Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 12:44 am

So, I saw a post on tumblr today saying that Americans refusing to take in Syrian refugees parallels similar sentiment in the 30s because there was a minority Jewish identifying political movement at the time which sought the overthrow of the US which Americans thought may try to enter America with refugees.

Veracity? Also, what was that movement? I can't remember the name (pretty sure it's not the Bolsheviks, which is what my mind is trying to tell me)

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 8:46 pm

Um, yes? Of course it was Bolshevism. This was an elementary Nazi canard; dudes were all about conflating Jews and communists. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was fabricated in Russia at the turn of the century as evidence for allegations that Jews were preparing a cryptofinancial conspiracy to take over the world; by 1920, the country was under new management by economically high-minded revolutionaries, a Jew was in charge of their army, and the Third International was holding conferences with the explicit purpose of building a world-wide revolutionary front. If you're a fucking moron, then that's about the time you start jeering and yelling "told you so!" Naturally, fascists near and abroad were pissing themselves in excitement.

Most people leaning on the "but what about that time with the Jews???" rhetoric with respects to the Syrians, though, would be referencing events like the voyage of the MS St. Louis, which happened in the late 30's, and thus deep enough into wartime footing that Jewish refugees could be turned away under the suspicions that they might have been blackmailed into performing espionage for the Nazis they were fleeing. It's more symmetrical with current events.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Nov 20, 2015 10:17 pm

Ah, ok, thanks.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Sat Nov 21, 2015 2:23 am

ok so . . did they change something in youtube.com or chrome again?
because i can not get my subscriptions uploaded videos all marked as watched anymore . .
some days ago, it was just go to the page, hit refresh, done . .
anybody know anything about that?

Hadanelith · Post by **Hadanelith** » Sat Nov 21, 2015 10:29 am

yeah, Youtube just fiddled with their Subscriptions page. Again. Broke my Greasemonkey scripting something fierce.

Stahlseele · Post by **Stahlseele** » Sat Nov 21, 2015 11:51 am

ok, so at least it is not me being stupid this time <.<

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Mon Nov 23, 2015 10:09 pm

Ok, so this is a weird, long shot of a question, but does anyone have one of those Matrix Reloaded phones lying around?

I looked into upgrading the minutes of my mobile plan, but pretty much any plan that would keep me close to my (absurdly low) cost involves giving me more minutes but less data. Given that I primarily use my phone for data and texting, that's a no go.

So what I'm looking at doing is just getting a basic cellphone with a minutes only plan, preferably Ting so that if I don't use it, I only pay $6 for having a device on their network, and if I do use it, I pay another $3 for the extra 100 minutes, and I'm not likely to need to pay more. Since all I want is basically a squirrel cache of calling ability, the fact that the Samsung SPH N270 has virtually no features really doesn't matter, I'm just looking for a suitably nerdy way to increase my calling ability for as little as possible.

So if anyone's got one of these and wants to get rid of it, I'd be willing to throw some money at you.

Omegonthesane · Post by **Omegonthesane** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 7:04 am

This is part of why I've only ever done SIM-only deals and bought the handset up front separately.

So, can't get you that phone specifically and while I have a old phone lying around it's currently serving as my alarm clock...

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Tue Nov 24, 2015 9:08 am

Well, it's sort of a "it'd be nice..." and if I can't find that specific phone (or possibly it's media predecessor the Nokia 8110), then I'll just grab some random cheap phone.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 5:05 pm

Anyone happen to know if there's been any kind of study/analysis of threat escalation and how it correlates to different sorts of weapons? Like, gun equals high escalation, bat equals moderate escalation, sword equals low escalation (because they think you're crazy/an idiot)?

