Parents vs. meathead dudes in cars.

The political power of parents should easily be able to outmuscle these guys.

Another thing urban parents should lobby for is stripping the worse 1 percent of drivers of their licenses/cars. These are the ones most likely to kill children.

— Angie Schmitt 🚶‍♀️🚴‍♀️ 🚌 (@schmangee) September 9, 2019

Surely I’ve not the only one who has seen this, but some of the most aggressive and hostile drivers of all are women. And I don’t mean a small minority, either. The last SUV that attempted to run me off the road was piloted by a 30ish-year-old woman. The last few people who I have observed driving really aggressively and dangerously were women. The most absurdly pugnacious passing maneuver I’ve ever seen executed on a public road was done by a woman (almost resulting in two head-on accidents). Sure, overall they are safer drivers but by no means is it a large majority of men doing this.

Sometimes they have kids in the car, too.

This is at least partly because “SUV driving ‘masculinizes’ risk behavior in females: a public health challenge.”

This thread is great.

Genius tier:
1.) Buy CAT6 patch cables
2.) All desktops connect through 100mbit phones with ethernet hubs

— SwiftOnSecurity (@SwiftOnSecurity) February 1, 2018

When you’re in networking training classes they tell you that patch (networking) cables either work or they don’t, that there is no in-between.

THIS IS A LIE.

Patch cables can degrade in all sorts of ways that aren’t complete failures, and I think I’ve seen just about every one in nearly twenty years of professional IT work. If you think there is a software problem, or a routing problem, or see some persistent issue that no amount of twiddling settings or changing parts out seems to correct, even if you have a tested fine “working” cable, change that out and a lot of the time that’ll resolve it.

So to juniors I seem like a magician sometimes when they ask, “Why are you changing the cable out? We know it works!”

And I’ll say, “Do we?” And slap the cable in and all starts functioning again.

Good grief, let’s start with the first claim: housing costs over 50% of income

To the Census Bureau!

Median Household Income: $57,652
Median Monthly Mortgage: $1,515 ($18,180 annual)
Housing cost as % of income: 31.5%

This takes 5 minutes to figure out: https://t.co/q0N35gZzjL https://t.co/S5BQLnIjVG

— Jeremy Horpedahl 🍍🍞 (@jmhorp) September 6, 2019

Let’s start with something not written by a total assclown fuckwit.

According to Harvard data, as of 2013 11.2 million households paid more than 50% of their income to cover rent.

Just as I’ve noted before, anywhere that you are likely to be able to get a decent job rent is very high. Economists like to take the nationwide data and smear it all together and claim that the problem doesn’t exist. Never mind that in rural areas and even in many medium-size cities, there are no real jobs to be had. What use renting an apartment in Cornstalk, Kansas, if there are no jobs there? Rent’s cheap, though!

But let’s look at a place that’s not even that expensive, like Jacksonville, Florida:

Even there, 27% of renters are forking over more than 50% of their income on rent/utilities (which is fair to add to rent because if you rent a place you must have utilities).

I hate that utter dipshit dumbasses like Kevin Drum and Jeremy Horpedahl are able to dominate the discourse when the data directly contracts their Pollyannish and absurd views.

Also, I am glad I am not in academia I can call a fucking dumbass a fucking dumbass. And Jeremy Horpedahl is in fact a huge fucking dumbass.

If we had started twenty years ago, and if the left weren’t largely against nuclear power, we’d have much fewer issues preventing and adapting to climate change, and all without the left’s joyful litany of all the things they will be forced to take away.

This mostly isn’t the left’s fault, mind you. It’s the right’s and fossil fuel companies for spending so long denying and fighting against doing anything at all about climate change.

What is the left’s fault, though, is their ecstasy and passion for seizing anything that makes life worth living. They want your meat, your air conditioning, your home — next they will probably come for your refrigerator and your washing machine. In fact, I almost guarantee it. Why would they not? Their goal is to have us all live like 13th Century peasants, after all.

We actually have to give very little of that up — or we wouldn’t have to, anyway, if the left as mentioned weren’t so dead-set against the best methods of handling the problem. And if they didn’t think any effort at population control were ab initio eugenics most evil, but that’s a whole different topic altogether.

The left and the right are the Dumb and Dumber of the climate change crisis, and I have no sympathy and want no ties with either side. Both have no minds capable of dealing with any possibly or likely future.

Overheard a friend describing being a straight woman on dating apps: “It’s like Linkedin: the inbounds r always worse on average than outbounds. The guys you message are your dream job and the guys messaging you have an exciting 6-mo java contracting opportunity in Akron, Ohio.”

— Leigh Honeywell (@hypatiadotca) September 4, 2019

And the funny thing is from this description, the friend seems to have no idea that she’s reproducing exactly the same behavior that she’s experiencing and decrying.

That’s easy to explain, and I don’t blame her; men are guilty, too. People absolutely have to be hypocrites about dating, what they really want, and their own minds in reference to this, or it’d all fall apart. And then they have to deny their hypocrisy and play-act being extremely offended if you point out that they are in fact acting hypocritically.

Women are absolutely as guilty of this as men, but just like men they don’t see it — because they only observe and care about the hypocrisy of (usually) men and have no idea how they must and in fact do betray themselves and their own ethics.

It’s a consequence of being apes barely up from the savannah in a world we’re not constructed for, and it’s probably unavoidable.

Nearly every day since I read it many years ago, I think of the Borges story “Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote.” I think about how Menard’s version of Quixote would be a radically different book despite containing all the same words. I ponder, as Borges was, what this means for meaning and its continuity.

We can project so much into the future but the future’s past also reaches back to us with a touch we can’t feel but is just as real as this moment. I think Borges might have been then and still now the only person alive to understand what modernity really meant, and what a break with the past it in fact was.