on it listed as the father.

ikn1p4c

ikn3g64

Is the mother married to someone else at the time of birth? Not sure if ICE currently presumes the husband is the father, but that is law in many US states.

Once you are 100% sure thr child is yours, report the birth to a consulate via https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/international-travel/while-abroad/birth-abroad.html. I'd suggest calling the consulate first to see if they are going to need any additional documentation to show that you are the baby's biological father. The consulate is also where you'd get the baby a passport.

k94g4d

legaladvice_test

My Dog bit a kid who wouldn't leave him alone. They want him to be put down. My Dog is a German Shepard has never bit anyone. He isn't stupid or aggressive but, he doesn't like being pet on by random strangers unless I've given consent. He wont bite but, he will shy away but, if you kept on trying to pet him he would likely bite. I mean would you like to have strangers come up and start touching you? No way. I was at the park and this group of kids kept coming over and trying to pet him. I told them no twice. My dog was already uncomfortable and clearly did not like it. We finally pulled away. I had to pee so I tied him up to the post near the door. He's a good boy so I know he wouldn't bark or run off. Next thing I know I hear a scream. The kid got bit. After I told him 3x do not touch my dog he goes and tries to pet him. The kid isnt bleeding much just a small nip. My dog is freaked out and cowering. An adult comes by and calls animal control citing "The dog is aggressive and dangerous and viciously attacked a child". AC come by and so do the Parents. AC take my dog away for testing for rabies; and the Mom is angry. The kid says he went to pet my dog and the dog lunged at him and tried taking his hand off. I know that's a lie because, my dog is well trained and has never bit anyone or shown signs of aggression. Dogs dont just randomly go crazy. He does like being pet and I told that kid he doesn't so dont pet him. The Mom is sobbing and saying she wants my "vicious" dog put to sleep because, he's a danger to everyone around him. She ignored everything I said regarding me warning the kid not too pet him. I'm just frazzled right now. My dog is currently being detained and I dont know if he'll be coming back. All he did was nip a kid who wouldnt take no for an answer. What is my next step? I want to act fast before she takes legal action and to protect my dog.

gf23usg

gf21am0

Just a tip: in any future discussion about this, do not focus on the “my dog is well trained and has never bit anyone” part of the story. I used to investigate dog bites for my city and every single incident involved being told that by the dog owner. Whether it’s true or not is inconsequential. Just focus on the facts that you (in your opinion) did everything in your power to keep your dog under your control and away from everyone else. Tying the dog up (and not in your control) when there are kids around wasn’t super smart, but you still might be fine if you give your side of the story. Good luck

Do you have your vaccination records for your dog? There is no test for rabies on live animals, you must produce proof that they are vaccinated. That is step 1. Take your proof and contact animal control.

52w50i

legaladvice_test

(MN) My brother and his wife bought a house that was stolen (taken from someone through a forged quit claim deed) My brother and his wife bought a house 6 months ago. It has now come out that the person they bought it from wasn't the owner, her cousin was the owner and he forged a quit claim deed and had her evicted by the police. He then turned around and sold it to my brother and his wife. They had no idea. They thought the sale was legitimate. They had a real estate agent and got the mortgage from the bank. They aren't bad people and have no interest in living in a house that was stolen from its rightful owner. She's been homeless for the last 7 months and was living on the streets and in shelters the last anyone knew. So once she is found, what happens? My brother and his wife aren't going to fight with her, they just want to know what the process is and how they will get their down payment and stuff back. The cousin who did the forgery was arrested after trying this a second time with a stranger's house (thankfully he did not succeed) and that's how his lie about this house was caught. We just want some information on what happens next.

d7ntzij

d7nti5v

I want to make it clear that your brother and his wife should not, under any circumstances, just surrender the house. They have the down payment+mortgage invested in the house, and, regardless of whether the guy committed fraud, the bank still gave him money and is going to want it back from the people who borrowed it (your brother). It sucks, but title insurance will help them settle this. I feel like there is more to the story than this anyway. If the cousin took this to court to file an eviction, than the court has likely seen the title and found that it was valid. Be very careful that this isn't a scam itself happening.

#THIS IS WHAT TITLE INSURANCE IS FOR

56i3ln

legaladvice_test

Neighbor cut down trees within my property line without my permission. I live in Michigan and have several trees near my property line which provide privacy from our neighbors. These trees are 1-2 feet on our property (we still have a stake in the ground showing the property line). Last year, we had a six foot chain link fence installed in my backyard to keep in my dog. The fence is in front the trees on our property. The neighbor just cut down a few trees in my property line (without permission) which eliminated our privacy. What are my options?

d8juzfx

d8jfrss

Get land surveyed, hire and arborist to get a report on value and replacement cost of trees. Hire a lawyer to send a letter to neighbors about said damage and estimate reports on replacement costs. They better have homeowners because this will not be cheap for them.

So you installed a fence several feet inside your property line, inside of these trees? Do you think the neighbor assumed that you built the fence on the property line?

jfsqq2

askacademia_test

Trying to write a paper but feeling like I have nothing of value to contribute. How to get over this? Writing my first paper ever, also my first as first author. I did write a rough draft during the summer but then decided to add some more experiments and change the order of figures. For the last month or so I’m sitting on the new graphs and the old draft. I just can’t bring myself to write or make figures. I’m so scared that people will think my results are very obvious and I constantly feel that I made it so far on luck and now I have to prove that I really deserve to be here. My boss said this is plain old imposter syndrome and it won’t go away even after I write the paper. I’ll probably think they made a mistake in accepting my paper. He says it’ll take two three papers before I firmly believe in my worth as a scientist. That’s all fine but it does nothing to help me right now. I’m just staring at my old draft and can’t figure out how to proceed. Any advice is appreciated.

g9n8tud

g9muve2

Instead of focusing on your own work and its limitations, focus on the limitations of previous research in the field. What can you add? What "gaps in the literature" motivated you to start this project? There are many good comments already here, but I don't see any that points you back to your original motivations, the gap in the literature you originally set out to address, or the weaknesses of other scholarship in your field. It's good to look for problems in your own work because that's a measure of quality control, but that sometimes means that you forget the problems in the work of others. I doubt you started the project thinking "Well, the literature has all this already." You probably started by thinking "these publications don't go quite far enough," or "I can add something to that area." Instead of focusing on improving your own work, focus on how your work adds to, corrects, or improves on previous research, even if only in a small way.

I agree with what everyone else said, but on a more technical note: this is when something like the pomodoro technique can be really helpful. Set yourself a 30 minute timer every day and work on your paper. If you don’t get much done in that time, no worries. If you want to keep working when the timer goes off, great! But even 30 minutes a day is better than not working on it at all, and now you won’t also be carrying around guilt because you aren’t working on your manuscript.

5ehi59

askacademia_test

How are your institutions reacting to the blockage of the new Fair Labor Standards Act rules that impacts postdocs and other workers making less than $47K/year? Earlier this year, the US Department of Labor made rules raising the minimum salary without overtime pay to $47K/year. The NIH and many universities responded by raising the minimum postdoc salary to this new minimum to avoid converting postdocs to hourly workers with 1.5x overtime pay. You can see how various institutions and universities responded to this under "Institutions and Funding Agencies: What they are doing". The rules were set to go into effect on December 1st, but last night a federal judge blocked them, and the next administration was already planning to undo these rules anyway, so it seems unlikely these rules will happen. Now with only 7 days advance notice, how are your institutions responding to this? My university has been promising for months that postdocs would get raises to $47K, which is a big deal since some postdocs here make as low as $34K. I wonder if they will roll back on that promise since they no longer legally have to.

daciw0l

dacpvlq

My supervisor and another colleague were immediately bumped up to the 47k threshold because they've had to work plenty of overtime, and they were due a fair wage given that many of their subordinates were able to make up to 39-40k while they were locked into 42k for the past 3 years. I highly doubt that any reversal would bring them down to their original salaries. For many others, we were always under the impression that we were to work until the job was done, but were usually given position descriptions and tasks that were manageable in a 40-hour week.