I know that arguing people should stick to swords for home defense is incredibly stupid, but if it can convince my paranoid, conservative, broke, ex-SCA parents to stick to the myriad of weapons they already own, rather than buying a gun, I will use any argument I can. Because the rational arguments haven't worked too well.

angelfromanotherpin · Post by **angelfromanotherpin** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 6:55 pm

The threat-escalation argument also sounds too rational to be effective. I'd try something along the lines of explaining how the many self-shootings that occur among gun owners are caused by the vengeful ghosts of the people who died in the production of those weapons.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:42 pm

Have you tried explaining to them that any weapon you actually know how to use and are familiar with will always be ten times more useful than one you took a two-hour course on (if that)? If they've done SCA stuff then they are legitimately going to be more dangerous with a sword, especially in a house where the starting range of a confrontation is likely to be no more than 25 feet with plenty of cover, than with a gun they only know how to use from skimming a manual and watching too many movies.

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 7:43 pm

If they're broke and sitting on a house full of hanzo steel, my bet is that you're not going to enjoy success in preventing them from making an unwise purchase of any variety. Also, probably, that their justification of self-defense is just hollow sanctimony. They will not be dissuaded from producing a firearm by the possibility that it could escalate the situation; in all likelyhood, they have a fantasy that it happens exactly like that, and that they will subsequently have the opportunity to actually slaughter a real person and get away with it.

If you want to run mitigation, compel them to buy a used shotgun instead of whatever other stupid shit they might wanna pack, and if you really feel like a lesson in futility, then try to convince them to also keep it secured in a gunsafe instead of under their fucking pillow.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Dec 04, 2015 8:00 pm

I gotta be honest. I'm pretty sure my mother has this image in her head of being the Poor White Christian Conservative Defying Evil Liberal Government Muslim Terrorists.

I am just disassociated from my parents enough that I find the actual likely outcome of such a fringe weird contradictory scenario slightly amusing.

tussock · Post by **tussock** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 5:43 am

"There's a liberal in office, wanting to take all our guns, so we have to get a gun so we can also not allow our guns to be taken like real patriots."

If they've equated not having a gun with being subservient to the wishes of a liberal black man, you're pretty much fucked. Because if you point out how stupid that is, your parents just going to assume you're "one of them subservient liberals".

It's brilliant advertising though. Worked last time, working this time, go the NRA. Doing their actual job and doing it really well. That's all I could offer, point out they're being duped and this is really a very old advertising technique of "buy now while stocks last!".

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 12:23 pm

tussock wrote:It's brilliant advertising though. Worked last time, working this time, go the NRA. Doing their actual job and doing it really well. That's all I could offer, point out they're being duped and this is really a very old advertising technique of "buy now while stocks last!".

That isn't the NRA's job. They are a corporate organization that allegedly represents the interests of gun owners, not gun manufacturers. The fact that they do otherwise is basically no more them doing their job than a board of directors having a company fuck it's shareholders to profit themselves.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 1:48 pm

So I accept I'm sounding gullible and stupid just by acknowledging it, but people can always hope: there was a thing on the Internet somewhere that sounded an awful lot like the usual fad diets of "monkey balls will improve your health in ten different ways", but for whisky. Is any of the following true?
-Whereas most alcoholic drinks cause fatness, straight whisky doesn't contribute to that
-It actually breaks down cholesterol in blood vessels, reducing chance of stroke/heart attack
-Something something memory something
-I can't remember the rest

Don't get me wrong, it sounds fishy. And to be honest, if you told me cucumbers had those benefits I'd just accept that I'll die young. But if there are actual health benefits to drinking expensive whisky, I am okay with having a healthy lifestyle.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 2:02 pm

All studies which purport to show health benefits from specific types of alcohol or chemicals contained in specific alcoholic beverages are probably bullshit. The truth is that moderate alcohol consumption is good for you and heavy alcohol consumption is very bad for you. The end.

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 3:06 pm

I really had the feeling that was the case. Because these exact things have been rolled out for chillis, kale, lemongrass, obsidian butt-plugs, dark chocolate, and the hearts of baby puffins.

But I just wanted to check, based on the faint hope. Still, full disclosure with the 40k review: for the sake of my liver I've only been drinking water, tea and soft drink. So my body could in fact handle a small whisky every day or two in addition to the no alcohol I currently consume.

