southsamurai

Nah, fuck that shit.

Unless the dude is pounding them, it's no better or worse than caffeinated drinks.

No, no, they have big balls. Bouncing to the left and to the right.

Eh, there's some things that carry a stigma. Roaches are garbage dwellers, and it's hard to shake that, even if the ones used to make the "milk" are rigidly contained and fed.

People tend to think of insect foods as "free range", where someone just scoops a bunch up, even though that's far from the truth. Any of the insects used for human consumption can't be free range because they just don't stay that close together in the wild. You can't farm bugs the way you can chickens, letting them roam and taking what you need.

You have to farm them in containers, feeding them with something that's generally going to be at least as clean as chicken feed. Not necessarily because doing otherwise is gross, but because you can't risk losing your entire stock because you let a pathogen into them via bad food practices. And that's true even when you're farming the bugs as pet food of fish bait.

That being said, I'd pass on roach anything. I've smelled roaches that were being raised as pet food. No way am I putting that in my mouth. Even crickets smell better, and they tend to be funky. Strangely, mealworms smell less, but taste worse than crickets. But the smell of roaches is bad, not just strong the way crickets are. Well, bad to me at least, that's a subjective thing. Smell is usually a very big part of perceived taste, and nothing that bad smelling is going to taste good.

I mean, it's greentext, so you know the two rules.

That being said, mine and my sister were pretty horrible to each other as kids. Not in the same ways, but that's beside the point.

It wasn't until we were both not only older, but had lived apart for a long while that we could be friends rather than just doing the bare minimum you do for family.

Sometimes, it's about growing enough to let go of the bullshit, and that takes time

Well, the problem is that the kind of brace you'd want has to be shaped by hand right now.

3d printing will likely get there eventually, but turning out a chest/back brace that's not only effective but wearable is as much an art as anything else.

I'm not sure where someone without training would get started. Orthotists and prosthetists are specialists; orthotics is a master's program, and that's the kind of endeavor your desired brace is.

It's doable for sure; though whether it's practical to recreate the decades of research and experimentation that led to where orthotics is today is a different issue.

Iirc, you'd start with thermoplastics, I can't recall the ones that are used. But they're shaped by mold, taken from the patient directly, then adjusted during fittings so that there's no/less issues with long term use. And you can't just skip the kind of shaping needed. Afaik, nobody is printing orthotics yet. Casts, yes, though that's fairly new; but those are short term use, so don't require the same kind of fitting.

I've seen, and been present during fittings for, braces for scoliosis, which is going to be similar to the kind of orthotic you'd need.

If you decide to go the home brew route, you'd want to start with a plaster cast of your torso. Best way to go, so you can have a solid form to shape whatever material you go with.

TPU was a common material back when I was still a caregiver, though that has been over a decade ago now, so it may have been supplanted by other thermoplastics.

Carbon fiber was starting to be used back then, but it tends to be too rigid for applications like a torso piece. Maybe with enough foam in between you and the rigid parts, but at that point, why not just go with something less expensive, and more flexible? Iirc, CF was being used for things like leg and ankle orthotics where they'd be bearing weight and need the extra rigidity.

I know that there was CAD based modelling and fast prototyping being done for orthotics, but it was mainly useful in prosthetics, where they could make reproducible units that would then be customized.

Tbh, I would try finding an orthotist irl to meet with and brainstorm. Even if they can't/won't help you make your own gear, they'll likely still warn you off of really bad ideas.

That's at least in part because you say you have little interest in medical or anatomical study, and that's what you need if you want your end device to do the job you want. You just can't fine tune a torso brace without understanding the musculoskeletal system in that area, and what you'll need to avoid doing.

Like, the curvature of the spine. It may seem like you could just mold your body and make the brace conform to that. But, if the goal is to give support to part of your body, the brace has to apply pressure to your body applying it at the wrong place, or in the wrong way could make things worse. So if you don't have the time/interest/willingness to gain the level of understanding of anatomy to achieve that, you'll be better off consulting with someone that already has that knowledge. It's kinda like self surgery, there's only so much you can do blind without causing problems worse than what you're trying to fix.