Received this this morning: Good morning, Yesterday, a federal court in Texas issued a temporary injunction barring implementation of the Department of Labor FLSA regulations that were scheduled to go into effect on December 1, 2016. While the temporary injunction was issued by a federal court in Texas, the order applies nationwide. As a result of the court’s order, the changes at the University required by the revised regulations are now on hold. We will provide additional information prior to December 1. Questions regarding communicated changes should be forwarded to Cristina Elgarresta, Associate Vice President, Total Rewards at celgarresta@miami.edu. Regards, Nerissa E. Morris Vice President for Human Resources

b3xlbz

askacademia_test

What would you change about academia? Me? I'd give authors the chance to respond to research proposal reviews.

ej31k8y

ej2yxg4

Put teaching first. Acknowledge good teachers. Provide career paths for them on a par with tenure track options available to scholars.

Mandatory cap on hours worked. I take real issue with the idea that you basically have to be married to/obsessed with your work in order to succeed. People should be able to be successful academics while still having time for a life outside of their work.

9ko0b6

askacademia_test

Is Academia Possible With a non-Top Ten PhD Degree? As the post suggests I will be getting my PhD in CS from a non-top ten school. Not bad, but def not recruiting ground for academics (its top 40). I have however, done well in my research thus far, and snagged an NIH fellowship and will probably have 6-8 first author publications by the time I’m through. Normally I figured I could make it into a TT post under the circumstances that I went to a top program, but with top 40 I’m wondering if anyone will even look at my record. I’d like to shoot straight for TT or at least an excellent postdoc after school, and I’m wondering if I have any chance of this or if I should focus my energies toward industry.

e710vj6

e711trm

Really depends on the school you want to work at. If you want to work in a top tier school, it really helps to have experience at a top tier school. But lower ranked schools are much less picky, and still offer good salaries and good research opportunities.

I'm on a search committee at a teaching focussed state comprehensive uni (3/3 load), and we don't care where you got your PhD.

a07esr

askacademia_test

Academics taking the piss out of your accent at a conference The title says it really, I recently went to a conference where some of the other PhD students (and their supervisors) thought it was funny to take the piss out of my accent (east london/ essex- I know, I know). I played it off at the time, but it's been bothering me more and more. How are you meant to deal with these kinds of situations (unprofessionalism in a professional setting)? Theres not much I can do about my accent, and to be honest I really think it's irrelevant so long as what your saying makes sense. I think this is more of a rant than anything, so sorry. Any advice for when this happens again would be great.

eaf98yf

eaff7vs

I'd be tempted to tell them to get fucked. Or publicly call them out on their ridiculous behaviour. Some of the best PhD students I met had strong regional accents - Scottish, Essex, Yorkshire... The idea of mocking someone for the way they talk is absolitely pathetic and they should be ashamed of themselves

“Wow, my talk must have been great if all you can comment on is my accent.” “Excuse me, that’s nit very professional, is it?” “Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t realize you don’t get out much. (University) must be so isolated if my accent is hard for you to understand.” Don’t start fights, but don’t take crappy behavior either. There’s a lot of meaningless attempted gatekeeping at conferences. I think it’s time we all stopped being doormats for cliquey behavior.

7konun

askacademia_test

Fellow academics, share your priceless lessons in life. What are your most important rules in life drawn from your life experiences?

drgdsf9

drgh4vb

Lord, Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, Courage, to change the things I can, and Wisdom to hide the bodies of those people I had to kill because they pissed me off. ----- And also, Help me to be careful of the toes I step on today, As they may be connected to the ass that I may have to kiss tomorrow.

With exceptions for SLACs, community colleges, and some more balanced departments, if you want to get hired/promoted, be very careful about "coming out" as someone who enjoys and is fulfilled by teaching over research. At many places, that's akin to saying you really enjoy scrubbing toilets. If you give a hint that you wouldn't spend every free moment on research if you could, you'll be dirt in many people's opinion. I had a senior faculty member tell me once while I was a PhD student that being a teacher was like playing in "some loser cover band. Why would you want to play other people's songs when you could create your own?" Of course, by that logic, Justin Bieber is more of an artist than Yo Yo Ma, since Justin has written more songs.

a07esr

askacademia_test

Academics taking the piss out of your accent at a conference The title says it really, I recently went to a conference where some of the other PhD students (and their supervisors) thought it was funny to take the piss out of my accent (east london/ essex- I know, I know). I played it off at the time, but it's been bothering me more and more. How are you meant to deal with these kinds of situations (unprofessionalism in a professional setting)? Theres not much I can do about my accent, and to be honest I really think it's irrelevant so long as what your saying makes sense. I think this is more of a rant than anything, so sorry. Any advice for when this happens again would be great.

eaf98yf

eaflf5e

I'd be tempted to tell them to get fucked. Or publicly call them out on their ridiculous behaviour. Some of the best PhD students I met had strong regional accents - Scottish, Essex, Yorkshire... The idea of mocking someone for the way they talk is absolitely pathetic and they should be ashamed of themselves

I did my PhD in the UK, and my supervisor told me that my American accent made me sound, “well, stupid.” Instead, she said, I should take advantage of my time in the UK and learn to mimic the Oxford accent ... I think Brits just have a real knack for being - hmm, how to say this with my imbecile not-British mind?- assholes.

5iflq3

askacademia_test

How can I convince my boyfriend of 3+ years (and probably my future fiance) to move across the country for my PhD, and then eventually postdoc/jobs? This is probably better suited for /r/relationships, but I want to know what people with academics or other prospective PhD students have to say about this. For some more information, our relationship is incredibly serious, however we've been long distance for the past year and a half now while I've been doing my MS, and at this point, I really can't bear the thought of spending 5 more years away from him. I applied to a school thats in his city that he really wanted me to apply to and go to, and while its a great school, and I think there are professors who are a good fit for my research interests, 1) I'm not sure if I'll get in (I got an interview invite, but I could still eliminated if the interview doesn't go well), 2) I am not yet sure I'd want to go there if I do get in, and I well base that decision based on how the other schools I interview at are, and how happy the students are (this school also has a strict policy for student vacation time that seems to be a bit low). I intially tried to get him to move with me for my MS, but he wasn't ready for that at the time, his mother was very ill and he couldn't be too far from her, but now she has passed on, so I'm not sure why he's reluctant to move. He seems to not want to find a new job, which is odd to me. His job is very good for his level of education ($40K per year lab tech and he never went to college), and he some ambition for part of it, but on the other hand he hates certain parts of it and complains about the company being racist towards him and not letting him get the attention he needs to advance his career. I think now would be the perfect time for him to quit this job and find a new one with me, but he is concerned about making less money at a new job. Granted I'll finally have that wonderfully close to the poverty line stipend to at least support myself. And the school in his city is the only one I could work at and I really dont think its reasonable to assume that I could get a postdoc and an academic position there at that same school for the rest of my life, never moving. Sorry if this got ranty, but I'm just looking for opinions of how I should navigate this mine-field? Any advice or insight is appreciated.

db7z0va

db839zp

His key concern appears to be how much he will be paid. You may need to research options that will result in similar pay for him in the location(s) you wish to move to.

