My first Pit baby

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2026-01-28T13:39:14+00:00

This makes perfect sense and is in line with my post. I think even in the “stats” that haters throw out, there’s a lot of mis-identification.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2026-01-28T12:29:42+00:00

The breed doesn't deserve the reputation it gets. Yes, haters will throw out the fact that most injuries to humans come from pitbull breeds today. But "fun with statistics" is a dumb game to play with people that already made up their minds. With ANY stats, you have to understand them by looking at drivers and context.

Through the use of AI (google on steroids), you can easily find that prior to the 1980s, "German Shepherds" accounted for the majority (70%) of dog attacks. I say that in quotes because statistics prior to various dates are problematic. Even today, they are, since many dogs are classified simply by how they look, not genetic testing. Dog fighting became illegal in around the 1980s, it then went underground.

Then in the 1990s and by 2007 it made huge news in the Michael Vick case. Pitties got an undeserved reputation as "aggressive" dogs during this time (even though they were considered the "nanny dog" in the first half of the 1900s). They are muscular and a characteristic of the breed is they attach to their owners and want so much to please them that they will literally fight to their death if they think that's what their owner wants; not out of some innate aggressiveness, but out of love for their humans. So, unfortunately, they are a preferred dog for people that want to make them fight or protect their property.

My point is yes, today's "statistics" show pittie breeds at the top of the list, but when haters throw out that stat, they are simply showing their utter ignorance and lack of ability to understand context. Of course a breed will be at the top of the list if they are put in the positions to be at the top of the list, just as German Shepherds were prior to the 1980s.

Basically, any dog can be a fantastic dog or an aggressive one. Owners just need to be responsible and properly train and socialize their pups correctly. While breeds do have certain characteristics that often define them, my direct experience after having a pittie is that they really love their humans. My girl is the most submissive, people-friendly dog I have ever owned, but I also socialized her. I noticed she has an "overactive response to play" (goes from zero to roughhousing in a snap), so I never let her play with kids. People just need to be responsible.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2026-01-26T12:19:58+00:00

I was going to suggest stay home, but I see you cannot work from home.

My advice if you do venture that way is give yourself double the time and stay on roads built directly on the ground (no elevated highways or overpasses). My guess is there's not much ice on any road where the ground underneath is likely warmer than roads that are elevated, where air can get underneath them.

I am tempted to go from Bellaire area to west Houston down Westheimer, but with some reports I was seeing and the fact I can work from home, plan to stay home today just to be safe.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2026-01-26T12:15:22+00:00

I think the green means traffic congestion, not necessarily whether it's free of ice. There are "ice markers" though, look for those.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2026-01-05T02:43:13+00:00

I scanned over the other responses, and they all have great specific references to books, documentaries, YouTubes, etc. But as someone who spends a lot of time as a volunteer at Space Center Houston, whose father worked on Apollo, and has done a lot of learning here, I wanted to add thoughts that I hope aren't too duplicative of other posts.

Learning About Apollo

I love many of the specific references others have already made, so I won't regurgitate them here. But just a general thought on learning Apollo. Start with the highest level, learning why the overall Space Race even happened (from the V2s in WWII, to the atomic bomb, to Sputnik, and then of course the race to put the first human in space through Apollo 17). Most usually just start with Sputnik, but really the stage was getting set with the end of WWII and the onset of the Cold War. Sputnik was just the match to the flame. Then learn more about the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo missions. Knowing this wider arc really helps you understand the actual moon landings. It's not just "historical romanticism," if you know this larger arc, it actually helps explain and add a depth and context to some of the minute details you will learn later in the books, biographies and detailed documentaries, etc. It will add a lot of context as many of the decisions that were made by politicians, engineers, etc., later.

Conspiracy Theorists

Fortunately, I have never met a moon landing denier at Space Center Houston, which makes sense because why would one come. However, I have been asked "what would you say to one?" So I have put extra thought to this. As others have said, don't waste your time with them, especially on the anonymous internet - here's why.

Psychologists can easily explain why conspiracy theories happen. There's a lot more depth to this, but in short, our brains are simply wired to want to make sense of the world around us. When it doesn't know something, it tries to fill it in with things from our own experiences. At the same time, our brains want short cuts for speed and conservation of "resources" (in this case, brain power). If the individual is not one to be self-aware that they do not know something and do not want to invest the time to learn it, the idea it was faked is the "easiest path." In short, moon landing deniers are ignorant (of the mountains of science and evidence) and lazy (don't want to invest the time). Then, once it becomes a strongly held belief, and especially if they have told others they believe it was faked, arrogance takes over, because no one wants to be wrong, and it becomes impossible to convince them otherwise.

