> It is, however, hard to find these sorts of razors. If you go into a shop to buy a razor, you will almost certainly not be able to buy one - but you will be faced with a wide range of very similar cartridge razors. The double edged razor has become a product that you can only buy on the internet, and which you will only buy if you know that it exists.
So... I did buy mine off amazon; but that was mostly due to living in the rural areas where there wasn't much for shopping choices to begin with. With that in mind, consider this.
I was still able to find double edged stuff at the local store now and then too, but it was generally a Christmas gift item, and stuff like that. Or tucked away in the top corner of the bathroom section, where only the old fella from the early 1900's might be interested in looking for some Dapper Dan or something like that.
I can even find them in some stores like... I think it was Shopper drug mart?
But all in all, just going on amazon and typing "Double edge razor" or "Single blade razor" is generally enough to find what you are looking for and have in on hand in 3 days or less usually.
For context, I am in Canada. So this might be more of a thing for us here in Canada what with being able to find this stuff without having to go to a specialty store for it, like those fancy beard barber shops.
Which to a machine may as well be the same thing in either phrasing. You want something different from what you just listened to. To it, anything not 'that song' is different and 'new' potentially if also not 'just listened to' within a certain set amount of songs. Even without that certain set of songs being logged and considered; any picking of a different song from the last is verifiably random.
Think of it all like a deck of cards. Shuffle is apt in that sense. You don't expect to see double aces each time you pick through the shuffled deck of cards, but sometimes you do. Sometimes, you also find double jacks, queens and kings; in a row. Sometimes you don't. That deck could be shuffled by the worlds best trick shufflers. Still gonna get doubles now and then.
True Randomness is not really technically possible. At least, not with our current technologies available; and we have a lot of aces up our sleeves.
The best we can manage for randomness right now, is creating random strings of numbers to serve as the seed for new randomness. At least, if I understand correctly. If I do, then this is why cryptography is so damn important for us in the computational side of things. Network Security requires randomness.
If I understand you correctly, I think you missed my point. You're explaining how with true randomness, you get different stuff most of the time and the same stuff some of the time. That is true. But it's not what people want when they press shuffle. What people want is something _different_, and giving the same song twice is not something different. As another commenter wrote, giving multiple (different) songs after each other from the same album would even be undesirable, even if that could occur perfectly well with random shuffling.
You would expect a shuffled deck of 52 unique cards. Not a deck of three 5 of spades. Likewise with a playlist: if I shuffle a playlist of 52 songs, I want those 52 songs to be played in a random order. Not for a random song to be played each time but a random shuffle of that list.
> As for our initial idea to make an age-guessing game, we have guessed right 51% of the time. Pretty much what we had expected .
Yeah... you thought I was 60. Seems from the comments this is a common thing.
You might want to check your algorithms. But then again, you do say in the end of the results that you need more 60+ year olds to help make this more accurate.
Also, a bone to pick. You claim that people get less random as they get older over 25, with 25 being the peak. I would wonder if maybe that has some correlation with the brain finally fully developing from adolescents into true/full adulthood. (Remember folks, we do call people 'young adults' for a while in their 20's.)
Also, while you make that claim about people as they get older, I still managed to get a coin flip result that was 13% more random than others at my age group of 33. Or something like that. I forget how it was worded exactly off hand this moment without going and checking again in my history. My point here is this.
If randomness declines with age past 25, but my score at age 33 is 13% more random than others in the same age range; then is it truly declining for everyone equally or is it just some people more rapidly than others?
I think this maybe correlates potentially with the findings of the trend disappearing once the non-random data is removed. (The all heads/all tails results.)
Anyways. With all this said, I do agree you need some more participants above the age of 60. Have you considered using facebook at all?
Did we read the same article? They aren't claiming those things at all. Those are the claims of the original study, which are being disputed by this attempt at reproduction. The writers suspect those claims to be false due to the choice of the original study to not remove likely intentionally non-random data.
I believe the 13% stat you saw is that your score had a higher random score than than 13% of other participants, so not very random.
Hate to break it to you, but 50mg is pretty much a common dosage for most people taking Diphen. At least where I lived over the past few decades... This is mostly due to the effect of 'if 1 pill is almost enough to do the job, then 2 pills should be adequate'. You see this a lot with people who take Tylenol and/or Advil. Tylenol overdoses are more common because of the frequency of acetaminophens use in other medications in combination with people taking Tylenol not realizing they are doubling/tripling their doses.
So having people end up driving on 50mg+ doses of the dryl is not uncommon in places like Canada. Pair it with a dose or two of pseudoephidrine hydrochloride as well, and you basically have a breath easy cocktail that might put you to sleep, or might keep you awake all night.
Ironically, whilst having terrible hayfever... Not taking Antihistamines at all seems to have had the most profound effect on me between the gen 1 and 2 meds. If I didn't know any better, I would almost figure I was having some sort of rebound effect from taking them in the first place. Which is odd, because I have been diagnosed with having Allergic Sinusitis, which triggers an inflammatory asthma if not careful.
