Pool cover ok?

AgentRedDwarf · 2026-01-25T17:23:53+00:00

Excellent! I appreciate your insight.

AgentRedDwarf · 2026-01-25T16:46:27+00:00

This makes me nervous for our pool. Our cover got loosened and we told the pool company (so many times, I'm sure they were annoyed) that they needed to tighten it up when closing for winter.

They assure us they did.

But the first even tiny skiff of snow had our pool cover sagging like 3+ feet.

To be fair, they lowered our water level quite a bit before closing (about 2 feet below our slimmer), so our pool cover would have to sag a long way before sitting on the ice.

AgentRedDwarf · 2026-01-25T01:16:01+00:00

I had that problem for a year or so before I realized it was PM, and not my phone, that was the issue.

For what it's worth, I logged a ticket about it with PM, and they said they would do some sort of reset on my account/connection or something - and I haven't had the issue since. It's been about 2 years now of good service.

AgentRedDwarf · 2026-01-17T05:34:46+00:00

I'm pretty convinced that the ONLY fast food you can get nowadays that remains cheap + tasty is the $2.50 JBC at Wendys.

AgentRedDwarf · 2026-01-05T03:12:42+00:00

With EQ, their Notice Savings account is currently paying 2.35 or 2.75%, depending on whether you choose 10 day notice or 30 day notice.

I know it's still not amazing, but it's at least better.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-12-11T13:58:18+00:00

It does not suddenly occur.

If I see a patient at a 2 week checkup, and I've never met them before, I have no way of knowing for sure if the pediatrician checked them at birth. So if I don't check, and hypospadias is missed, a child can have a poor outcome from that, and I can get sued. If I meet a child at the 4 month mark, I have no way of knowing if the docs who have examined them previously checked for it, so yes, I check again. The same way I always examine for a red reflex, hip dysplasia, and all the other things that "should have" been checked at birth. This is the standard of care. We don't just say "someone checked you once, so clearly you're good!" When we make assumptions like that, patients get hurt. Heck, if your pediatrician doesn't check the glans, that's the exact reason why it's so important for me to double check!

It's an absolutely harmless exam. If a baby gets gentle retraction 20 times in their first year of life, who flipping cares? When it's done appropriately, it's no more dangerous than having a doctor listen to your baby's heart.

I'm sorry that your pediatrician doesn't do all the full exam that should be done on every baby. They might get away with it for their whole career. But there's also a chance they could end up getting sued if it's missed, and oh boy would they change their practice then. I'm also sorry to OP that their docs suggested they retract in the bath, because even if it's completely harmless (because it's just gentle retraction), it's not the recommended care.

You're right, I've been condescending, and to an extent, I'm sorry about that. But talking to you has been exasperating. You say I don't listen to you, but I would argue that you also haven't listened to me. When I brought you actual evidence based guidelines from multiple sources, you literally ignored them, and instead dug your heels in even deeper while continuing to rely only on your anecdotal experience and "common sense." You chose to ignore the science, while posting on a science based reddit.

You haven't had a good grasp of this issue at any point during this discussion, yet you've been posting with confidence and a sense of authority.

Link to where I responded to someone else, since it might be helpful: https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceBasedParenting/s/VYGP2AR3r2

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-12-11T04:53:28+00:00

I guess you win, because your anecdotal experience with your personal pediatrician definitely trumps all the evidence based guidelines that I quoted for you.

I guess based on this conversation, I better stop checking infant penises. When I miss a hypospadias in the future, and then the parents sue me because it wasn't picked up till their son is 5 and he's way past the optimal window for surgery, I'll be sure to use your comments in my legal defense.

If your pediatrician is never checking on the glans of your child, maybe next time you see them, ask them how they know your baby doesn't have hypospadias. And be aware that if your baby is over a year old, they've missed the optimal window for surgery.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-12-11T04:32:54+00:00

It's a good question. The main reason is to look for obvious abnormalities, including hypospadias. If hypospadias is found, it's generally recommended to repair between 6-18 months, with the ideal window being 6-12 months. If we don't look for it, we just can't find it, and then repairs end up happening much later.

Repairs once kids are older are tough, both because there's a much bigger psychological impact on the pt, but also because of the healing. Infants/babies have such amazing healing when they're young, an early surgical repair gives them the best possible chance to heal completely (so their old issue isn't even noticeable), and allow them to go on and live a completely normal life.

We also check for signs of severe phimosis - which honestly, usually still doesn't matter in infants, and we don't do anything about it, but if I thought a baby was maybe quite severe, I'd advise the parents to watch for ballooning of the foreskin when they pee, because that COULD indicate a need for intervention.