You can't really *convince* him. He needs to want to do it, because at the other end, he's going to have to find a new job, find new friends, and settle into a new life. It'll be easier for you. Coming into a new program you'll have a cohort of other incoming students to bond with. It's hard moving to a new place without that kind of ready-made social group. If he *wants* to move because he wants to stay with you, then you won't have to convince him, he's already convinced. If he *doesn't* want to move, then trying to convince him probably won't have any effect. You need to talk about it with him, and he needs to decide what's important. The fact that you're long distance already means that I think this is a discussion that has long been coming. It seems like it's overdue at this point. And frankly, it's been my experience (as someone who did a long distance relationship for three years in grad school) that LDRs are really good at dragging out something that might not have made it past the early dating mark if the two people were together more. It's easy to ignore little issues when you have long periods of time between seeing each other. You're intentionally focused on having a good time, and on how much you've missed the person, and it's easier to forget about the little nagging things. When you're around a person every day, those nagging things can become major issues. And when you've been doing the long distance thing for a while, and then someone moves, suddenly those nagging things (that you didn't really pay attention to) become a huge deal, because now you're well into the relationship and GODDAMMIT STOP LEAVING DIRTY DISHES IN THE SINK ALL DAY. Basically, what I'm trying to say is: "Are you sure you want him to move? And are you sure about the strength of the relationship?" Because if it comes apart, you still have your studies, your circle of grad school friends, and other things to keep you occupied. He's stuck in a place with no friends, no network of connections for a job, etc. You guys need to think about this *very* carefully.

mwyqe3

askacademia_test

Burnt out - want to quit research project (somewhat venting - mainly asking advice on how to talk to PI about burnout) \[Recent Graduate BS - 2020 - USA\] I've been with this lab for 2 yrs as an undergrad and started a research project with them for my senior dissertation. They wanted to turn the project into something publishable and I agreed thinking I could do it. We had bumps along the way with figuring out how to do our project and it somewhat changed so now it's just taking longer to complete. I've since graduated in 2020 and am still working on this with them (2yrs on this project) but after I graduated, I really just wanted to move on and have the project passed on to another undergrad to finish, though I know I've made a commitment to create this paper with them. I honestly don't care about having my name first on the publication at this point - which was something that enticed me at first being an undergrad. I'll be starting graduate school in fall and really want to cut ties with this project. I just feel like it's being dragged out and I want to focus on a project that's more my own. I'm not sure how to approach my PI about this - like it'll probably look bad since I'm going to do more research in grad school right? And if I drop out of this project it won't look good on my resume or something, or say something about me as a researcher? I'm not sure if it's a bad thing that I don't care about it would I look if I stop this project, I just want to be done with it.

gvl0dc0

gvl3r6r

One of the distinguishing characteristics of good scientists is an ability to recognize when it is time to drop something and start fresh. You need to be primed and full of energy to start graduate school in the fall - not exhausted and burned out. This is not going to hurt your resume. Have an honest talk with your current PI, who should be able to understand your position. If you have made a contribution to the project, which seems inarguable, than you should be a coauthor on the paper, once it comes out. I am wondering, are you being paid? You have graduated and are still working in your undergraduate lab. How does that work?

The thing to do at this stage is tell the PI "I am starting grad school in the fall, and don't know how much time I will have time to devote to this project at that point." They know this is code for "either wrap this up or get someone else on board because I won't be finishing it" and will do either of those options. Frankly saying anything is already way ahead of what most students do who are finishing undergrad anyway. I assure you 100% that no one will care if you did not publish your undergraduate research if you already have a grad school lined up (doubly so if this isn't anything you can use for your thesis). No one will ever even hear about this unless you were to raise it, which you won't.

w333ih

askacademia_test

Do you ever feel too dumb for academia? I started a job recently as a junior researcher at one of the universities in my state. It’s a job made for recent undergraduates which helps someone get either into academia or help them decide if they want to pursue a career in research. I’m about two months into my job and I’m already struggling with how the people in it make me feel. I work directly under a Post Doc with a supervising professor, along with a few other researches scattered here and there. My biggest issue right now is that with my supervisor (post doc) I always feel like she’s looking down on me and she’s told me a few times already she needs me to take more initiative and get things done. My problem with that is that there ain’t always work for me to do everyday and what we need to get done is never laid out, exactly when she wants to do it and when it should get done. I’m grasping at straws and I’m trying to keep up with all the information they are telling me about the current study we are doing and I’m extremely overwhelmed. I feel like I’m 8 again sitting at the adults table not understanding anything they are asking me or what they are talking about. My biggest question for you guys is that do you feel this way too in academia? That people think you’re too dumb to understand everything or that if you don’t get what they are telling you right away it’s not worth their time to explain it.

igumgqh

igvtlay

Stay in your position and ride it out. You’re going to learn A LOT. I work at a school and all of my coworkers are smart, it’s actually intimidating. My boss has a doctorate’s and I had daily meetings with her. Very smart and understanding woman. But I do freak out a lot and feel like I’m not smart enough to be there. I’m only a junior..and feel defeated some days because I feel “dumb” but at the same time it drives me to want to learn more because I’m always surrounded by people who continuously make an effort to become more informed. Ask more questions (something I need to work on as well) find somebody at your job that can become somewhat of a mentor. Please keep trying and please don’t be so hard on yourself. You’re still learning. Stay on top of your tasks and make sure to communicate!! I’ve gotten in trouble for my lack of communication skills..just ask, some people are always willing to help (:

This is 100% a leadership problem. All of us assholes in academia need to read the book "EXTREME OWNERSHIP" so that we understand: if someone under our care (or command) is not performing well or doesn't know what to do or doesn't understand the context, it is 100% our fault. So you identified another failure mode: if your otherwise smart and well-meaning coworkers (who care enough about the job to make reddit posts seeking guidance and clarification) feel dumb, you might be a dumbass academic who doesn't know anything about leadership. Yeah, myself included sometimes.

r6x6n9

askanthropology_test

Multilingualism and monolingualism as cultures? I got into an argument recently that suggested to my mind that multilingualism and monolingualism may be cultures or have cultures surrounding them that produce different etiquettes and values in their speakers. My thoughts were that monolingual cultures demand that multilingual speakers change their language use to accommodate monolingual speakers (including, say, when the latter are the minority in a conversation), and it is rude to 'exclude' monolinguals through language choice. Whereas multilingual cultures demand that monolingual speakers do their best to fit in with multilingual conversations, and it is rude to demand that others change or limit their language choice to suit oneself. Is there any substance to this whether in these terms or from a different angle? If so are there some interesting literatures to explore? I realise there's a political aspect to this, for example attitudes towards and of English speakers both in English-speaking countries and non-English speaking countries. I'm not trying to ask a political or moral question though, nor am I trying to use this thread to score any points for either 'team', just genuinely curious about the wider anthropological dimension around some of these experiences. Fwiw I have a social science background but am not an anthropologist. I also grew up/live in a monolingual country but have lived in multilingual countries and am part of an extended family whose members split into three different first languages.

hmwf2gh

hmwkps1

It's not just multilingual vs monolingual where this is observed A speaker can attempt to exclude a listener by lowering the volume of voice, using technical jargon, making very specific references that only a select few will understand (just like that time last year in Seattle) or speaking a different language. So who is 'in the wrong'? I look at as viewing what is normal. if you are speaking at a normal volume just out and about average everyday life, and one guy is hard of hearing, the person hard of hearing needs a hearing aid or to learn to read lips, etc. If you are purposefully whispering to exclude when there's no reason to whisper, that's purposefully exclusionary, and rude. If you are in a library, where whispering is reasonable, then it's not rude. I'd apply the same to language. Is the bilingual person using the language the other person doesn't understand to exclude them, or for some other utilitarian reason - example ordering food and/or communicating with shopkeepers who might well speak both spanish and english, but you speak spanish to them because you think they will understand it better but the one person in your group doesn't speak it.