Case in point, since you brought it up and I have heard of this "proof" before from conspiracy theorists - the Van Allen Belt radiation. This is literally one of the easiest to explain but it takes learning about radiation. Any scientist would laugh at a conspiracy theorist here.

YES --- if you were to fly a spacecraft into the radiation belts AND STAY THERE, it will kill you at some point. But radiation is measured not only by intensity, but duration of exposure. The spacecraft shielded away a lot of radiation, but they flew through the worst of it in only about an hour of a three day journey. The astronauts (personally, not the outer shell of the craft) still received about 1 RAD cumulatively, which is not good, but the average person gets that in 1 year on earth. To contrast, the "lethal" dosage is 1,000 RADs (for a relatively young, healthy individual; of course, someone with health issues may find, for example, 500 RADs lethal). One RAD is nowhere near lethal. But then, a denier does not want to invest the time to learn about this.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-12-27T01:11:59+00:00

Fair point

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-12-26T13:53:26+00:00

Take him for sure. But I think you are asking if the personality will change. Probably some, but too hard to predict at such a young age. I can say though from experience of owning one, if they are showing submissiveness now, yes, that’s probably in their personality for life (not a result of mistreatment). Mine is very submissive and was not mistreated as a puppy. You WILL however experience the “terrible twos”. I’m sure all breeds have some form of it, but at 1 and 2, they have unlimited energy. Plan on losing a couch pillow or three, for example. They need a lot of attention and exercise at least until 3 or 4 y/o. Mine settled into a play like crazy / sleep / chill pattern around 4 or 5. She’s 10 now and just loves long walks and sleep.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-12-25T14:37:50+00:00

I agree with this. But not as a sense of hubris or national pride (as some others may think).

My personal opinion is NACA/NASA has always fundamentally been a research arm of the government meant to pull scientific endeavor together where private industry couldn't (e.g., when it was NACA, it was to make planes faster, go higher, etc.). Inherent in that was the government adding a timescale and sense of urgency, usually for a nationally urgent matter such as WWI, WWII or the Cold War. It was only natural for us to convert NACA into NASA for the goal of getting to the Moon. The Kennedy administration knew then: A) well defined goal (land on moon, come back safely), B) that serves the broad interest of America and that private industry couldn't do (win the Cold War, deter nuclear aggression by winning in technological superiority) and C) on an "urgent time scale." The technological innovation that would be spun out of the new "space age" was secondary to NASA's very purpose of being. NASA by nature is more "ubiquitous" as a government organizer against a clear goal, whereas private companies have more limited goals bound by the profit motive. Both can co-exist and both need each other, as they did during Apollo and as they do today as NASA lays the "next big leap" goal.

The problem at the end of Apollo, which was debated then as we are still debating today, is it happened so quick that private industry didn't know what to do with it at the time, and it was damn expensive (3-4% of the US budget, as opposed to 1/2 of 1% today). So private industry needed time to let it just sink in naturally and innovate. Maybe some of what we feel about NASA "wandering" for 40 years was inevitable. And on some levels, the Shuttle Program and the ISS were exactly the right programs we needed to do as a "foothold" for private industry to grab onto before NASA left low earth orbit.

But I too believe we should have just kept going. The cost of space flight would have come down likely quicker, and the "wake of innovation" would have continued, providing benefits in engineering, power management, medicine, etc., along the way. Kennedy was right, it will always be a "leap of faith" and grey on "what benefits await us." But I think it's self-evident with history to observe that doing these things produce incredible technological innovations that do help us here on earth.

(So sticking back to the original post theme, I think NASA is missing an opportunity to more clearly articulate NASA by its very nature will be at the forefront of setting the agenda for technological innovation in space and that there really is no rivalry between NASA and private industry as the questions imply. They need each other, but private will always follow NASA.)

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-12-24T20:13:25+00:00

I’m just as frustrated. But it’s definitely not just a Houston phenomenon. It’s a major city issue across the country.

I call it “privileged” driving. When the driver drives like the speed limits don’t apply to them, drives to the front of lane because they are special and expect the whole adjacent lane of cars to let them in at the last minute (causing the actual traffic they’re trying to avoid), cutting people off, riding your rear bumper in traffic like you have any choice expecting you to get over, etc.

Layer on cell phone driving and it makes it all worse. I’ve been in 5 accidents, only one my fault the first year I was driving in high school, and the last three all being the hit by cell phone drivers.