I used 1st gen stuff like Chlorpheniramine and Diphenhydramine to start. Tried some second gen stuff not too long ago, and it worked pretty well too; but not as well just not taking any? It's weird. Meanwhile if I have an actual allergy attack, I keep Benadryl around for just in case. Because again, not taking any of these seems to just leave me without any allergies now? Or as bad at least. But Benadryl seems to still have some effect, where as I need a couple days of taking the 2nd gen stuff to actually get any effect; if any at all.
All in all, I'm confused now as to which I should even take considering everything in how my reactions have been to it all. So I just don't take any unless things are real bad now. Which they usually aren't.
Maybe I outgrew my allergies? I doubt it, cause I still sneeze around cats and stuff. heh.
> 1. Why don't you have a pirate parrot as a logo? Sqwoooook
It is apt that this is the number 1 question; because it is a very important one. I want to know this too OP.
As per the rest of your comment to OP; I agree with your premise. It's a good question to ask. I remember when Reddit was still new and Digg was the place to be for some random news. And of course let's not forget the countless forums that still exist today even in some cases. Digg still runs; but it's... not the same anymore. And so your question is quite apt, because the reason why I joined up with Reddit long ago; was because it had everything I wanted from both Twitter and Digg. Sort of. It's closer today than it used to be, but even if the UI is better or anything like that; it doesn't matter if the users are toxic.
And thus I wish to bring my own question into this fray for OP as well.
3. What's to keep your community from devolving into the same toxicity of any other community thus far? It may be sort of a same question different pile; but I think this particular matter needs its own special consideration.
To put it simply. What's to keep your community from becoming the next political soap box? What's keeping it to discussion only in such matters, and not full on agitprop via internet communities?
P.S. "Mods/Admins" as an answer doesn't count, since I think we can all agree that they can be biased.
I'd hazard a guess that that is precisely why it's toxic to plants. It brings to mind things like Lead poisoning for us, because it takes the place of calcium in the body to horrific effect. And it just never really goes away. Meaning it doesn't really react with anything much, since that would reduce it over time. IIUC of course.
That said, I'm sure lead isn't the best example, since I am merely hazarding a guess right now.
For the Eucalyptus plant, sending the gold to the leaves is probably a good way to get the gold out of the way for more important nutrients to get where they need to go. Worst case scenario for the plant, it loses a few leaves. Which is something it already had to deal with before through Koala bears.
Don't listen to that blow hard. They clearly have never lived in a rural area before, or had a really bad experience in a rare situation.
Here's the truth of it for ya. Most of the technologically inclined people you are looking for in the rural areas tend to move to the cities; from the rural areas. Mostly due to the only thing that user was correct about. Opportunity.
But once they have the money to come back home, they do.
When I left my rural spot, we had people coming back to buy farms and build families. Solar panels, Starlink, etc.
Do yourself a favor and call the town offices of each place you are interested in. They can help you find out more about what they are looking to do in their respective areas, and maybe point you to some people in the same areas that might be good to talk to.
Yes, there will be religious people. But guess what? They exist in cities too. Yes there will be conservative people. But guess what? They exist in cities too.
And I can keep going on and on with that on rinse and repeat for literally anything that can be said about rural folk. Why?
Something else to consider, you want to be within 30 or so miles from a grocery store and a hospital. I would suggest looking for land outside a medium city.
"21 percent of rural hospitals nationwide are currently at high risk of imminent closure. It’s more than double that in states like Alabama, Mississippi, and Alaska, where upward of half of all rural hospitals are at high risk of closing. Overall, this adds up to about 430 hospitals in 43 states that collectively provide care for millions of Americans and employ more than 150,000 people."
Yes, but 4-40 acres gets a lot cheaper the further you go from the town. My point was as he was looking and pricing, make sure you are 30 minutes away from a grocery store or hospital. You can always grow a garden and hunt if you so desire, but if you break your leg or something, an hour is a long drive to get it fixed.
>Land outside a medium city is a suburb, not rural.
My brother lives there. There are 20-40k towns 30 min in almost every direction. One is college town called Lawrence, Kansas, which had quite a few startups when Iwent through last summer. Coffee shops full of 20's coding.
> Rural communities are often more religious, more conservative, lower income, lower educated, and have a lot less access to opportunity.
Hi there. I guess you are having a day of bad luck or something, cause you managed to get me to reply to you. heh.
I'm basically the walking oxymoron of your example. I was raised rurally, and am more educated than many city slicks. I'm not religious, or poor. Not rich, but not destitute. And as far as my political leanings go, I figure I'm above all of you, because the center was killed by extremists, so there is nothing left but to act better than the rest of you.
And guess what. I'm not alone. There are millions of us out there. You just have to find us among each rural location, heh.
So what I have to say to you here is this. What I am about to say obviously doesn't apply equally to everyone, but seeing as how you are generalizing, so will I.