I mean what is the difference between multilingual and monolingual cultures, if not just the extent of tolerance? No culture on its own develops branching languages, unless separated for long periods of time, across large distance. It's not a natural phenomenon on societal scales. Individually you may want to learn multiple languages that's your prerogative. If you want to talk about linguistic homogeneity or heterogeneity, that's a different thing. That refers to the extent of inclusivity and social harmony. Whichever party *demands* the other to adjust is less inclusive, more prideful, more entitled. If both parties are that way, the culture will be heterogeneous. If neither, it will be homogeneous. Now if only one party is demanding, and the other for some reason naturally acquiesces, what does that mean? That could be forced out of minority status, which is a power differential, or if it is voluntary, that would be quite extraordinary.

kz91du

askanthropology_test

As someone who may want to pursue anthropology as a career, what is the working field like? What do you do to get a paycheck? Are there branches of anthropology you can specialize in (folklore, archeology, etc.)?

gjm2lhd

gjmxuv7

I’m not someone in the field of anthropology, but there are a lot of associated fields. I’m currently studying linguistics, which also has occasional overlap with anthropology, especially linguists who document dying languages. I think it helps if you know specifically what part of anthropology you’re interested in to get a good answer to this question

I have a Ph.D. in anthropology and work as an archaeologist. Your question is difficult to answer briefly given how complex and broad the field of anthropology is. In the US, there are four primary subfields of anthropology including archaeology (study of past material cultural), cultural anthro (study of cultural variation), biological anth (biological aspects of humans), and linguistics (study of language from an anthropological viewpoint). Each of these subfields include an untold amount of vastly different subjects to specialize in. For example, one archaeologist may study the origins of agriculture in Asia while another focuses on what life was like for immigrant women during the 19th century gold rush. Figuring out what you want to study is one of the fun parts of school and I suggest taking as many different courses as you can during undergraduate studies (also consider courses in the Classics if you enjoy ancient Greece/Rome stuff). As far as what a career in anthropology is like, I can only speak to archaeology. Importantly though, if you plan on pursuing a career in anthropology be prepared to attend graduate school. Most subfields require a Master's degree or, in many cases, a Ph.D. to land a full-time research oriented position. That isn't to say you cannot put an anthro degree to good use in other career fields. However, if you want to do research (especially on what you're interested in) you will likely need a Ph.D. and to pursue a job at an academic institution (college or museum). Now archaeology is a little different from the other subfields because federal laws such as the National Historic Preservation Act require cultural resources (artifacts and archaeological sites) to be protected on federal and state lands. Because of this, federal and state agencies employ many archaeologists to manage cultural resources on government lands. However, most archaeologists in the US actually work for private cultural resource management firms (at the BA, MA, and PhD level). These companies are often contracted by the government to ensure various gov. projects (building roads, bases, etc...) are in compliance with cultural resource laws. For example, if the government wanted to build a road across federal lands they would need archaeologists to come in and determine if the work was going to negatively impact important cultural resources. Such projects would minimally include surveying (and sometimes excavating) the building area, recording any sites found, and writing a report detailing your findings and recommendations. Depending on your company/client, you may even get to conduct more advanced analysis/research on your findings and publish them in academic journals. While plenty of archaeologists work for universities, museums, and federal agencies, the vast majority work in cultural resource management (CRM) and there are well paying careers to be had in that area of work. Unfortunately, academic positions are few and far between and often pay less than senior level CRM positions but they can be very rewarding if you are willing to put in the work to obtain one. I know this was pretty broad but please feel free to ask follow up questions if you want more information.

zi0yt9

askanthropology_test

Which communities used gift giving as a "weapon"? In my anthropology course back in university we had a course on "weaponized gift giving" which was basically about certain groups of people/cultures that gave gifts as a means of inflicting their power over a neighboring tribe/group. They used giving gifts as a way of indebting someone to them. Unfortunately I forgot which cultures/communities were mentioned in that course. Any ideas? We talked a bit as well about "cargo cults" as well but this specific discussion was different. One example I remember is a person in a community/tribe insulted the leader. What the leader of this community/tribe did was go and give him a present. As per their culture he had to give a gift of equal or greater value or would be shunned (among other social and religious repercussions I can't remember), being less wealthy then the leader this other person eventually went bankrupt trying to repay the leaders gifts. There was also a story including Canadian first nations peoples but I don't remember which tribes and in what time period. Any help on some base information so I can look into it more would be great!

izrw5al

izs64cy

I had read that Anglo Saxon culture featured something like this, with nobles giving gifts to their household as a sign of power, but also reinforcing the quid pro quo obligation of the recipients. Can anyone elaborate on this?

1763–64: Britain wages biological warfare with smallpox The British give smallpox-contaminated blankets to Shawnee and Lenape (Delaware) communities—an action sanctioned by the British officers Sir Jeffery Amherst and his replacement, General Thomas Gage.

9wsrdx

askanthropology_test

Do you think the current religious beliefs around the world will be practiced 5000 years in the future? The ancient religions of the Egyptians and old history seem to long be forgotten in the current times.. is it fair to assume the same for the religious beliefs of now to fade with time as well.

e9nprke

e9na69x

From the Dune universe ~20,000 years in some future: "ORANGE CATHOLIC BIBLE: the "Accumulated Book," the religious text produced by the Commission of Ecumenical Translators. It contains elements of most ancient religions, including the Maometh Saari, Mahayana Christianity, Zensunni Catholicism and Buddislamic traditions. Its supreme commandment is considered to be: "Thou shalt not disfigure the soul."

Considering the fact that many religions have yet to even make it that far, it is easy to say no. Some of the earliest widespread religions that you mentioned like the Egyptian religion did, in fact, die out, but for some, there are aspects of the religion that remain in practice for some religions. Then it comes to the question of in what definition do you mean practice? Practice in its current state or in a morphed and evolved state? I believe that Christianity has a strong chance of continuing for 5000 years in total but to survive for another is a really big stretch. I think all practices have to change and evolve as culture changes and evolves.

9wsrdx

askanthropology_test

Do you think the current religious beliefs around the world will be practiced 5000 years in the future? The ancient religions of the Egyptians and old history seem to long be forgotten in the current times.. is it fair to assume the same for the religious beliefs of now to fade with time as well.

e9n074u

e9nviky

I personally believe that even if "Christianity" or "Islam" or "Judeism" or whatever persist, they will be quite different then, as compared to what they are now. I think the likelihood that new religions take over is not so great for most countries, but some isolated countries could have their own new religions. Scientology for example could very well take over a country or two eventually. 5000 years is a long time. A lot could happen. What's different now than before, is some countries like Canada and US have charter of rights or constitution, which prevent the government from promoting a given religion. Religion has historically been a powerful tool of propaganda for any state, and it was spread by just sending people like missionaries for one, but also often conquest. In this day and age things are a little different. But as we can see with Scientology, we are not past creating new religions. In some countries religion might quite easily die out completely, but in a country like Saudi Arabia, it might be a lot more difficult for that to happen. But who knows? All it takes is one crazy war, and someone else holds the power in Saudi Arabia, and the elements upholding wahabbism are removed.

Judaism is already over 3,000 years old. Although it’s had many changes, the essence has remained the same, as have the holy texts, and worshipping ideals. It’s immortal.

6fpznx

askanthropology_test

Other than the supposed "oldest profession" what were the first jobs that didn't involve finding or producing food? The first people that went a significant period of time without hunting, gathering or farming, who instead got their food in exchange for a service, what was that service?

dikk1lt

dikxb0z

While artist/jewelmaker is a good guess, I suspect the people who did that also primarily partook in the other activities like hunting and gathering. On the other hand it is certainly possible to argue that the artistry required to make some of these items required a highly specialized individual that may have devoted their time to this rather than hunting or gathering. I would argue it was a spiritual leader though. A shaman or whatever you want to call them. And we are pretty sure such individuals have existed for a long time. The Shanidar man is a classic example of someone that has been interpreted as a shaman (~60,000 years old). And he was wounded to the point where he would have been unable to partake in physical activities, yet he was still tended to and kept alive.

