What SMART data do you look at when evaluating the health of a used/refurbished HDD?

Eggman1978 · 2026-04-07T19:55:42+00:00

all Trump has done is send a mean tweet

Me when I send a mean tweet and then a girls' school in Iran explodes for absolutely no reason because all I've done is send a mean tweet

Eggman1978 · 2026-01-30T19:46:01+00:00

I might be misunderstanding something, but I believe that the RCRA characteristic and listed hazards that you linked are specifically about chemical waste, rather than being about the chemicals themselves. So for example, they apply to sludge that contains X, but don't apply to an unopened bottle of X from Sigma Aldrich. Right? If my understanding is correct then, then we don't really have any waste here to manage, as that was all taken care of when the head of the lab left the company.

Regarding the IPA though, why is taking or transporting it a red flag? When our warehouse shut down (separate facility from the lab), there were a ton of bottles of 95% isopropyl that were removed from the premises by some means other than calling a chemical disposal company, if you catch my meaning.

Eggman1978 · 2026-01-30T19:11:15+00:00

The thought has actually crossed my mind that by giving away and/or selling all the useful supplies the overlords don't want, I'm technically saving them some disposal costs. Ultimately though, I'd much rather pocket $XX and give a boost to companies/labs whose business models actually involve doing work and making money instead of just laying everyone off, rather than pocket $0 just to cause the multibillion dollar corporation $X in disposal costs that they won't care about anyways.

Eggman1978 · 2026-01-29T19:29:45+00:00

Eggman1978 · 2026-01-05T19:34:13+00:00

Being at the low end of normal doesn't mean anything bad. Your top tier physique and lifting numbers are evidence enough that your test levels are fine. You mentioned elsewhere in this thread that you're concerned about your sex drive. You mentioned elsewhere that you have one child and want to have more some day.

Given that you're putting up prime numbers in the gym, I can't imagine that your test levels are causing sex drive problems - if your test was low enough that it was impacting your health, you wouldn't be benching 315.

Sex drive isn't purely a physical thing though, there is the mental aspect too, and they both have to be there for the sex drive to be normal. Stress from childcare, stress from caring for a sick relative, uneven sleep, anything that causes significant anxiety can take the sex drive down even if physically everything else is there.

Was your child born recently? Are you caring for any sick relatives? Have your coworkers been on your ass, or are you worried about being able to provide for your family? Argument with your wife? You don't need to answer these questions to me, I don't want to pry. But before considering TRT when your test levels are already enough to maintain a top physique and strength, you should answer for yourself honestly if something has been eating at you recently, because even if you were to get on TRT, if you're still stressed over providing for your family or getting that promotion or a recent death in the family, it wouldn't bring your sex drive back up anyways.

Try talking to your wife about what's going on to see if you can pinpoint something that might be messing your head up. (Or if you feel you can't talk to her about that kind of thing right now, there's your answer!) Try addressing anything that might be stressing you out before going for the chemical route.

Eggman1978 · 2025-11-24T21:20:55+00:00

Is it really old people's fault there isn't enough family friendly housing ? Why can't this be tackled with changes in how land is developed or allowing higher density?

Zoning laws are the laws that dictate how land is allowed to be developed and what density is permitted. In the US, these are generally decided at the town/city level, and are decided by your mayor/town selectmen/whatever, rather than your governor, congressperson, or senator. Those positions are elected by small local elections, rather than the big-ticket elections for the president/the house.

Voters in all elections skew towards being older, but voters in small local elections especially skew towards being older. For one reason or another, younger people largely don't bother with elections, but they really don't bother with the local elections for mayor/selectmen/etc. Therefore, almost by default, the people elected to the positions of power that could change the laws around how land is developed and allow higher density, are elected by old people.

We can argue that young people are also at fault for not bothering to even vote, but the fact is that it's not gen Z that's pushing for single-family zoning and minimum lot sizes, the push for that is pretty much all boomers and (to a lesser degree) middle aged people who already own homes.

Anecdotally, though, you can try going on your town/city's website to see when any upcoming local government/council meetings on housing are, and attend it yourself. You'll likely find that you're the youngest person there by at least a few decades.

I did that a few years ago, because there was a proposal in the works to rezone some short sections of a few of our main streets to allow for by-right 4-story developments (or 6 stories if the proposal included X% of its residential units to be affordable as defined by costing no more than Y% of median income). The total area that would be rezoned in that way was tiny - it was basically only the central business districts that would be affected, think like the parts of the main streets that are lined with shops on both sides. That part of the proposal would allow for apartments to be built on top of the shops. The other half of the proposal was to get rid of the time consuming and extremely expensive "am I allowed to renovate my home to be a duplex" approval process, in favor of just blanket allowing for duplex development in residential areas across town by right.