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 4:12 pm

Even the benefits of moderate alcohol are so small and fuck off minor that the risk reward ratio is probably still in favor of just not drinking, because very few people who start drinking just a little but have lots of alcohol around stick to drinking just a little.

I say while getting plastered on a saturday morning.

Eikre · Post by **Eikre** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:13 pm

Whiskey won't contribute to weight gain like beer does, but only because it doesn't have the high ratio of calories:intoxicants that beer does. The same could be said for every other liquor. Wine, too, to a lesser degree.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:29 pm

Kaelik wrote:Even the benefits of moderate alcohol are so small and fuck off minor that the risk reward ratio is probably still in favor of just not drinking, because very few people who start drinking just a little but have lots of alcohol around stick to drinking just a little.

I say while getting plastered on a saturday morning.

This actually isn't true. Countries with a culturally pervasive moderate alcohol consumption have noticeable health benefits over countries where alcohol consumption is very low (even accounting for the fact that the countries with the lowest alcohol consumption rates are also violent hellholes with no medical infrastructure). Alcoholics exist, and they need to stay away from booze altogether. But most people can just have bottles of hard liquor around the house and drink them slowly.

-Username17

Kaelik · Post by **Kaelik** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 7:58 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:This actually isn't true. Countries with a culturally pervasive moderate alcohol consumption have noticeable health benefits over countries where alcohol consumption is very low (even accounting for the fact that the countries with the lowest alcohol consumption rates are also violent hellholes with no medical infrastructure). Alcoholics exist, and they need to stay away from booze altogether. But most people can just have bottles of hard liquor around the house and drink them slowly.

-Username17

And yet, there are no good randomized trials that show moderate alcohol consumption improves health, and a whole fuckton of good reasons to think that observational studies of countries and peoples who already have moderate alcohol consumption showing better health are correlation not causation, since those same methods have resulted in observation studies showing that mediterranean and east asian diets are superior to others.

Maybe it's just that moderate drinking is correlated with youth, affluence, and healthy habits as compared with heavy drinking rather than a cause of good health.

I'll wait for randomized trials with good methodology before I sign on, instead of relying on the fact that hey, French people are healthier than fat americans and poor russians.

Ancient History · Post by **Ancient History** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 8:01 pm

http://www.beeroftomorrow.com/calories-in-craft-beer/

DrPraetor · Post by **DrPraetor** » Sat Dec 12, 2015 9:17 pm

FrankTrollman wrote:All studies which purport to show health benefits from specific types of alcohol or chemicals contained in specific alcoholic beverages are probably bullshit. The truth is that moderate alcohol consumption is good for you and heavy alcohol consumption is very bad for you. The end.

-Username17

As a part-time epidemiologist, the evidence for this is not entirely persuasive. That is, we haven't done an experiment where we randomize large, diverse groups of people to either one Harp or one O'Douls every single day, no other ethanol, and see what happens.

It may yet turn out that being the sort of person who consumes moderate amounts of alcohol is good for you, rather than the alcohol itself. This is a very difficult trait for which to adjust - suppose that Bill and Timmy are the same age, socio-economic status, education level and BMI, but when Bill and Timmy meet at Champagne & Champions after work, Bill drinks two pints of Bass, while Timmy has three miller lights, two shots of Jack and a shot of Jager. Would you impute that Bill and Timmy are well-matched on all the variables (marriage, children, physical activity, stress in the workplace, how often they brush their teeth...) you didn't measure? Is Greg the tee-totaler, who doesn't even go to the bar, matched to EITHER Bill or Timmy?

To make the obvious case, Bill has the freedom and leisure to go watch the game, but the sense not to overindulge.

That said, unless and until someone can get it together to do such a large, randomized trial (inclusive of adherence measurements), the best bet is that the benefits of small-dose alcohol - plausibly a mix of diuretic, effects on sleep and anxiety, and anticoagulant effects - are real and substantial.

UNLESS you are a woman with a BRCA mutation or family history of breast or ovarian cancer in which case you have to worry about breast cancer from even low-dose ethanol. But even then, the cost/benefit is uncertain and you might still be better off, overall, with one alcoholic drink per day.