ddhr.org about | archives | comments | rss

Baby holders Tue, Mar 27, 2018
I'm expecting a child ("congrats" thanks), and for the first time in my life I checked out the children's sections of Walmart and Target, and immediately noticed that there are a plethora of products designed solely to hold babies: 
  • strollers, for holding babies while you stroll
  • papooses, for holding babies while you walk
  • car seats, for holding babies while you drive
  • cribs, for holding babies while they sleep
  • boppies, for holding babies while they lounge
  • bumbos, for holding babies while they sit
  • high chairs, for holding babies while they eat
  • baby tubs, for holding babies while they bathe
I'm new to this, but can babies do anything? #lifestyle

Girls get guns Tue, Mar 27, 2018
Since America has a bit of a gun problem that I doubt we'll ever solve, I think one thing we could do is take guns away from men and give them to women.  In fact, when a female child enters the world, she should be given a gun.  Maybe like a small one that's practical and cute for a female baby.  But seriously here's why:  The overwhelmingly vast majority of mass shootings are committed by men.  Men are bad at handling life appropriately.  They're aggressive, and often violent.  They shouldn't be allowed anywhere near guns.  I don't know that switching the ownership of guns from men to women would create fewer mass shootings, but I also don't know that it wouldn't. 

The other incredibly major reason to give girls guns is that they're more likely to be the victims of domestic and sexual violence than men.  I feel like a really easy fix would be to put a gun in every girl's hand.  Try slapping a girl who's aiming a gun at your forehead. #sociology

Russian meddling Wed, Feb 28, 2018
It's clear at this point that Russia meddled in America's 2016 presidential election, and that's mostly bad, but I don't think it's that big of a deal.  They meddled in the sense that they made some candidates look bad and used social media to emphasize political divisions.  That's what political action committees (PACs) do anyway.  This time it came from a foreign country instead of a corporation.  Big deal. 

It doesn't take away from the fact that Trump won the election through votes which filter through the Electoral College.  The dude won, and people (not me) like and support him.  It might be a slightly different story if Russia somehow hacked the voting machines or some sort of server infrastructure to make votes for other candidates count for Trump.  I don't think that's what happened, and it doesn't appear to be the case. 

A trickier issue is whether Trump or his minions colluded with the Russians to win the election.  The reason this is tricky is twofold:  (1) what exactly counts as collusion (and is there evidence) and (2) did they do it on purpose?  The evidence thing is being investigated at this time, but the intentionality of it is muddied by the fact that Trump and many of his allies are political novices who (I believe) literally do not know what they might have done might be illegal.  Ignorance isn't a valid excuse for a crime, but in this case it might actually be the truth.  So far many of the legal cases revolve around making false statements to law enforcement and in court, e.g. "I forgot I met with Russians before the election." #politics

Student protests Tue, Feb 27, 2018
Not to minimize any current topic, but I'm always a little skeptical of student protests, especially when they involve absenteeism.  I was a student once, and I would've taken any opportunity in the world to not go to school.  Mass shooting?  Let's not go to school.  Tests are too hard?  Let's not go to school.  I think it's important for young people to express themselves and determine how they stand on important issues.  But when the result of that is skipping school, it looks a little suspicious. #sociology

Non-local drivers Wed, Feb 21, 2018
I find myself getting irrationally angry at people driving in or around my area when said people are not from my area.  Part of it stems from how different cultures drive.  My home state of New Jersey tends to breed aggressive drivers, while neighboring states tend to breed the exact opposite.  Similarly, state laws sometimes differ in whether the left lane of a two- or three-lane highway is strictly for passing or not.  My opinion is that if you're in the left lane and someone is behind you, move. 

Related to this is the fact that I mostly use local roads to commute to and from work, which I do every day of my life.  It's a routine.  I know the speed limits.  I know the stop signs and traffic lights.  I know when I need to turn and when someone in front of me is going to turn.  A non-local driver typically doesn't know where they're going or what they're looking for.  This used to happen to me all the time when my road was the seventh left in my neighborhood.  I'd get stuck behind someone who clearly wasn't local, and I'd see them pump their brakes at every single intersection.  In that sense, a non-local driver is just an obstacle between me and my home. 

Another thing, especially across state lines and near tourist attractions, is the matter of money.  I live here.  I pay high taxes, and part of what helps me maintain my sanity is the thought that my taxes go towards paying for the roads I use.  I don't really like the idea of some freeloader using something I paid for, especially when that freeloader is a bad driver.  I realize that many non-local drivers work where they're driving, and so their employer likely pays local taxes.  Regardless, my feelings are the same. 

But I think the main thing that gets to me is the idea of any one road being a through-street from one location to another.  I grew up on a through-street, and my entire goal in life has been to live on a non-through-street (mission accomplished, by the way).  But for whatever reason, it just really bothered me that someone would drive their vehicle, with their loud engines and creaky suspensions, blasting their music and throwing their trash out the window, in the location where I lived and ate and slept.  It didn't help that our house was really close to the road.  It sort of felt like the street was part of our property, and it sort of was since we shared a fairly long border.  Having unwanted people invading my borders was a real source of anguish. #travel

Death traditions Thu, Feb 15, 2018
I've talked about this before, but I find the entirety of human cultural practices regarding death to be completely ridiculous.  Viewings consist of dressing up a corpse in formal wear and makeup and storing them in an open box so people can look at them.  Why that's comforting for people, I'll never understand.  I find dead bodies to be fairly repulsive, not only because historically they've been the carriers of disease, but also because of this weird psychological thing I have where if something looks alive but isn't it makes me uncomfortable. 