In order to have a "job" there has to be an economy with a method for paying wages. Otherwise, we're just talking about "subsistence activities." Hunting and gathering are not usually described as "jobs" and your post indicates that you don't consider them jobs, either. So let's start there. One of the very earliest "jobs" is then pottery. Classical authors argued that it was the earliest job or profession, but the archaeological evidence also so argues. First, to get good pottery (especially fired pottery, pottery thrown on a wheel, ceramic glazes), you need to spend a lot of time on it, and you need to specialize. Most archaeologists believe that by 18KYA these skills were spreading rapidly from Asia into the Middle East. Food preservation and trading must have been popular. There's no money at that time, but there are chit-like things (shells,etc) and of course, barter. At any rate, people who wanted a pot would have had to have a need for it (some kind of surplus, and in those days, a tendency to be semi-sedentary at least, as most of these pots weren't built for being carried around on yet-to-exist domesticated animals nor does it seem that tump lines are in widespread use). Potters spend more and more time making their pots (perhaps there were 1-2 potters in a family) and less time gettng their own food. People who are good at getting food and have a small surplus (let's say, of dried meat or dried berries) trade those things for a pot to keep their dried goods safe from rodents, etc. Voilà! Some people are now "working" at the specialization of pottery and others are paying them in kind for their work. Many archaeologists would say that the potter's wheel (which appears around 14-18KYA) is a sign that someone is spending a lot of time thinking about and almost exclusively working on problems of pottery. So my own view is that it is...pottery making. With a little ingenuity (and a lot of research), it's possibly that weaving could be a contender (shows up first in Europe at perhaps 22KYA) but doesn't seem to be widely traded at that point. Nets (from 28KYA) are clearly sophisticated but if modern net making is used to inform us about the past (see Geertz's rubric for that), most people held on tightly to the net they had made, as they were so time intensive and valuable. Doesn't seem to be evidence for "extra nets" in the Paleolithic economy. But by 12,000BP, it's possible to argue that some of the woven goods found in some cultures (especially peripatetic ones) were woven elsewhere and that they traded for them. Certainly by 8000BP, it can be argued.

ok7tmh

askanthropology_test

What are the ethnic groups native to the British Isles? Are groups like "Welsh" and "Scottish" really ethnic groups? Take Welsh for example. If Welsh is an ethnicity, is an ethnic Welsh just someone born within the borders of Wales? Isn't that just a nationality? Normally ethnic groups are tied to a language, so in that case are ethnic Welsh just those left that still speak Welsh? Or is it people whose ancestors spoke Welsh (but that doesn't really work, since the ancestor of the Welsh language was once spoken all over England as well)? Scottish might work a bit better as an ethnicity - closely following the Scotland-England border is a strong change in language, from English to Scots, or Scots-influenced English. But in that case, are Gaelic-speakers a different ethnicity?

h56usc2

h56nc5p

You might be interested in some posts I've done on r/AskHistorians about this. Were the ancient Irish "Celtic"? Who are the Picts? I'd like to comment on this point of yours in particular: >Normally ethnic groups are tied to a language, so in that case are ethnic Welsh just those left that still speak Welsh? Or is it people whose ancestors spoke Welsh (but that doesn't really work, since the ancestor of the Welsh language was once spoken all over England as well)? The disappearance of P-Celtic languages in England (except Cornwall) happened a *much* longer time ago than the forced decline of Welsh in Wales. We know very little about the mechanism by which the Celtic languages of England disappeared, but there seems to have been significant ethnic replacement by speakers of Old English. This may have been hastened by the fact that many people in Roman Britain might have been speaking a Latin vernacular rather than a Celtic language by the time the English arrived. Either way, *ethnic* replacement was pretty total, even if *population* replacement was more mixed. This was not the case in Wales, where there was much more continuity of ethnic identity since it was not conquered by the pre-Norman English. The forced decline of Welsh is within living memory, the same as Scottish Gaelic, Irish, etc.

So the distinction is fraught with generalizations regarding race and ethnicity, but here goes. The Welsh are often referred to as True Britons (Brittonic), who inhabitated Great Britain before the Roman Invasion. They are considered a subset of Celts, but also claim to descend from the Beaker (pre-Celtic) People of the British Isles (think Stonehenge builders). Despite Roman rule, these were still the common folk of the island. When the Romans left, the Angles and Saxons (Germanic) invaded, and took much of the island. These Germanic peoples pushed the Brittonic peoples back to Wales, Cromwell, and Southern Scotland or just incorporated them. Now we run into the question of being Scottish. The Scotti were a Gaelic tribe from Northern Ireland who settled in Central and Northern Scotland. So "Scottish" is actually the mix of the Lowland Scottish (Brittonic) and Highland Scottish (Gaelic). And the next question I bet you have is: Who were the Gaels? Well, they're ALSO a subset of Celts who developed on Ireland and the Isle of Man. So all in all, they are different cultures coming from similar Celtic stock. So at this point, we have discussed 3 groups of peoples on the British Isles; Brittonic, Gaelic, and Germanic. To make things fun, lets dive into the Viking Invasions. This adds Scandinavian blood to the mix, which one could argue isn't all that different from Germanic. They settled mostly in Northern and Eastern England, the Isle of Man, and Eastern Ireland. And finally, lets throw the Normans in, who were Scandinavians who had settled in France. William the Conqueror claimed some English lands due to some old family ties back to the Viking kings in England. So now, depending on what you consider "ethnically" similar enough to be considered 1 ethnicity, you have anywhere from 2 to, like, 10 different ethnicities on the British Isles. So it all depends on how you define "ethnicity". At what point did the Gaels become a differnet ethnicity from the Brittonic peoples? Were Normans different ethnically from the Scandinavian Vikings? If not, are Scandinavians ethnically different from Germanic peoples like the Angles and Saxons? How much blood does it take to take to be part of a culture? Is it purely cultural? How important is language? Religion? I'll let you tackle that one.

ymupq6

askanthropology_test

Human brains started to decreased in size circa 3000 years ago, and self-domestication is considered one reason for it by comparing head sizes in domesticated animals vs their wild counterparts. Have human brains ever been observed to be larger in cases of feral children?

iv71zn0

iv62i11

I could be missing something, but feral as a category is generally a domestic creature outside of a domestic environment. They're still biologically domestic, it's just that their behavior isn't. In order to see a meaningful difference that could be attributed to an "undomestication" process you'd need either a huge sample size of feral children (which doesn't exist and would be immoral to cause) or MANY generations of feral humans in order to revert back to some pre-domestication stage. Let me know if I'm wrong or missing something

I'm not aware of descriptive stats on feral children brain sizes. It's a pretty small sample. Even if we had such data it would not be relevant to your questions for too many reasons for me to go into on my phone keyboard. Anyway, in regard to smaller brain sizes in general is related to body size. Body size in turn is affected by nutrition and disease and parasite processes during development. So these factors would have to be considered first. Not sure precisely what you mean by self domestication. It's sort of a meaningless concept. Are you suggesting biological evolutionary changes have occurred in the most recent 3k years?

r6x6n9

askanthropology_test

Multilingualism and monolingualism as cultures? I got into an argument recently that suggested to my mind that multilingualism and monolingualism may be cultures or have cultures surrounding them that produce different etiquettes and values in their speakers. My thoughts were that monolingual cultures demand that multilingual speakers change their language use to accommodate monolingual speakers (including, say, when the latter are the minority in a conversation), and it is rude to 'exclude' monolinguals through language choice. Whereas multilingual cultures demand that monolingual speakers do their best to fit in with multilingual conversations, and it is rude to demand that others change or limit their language choice to suit oneself. Is there any substance to this whether in these terms or from a different angle? If so are there some interesting literatures to explore? I realise there's a political aspect to this, for example attitudes towards and of English speakers both in English-speaking countries and non-English speaking countries. I'm not trying to ask a political or moral question though, nor am I trying to use this thread to score any points for either 'team', just genuinely curious about the wider anthropological dimension around some of these experiences. Fwiw I have a social science background but am not an anthropologist. I also grew up/live in a monolingual country but have lived in multilingual countries and am part of an extended family whose members split into three different first languages.