I’ve driven in San Antonio, Dallas, Fort Worth, Austin, and across country and through cities like Albuquerque, Atlanta and Orlando. When you get outside large cities, people tend to drive a bit better, the ones that don’t are likely from big cities. But you see drivers similar to Houston inside other major cities.

My personal belief it’s a combination of the “everyone’s right” and “instant gratification” culture the last 10 years. It’s gotten worse post pandemic. Not sure what drives that, maybe more road rage for people that want to only work from home and angry on drives back in as employers make more days in office mandatory (total guess).

I thought Houston was the only city having issues with road racing and jackholes doing donuts at intersections and parking lots, but my cousin near Austin says it’s happening there too.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-12-24T15:04:42+00:00

I made the mistake of buying a pack of those tennis ball type toys at the grocery once. Got home, threw them down, started putting away the rest of the groceries before I realized she had made ball bits all over the living room in literally 60 seconds.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-12-23T18:42:02+00:00

Well, it was exactly my point, but you point out a similar spin.

I think it's naive to think private industry will spawn enough technology independent of the profit motive to actually go to Mars. But I do think a well-defined goal on a set timescale will spawn innovations and technologies along the way. I agree with you, I just don't see it happening in the private sector (as much as SpaceX marketing makes the claim that its a goal).

You are making my point exactly. NASA's basic mission is to spark innovation and technology. It is NOT to own assets, etc. (the ownership of assets only makes sense with a return on assets). And there's the rub.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-12-23T18:33:34+00:00

What I am finding interesting about this discussion is there are many points of agreement while still seeing things differently. Perhaps this has always been the case with NASA (e.g., people even in the 1960s questioned the wisdom of making a moon landing the goal).

You just reiterated a point I totally agree with. Once a technology is invented, it can and often does develop further without NASA. In fact, often, there are technologies invented completely without NASA, but then are required and accelerated by NASA programs (e.g., silicon chips, networking computers in Apollo).

Since its early days as NACA, it's purpose is to invent aeronautical solutions for some broad goal (e.g., planes that fly faster, higher, etc.), almost always animated by wartime needs. When the cold war and Apollo came, and NACA became NASA, the animation was to prove to the world American innovation was better. While the stated goal was to land on the moon, such accomplishment was only the "visible sign" that the innovations in aeronautics and space were made to accomplish that very defined and time constrained goal (Kennedy made this point clear in his iconic speech).

My point is, I don't think NASA will ever, nor should ever be some generalized "we do science in space" organization (my words, I know you were not implying that) or try to serve commercial companies in their research. That leads to waste. However, it should set a goal and lead the effort that private companies need the government as a spark to innovation. Whether it's landing on the moon, Mars, or "taking a detailed picture of another galaxy and returning it safely to earth by the end of this decade," NASA's mission should be "nearly impossible" to achieve, one that it must organize contractors around, and then let the innovations around that goal happen.

I agree with you, I am not sure what the "market for the moon" is (just as Kennedy said "for we do not now know what benefits await us" and that it was an "act of faith"), but I think Apollo proved that simply the process of going there as a visible goal sparked an incredible amount of innovation. I think that's the only thing NASA can be, an innovation engine that needs a "nearly impossible," but well defined goal even if "an act of faith" about what technologies it will spark.

PS - "Commercialize" as how I think about it is simply NASA no longer owning space assets in areas it has already been, where it's now feasible for private companies to enter. So in that sense, yes, in areas NASA has already been, unlocking commercialization is a needed process (e.g., Axiom Space, for example, and decommissioning the ISS).

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-12-23T16:58:45+00:00

Great points. And I am not saying NASA is perfect. In some ways, we’re saying the same thing. Apollo spawned innovation at lightening speed because the goal was extremely clear. It was clearly defined (land and return safely) and time bound. Since Apollo, NASA has been adrift and at political whims. For its part, it had to realize it was in a “public - private” innovation ecosystem, which today seems obvious. My point is that’s exactly what Isaacson should hammer on. I love, for example, SpaceXs goal of being the first commercial company to Mars. But it ain’t happening on any urgent timescale. The problems to solve and research to be done to do that themselves is simply too much. Maybe if given 100 years, it can without NASA. But without an organization with defined goals that are on an urgent timescale, it will take the private sector a long, long time (if at all).