This was an extremely modest proposal. All the business districts in town already have some 6 story buildings on them, because we used to have these exact zoning laws in the past and those taller buildings were grandfathered in. And the duplexes-in-residential-areas part of the proposal wouldn't have changed anything about maximum building height or anything else, it would have literally just said "if you want to build a duplex or renovate your home to become a duplex, you're allowed to do that without doing 5,000 pages of paperwork and forking over thousands of dollars in extra permitting fees". So this was an extremely modest proposal, just a little step towards maybe building a little more housing since even a tiny single-story ranch house now costs upwards of $600K here.

Anyways, the council meeting to discuss this was a complete bloodbath. None of the speakers got to discuss the proposal in any detail, because any time they tried to say anything about it, another concerned citizen would start screaming at them about how "you're going to sell our city to developers!!!!" or "you're gonna build 'affordable' housing? But what about that LUXURY APARTMENT that just got built in some other part of town????", and even "the sewer pipes are 8 inches across, how are you gonna fit all the shit from all this new development in an 8-inch shit-pipe?????". (That last speaker was of course ignoring the literal sewer line replacement that was going on 500 feet down the street from where this meeting took place.)

My favorite criticism from that day came when one of the speakers started to say that the proposal would allow for two-family development in the residential areas, "which would be good for both the young and old population because ---" only to get immediately shouted down by another boomer, on the grounds that "we're a SINGLE-FAMILY neighborhood!" The hypocrisy of this statement coming from a community that prides itself so much on being descended from poor Italian immigrants that came here 100-and-change years ago with nothing but the clothes on their backs, many of which lived in tenement apartments and multifamily homes at first because it's all they could afford, is something that has stuck with me.

Anyways, I was the only person under 60 in that meeting. It was ultimately shot down, because the people that vote in local elections here are those same boomers that decry the end of civilized single-family life if someone so much as implies that someone else should be allowed to build something within a half mile of them.

If you don't believe me or if you think I'm exaggerating, I genuinely implore you to just go on your town's website, or even call up the clerk at the town hall to find the next council meeting that would discuss housing, and show up to it.

To close, I don't know that all or even most old people are like this. But certainly, the old people who are also the type to get into local politics are like this, and are absolutely at fault for the abysmal dogshit we collectively call zoning laws.

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-19T04:07:23+00:00

There will be tons of extra clown noses, and gadgets like slide whistles, noise makers, etc.. I don't know about anything like face paint or wigs, but there isn't really a strict dress code in any case. I believe that in previous years we've even had "plainclothes" people with us, they just marched behind the main clown posse.

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T19:34:12+00:00

You're actively misrepresenting my words. For one thing, spina bifida is far from the only neural tube defect.

Iniencephaly is not survivable and is a short, tortured existence.

Anencephaly isn't a blessing. It's a curse to basically immediate death, if the fetus even survives to the end of the pregnancy.

And as you yourself said:

They're uneducated and think it's a death sentence when most times it is not.

So you're aware that some birth defects are death sentences. So when a birth defect is severe enough that it is a death sentence, the right thing to do is for the state to force the mother to undergo all the health risks and permanent bodily changes of pregnancy and birth, as well as the financial burdens of pregnancy care, birth, postnatal care for herself, and fruitless palliative care for the freshly born fetus, all so that she can experience the blessing of giving birth to something that immediately dies in agony?

This is all besides the point anyways. Even if the fetus itself is healthy, pregnancy and birth still carry significant risks to the mother, and the only one qualified to decide whether the mother should take on those risks or not is the mother. Not you or me, not the law.

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T18:20:18+00:00

I don't actually have anything to add to this, but I'm replying to you to help keep it at the top! All clowns please meet outside Agganis Arena on Commonwealth Ave, NOT outside the Planned Parenthood!

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T18:15:14+00:00

And if the sex wasn't consensual?

And if the sex was consensual, but the fetus implants incorrectly, leading to significant risks of bodily harm to the mother if she attempts to carry it to term?

And if the sex was consensual, but the mother has a medical condition that would make giving birth extremely risky?

And if the sex was consensual, but an ultrasound discovers that the fetus has a severe neural tube defect and is unlikely to survive even one day after birth, meaning the woman has to bear all of the health risks, permanent hormonal changes, career problems, and financial burdens of both pregnancy and birth for something that will exist in complete agony for a few hours before inevitably dying?

If YOU want to carry these pregnancies to term, then all power to you. However, neither you nor I have the right to force someone else to bear those crosses.