The first one or the new one?

Haven't seen the new one.

The first one though? Fucking awesome.

The important thing to me is that, even if someone has no idea about the Joker as a character could watch the movie and see an incredibly well made movie. It's a great story, the acting is world class, the way it was shot brings depth and emotion to every scene, and the details of the writing are unusually good.

As an example of the last, the background characters, and people with only one line, they have similar ways of speaking, a distinct almost accent in the way the lines are arranged. It ends up feeling like everyone in the movie is from the same place. You know how you go to a city, and there's turns of phrase, word choices that show up, even when different parts of the city have their own accent? That's what I'm talking about. Even De Niro's distinct way of speaking shifts to feeling like his character is from the same city as the clowns.

But, as a joker movie, it's just as successful. It tells his origin story from a fresh perspective. It does so in a way that even as someone that's complained about comic based movies doing origin stories instead of just telling a good story with the character/s, I was riveted. I am absolutely fine with the movie being another origin story because it's just that damn good.

If that's the one you're asking about, watch it. Even if you end up not enjoying it as much as I did, you'll at least have seen a movie that's crafted the way a movie should be.

Hell no.

Fiction is just as, if not more, valuable as non fiction. Stimulation of the mind needs more than just facts. Non fiction is something you can pick up way easier via a documentary than by book, assuming similar degrees of adherence to fact. You can compact a biography into a few hours of watching that might take an entire day of reading, and get just as much information out of it.

Compacting fiction in the same way isn't always possible. Even fairly short books of fiction often suffer by being as short as a movie.

And that's ignoring any value judgement of the fiction. But it's true that not all fiction is equal in its ability to stimulate thought. I would argue that escapist, light fiction is just as valuable as something like Shakespeare or Hemingway, even though something like Beverly Cleary's Ramona books might not cause the reader to explore via thought in the same way or degree.

But if you want to place value judgements on fiction, there are definitely works of fiction that are much more useful in terms of stimulating thought and feeling than some random time-life grade history of the civil war. Hell, I'd argue that any piece of fiction is more valuable than badly written history or science. Badly executed non fiction serves to reduce accurate knowledge. Bad fiction just wastes the reader's time, it doesn't mislead them.

Well, I had been taught about Munich and Ribbentrop in public school, both during standard history classes (though they were only mentioned in passing during US history, as part of the background of what happened before the U.S. joined in)

The famine, I didn't hear about until maybe fifteen to twenty years ago. Can't pin it down exactly because of shit that was going on in my life at the time, but it was something I read about in one of the books on ww2 that covered events outside of Europe and the Pacific theater.

And I've seen many a debate about the degree to which Great Britain was responsible for it.

But, I'd have to say that none of them are exactly high on the list of what the average person remembers about the era. Most people I've even mentioned Molotov-Ribbentrop to had no idea what it is. They maybe remember hearing the words in school, but didn't pay enough attention to link them to anything. The Munich agreement is pretty much unfamiliar to anyone that didn't have an interest in ww2 beyond high school history. And the famine is outside of what most people that do have an interest care about. The only books I have on the subject of ww2 don't mention the famine at all.

Ww2 is far enough in the past now that most of us no longer know anyone that fought in the war. It's passed into the kind of history that's "dead". Even though we all, everywhere still live with the ripples in world events that started then, it might as well be aztec history as far as the typical person here in the US is concerned. Even my generation, that had grandparents that were alive during the war, or fought in the war, the interest is largely no greater than surface level.

And I'm not sure that the details like the two pacts really do matter now. They're not anything that affects us still, unlike a lot of of events of the war. IMO, the famine is more important since it was a much broader event. Depending on how you look at it, the famine shaped a lot of events for India as a whole in ways that neither agreement did for Europe.

My block list lags my browser

Tbh, if they don't have a damn cell device calling home, I'd jump on board myself

An aiel wrote this

Social navigation has no business in the American constitution, period.

You're talking about rebuilding the constitution from the ground up, and you're building prejudicial ideas into it. That's fail from the beginning