76 thoughts on “August 23, 2016: sled saved from fire”

        1. It was a manned ship. I've no doubt the same thing could happen even on a previously unmanned craft.

  3. Sold my townhome 8 days after putting it on the market. Straight cash, no inspection contingency, no buyer's closing costs, no appraisal, 10% down for earnest money. It's a relatively rich Chinese dude from California who wants to rent it out. We're closing in 8 days. Crazy.

    In the last sixty days we've sold my mother-in-law's home, bought a new home, moved in together, and sold our old home. What a whirlwind.

    3. A friend sold his house in BP to a rental company. His former neighbors weren't happy when the SWAT team was called on the tennants.

    4. Congrats – I'm sure it's a load off your shoulders.

      Last weekend my maternal grandmother moved out of the little bungalow she's lived in for 68 years. My little sister has been renting a farmhouse up on the bluffs outside of town, basically her dream house. But some changes in her personal life have made that house a lot to handle for a single mom with two little kids. Last night she called to ask my opinion about buying my grandmother's house in town or the farmhouse plus the five acres of land (her landlord would like to sell to her).

      We live in separate states and lead pretty different lives, but it was nice to have a conversation that reaffirms the sibling connection.

      1. I've had very similar conversations with a sister in a different (time zone) and I agree, it can be nice.

  4. I had thought the B League was set up for a draft, but now I see that it's set to an offline draft somehow. I can't access the league from work, but I'll try to get a draft time set shortly.

  5. An interesting read about parenting and letting kids be alone and judgy society that sort of thing.

    Way more interesting than the "accounting for lawyers" stuff I was reading earlier.

    1. I particularly like this bit:

      I think that developmental psychologists need to start talking about the costs of never allowing children to take a risk. People seem to make this calculation where they say: "Well, even though the chances of anything bad happening are small, there's no harm in keeping an eye on the kids." I think what developmental psychologists can say is: That's mistaken — there is real harm in keeping an eye on the kids, if you're keeping an eye on them every minute of every day.

    4. Related: the jalapeno learned how to pedal on his bike yesterday! The interesting thing to me is how it came about. He had a balance bike when he was younger and moved up to a "big kid" bike (an awesome pink and purple lowrider) last summer. No training wheels because he could already glide. Various grown-ups have offered to teach him to pedal, but he has always refused.

      Yesterday, he went to a park with my parents. He knew some other kids there, and they all took turns on the bike. Then . . . he disappeared. When my dad found him, he in another part of the park (at least a 5 minute walk away), riding in circles . . . and pedaling! He just wanted to figure it out on his own. To be sure, he did get reminded that he has to tell an adult if he wants to go somewhere on his own, but seeing the smile on his face last night when he showed me what he could do was amazing.

    5. I agree with the overall premise but I think it is hard to quote crime statistics in this area. If only 1/3 as many kids are outside, crime will go down. That doesn't necessarily mean it is safer.

      1. This is a legitimate critique, but they do mention that crime is down nationwide in non-child categories.
        It still doesn't reverse the driving your kid is more dangerous and walking your kid through the parking lot is more dangerous than leaving her in the car.

    6. Meanwhile on Twitter . . .

    7. We have been surprisingly lax with our son in the new house, letting him go to other parts of the house and essentially hide. We try to make sure he can't pop out the windows and fall two stories, but other than that, letting him take the stairs by himself is even scary given how clumsy and distracted he is (but he's gotta learn sometime). He has definitely reached a stage where he wants to be left alone at times, and he'll throw a tantrum if we try to follow him outside the house.

      I try to let him take risks on certain things; I let him climb stuff that he's probably not ready for yet. He has take a couple of huge falls at parks with thankfully no injuries, and has had the courage to get right back up and try again. So I guess that's a good thing. He's already afraid of enough things as it is.

      1. the climbing at the park thing was one of my challenges as a parent. When I was in 3rd or 4th grade, one of my friends had a fall on the monkey bars at school and knocked out all her (permanent) front teeth. I suspect that has shaped my trepidation about kids and playgrounds.

        but, yea. You gotta let them take risks. And if they fall down and start looking around for mom/dad, if you ignore them, they probably just go back to playing. If you make eye contact, they start bawling.