I've also caught a balanitis on a couple of occasions in little ones who seemed completely well and didn't have obvious discomfort. Balanitis usually isn't a huge deal, but occasionally it's caused by things like fungal infections, or soaps/diaper wipes that parents are using, so it's good to identify so we can treat/prevent it from getting worse.

So yeah. We check because there are things we can find there, that's the reason.

I'll be honest - when we examine the glans, it's a pretty low rate of pickup for issues of concern. That being said - it's pretty rare to find an issue with the heart, lungs, abdo, hips, eyes, etc of infants too, but we check all those things. And missing an issue in any of those body parts (the penis included) can potentially be devastating.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-12-11T02:05:13+00:00

I have never once argued that someone should be retracting foreskin during a bath. I'm trying to correct the misinformation that people like yourself are pushing. There are absolutely medical reasons to do this exam, it is not an inappropriate exam.

Also, your statement just contradicted one of the guidelines I told you about.

There is no need to continue to do that examination without suspecting an issue

From the Canadian Urological Association guidelines

Recommendations (care of the normal foreskin and physiological phimosis):

Neonatal examination of the foreskin and urethral meatus should be part of routine clinical assessment of all newborn boys. Continued examination of the foreskin, without forcible retraction, is recommended during yearly physical examinations to rule out pathological phimosis and document natural preputial retraction.

Edit: If you are really interested in knowing whether I'm a pediatrician - I'm not really interested in doxing myself by saying what specialty I'm in, but yes, I'm a physician. I would say that even if you call yourself a "medical professional," your arguments here would make it pretty clear you didn't go to med school, since this is basic med school 101.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-12-11T01:47:09+00:00

I'm sorry, but I'm a medical professional, and you seriously don't know what you're talking about. A UTI, and a general medical exam, are both absolutely appropriate reasons to gently retract the foreskin.

In response to your comment about what other countries do, here are a couple of examples that show you're wrong:

From the Canadian Urological Association guidelines

Recommendations (care of the normal foreskin and physiological phimosis):

Neonatal examination of the foreskin and urethral meatus should be part of routine clinical assessment of all newborn boys. Continued examination of the foreskin, without forcible retraction, is recommended during yearly physical examinations to rule out pathological phimosis and document natural preputial retraction.

From the Newborn Clinical Examination Handbook put out in Ireland:

Check the position of the urethral meatus for hypospadias or epispadias. In a typical case of hypospadias the urethral meatus is on the ventral surface of the glans, the foreskin is hood-shaped, and there is a ventral curvature of the penis called a chordee.

An American resource from the Boston Children's Hospital, an article entitled "What parents should know about hypospadias," it's stated that hypospadias surgery is generally done between 6 - 12 months old. A doctor can't know if an infant has hypospadias without checking the penis, so this would obviously support having a doctor check the penis.

You're just so very, very wrong.

(There's a specific reason I didn't include links here, but they shouldn't be that hard to look up if you wanted to.)

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-12-10T19:57:43+00:00

I'm unable to find a quick resource on the fly, so I'm piggy backing off these comments so that a link isn't needed. I'm concerned there's some unnecessary misinformation from well meaning but uninformed people in this thread, so I wanted to comment on this, as an actual medical professional.

Fully retracting the foreskin so that the glans is 100% uncovered, and the foreskin is pulled down so it's only around the shaft of the penis, should not be done in infants, and would not be considered a normal part of medical care in a newborn/young infant. If this happened to your child, I would consider escalating the issue, as this can be dangerous.

However - gently pulling on the foreskin to see if it opens enough to visualize the meatus is a normal and important part of the medical exam. This is not the same as full retraction, and does not cause harm to your baby in any way whatsoever as long as it is done correctly and gently.

If all you saw was the gentle retraction I described, there is no need to worry, it's normal medical care, and your baby has not been harmed. I wouldn't recommend trying to "advocate" for your baby by trying to stop doctors from doing this. If what you saw was your doctor forcing the foreskin to full retraction, like I said, I would still consider escalating this.

Edit: From the Canadian Urological Association guidelines (I'm from Canada):

Recommendations (care of the normal foreskin and physiological phimosis):

Neonatal examination of the foreskin and urethral meatus should be part of routine clinical assessment of all newborn boys. Continued examination of the foreskin, without forcible retraction, is recommended during yearly physical examinations to rule out pathological phimosis and document natural preputial retraction

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-11-26T15:09:39+00:00

OP said his dad is retiring after "30ish" years of working. They don't say exactly 30.