hmww7mo

hmww2b9

Welcome to the fascinating world of linguistic anthropology! It sounds to me like what you’re discussing is language ideologies. Broadly speaking, this refers to the set of ideas and beliefs about language use that come to be shared to a greater or lesser extent by a community. These beliefs usually include some set of evaluative norms for language use that include—among other things—conventions about the appropriateness of one code (i.e., language or language variety) versus another depending on the social context. These beliefs about appropriate or correct language use are then frequently transformed into beliefs and attitudes about a language’s speakers. For instance, if a culture values monolingualism, speakers whose behavior does not meet this expectation will be negatively evaluated. This stems from the fact that, first of all, the non-conforming individual is using a code that is not valued within that cultural frame. Second, that negative evaluation gets transposed onto the speaker themself. Under such a system, it’s clear there will be behavioral effects in the given community. While most discussions of language ideology are grounded in a particular geopolitical context (e.g., the relationship between Catalan, Spanish, and their speakers in Catalonia), these could certainly be applied to the more abstract notions of monolingualism and multilingualism more generally.

Monolingual cultures definitely have norms and values that favor monolingualism. E.g., code switching (switching between different languages or dialects) may be considered ugly, uneducated or impure (especially when the language has a low status). I think there’s a belief that languages should be kept separate and pure, and that code switching (a practice pretty much every multilingual engages in) should be avoided. Also, until recently, it was believed (by many in the west), that growing up multilingual was detrimental to the child’s development, that it was unhealthy. But of course it is more complicated than this: there are many, many speech communities in monolingual societies where code switching is the norm. Like someone already said, there are so many factors that play a role in language choice, that I don’t think you can generalize and compare multilingual cultures to monolingual ones. Context, situation, attitudes to the other participants, status of the languages, what is being spoken about, competence in the languages, people present that are not part of the conversation etc. But I’m no expert and I think you should ask in r/asklinguistics

30xz4a

askanthropology_test

Why weren't there any big civilizations in southern Africa? Hi, I was thinking a few days ago that I could name great civilizations from every continent, except maybe north america and southern africa. Southern Africa being mainly what in spanish is called "black africa", but I'm not sure how to translate it. The distinction being that in northern Africa, Egypt is an obvious example, but the ethnicity (is this the word?) is clearly different. By great civilizations I mean people who lived in cities, their existence spanned at least a century and had some sort of architecture and big constructions like pyramids, machu pichu, the coliseum, etc. I know it's an arbitrary and probably useless definition, but it's what I think of when someone says "civilization". This strikes me as odd because men came from Africa, specifically the souther part apparently, so one would expect African populations, being around the longest time, to have developed the greatest, most ancient civilizations. Just like you hear that some chinese dynasty existed 2000 years ago, why don't we hear of tales of African Kings that lived 3000 years ago? It doesn't seem remarkable that native north americans didn't develop any sort of big civilizations because they simply weren't around as long as europeans or asians. You could argue that Incas were probably around pretty much the same time and managed it though. I realize it's not just a matter of "being around for enough time", but since that's the only factor I can think of, I'm asking here. What other factor prevented the southern/black population of Africa, in spite of being the first ones around, to develop into a full fledeged "ancient civilization" like the chinese, japanese, romans, greeks, incas, mayas, etc.? Disclaimer: I tried to word this question as carefully as I could, and I don't mean to offend anyone by it. It's an honest question with no implications behind it. If you feel offended by the particular wording of the question let me know and I'll change it, I'm not a native speaker and I'm bound to make mistakes or not express exactly what I want to.

cpwtolu

cpwuwv0

Check out the Great Zimbabwe

The Mutapas?, the Zulus?, The indian Ocean trade reached as far south as Madagascar, and possibly further, and This Wikipedia template has a whole host of topics on Southern African political history. Much of Africa's pre-colonial history is shrouded by bias, but it is also important to note that Southern Africa has been relatively isolated by jungle and desert through much of its history, giving it less direct access to the advancements of Northern African and Eurasia.

idpagz

askbaking_test

Over Hyped Recipes and Under Hyped Recipes. What recipes do you feel get too much hype for what they are? For every over hyped recipe please list one recipe you feel is wonderful and needs to be shared.

g2bti01

g2axtd2

Underhyped: Flan

I think pumpkin bread is under hyped. Especially because store bought renditions are just filled with way too much sugar and don't do it justice. On the other hand, most of those "most chocolatey chocolate cake" recipes are hyyyype.

urm6yy

askbaking_test

What is the hardest cake you have ever made? A lot of people say that Dobos is a hard cake to make. However, I doubt that, so I am just interested..

i8yn006

i8zxpdf

I made the Palet d'Or recipe from Thomas Keller's Bouchon Bakery cookbook twice. Between all the layering and refrigerating steps, it took 2+ days each time, but probably the "hardest" part was cutting out thin circles of chocolate cake from a sheet cake and transferring those for layering without breaking (although any breakage probably would have been easy to mask).

I’ve made two Dobos cakes. The first took me something like seven hours. The second took less time. I don’t know that I would say they’re hard, but definitely fiddly.

khltz1

askbaking_test

My new bundt pan says “oven safe to 400F (204C).” How strict is this? I have a shitty oven that always overheats. As it says. My new bundt pan is heavy cast aluminum. Dash of That brand. There’s a Caution label that says “Oven safe to 400F.” However, my oven is shitty and literally always overheats by at least 100 degrees. (Like, if I want to preheat to 350, I set the dial to 200.) What happens if I exceed 400F? Will it make my monkey bread unsafe to eat??

gglrxbu

ggm0gkp

I can't find anything suggesting that aluminum pans have a maximum heat rating. Probably the manufacturer put some sort of coating on the pan. We'd need to know what material that is to say

I lived through shitty oven (though mine was only off by 50-60 degrees), so I feel this whole post lol. Do you have an oven thermometer? If so, you can check the temp before it goes in and try to clock in low enough that it wont spike over 400F. If it has a coating of any kind (and it probably does), it might damage it? Either way it's probably going to be a slow kind of damage you can't easily see. I agree that it's a really stupid baking pan.

tyo2s0

askbaking_test

What was the best cake flavour you've ever eaten or created? I've been asked to make a cake for my friend's business' one year anniversary. Anything flavour I want it just has to be neutral and like boho style. So I was wondering what your favorite flavour of cake you've ever had was. I was thinking twix. But I have been having trouble with my caramel lately and my confidence is shook. I'm searching for inspiration.

i3vym62

i3u4k62

I actually am having a lavender cake with honey icing for my wedding. The baker muddled some fresh flowers and put them in the batter and it is DEEELIGHTFULLLLL. As far as the honey frosting goes, it's a buttercream and really light.

