Explain hipters

Hipsters are people who take on affectations because they want to feel connected to some idea of "authenticity." Which is total fake because you see them driving around in their beat up cars, drinking their PBR, and you know there's nothing "genuine" about that at all.

It's this culture of nostalgia, but it's all nostalgia for stuff they had nothing to do with. Like, I'm so sick of hearing guys playing country music ironically. It's annoying because you and I actually like country music. For that matter, Igenuinely like PBR. It's not to look cool, it's just what we like.

And American Apparel - OK, I refused to wear Am Appy for a long time because it was such a big trend. But you know what? The clothes look good, they fit me really well, and they make me feel good about myself. It's fashionable. I think they've been around long enough that it doesn't have to be such a big deal anymore. And they're really well-made.

Honestly, I'd love to get all my stuff from Goodwill, like you do, but I just don't have the energy, you know? But it's so much cheaper, and I love how all your clothes have that worn look. That shirt looks like something Magnum, PI, would have worn. See, that's the difference between us and actual hipsters - they'd probably be like "oh that's hilarious," but I just think it's cool to look like that. I mean, what's wrong with being fashionable? It's retro.

It's funny, because there's such a fine line - everything I like would make me a hipster, but it's the way I like it that makes me different. I don't, like, have a collection of disco singles because I think it looks cool, I have a collection of disco singles because I got really into disco when I was living in Chicago. I'm so sick of people calling me a hipster just because of the music I like, or, like, becuase I'm wearing a Patsy Cline shirt. What am I supposed to do, avoid wearing this shirt I think is cool because I'm worried someone will call me a hipster?

I think it's all a class-based thing. I read this philosopher, or I mean, I read an article about him in the New Yorker - Pierre Bourdieu. He says people hate hipsters because "hipsters" are usually the people with the social and financial flexibility to be fashionable without the social consequences other people would have. Or something like that. Like, I can imagine that people resent it when they see someone with $200 sunglasses who can afford to go around with a big handlebar mustache and a sleeveless shirt - it's like by pretending to be a working man, or something, this guy is making it obvious that he's a rich kid who doesn't have to worry about getting fired from a job for looking like an idiot.

I know I probably wouldn't have my beard if I didn't work from home, but at least I work. I mean, and that's why I hate those hipster guys in Echo Park so much. The fact that they're playing music at 5 in the morning just reminds me that they have enough money to get by without having a job. I wish I could be that lucky.

Anyway, I'm tired. Let's go to the park and take that awesome vintage Scrabble set we got at that random yard sale on Larchmont. I love that the pieces are from, like, two different sets.

from reddit.com

5:10 AM | 0 comments | Read More

How did the Joker those scars

There was laughter. A young man stood in front of the mirror and cackled, watching his tangled locks and the splatters of blood vibrate on his face as he did. In his hand, a straight razor still feeding a crimson pool on the tile floor one drop at a time. Behind him, laying in the hallway, were the husband and wife that helped raise him, the same pair that left him to the madmen at Arkham for his formative years.

They had struggled. The walls were lined with holes, with objects they attempted to use as weapons to defend themselves, with blood. A cracked container of detergent had spilled its powdery white contents sprayed along the walls, the floors, and the man laughing maniacally at his own handiwork.

Mad, they called him. Dangerous, even. He wasn't crazy, he often reassured himself. He was simply, unburdened. Unburdened by the pressures of childhood. By the savagery of his fellow man. By the ill-defined distinction between society's notions of right and wrong. This was not a crime scene; it was a beginning. It wasn't death, but birth.

Those, things, decaying on the floor weren't people. People don't abandon their child. People don't sell their progeny to the insane. They weren't victims, they were obstacles. Obstacles that were now behind him.

As his laugh echoed through the lifeless house, he came to a realization. He was happy. It was joy. Pure joy. But that face. That thing staring back at him wasn't happy. The white powdered complexion and the red smears looking like lipstick on a clown weren't enough.

"Smile!" he ordered the image, bearing a twisted grin. It wasn't enough.

"I said, SMILE!" he repeated the grin, eyes wide in a mix of rage and ecstasy. His arm raised the blade to his mouth and in a swift motion extended it on the left side. The smile never faded.

"Not. Good. Enough." The words were muffled as a stream of blood poured freely from the extended mouth.

Another swipe, this time to the right.

The laughing stopped and the smile vanished, the blood kept flowing. The man just stared at the mirror, studying his new face.

"Why so serious?"