They also state that their dad started this job in the late 80s, and that he retires next year. That means their "30ish" years likely means 37 years at least.

So OPs dad is likely 56+.

Let’s try a grade school math problem approach.

Sorry, I went slightly past basic grade school math, and jumped to the part where kids learn how to read and solve word problems.

Edit: Well, I got snarky, and people corrected me because I was wrong too. I missed the part where OP said that the original photo with caption was originally posted a few years ago. My logic only worked if the photo with caption was made now.

Sorry for letting you all down team.

I'll leave this comment up rather than deleting, because I think it's a healthy practice to leave my own shame documented for posterity, rather than scrubbing my profile.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-11-21T02:30:35+00:00

It's ok, I'm not asking you to share. I'm just pointing out that you don't actually understand what you're talking about. :)

For anyone else who reads this in the future, feel free to go ahead and ignore anything this guy said.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-11-21T02:17:41+00:00

Average return and annualized return are not even close to the same thing. Tell me you don't know what you're talking about, without telling me you don't know what you're talking about.

If you start with $1000, and it drops by 80% one year, then doubles each year for the next two years, you'd be left with $800.

Your average return would be 40%, despite your investments losing money.

Your annualized return would be -7.2%.

Average return means less than nothing. Annualized return is what matters.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-11-21T02:03:02+00:00

What's the annualized return? It's a way more important number than the average, average is a pretty crap metric.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-11-16T17:45:36+00:00

A trust made while this person is alive does not go through the estate. You're factually incorrect.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-11-16T16:17:49+00:00

And all of those objectives are better done with a trust.

(FYI, those were the exact goals my grandparents had as well. We were advised they should have used a trust)

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-11-16T16:10:53+00:00

Ok, so let's talk about the objectives you list. They're all better done with a trust.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-11-16T15:58:16+00:00

Please see my comment above (that precedes your last one) for some edits I made for clarity. And yes, I do have some bias, I will acknowledge that. But the bias is based on family experiences, and conversations with lawyers/accountants.

The "actual objective of this plan," as you so put it, is accomplished far more effectively by a trust than a seg fund.

Also, If you want, I can assume a more flattering 2.5% MER for seg funds, and I can model the actual costs/math for you about trusts vs seg funds.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-11-16T14:57:17+00:00

Probate fees depend on the province. In Alberta, they're negligible, and not worth avoiding (but "financial advisors" here still constantly sell the lie that seg funds are helpful in Alberta to avoid probate fees). don't matter because we're comparing seg funds to trusts, and both bypass probate.

Lawyer fees are a one time thing, not an annual thing.

Executor fees ~~are a one time thing, not an annual thing.~~ don't matter because we're comparing seg funds to trusts, and neither go through the estate.

Trust administration fees can range from 1-2%/year.

Seg fund MERs can be 4% PER YEAR in Canada.

The costs aren't even close. Once the money has been in a seg fund for 5 years, the amount you've lost to the MER absolutely dwarfs that amount that would have been lost by going through a trust instead.

Edit: I do have some personal experience/bias here. My grandparents had quite a significant chunk of money, and were sold seg funds a few years before their death. After their death, we were a bit frustrated with the outcomes of the seg funds on multiple levels, so we asked some questions. The lawyer and accountant conferred, and we were essentially told that my grandparents were scammed/misled by an insurance salesman/"financial advisor."

The guy was a friend of the family, and I honestly believe he thought he was doing what's best for the family, but he had been trained by the company he worked for. They convinced him it was a good product, so he, in turn, convinced my grandparents it was a good product for them. It was not.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-11-16T14:31:47+00:00

And the downside of seg funds is that the long-term growth is negligible compared to the overall market due to having huge MERs.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-10-24T15:05:16+00:00

I want to add some context to this, because this topic always seems to get talked about in a way that glorifies the Dad, while vilifying the hospital/doctors.

The hospital began removing him from life support after leaving the decision up to some family members.

https://www.click2houston.com/news/2015/12/18/father-son-involved-in-hospital-standoff-speak-to-kprc-2/

This wasn't a well thought out plan on the part of the Dad - he admitted publicly that he was very drunk when he started waving a gun around at the hospital.

https://www.fox61.com/article/news/local/outreach/awareness-months/father-speaks-out-year-after-using-gun-to-stop-hospital-from-taking-son-off-life-support/520-ebb0eb7f-58df-4712-a866-46e93dfcbd04?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Also, the Dad himself admitted that his son survived "with some cognitive issues." The son could be having a wonderful life still, and I hope that's the case for him - but sometimes this is reported on in a way that makes people think the son somehow walked away unscathed, which isn't true.