The two funerals I've witnessed recently have both consisted of an open-casket viewing on one day followed by a formal memorial service and burial the next day.  Why do we need to extend this process any longer than it needs to be?  Another funeral I went to had a closed-casket memorial service, followed by a trip to the cemetery where there was an additional memorial service, followed by everyone standing around confused because the body needed to be cremated.  Did the first memorial service not count? 

Storing corpses underground in heavy wooden boxes is weird.  Storing them next to a bunch of other corpses is even weirder.  "This is where we keep all our corpses."  Ok, bro.  I just can't comprehend why a person would want to visit a location of corpse storage to remind themselves their loved one is dead, as opposed to remembering their memory through pictures or ... memories.  A lot of it feels like we do it for the dead person, but I'm nearly certain they don't care. #sociology

Subjective medicine Mon, Feb 12, 2018
I was talking to my doctor about treatment options for an ailment, and I said I wanted to approach it scientifically.  I wanted to take some sort of measurement before treatment, then a measurement after treatment to quantify the effect, instead of relying on how I feel before and after, which is subjective.  He said something that sort of blew my mind:  It might be better to measure the outcome subjectively if the outcome is subjective in nature.  In other words, if I could measure some quantity before and after and they showed no difference yet I felt better, the treatment is a success despite the measurement being inconclusive.  I feel like a more rigorous response would be that the process needs a better metric, but that's not the point.  I thought his response was pretty insightful coming from a profession that often operates from a sort of guess-and-check framework. #health

Burning up on re-entry Wed, Jan 31, 2018
There's a lot of confusion regarding why certain objects burn up on re-entry into earth's atmosphere.  There was confusion on my part until I figured out how to explain it to myself, if that makes any sense.  So here's the deal:  it doesn't happen because the atmosphere is hot.  In fact, the atmosphere gets thinner and thinner (i.e. less air) as altitude increases, so it's actually quite cold near space. 

Objects burn up on re-entry because they're going ridiculously fast.  And when a fast-moving object comes into contact with a stationary or slow-moving object (in this case, air), its speed energy gets converted to heat energy.  It's kind of like jumping into a pool.  Your speed slows down because you went from air (low density, easy to travel through) to water (higher density, harder to travel through).  But when you jump in a pool, you don't feel a change in temperature because you probably weren't traveling that fast on the way in. 

It's kind of hard to compare it to something that happens in normal life, because we don't experience those types of speed differences, like ever.  Objects in orbit around the earth are traveling tangentially to earth's surface at about 17,000 miles per hour.  The reason we don't know much about objects traveling at 17,000-ish miles per hour is because they would burn up in our atmosphere!  Some objects in space are moving much faster than that (such as meteors and asteroids that have been flung out of some other orbit).  In that case the speed difference can be much bigger, which tends to make things explode. 

There was a question online about why Felix Baumgartner, the guy who rode a balloon into space and jumped off, didn't burn up on re-entry.  The answer is simply that he wasn't traveling that fast because he didn't start from orbit.  Sure, he sped up on the way down, but only as fast as the air around him allowed.  He didn't start at 17,000 miles per hour.  He started at roughly zero. 

Finally, the way objects can avoid burning up on re-entry is to enter the atmosphere slowly over time instead of all at once.  That's achieved by choosing the right re-entry angle.  There's that line from Apollo 13:  "The re-entry corridor is in fact so narrow ... that if this basketball were the Earth ... the crew would have to hit a target no thicker than this piece of paper." All that's saying is that the angle at which you enter the atmosphere has to be pretty precise, but since the earth is much bigger than a basketball, the angle is much bigger than the thickness of paper.  Sometimes making things sound simple makes them sound more complicated. #science

Evidence at work Tue, Jan 30, 2018
I was in a meeting at work last week where a contractor was going through a Powerpoint presentation about their product, making statements like "it will travel [X] far" and "the sensor will operate accurately" and "our algorithm will avoid common pitfalls".  I was asked for my "expert" opinion afterwards, and instead of questioning every claim they made, I simply said this: 
"The contractor needs to provide evidence for stated claims instead of just assuming we'll believe them because they said it out loud.  In general, there were a lot of statements of fact without any evidence to back them up.  I'm not saying they were lying about anything.  But a simple [plot of results] or [data from a test] would do more to establish a fact than simply writing a sentence on a Powerpoint slide."
It's a little surprising to me that this type of thing needs to be stated.  But at the same time, I have no problem being the person who states it.  I've always been a little skeptical about everything.  And even if the final result turns out to be wrong, at least use critical thinking skills and logical reasoning to make your case.  Arguments from authority and proclamations by fiat are things used by dictators and strongmen.  State your claim, make your case, and prove your point with evidence. #science

Trump outrage levels Tue, Jan 16, 2018
It's surprising to me how different people have different levels of astonishment and outrage concerning the goings-on of Donald Trump.  It feels like it's about once a week where some new person or group of people exclaim, "Can you believe what Trump just did/said/Tweeted?"  Yes, in fact I can.  He Tweet-taunted that North Korea guy?  I can believe that.  He bumbled out an apology for something he definitely did?  Sounds about right.  He called a bunch of countries "shitholes"?  Yep, I can believe that.  I would literally believe anything.  The man is capable of so much more (or less) than that.  I wish I could make a prediction here, but I feel like I'm not creative enough to come up with a terrible enough thing to predict.  Don't worry, he'll continue to surprise and amaze us. 

And obviously (hopefully it's obvious), this is all quite bad.  The elected leader of the free world should not do fucking horseshit like that, and it pains me to have to write that idea as if it's something that needs to be said or written and not just known from birth.  It's embarrassing to witness this, but that's what people wanted. 

Anyway, here's a very related thing I wrote about outrage fatigue. #politics

← olderpage 1 of 298