The best cake I've ever bought is the opera cream torte at the Bonbonerie; its a Cincinnati classic based on a candy. Its amazing but super rich; chocolate studded chocolate cake, a light fluffy vanilla filling, covered in a chocolate ganache with a hint of coffee

uddd01

askbaking_test

Former industry professionals!! what made you leave baking, and where did you go?? I have been in bakeries for 10 years. I've done all the schooling, i have my red seal. But I do not want to manage or open my own bakery. I just want to bake, work full time, get paid well, and have half decent benefits. So far, I've only been able to find 2 out of 4. I am thinking of leaving the industy and am curious where others have gone, and why.

i6k6j93

i6snntt

I was only in for two years but the last place I worked at really burned me out. The chefs were all super toxic. They’d do things to “punish” us like turn off the kitchen music (it was a bakery, not a restaurant, so it’s not like customers could hear it, it wasn’t loud and they chose the music) if they felt we were talking too much, move people to graveyard shifts instead of firing them, gaslight us when we raised issues, tried to prevent certain people from speaking to each other even when they were not working, rampant favoritism and sexism, and competed among themselves for who worked the most (14-16 hour days). I know not every place is like that but it really broke me down and made me hate kitchen work. I started taking classes online and applied to graduate school so that I can start working as a UX researcher. Part of the reason I chose this is because I realized I love learning new things and solving problems, and those are big parts of a research job. I also thought about going into teaching pastry, but I wanted stable hours and better benefits.

I got laid off because of the pandemic. I’m a medical assistant in nursing school now. I miss the bakery but we don’t value food industry workers at any level in this culture :( even though they’re the ones feeding everyone…

tyo2s0

askbaking_test

What was the best cake flavour you've ever eaten or created? I've been asked to make a cake for my friend's business' one year anniversary. Anything flavour I want it just has to be neutral and like boho style. So I was wondering what your favorite flavour of cake you've ever had was. I was thinking twix. But I have been having trouble with my caramel lately and my confidence is shook. I'm searching for inspiration.

i3u4k62

i3vfe30

The best cake I've ever bought is the opera cream torte at the Bonbonerie; its a Cincinnati classic based on a candy. Its amazing but super rich; chocolate studded chocolate cake, a light fluffy vanilla filling, covered in a chocolate ganache with a hint of coffee

Came here to also say Hummingbird cake!

idpagz

askbaking_test

Over Hyped Recipes and Under Hyped Recipes. What recipes do you feel get too much hype for what they are? For every over hyped recipe please list one recipe you feel is wonderful and needs to be shared.

g2bsh37

g2b8oc7

overhyped: bon apetites best chocolate chip cookies (they never turn out anything but a greasy mess even tho they taste good) underhyped: carrot cake

Overhyped: apple pie with crumble topping, that's just sugar on sugar on sugar with a little vanilla! Underhyped: pannacotta, I just tried one today and it was so good! Seemed really easy to make too

tyo2s0

askbaking_test

What was the best cake flavour you've ever eaten or created? I've been asked to make a cake for my friend's business' one year anniversary. Anything flavour I want it just has to be neutral and like boho style. So I was wondering what your favorite flavour of cake you've ever had was. I was thinking twix. But I have been having trouble with my caramel lately and my confidence is shook. I'm searching for inspiration.

i3txo9e

i3uiqva

I'd do a strawberry whipped cream cake. Fresh and light and you can keep decor simple and elegant.

I remade the cake that Prince Harry had at his reception, a elderflower syrup cake and it was one of the better light cakes I've had. It's a tie between that and hummingbird cake.

g5l5wo

askbaking_test

Troubleshooting dense bread/no rise Hi all, Please help!! I've recently started baking with starter, and have run in to some troubles in my first pure starter loaves (hybrid ones worked well). I've built a starter following Ken Forkish's instructions in FWSY (scaled down to reduce waste), and it is 3 or so weeks old. The last two loaves I've baked were the overnight country blonde from FWSY, both of which did not rise much during bulk fermentation (with the second loaf rising the most and growing ~1.5x). Forkish calls for an overnight bulk ferment, and waiting until the dough grows 2-3x in size, which I am not achieving. By the time I try to shape the rounds the next morning, they remain sticky and don't hold their shape. When they go in the dutch oven, they simply spread out as much as they can, and get little to no oven spring, leaving me with a dense round with a tacky, almost sticky crumb that looks as though it's cooked through. I pull it when the outside is golden, and just before the bottom burns. Here's a picture of the most recent one https://imgur.com/a/qgrJO78

fo4alt2

fo4d01v

If its spreading after the final rise, it sounds like you have issues with shaping or the hydration is too high. What flour are you using and where are you based?

I had the same issue when I tried that recipe and am trying to work out what could be wrong. I’ve gone away from 100% levain recipes for the time being because i figured my starter wasn’t active enough. How much does the starter rise when you feed it? Also, I find that it takes much longer (sometimes 2 extra hours) to maturity when my apartment is 70 degrees vs 72 degrees.

tyo2s0

askbaking_test

What was the best cake flavour you've ever eaten or created? I've been asked to make a cake for my friend's business' one year anniversary. Anything flavour I want it just has to be neutral and like boho style. So I was wondering what your favorite flavour of cake you've ever had was. I was thinking twix. But I have been having trouble with my caramel lately and my confidence is shook. I'm searching for inspiration.

i3vym62

i3tqn9a

I actually am having a lavender cake with honey icing for my wedding. The baker muddled some fresh flowers and put them in the batter and it is DEEELIGHTFULLLLL. As far as the honey frosting goes, it's a buttercream and really light.

One cake I am meaning to make is a lemon-rosemary cake I had a while ago. It had a light lemon buttercream. Delicious! Correction : just check and it has cream cheese frosting and lemon curd, not buttercream

iq579e

askcarguys_test

Supercharger Daily Driving? I’ve wanted to install a supercharger in my car for a long time. I don’t want to make a race car, my goal is a fun car, I’ve currently got a full NA build and I got my car from 124 whp to 150whp. I know it’s not much, but this is my daily driver. I’d like to continue driving this car daily, even with a supercharger, but I’ve been seriously warned about daily driving a heavily modified car. I own a Saturn Sky 2.4L and I’ve been pricing the parts and making blueprints for a supercharger build. I’m currently wanting to get an Eaton m62 and I believe I’ve found a way to fit it within the firewall. I really think I’d be happy with 180 whp. I also hope to work on this project and actually have it installed by the end of next year. I’m taking my time to not only learn more but to save up for the right quality pieces. Knowing what I just wrote, here’s where I really need advice. Currently, because of COVID, my job won’t require me to go to work (even after covid) as much, so I don’t need to drive as much. I still want my car to be reliable enough to get me from point A to point B. I know mods will not make this a Toyota Corolla, but is it realistic to do small gains on a supercharger and still expect your car to be daily usable? Or should I really get a 2nd car as a daily before doing this? I more am not knowing if I should get a 2nd car before modifying my Saturn further or if this supercharger at a lower whp increase would be fine. As, I’d prefer to drive my stupid car daily because my inner child would scream every time. Lastly, when I say I want my car to be, “reliable enough”, I mean that I don’t care if it is not drivable for like a month every year. Thank you for any advice given and taking the time to read this!

g4pjjuh

g4pmyxn

Great points by those here before me, but also consider resale. A base Sky with a s/c and a ton of mods still won't be worth as much when you're ready to sell as a stock Redline model. You'll be throwing away thousands and thousands of dollars. Part it out and buy the proper model.

I've seen a Subaru BRZ with \~300hp get absolutely spanked for 15000 net(!) track miles and still run beautifully. If you do it right and you drive it right (warm up, cool down) you'll be fine. It is however very likely that getting the faster model will be both cheapter AND getting you better resale value. So, is it possible? Yes. Does it make sense? Not if what you want is simply a quicker car. Some people want their stuff to be bespoke, which is just as fine. It does cost more money though.

wur1zb

askcarguys_test

Hey guys is it a smart idea to buy a cabriolet in a winter mostly nation(netherland)? it doesn't really snow here.

ilbdma6

ilbkhfa

Why not? Just leave the top up when you need to.