And then he broke out in an uncontrollable cackle again, collapsing onto the floor. Pleased for the second time that day.

reddit.com

3:27 AM | 0 comments | Read More

Depression described

Depression is like waking up to a gray overcast sky everyday of your life. It's like being cold, and not being able to get warm. Smiling and laughter, joy and happiness, are things you've felt, on mute. Like turning the volume down on life. So if it were a quote about that, I envy his ability to over come.

2:40 PM | 0 comments | Read More

US Military History: I made it back alive, but I've been shot in the thigh. What sort of medical attention do I receive and what are my chances for survival in 1862, 1917, 1944, 1968, and 1991?

1862: Simple wound would receive morphine and bandages. If the bullet was still in the wound (not unlikely, because it would have been a relatively low-speed minie ball) the surgeon might well elect not to remove it. Eventually the wound would heal around it and you would recover, unless infection set in. This was the major worry for any wound. The medical care you received would be in a hospital, with trained doctors, and was quite well organized, although the North was better supplied than the South. A lot of attention was given to ensuring the wounded were well fed and comfortable. Your chances of survival were pretty good. Complex wound: Odds are you would not leave the battlefield alive. There was little concept of battlefield medics. Stretcher bearers simply loaded the wounded onto stretchers and tossed them onto wagons to be taken a mile or so to the nearest aid station. However, some men with amazingly severe wounds managed to recover. Medal of Honor winner Joshua Chamberlain, for example, was wounded six times, including being shot through the hip and groin. So, a complex wound of the thigh would almost certainly be treated with an amputation and "hope for the best". The mortality rate would have been high, although it's difficult to pin down an exact percentage.

1917: Simple wound: Not much different than the Civil War. Blood loss, however, could be treated with a transfusion, as blood typing had been discovered. Also, the replacement of fluids by means of an IV infusion, or even subcutanous and intraosseous (into the bone) was not uncommon. Survival/recover chances would increase as a result of this, but not by a huge margin. Infection was still the major issue. Complex wound: The advent of more modern surgical techniques, along with the above mentioned blood transfusion therapy, meant that surgeons were able to undertake more complex repairs. Anesthesia had progressed somewhat, although even during the Civil War, chloroform anesthesia was used. Along with better battlefield care (medics trained to apply tournequets, motorized ambulances), this meant that your chances of survival had doubled or even tripled, and the chances of saving the leg were significantly greater also. One disadvantage compared to the Civil War is that the bullets were either .30-06 or 8mm Mauser. Velocities were much higher with smokeless gunpowder, and thus the energy delivered and the damage were greater. Infection was still a serious threat, and once it set in there was little they could do. What was an improvement was that sterile technique and antiseptics had been invented, reducing the chance of infecting a wound by treating it surgically.

1944: Simple wound: Morphine and a bandage and some sulpha powder. You had a very high chance of survival and complete recover. Complex wound: Your chances of making it off the battlefield increase dramatically. The medics would be able to apply a tournequet, administer morphine, and start an IV for treatment of shock due to blood loss. Modern medicine was coming into its own, and the first antibiotics were available. Your chances of survival were probably a good 5 times better than during WWI. There are exact numbers for survival rates in the literature, but since they don't generally refer to specific wounds, I'm giving an educated guesstimate on that. Amputation would still be a risk, but less so as surgical techniques had improved considerably. The bullets and wounds were virtually unchanged since WWI.

1968: Simple wound: Morphine and a bandage and a shot of penicillian. Your chances of survival/recovery were slightly increased over WW2, mainly due to better antibiotics. Complex wound: Your chances of survival were better, but mainly due to the advent of helicopter evacuation and improved surgical care. Your chances of a full recovery and use of the leg were much better, due to the improvements in orthopedic and vascular surgery. Amputation would be unlikely, and probably only as a last resort.

1991: Simple wound: Morphine, bandage, and a potent broad-spectrum cephalosporin antibiotic.
Complex wound: Very unlikely that you would die from the wound. Modern medicine has progressed to the point that if you don't die in the first few minutes, your chances of survival are staggeringly high. Microsurgical vascular repair, orthopedic fixation, and an extremely well-developed medical evacuation system that can have wounded soldiers in an advanced hospital in under 24 hours means that only the most massive injurties (like a .50 caliber or 20mm round destroying the whole thigh) will result in amputation or serious disability. However, the bullets fired in warfare have changed somewhat. Although chances are good you were hit by a 7.62mm AK round, the advent of 5.56 and 5.45mm rounds means that wounds are somewhat different. In some cases, the wound will be smaller, but in some, the bullet will tumble and actually be much worse than a WWI era .30-06 round.

from reddit.com

2:39 PM | 0 comments | Read More

She's a weight winner

I started off strong. I started eating healthy, cutting out sugars, and exercising near the end of January and I managed to drop 18 lbs from 230lbs between late Jan-mid March. Since then I've seen nothing and it has made me a little down.