City folk tend to be the most insufferable blow hards of egotistical proportions, that is often followed with a inability to understand their own shortcomings, because they are too focused on trying to be 'better than the bumpkins' that fucking feed them.
This single sentence from you shows much more of what kind of person you are, than anything else you wrote in front of me right now. It shows that you don't actually have any common decency for your fellow man or woman, because you are too focused on these things.
1. Not being religious. Clearly important to you because you started with it.
2. Being Left Wing, or at least center liberal. Again, importance is easy to see, since you include it right after religion.
3. Being rich, or at least not poor. Now, not knocking you on this, but your idea that people are lower income just because they live rurally is just... wrong. Think long and hard about it. Rural folk, tend to own property. That doesn't just fall in your lap unless you got it from family. This does happen often out in the rural areas because of farms and such; but that shouldn't be a knock against them, since the same happens for rich folk in cities too. Just not with farms, usually.
4. You clearly think of yourself as smarter than the rural bumpkin... but I have news for you. There are plenty of people who live rurally who are not just smarter than you, but literally better than YOU in every, single, way. But you'll never accept this, because it would mean that you would have to accept that someone you don't respect is actually better than you. Fact is, if you actually were as smart as you clearly think you are going by your huge comment thus far...
You would have never said any of this sentence, at all. You would have known better than to do something so blatantly arrogant and ignorant.
5. Less access to opportunity.
This is the ONE thing, I might actually agree with you on. At the end of the day, cities do have that pretty much monopolized. But you should reassess how you put the fact into a sentence, because there are still many opportunities available to the right people in rural areas. You, just might not be the right person. And no, it's not because they want some poor dumb religious stooge. It's because you would be too full of yourself to be wanted in those places to begin with.
Much of the condescension you have attributed to the post appears to not be present in it. Population statistics are not individual statistics. Perhaps he is wrong about the population statistics but your existence doesn't invalidate that.
Note how "Children are more often shorter than adults" is true despite the existence of Sophie Hollins of Southampton and Peter Dinklage the actor. That isn't an insult to children and it isn't arrogance on my part to say that I am likely taller than a child at my 183 cm. It's just that, absent other information, certain population measures are true about certain populations.
Anyway, I am curious as to whether rural counties vs urban counties exhibit the differences he's talking about. I'll go look at the census and Pew surveys and see what it brings up.
That rural areas are more conservative, less educated, poorer, and more religious on average, etc. is well known. I can provide the data if this is an earnest request, but I'm guessing you're already aware of these things, so I'm not sure what you're getting at here.
If someone is arguing against a generally well understood fact -- like, saying that North Korea is richer than the US -- it's on them to support it. They're not doing that here, because the facts aren't on their side.
I live in a rural area and grew up working a beef ranch in the Poconos, and all of these claims (less educated, lower income, more conservative, more religious) sound obviously true to me, but I looked up the data out of curiosity.
Here is the USDA Economic Research Service on rural vs. urban educational attainment and median income; rural areas indeed are less educated and lower income[1]. This Pew Research study shows that rural areas are more conservative than urban areas across a wide range of political issues[2]. Data on religion was slightly harder to find, but this Gallup poll shows rural areas in the US are more religious than urban areas[3]. If any of these results are surprising, I'd guess that you may not have much experience of urban areas as a comparison. To be clear, I still prefer living in a rural area, but I recognize that there are pros, cons, and individual differences.
I'm reading the commentor you're responding to as commenting on general social trends in rural areas they're familiar with (or merely hearing about) rather than judgments on any specific individual.
It's certainly possible that they're mischaracterizing the social state of affairs in any number of places, but general rural economic decline does seem to be a frequent form of political handwringing (including complaints from some people ostensibly representing rural voters who claim they're left out when it comes to policy). I would definitely love to hear about specific areas or general statistics that prove the general narrative wrong, though.
It's called a giant fucking lack of self awareness, with a good helping of societally instilled narcissism on the worst side of it all, and then add in imposter syndrome, self righteousness and gaslighting. The best side of it all basically is all of these things, but with a tight leash on things and sans the gaslighting. There might be better, but those people are probably off doing their own thing minding their own business; etc.
So... I did buy mine off amazon; but that was mostly due to living in the rural areas where there wasn't much for shopping choices to begin with. With that in mind, consider this.
I was still able to find double edged stuff at the local store now and then too, but it was generally a Christmas gift item, and stuff like that. Or tucked away in the top corner of the bathroom section, where only the old fella from the early 1900's might be interested in looking for some Dapper Dan or something like that.
I can even find them in some stores like... I think it was Shopper drug mart?
But all in all, just going on amazon and typing "Double edge razor" or "Single blade razor" is generally enough to find what you are looking for and have in on hand in 3 days or less usually.
For context, I am in Canada. So this might be more of a thing for us here in Canada what with being able to find this stuff without having to go to a specialty store for it, like those fancy beard barber shops.