I don’t know that a convertible is ever a “smart” purchase. The top requires constant maintenance, the wind noise is louder than a hardtop, and you’re less protected from the cold and heat. But it is so worth it to drop that top and enjoy open motoring. One point though: it totally depends on how often the weather permits you to open the top/how much of the weather you’re willing to put up with. Where I live, it’s the opposite issue that you have; it’s always summer except for maybe January and February. There’s about 3 months where the sun just bakes you way too much to have the top down. And the two months of wintry weather are a bit too chilling for me to keep it open. So I got to keep the top down for about 7 months out of the year which was definitely worth it for me. You’ll need to make that determination for yourself though.

yfubtp

askcarguys_test

Do mechanics in the US have to buy their own toolbox? I've seen some videos about mechanics quitting their job and taking their toolbox with them, is that really a thing that they have to pay for their own tools while working in a workshop?

iu8glv2

iu7jhs5

Working as a tech in the US since 2006, I'm well over 100k in tools. When I need to move them, I rent a 26' box truck with a liftgate and fill the whole thing. To be clear, most techs at the top of their field don't waste anywhere near that much money on tools. I do a lot of specialized work that most people don't. I have interviewed at a couple high end dealerships that require you to move into the existing toolbox because the whole shop has to look like a magazine cover, but I'd never take a job where the tools aren't mine. Most techs destroy tools and equipment. A shared tool is an abused tool, and I can't stand using damaged or filthy tools. I'm much happier having my own tranny jack that's clean and works perfectly with no missing parts. The rest of the guys fumble with the shop one that has seized parts, missing parts, and leaks oil all over itself. For reasons I'll never understand, they have no problem with that. I couldn't get a tech in my shop tell the manager it needs to be replaced even if I offered to pay them to do it.

Not as a mechanic (except as a hobby/necessity) but as a machinist, yes I had to by my own tools and the box to keep them in. I had to register them with QA every year to make sure they held to company standards.

yfubtp

askcarguys_test

Do mechanics in the US have to buy their own toolbox? I've seen some videos about mechanics quitting their job and taking their toolbox with them, is that really a thing that they have to pay for their own tools while working in a workshop?

iu63257

iu6a2wx

Yes almost always mechanics are required to pay for and provide their own tools. Some states have laws in place about this for example California law says that if mechanics are required to provide their own tools they need to be paid at minimum $30hr (goes to $31 in a few months). But most states it’s just on the mechanic.

Oh yea, and the tool truck shows up weekly and always happens to have something thatll make whatever job your working on easier. Just keep making that 50 dollar a week payment and theyll extend you all the credit you want.

o231tf

askcarguys_test

Tips on negotiating/denying service costs with a dealership? TL;DR: The dealership went off of *some* of the codes my vehicle was presenting to guess what the problem was – but surprise, surprise, that guess didn’t fix it. Now, after performing some basic diagnostics (i.e., a fuel pressure test), they want me to pay for their oversight AND the new repair. Tips on taking this up the chain to the general manager? More background: My husband is a mechanic, but I have a hybrid vehicle and he doesn’t have an advanced enough scanner to accurately pinpoint the issue. So we took the car to a dealer. The service writer advised that, even though I had four codes, they can *usually* solve for two of them by replacing the intake. I questioned this vague “maybe” and asked if we could do more troubleshooting prior to moving ahead with a $1K fix; he said he was “confident the intake would fix the issue.” Well, it didn’t, and now they’re informing me it’s the fuel pump. Hmm… wouldn’t they have found weak fuel pressure if they conducted that diagnostic earlier? He’s now saying he gave us the choice to do the repair or to do more diagnostics – and I think he realizes he caught himself in a lie. Logic dictates we would of course have gone with more diagnostics rather than make a $1K guess. Needless to say, we’ll replace the fuel pump ourselves rather than rack up an additional $900+, but both he and his supervisor aren’t budging on the original “repair” of throwing parts at a problem before doing actual troubleshooting. Any tips on how I address this with the general manager?

h248xtz

h24vd1i

Well I’m not much help, but it is good you have an understanding of the systems and can explain housing, if you go in and they try to stay anything it won’t be over your head

It would help to know what state you're in, as well as the kind of vehicle you drive. When the dealership replaces the wrong thing and still can't figure out the problem, they need to eat the parts and labor. Not one or the other, but both. Don't budge on that. However, that being said, you should pay for the next repair, in this case the fuel pump. Most states have a department of consumer affairs that govern over auto repair facilities. They would be the ones to contact in case they refuse to budge

yfubtp

askcarguys_test

Do mechanics in the US have to buy their own toolbox? I've seen some videos about mechanics quitting their job and taking their toolbox with them, is that really a thing that they have to pay for their own tools while working in a workshop?

iu6a2wx

iu5k9rf

Oh yea, and the tool truck shows up weekly and always happens to have something thatll make whatever job your working on easier. Just keep making that 50 dollar a week payment and theyll extend you all the credit you want.

most shops, yes. this is the case. some specialty places will provide tools, but most standard repair places the techs bring their own.

yfubtp

askcarguys_test

Do mechanics in the US have to buy their own toolbox? I've seen some videos about mechanics quitting their job and taking their toolbox with them, is that really a thing that they have to pay for their own tools while working in a workshop?

iu8glv2

iu57apz

Working as a tech in the US since 2006, I'm well over 100k in tools. When I need to move them, I rent a 26' box truck with a liftgate and fill the whole thing. To be clear, most techs at the top of their field don't waste anywhere near that much money on tools. I do a lot of specialized work that most people don't. I have interviewed at a couple high end dealerships that require you to move into the existing toolbox because the whole shop has to look like a magazine cover, but I'd never take a job where the tools aren't mine. Most techs destroy tools and equipment. A shared tool is an abused tool, and I can't stand using damaged or filthy tools. I'm much happier having my own tranny jack that's clean and works perfectly with no missing parts. The rest of the guys fumble with the shop one that has seized parts, missing parts, and leaks oil all over itself. For reasons I'll never understand, they have no problem with that. I couldn't get a tech in my shop tell the manager it needs to be replaced even if I offered to pay them to do it.

Only 8 point sockets

meefj2

askcarguys_test

How can I figure out gas mileage for a classic car with an aftermarket engine? The car in question is a '77 Buick Century 4dr sedan with a 350 v8. I haven't driven the car a lot yet, but I'm curious how much gas it will take. My cousin drives an '08 ram 1500 60 mipes a day and fills up every other day, would I expect about the same?

gsgepot

gsgs5b1

You don't drive a 30+ year old classic with a 350 V8 so you can worry about gas mileage - if you want gas mileage buy a cheap shitbox as a daily and keep the classic for weekends.

Your cousin is filling up way too often lol. I know full size trucks aren't efficient, but they also have huge gas tanks. I seriously doubt he **needs** gas every 120 miles.

wur1zb

askcarguys_test

Hey guys is it a smart idea to buy a cabriolet in a winter mostly nation(netherland)? it doesn't really snow here.

ilbdma6

ilbo99x

Why not? Just leave the top up when you need to.

That'll partly depend on your (and your passengers') view of what's too cold, how powerful the heaters are, and how much it rains. I daily drove a convertible for about 2 years and was comfortable putting the roof down in just about anything above freezing, and was more limited by how stiff the roof would be in the cold rather than it being too cold. For me it was definitely worthwhile (in Northern England) and I got plenty of use with the roof down.

yfubtp

askcarguys_test

Do mechanics in the US have to buy their own toolbox? I've seen some videos about mechanics quitting their job and taking their toolbox with them, is that really a thing that they have to pay for their own tools while working in a workshop?

iu5fgz1

iu6a2wx

Depends on the workshop. It's very common though, and worksites that provide tools are limited to specialty businesses for the most part.

Oh yea, and the tool truck shows up weekly and always happens to have something thatll make whatever job your working on easier. Just keep making that 50 dollar a week payment and theyll extend you all the credit you want.