        1. That was one of my favorite things working at the preschool: watching kids fall down, then immediately start looking around for a grownup to make eye contact with to start crying.

          1. my wife sees something similar every year with the kids and parents at her preschool. Some parents linger at drop-off and foment tearful wailing on separation. And when the parent leaves, the kid most often flips a switch and gets on with it. She tells the parents that they basically need to get the hell out as quickly as possible.

            1. So far (Aquinas and Aristotle) my preschool drop-off experiences have involved my children completely forgetting they have parents as soon as we walk through the door.

              2. We were shocked how easily our son transitioned into his first day of day treatment when he was 2. He was clingy for about 10 seconds. Now we worry he trusts strangers too much as he's had a bazillion wonderful treatment providers.

        2. Gah, that would've been horrifying to witness. Of course, play areas probably have more protection below than they used to.

          I saw this sign at Tamarack Nature Center a few weeks ago and had to take a picture because I love it so much:

          1. Some of my best times as a kid (preteen?) were going to sections of woods around town and trying to get lost. I never really did, but often got surprised at where I came out.
            How soon will I be able to let CER or HPR try something similar?
            (Not that I ever mentioned it to my parents.)

    8. My favorite bit:

      I guess I was surprised that people are SO judgmental about other people's parenting.

      In fairly guilty of this myself, but I think I'm less so now that I have kids of my own.

    9. separate points:
      1. Whenever I have reluctance to be Free-Rangish, it's because of fear of CPS, police, etc. involvement in our parenting rather than any actual fear for the ability of my kids to do what I ask of them. Particularly as homeschoolers.
      2. There may be another interpretation in their results. A parent that gets hit by a vehicle is rated as less risky for the child than a parent meeting a lover, it could be from inferences about the situation other then those described. When someone is hit by a vehicle, police and bystanders often show up and would be around to see an unattended child. When someone is meeting a lover, it might be inferred to be at a seedy hotel or otherwise out-of-view place and in a bad neighborhood. In other situations, the availability of the parent to notice and respond to any problems. Someone having an affair would probably be assumed to not be checking out the window every few minutes.

  6. I have a question. I don't think it is forbidden here. It is about the Peter Thiel/Gawker thing.

    Why should I care who paid for the lawsuit? I haven't heard anyone say that the judge was wrong. If Gawker broke the law and then got sued for it, how are they a victim?

    Gladwell has been tweeting about it today. I am usually in agreement with him but he lost me here.

    1. I don't agree necessarily agree with the assertion that they were breaking the law, or at the very least, a strong argument can be made that HH was not protected due to the fact he's a public figure. Add the whole Thiel angle into the mix and it sets up a troubling precedent...

      1. The concerns I've seen aired mostly revolve around First Amendment issues, too. I think discomfort with Thiel funding Hogan's lawsuit is tied to the fact that, no matter what the outcome of the conflict between Thiel and Denton (who both seem like awful people), it's the public that loses.. I personally find Gawker to be a pretty reprehensible organization (and a negative pressure on journalism as a field), but if they won the trial it'd be a loss for society even if the First Amendment protection was reinforced.

      2. If they weren't breaking the law, that is an issue. I just think the issue is with the judge.

        1. I think whether Hogan's actions were "newsworthy" was a legitimate question for the judge to consider. (I don't think they are – Hogan's sex life has no bearing on his public or professional persona. On the other hand, while I disapprove of Larry Flynt's tactics, satirizing Jerry Falwell in Hustler was a legitimate use of the magazine's First Amendment rights.)

          What I think is unfortunate is that the Gawker case as decided could have negative implications for future investigative journalism that's actually newsworthy. On the other hand, had it been decided in favor of Gawker, it would simply legitimize creeps like Nick Denton. From my perspective, it was a no-win case.

          1. Isn't there a similar sort of case with a recent decision that went on the side of the news outlet? I feel like I remember reading about something, but I'm having a hard time putting my finger on it. Maybe some new York rag?

          2. Hogan's sex life has no bearing on his public or professional persona.

            Playing Devil's Advocate, I believe their defense was, due to Hogan's own graphic and explicit detaiingl of his own sexual life in public (Stern and other places, I believe), he had himself inserted the conversation into the public sphere. You can't suddenly claim, "Oh, that's just my public persona, that's completely separate from my personal life".