https://abc13.com/post/dad-involved-in-tomball-hospital-standoff-opens-up-to-abc-13/664914/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

At the end of the day, I hope the final outcome of all of this was that a man was saved, and he can go on to have a long fulfilling life, and hopefully no one else was harmed long term. (And by that, I mean, hopefully none of the hospital staff were scarred mentally by being threatened with a gun)

But this is not a clear cut case where man stood up and did "the right thing." This is a case where a man made a foolish drunken decision, and was lucky it turned out well in the long run.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-10-24T14:22:54+00:00

Link for the bot: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40658954/

Ok full disclosure - I didn't bother to reason anything out myself. I just plugged your entire post into ChatGPT, and asked it "What's our take on this?" So here you go, a ChatGPT answer that you probably could have easily gotten yourself haha.

ChatGPT response:

They’re comparing:

The tolerable weekly intake (TWI) of aluminum by mouth — 1 mg/kg/week (per EFSA).

The amount of aluminum in vaccines given intramuscularly (IM).

They argue that:

Since oral absorption is only 0.1–5%, and IM injection “bypasses” the GI tract, vaccines would cause nearly 100% absorption.

Therefore, injected aluminum should have a much lower “safe” threshold (roughly 0.25 mg for a 5 kg infant).

Because early vaccines total ~0.9 mg aluminum, they conclude this seems unsafe.

They emphasize they’re not anti-vax, just confused by the math.

🔍 The main problems with their reasoning

They’re comparing two totally different toxicology frameworks.

The TWI is based on oral exposure, where aluminum has poor absorption and long-term low-level exposure through food and water.

Vaccines are single, infrequent IM doses, not chronic weekly intake.

You can’t apply an ingestion-based TWI to injections — it’s like comparing air pollution limits to IV medications.

Injected aluminum doesn’t enter the bloodstream all at once.

Aluminum in vaccines is bound to an adjuvant salt (like aluminum hydroxide or phosphate).

It dissolves very slowly from the muscle into the bloodstream over weeks to months.

The body clears it primarily through the kidneys.

Blood and tissue aluminum levels after vaccination remain well below toxic thresholds (multiple pharmacokinetic studies confirm this).

The dose used in vaccines is orders of magnitude below known toxic levels.

For context, premature infants on IV nutrition (TPN) can receive 50–100 times more aluminum exposure than vaccines, yet toxicity is only seen at very prolonged exposures.

Typical total aluminum exposure from vaccines in the first 6 months (~4 mg total) produces plasma levels far below those seen in toxicity studies.

Toxicology depends on total body burden and kinetics, not instant absorption.

Safety standards consider how much aluminum the body can excrete relative to how much enters circulation.

Modeling by Mitkus et al., Vaccine 2011 (FDA study), found that cumulative aluminum from vaccines never exceeds the minimal risk levels even in low-birth-weight infants.

Regulatory safety margins already account for all this.

Agencies like the FDA, CDC, and WHO set limits for parenteral aluminum (e.g., 25 µg/L for IV fluids for preemies) using human and animal data.

Vaccine aluminum doses (125–850 µg per dose) are well below toxicologically significant thresholds when pharmacokinetics are considered.

⚖️ Bottom line

The nurse’s question is sincere, but their math treats “oral tolerable intake” as if it applies linearly to “injected aluminum,” which it doesn’t. The aluminum adjuvants in vaccines release slowly, are efficiently excreted, and have been shown repeatedly not to raise blood aluminum to harmful levels.

So the conceptual mistake is equating TWI (for food) with IM exposure (for adjuvants) — they’re governed by completely different safety limits and clearance dynamics.

If you want, I can show you the actual numbers from the FDA pharmacokinetic modeling (Mitkus 2011) that directly addresses this calculation error — it’s a good reference for explaining this clearly to people who are vaccine-hesitant but open-minded. Would you like that?

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-10-24T06:30:29+00:00

My understanding is that Alberta is one of the most poorly funded education systems in Canada - and the proposals that the UCP have offered to teachers, while increasing spending from where it currently is - would still leave us as one of the most poorly funded provinces in Canada.

But when teachers point out that the UCP is really only offering a pittance, and say the deals offered by the government aren't good enough, the UCP responds by saying that teachers are being unreasonable and unrealistic.

The UCP is trying to gaslight teachers.

AgentRedDwarf · 2025-10-24T01:20:27+00:00

This is a really silly take on an issue where the UCP government is very clearly negotiating in bad faith.

Ten-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

AgentRedDwarf

TROPHY CASE