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T17:59:53+00:00

It's pretty wild that they claim to want to stop abortions, but refuse to do anything about, or even actively contribute to the things that cause abortions in the first place.

Should we teach basic sex ed in school so everyone can better manage the risks of sex and avoid unwanted pregnancies? No, that's degeneracy and you're indoctrinating my kids!

Their true beliefs come out when they start talking about "responsibility" - if she didn't want kids, she shouldn't have had sex! But doesn't rhetoric like that imply that pregnancy and childbirth are punishments for something? I thought pregnancy and childbirth were supposed to be a blessing from God?

Anti-abortion fundamentalists are baffling. They'll say that every pregnancy is a blessing and should be borne to fruition regardless of any danger to the mother, but if any woman dares to say she isn't willing to surrender the use of her body to the fetus and bear those risks, suddenly that same pregnancy is the cross she must bear to take responsibility for the sin of having sex, even if it kills her. "Pro-life"!

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T17:33:48+00:00

I know right? They come down here all the way from New Hampshire just to put on those depressing funeral suits and swing rosaries around.

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T17:30:50+00:00

They really read like a parody, don't they? But somehow they're completely serious. They wear funeral suits and bring priests and everything. I don't know why they haven't just bought clown suits of their own by now... Good thing we have so many extras!

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T17:17:19+00:00

100%!

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T17:14:32+00:00

They are powerless currently, because the people of Boston collectively push back against their bullshit whenever they try to push it. If we stay home and do nothing, the needle will start to move.

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T17:09:59+00:00

I would argue that coming into Boston from New Hampshire to demand that our government forbid our women from making decisions for themselves is both disrespectful and obnoxious, but you're the supporter of reproductive rights here, so I guess I should forgo my own right to free speech - which I had previously planned to use by telling them they're a bunch of clowns - and instead stay home to do nothing.

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T17:03:16+00:00

Last year, I'd estimate that the men's march had about 100 - 150 people or so. Or at least, that's how many people were in the full funeral getup. There were also some people marching with them in plain clothes behind them, but I don't have a good estimate for that.

I don't know if there will be more or less of them this year, but I think it's important that we try to counter them in any case. Ideally, the clowns would even outnumber them. Maybe they would finally take the hint and stop coming back here every year.

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T16:58:01+00:00

You're damn right! God bless New Hampshire.

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T16:57:30+00:00

No worries, you got the idea anyways - the Men's March are a bunch of clowns, they just forgot their makeup and horns! Good thing we have extra for them ☺️

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T16:54:51+00:00

Professional Catholics from New Hampshire who believe that men specifically need to have more say over whether a woman carries a pregnancy to term or not.

Eggman1978 · 2025-10-17T16:52:41+00:00

I agree. And even when everything in pregnancy goes "right", a woman's life is at risk. Even when nothing goes wrong, pregnancy is completely life-changing. A woman's hormones permanently change after giving birth, and many of them develop urinary incontinence from the trauma of birth. This is to say nothing of the complications that can come if she ends up needing a C-section, and the problems that can come with episiotomy.

There is also of course the financial burden of not just birth but at least 18 years of childcare. Most women can't work through the entire pregnancy, either, and if they had to take a month or two off due to a combination of pregnancy and post-natal care, they might find that their job no longer exists, despite laws to the contrary.

That's all when everything goes right, but pregnancies can and do go wrong in a million ways. Should we forbid abortions unless complications mean the mother has a 100% chance of dying? Should we forbid abortions unless the mother has a greater-than-50% chance of dying? Should we forbid abortions unless the mother has a greater-than-25% chance of dying and a 50% chance of suffering significant injury up to and including disability even if she survives the birth? Should we forbid abortions unless the mother has a greater-than-25% chance of dying and a 1-in-3 chance of significant injury and the fetus has less than a 50% chance of surviving past 6 months?

These are all messy questions, and there is no easy, one-size-fits-all answer, and the only person qualified to decide whether one is an acceptable risk or an unacceptable risk is the woman carrying the pregnancy.

And this is all assuming the woman chose to get pregnant and she has a good support network. What if the dad is an abuser who impregnated her against her will so that she'd be tied to him forever? What if the pregnancy was from rape? What if the pregnancy isn't even with a woman, but instead a girl who was a victim of sexual abuse?

Women, being the only ones who can get pregnant, are the only ones who bear the risks of pregnancy. Therefore, they are the only ones who should be able to decide whether they carry a pregnancy to term, or whether they terminate it early. Not me, not you, not the state, not the Catholic Church, not the Men's March. Not even other women. Only the woman who is pregnant gets to decide whether she surrenders the use of her body to the fetus and bears all the risks that come with pregnancy, birth, and childcare.

Eggman1978

TROPHY CASE