Someone once told me that these cock cage devices are more dangerous than they seem.
Some of these fetishists wear them for weeks or months so that they arent able to get a full erection for a long period of time. It's all fun and games until they finally take it off and realize it's not the same. It turns out if you don't use it, you lose it.
That sounds fairly urban legendy, though it can depend on the user and their anatomy, of course.
I know many people who've used or worked with these devices for years and that has not been the case for them.
That said, due to the types of cage mechanics, weight and makeup of different cage materials, etc, there is definitely the possibility of some physical issues, including some nerve issues. It usually just things like skin irritations and discomfort though.
These days, there are a LOT of knockoffs of the major brands (like the Holy Trainer series) that are made with seriously questionable materials that don't have temperature tolerance/reforming, are missing edge filleting, etc. So if you do decide to engage in this sort of play, do your homework, read reviews, talk to communities, and don't order some random cheap thing off AliExpress.
The penis also lacks muscles (which do atrophy with lack of use). The more reputable reports from long-term wearers suggest that the plumbing still works even with near constant wear, provided that care is taken to ejaculate once in a while (e.g., monthly).
Because the purpose of male chastity devices is to prevent erections and orgasms, long-term wearers (who are a minority compared to the amount of folk who use such as device as a form of (prolonged) foreplay or as part of an erotic roleplaying scenario) may achieve such an ejaculation by means of a prostate massage (i.e., 'milking' him). The health goal here is mainly to keep the prostate healthy though.
Chafing, pinching, skin irritations; those are common health related issues though.
> and don't order some random cheap thing off AliExpress.
Or do, just to explore the different models cheaply, but treat them as novelty items. And yes, do read up on reviews, or ask in online communities. This is, quite emphatically, not a one-size-fits-all item.
I would think the kind of people who go on a website like HN think this is awesome as well. I know not all the audience of HN is necessarily software / hardware engineers, but definitely there's enough of them on here go drive interest.
Or an absolute mentalist. I’ve used breadboards for 30 years and almost always spent more time debugging problems with the board than the circuits. Solder FTW.
IMHO, breadboards should come with warnings, to the effect of:
* Keep this thing pristine. Dust, corrosion, liquid, or any other indignity will invisibly poison the breadboard and take its toll on your sanity later.
* Use only DIP legs and 22-24 gauge wire. Shoving a TO220 into these spring clips will spread them and take its toll on your sanity later.
* Decouple, decouple, decouple. The distributed inductance of a breadboard is nontrivial and if you're not putting a nanofarad next to every logic chip, you will summon ghosts.
* Buying cheap breadboards with subpar contact plating will yield exactly the sort of performance you'd imagine. Breadboards are supposed to be an EASY way to build circuits, not a CHEAP way. You get what you pay for.
With all these things in mind, they're quite good at what they do.
Something I've learned is that modern CMOS logic is a lot more forgiving than TTL for breadboarding, thanks to low power consumption and push pull outputs. So if you're thinking of b'boarding a classic circuit like a minicomputer, allow yourself one concession to modernity, namely using something like 74HC logic instead of 74LS.
Solder can be awfully darn quick. More and more these days my "breadboarding" is between modules such as e.g., a microcontroller development board and one or more breakout boards. If I can't find a breakout board for a particular component, I'll make one using a proto board. So the actual quantity of wiring has gone down. I don't do things like wiring an entire address/data bus.
Several things can cause paranoid delusions that aren’t schizophrenia/schizoaffective disorder, including even sufficiently sustained sleep deprivation.
Let’s not try to diagnose anyone here and just get them pointed in the right direction for answers.
It's possible to have URLs that are not equal as strings but resolve to the same thing so this actually makes perfect sense. If you really want to test if URLs are equal as strings, I'm sure you could still do it that way.
Not only is it possible to have two hostnames that resolve to the same IP address, hostname -> IP address is not unique either:
$ dig amazon.com
...
;; ANSWER SECTION:
amazon.com. 60 IN A 205.251.242.103
amazon.com. 60 IN A 176.32.103.205
amazon.com. 60 IN A 176.32.98.166
Something resolving "amazon.com" is welcome to resolve it to any of those three addresses. Code that tries to "resolve" these IPs is at the very least coming perilously close to deciding that amazon.com != amazon.com, nondeterministically, if the underlying resolution call changes its behavior.
The further obvious change of trying to compare the whole record just gets worse; what is the answer if domain 1 resolves to IPs (V, X, Y) and domain 2 resolves to (X, Y, Z)?
Oh, and let's not forget, DNS can be different depending on your geographical location, so in the US two domains may happen to resolve to the same IP but in Europe they may be different. What's the use of a URL equality operator that changes behavior based on where the user is? Whatever the use of such a thing may be (I mean, yeah, I get the internet contrarian impulse, yeah, I can construct some bizarre situation in which it is useful), it is certainly less useful than a simpler operator.
Basically, the entire idea is just fundamentally flawed and shouldn't be used. I make no claim to have exhaustively enumerated all the ways in which this is a bad idea, merely added to the pile, and demonstrated sufficient evidence for my claim that it shouldn't be used.
Edit: They know, see yzmtf2008: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21766138 and consider my post here a lightly educational post on further reasons why it's a bad idea. If you only take one thing away, remember, a function that takes a hostname and yields an IP doesn't have very many useful properties beyond just that it yields an IP or failure. You can count on very little else about that IP. It should be treated as opaque and not compared, stored (other than logging), etc.
Unlike virtual hosting, which wasn't possible when java.net.URL was written, this kind of DNS behavior had been around for years: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1794
> It's possible to have URLs that are not equal as strings but resolve to the same thing so this actually makes perfect sense.
No, that doesn't make "perfect sense." Two different URLs are different, they cannot be equal if they're different, and a library called "URL" shouldn't use voodoo-magic to say that two different URLs are equal when they're not.
If it was e.g. Net.DNS.Equal(Uri, Uri), perhaps. But even then it is ambiguous as DNS has multiple record types, not just "A" records. So is it pulling all records (A, AAAA, MX, etc) and comparing them all? Or just arbitrary comparing one?
But as it stands, it is a URL library that is ignoring the URL part of the URL and using resolution to decide equality instead. It is nonsensical. And even if they did resolve identically they may not be treated identically by routing or endpoints.
Some of these fetishists wear them for weeks or months so that they arent able to get a full erection for a long period of time. It's all fun and games until they finally take it off and realize it's not the same. It turns out if you don't use it, you lose it.