            Also, speaking to one of the other chilling effects: $140 million? What's that about?

    2. My understanding is that Gawker had a decent chance on appeal, but posting an appellate bond and continuing to defend itself against every case Thiel was willing to fund against it made continuing to fight a lose-lose proposition.

    1. Saw the one in Winnipeg in '79; you can't keep me away from this one. Helps that I'm a short drive from the max eclipse location near Carbondale, IL. I'm expecting our spare bedrooms to be booked.

      1. We've started making plans to head somewhere to watch this one. Probably Oregon, Idaho or Wyoming, to try to limit the travel a bit. Either way, it should be cool to see

      2. Ahh, thanks for reminding me. Looks like hotels are a little full up, however campsite reservations don't open up until February, so I set a reminder.

                1. Seems so. However, I had thought the hotels were already booked, but it seems they just have a booking schedule. Out 360 days maybe? In that case, a lot of them should start opening up their windows in the next couple days. I'll probably book a hotel just in case, but keep an eye towards camping?

    2. That's a steep drop after 1873. I am curious about before 1873 now. Comparing now to that year seems misleading from that drop. Why not 1883 where it very slowly dropped from 2000 until closer to Prohibition.

      1. Anheuser-Busch launched "Budweiser" in 1876. (actually contract-brewed for the Carl Conrad Company until it went bankrupt in 1883 and A-B took over the brand). It rapidly grew into the first national brand. I'd suggest that railroads and refrigerated cars were pretty critical to the expansion of national brands and decline of local independents during this period.

        1. there was also a major recession during 1873-79 (the Panic of 1873 or the Long Depression), which was probably the primary cause of the big fall at the beginning of the series.

          In the US, from 1873–1879, 18,000 businesses went bankrupt, including 89 railroads.[7] Ten states and hundreds of banks went bankrupt.[citation needed] Unemployment peaked in 1878, long after the panic ended. Different sources peg the peak U.S. unemployment rate anywhere from 8.25%[8] to 14%.[9]

      2. Why 1873? I don't know what the brewery landscape looked like before, but two significant events of that year most certainly had profound effects on brewers: the Panic of 1873 (which triggered a depression that lasted until 1879) and the establishment of the W.C.T.U..

        2. 1850 431 breweries in the country produce 750,000 barrels of beer (31 gallons per barrel). The population is 23 million.
          ...
          1860 1269 breweries produce over one million barrels of beer for a population of 31 million. New York and Pennsylvania account for 85% of the production.

          from American Breweries II by Dale P. Van Wieren

          1. So in 1860 there were 1269 and that increased by 3000 in 13 years before crashing again. Not too surprised by the jump. If there was a panic in 1873 then the economy must have boomed before that. From Wikipedia's page on the Panic (emphasis mine).

            The American Civil War was followed by a boom in railroad construction. 33,000 miles (53,000 km) of new track were laid across the country between 1868 and 1873.[3] Much of the craze in railroad investment was driven by government land grants and subsidies to the railroads.[4] At that time, the railroad industry was the nation's largest employer outside of agriculture, and it involved large amounts of money and risk. A large infusion of cash from speculators caused abnormal growth in the industry as well as overbuilding of docks, factories and ancillary facilities.

            That strengthens my initial skepticism about using 1873, but it is useful as a previous high mark.

            At 1860, there 24,000 people per brewery. Doing a linear* interpolation between 1870 and 1880 population gives 42 million people in 1873 or 10,000 people per brewery. With an estimated 324 million people now, that's 76,000 people per brewery. cheaps, there is plenty of room still available for fitting in another brewery!

            * Obviously incorrect but I am hoping the difference between linear and a proper exponential fit is small. It would be worst in the early years I suppose but oh well.

            1. One other reason that I think makes the 1873 starting point significant is that it situates peak brewery as the initial context for two developing trends that may have had negative effects on brewery expansion: rising anti-immigrant (specifically, anti-German & Eastern European) sentiments among the swells of American society, and the (previously mentioned) temperance movement. I think you could make a pretty interesting distribution of immigration demographics & destinations to regions or cities that were swimming in product already.

              cheaps, there is plenty of room still available for fitting in another brewery!

              Yes, please!

  9. Hey, I can't get to the game log for tonight. Can someone pick me up? Gibby on the mound!

Comments are closed.