This morning while getting dressed, I found a bracelet that I was given about 2 years ago by my sister that I was never able to wear because I couldn't clasp it around my wrist because it was too tight :( I put it on today and it fit! It just made me feel really good. A small win :) I texted my sister and she said "Keep it on as a reminder of all the beautiful things you'll fit into and beautiful feelings that will come as you keep getting even more healthy!" So that is exactly what I am going to do :D

I wanted to share because sometimes you can feel so down and feel like nothing is happening or it isn't happening fast enough and it can take something, no matter how incredibly small, to remind you to keep going. Doesn't hurt to have an amazing support system either ;-)

from reddit.com

2:32 PM | 0 comments | Read More

What will be the role of debt in the next hundred years? Will indentured servitude return? What do you think will happen to the inequitable distribution of wealth? Are we looking at a more equal and opportunistic future or an even worse one?

1. In the future technology will give more power to the individual and give them options as to whether they want to take the conventional route and go into debt. Institutions like education are increasingly becoming more open source. (Take coursea.org ) Whether or not this could lead to people getting entire degrees online without much debt would have to seen, but i'm optimistic.
2. Rich people will always want to keep their money. The cool thing is that technology is raising the floor to allow average people access to more and more essentials. Until some sort of movement to change the structure of society, there will remain a skewed distribution of wealth, but the poor of tomorrow will be a lot better off then the poor of today.
3. Tough question, don't know enough to give an opinion, but automation will definitely leave a growing amount of people unemployed.
4. Possibly, but then again why would they need the labor when they could just have a robot do it?
5. Again, why have people work off their debt when they are less efficient and more expensive then the automated robots?

12:58 PM | 0 comments | Read More

Aubrey de Grey foresees the first immortals

In this metaphor, your distance above the ground represents your health, and the speed that you are moving up or down represents your decreasing or increasing health. When you "hit the ground", you die. If you are falling down, then your remaining lifespan is decreasing (the normal state of affairs). If you are rising upward, then your remaining lifespan is increasing.

If you think about aging like I've described, then you can imagine that when we are born we are in "mid air" - far above the ground. At that time, our health is not deteriorating very quickly, but our remaining lifespan is not increasing either. We are born suspended in mid air, so to speak.

However, the force of gravity/aging immediately begin to pull us downward with a constant force. Over time, this force accelerates us into a faster and faster velocity towards the ground/death.

When we are 10 years old, we are moving down towards the ground, but very slowly. When we are 30, we are moving downward faster. When we are 60, we are moving quite fast. When we are 80, we are moving so fast that there may be no way to reverse our "fall".

Now, let's imagine "anti-aging" treatments as UPWARD forces, counter-acting gravity/aging. Early aging treatments will pull upwards with a force that is less than gravity: they will slow aging, but not reverse it, so we will continue to "fall".

One day, hopefully, an aging treatment will be invented which will be MORE powerful than gravity/aging. Maybe it will pull "upward" towards longevity with 150% the force of gravity/aging! Unfortunately, this won't be enough to save everyone. The lines on the graph are labeled with numbers. Each line traces the hypothetical trajectory of a person who is of a certain age when the treatment becomes available. Each line is labelled with that age.

If someone is 80 years old, they are exposed to the same gravity as a young person, but over their life they have built up a lot of downward "momentum" - they are moving downwards very fast. Even with the upwards pull of the longevity treatments, they may not be able to "pull up" in time, and they will die. (See the lines on the graph marked 80, and 100)

However, younger people may be able to pull out of their dive, and begin to ADD time to their lifespan - not merely slow the reduction of lifespan. (See the lines on the graph marked 30, and 50)

If someone is born after this treatment is invented, then they will never loose lifespan. Their life span will increase instead of decrease, so that even if they are cut off from the treatment at some point, they may have 200 years of "natural" lifespan ahead of them. (See the line labelled 0 on the graph)

Does that make sense?

(By the way: keep in mind that this is just a metaphor. We don't yet know if it is actually valid, and it makes a lot of assumptions. For example: it assumes that the force of aging is approximately constant - that it doesn't increase exponentially as we age. Plus, we don't know if treating aging like a "velocity" is even valid in the first place. It may be simply to complicated for such naive models. Time will tell...)

from reddit.

12:56 PM | 0 comments | Read More