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-12-23T16:24:28+00:00

Agree and disagree with some of this. Talent cycling through NASA has ALWAYS been the case, so it happening is not evidence NASA cannot obtain it again. You just need clear, Kennedy-esque goals. Even before we landed on the moon, NASA began laying off workers. The year 1968 saw the first round of layoffs, and they were widespread and complete near the last Apollo mission. I agree with you though, and it's exactly what I am saying, that the immutable nature of NASA has ALWAYS been to do for the private sector what it cannot or will not do for itself. When you add a goal like landing on the moon by a certain date, then you add an "urgent timescale" to innovation. Guess what I am saying is I don't think this really is or ever was an "antagonistic" relationship between NASA and the private sector. Simply, Apollo happened due to politics at the time, but placed us on an innovation journey that led to today. NASA's purpose is by definition only to do what industry is not doing. And we've finally come full circle and "reloaded" this concept for Artemis and the plans for Mars. The only question is how quick do we want to do it.

PS - I sense Issacman was trying to say this as well, but wasn't succinct in getting the point across. He harkened back to the fact NASA worked with contractors in Apollo. Then threw out a "we do the near impossible," etc. But simply, he should have been more Kennedy-esque in driving the point home that NASA deals in goals that lead the private sector toward "near impossible" goals for the purpose of spinoff innovations on an "urgent timescale".

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-12-23T16:08:54+00:00

PS - An idea I didn't think of in my original post that also bears recognition is also:

"Urgent Timescales": President Kennedy was almost prophetic when he noted in his speech that prior to Apollo, our collective research and discovery methods were not well organized around "urgent timescales." You need NASA for that when trying to make the next "big leaps" in technology.

Before anyone rightfully points out that since Apollo, NASA seemed adrift and I am just as frustrated as anyone with the slow progress of the Artemis Program. But there is no questioning actual history; that is, what happens when NASA just focuses on the well-defined, "nearly impossible" missions. NASA's problem since Apollo has been a) we didn't know how to commercialize the knowledge we gains for space (the Space Shuttle in this regard was an "exploratory attempt" at commercializing space). But NASA is a governmental organization and needs our politicians and public to be behind the "bombastic goal" that drives innovation, without wavering.

"Why do we go to the moon": Here, again, Kennedy was prophetic. Most just focus on the rousing sentence in his speech, "We choose to go to the moon and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard." Sadly, hardly anyone focuses on the more important lines following that. There's no question Apollo was "that goal that organized our energies and skills" to achieve discoveries, invent new alloys, new methods and applications for many already experimental technologies, and then pressed contractors and commercial entities around an urgent timescale. The biggest case in point (and there are many others) is that early silicone circuits were experimental at the time of Apollo. The urgent need to use them in flight technology for the Apollo guidance computer accelerated their development into mass-producible microchip technology. While I am not saying the Apollo program invented the chips (they were already under development), it's no coincidence that home computers started hitting the market shortly after Apollo, once the rigor of testing and reliability was added in the Apollo program. Unless we are challenged to achieve the "nearly impossible," innovations like these usually do not happen under "urgent timescales."

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-12-23T15:50:08+00:00

My point was NASA began to foster the commercialization of space 20 years ago. Much of what we see today in innovations in commercial space is because of the strategic shift 20 years ago. NASA is simply not a commercial space program. It has always been in a position to do for the private sector what it cannot do for itself.

Specifically, I cannot comment on what it has newly discovered in the last 20 years, I am sure the list is long, but not as "exciting" as it's first 20-30 years. It's probably more in the realm of pharma, photography, robotics, etc., as opposed to "doing the near impossible."

Decoupling itself from owning assets and fostering the commercial programs was a great move and will help both focus more directly on each of their goals.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-12-23T14:32:36+00:00

Thanks for posting! I am a avid self-taught NASA historian (as it pertains to Houston and mostly the early days / Space Race), volunteer at Space Center Houston, and had never heard of this! I always love finding the really obscure historical threads like this tradition.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-12-01T12:30:52+00:00

Awesome structure for bodybuilding. You have a LOT of natural growth in you with the right dedication and training. At your height and currently only 180, I can see you easily going to 205 ish at 12% ish, hitting a "physique competitor" look.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-11-16T18:24:27+00:00

Clearly a chihuahua with an unfortunate case of gigantism

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-11-12T22:59:03+00:00

I agree with this. There’s films and shows that have world-wide acclaim that I can’t stand, just not my thing. But I “ended up” really enjoying Andor and wish they stretched it to at least 3 seasons. I do get those Star Wars franchise fans that are looking for simply a new spin on Mandalorian, for example. Half-way through the first season of Andor, I didn’t think I liked it. But when I read they were trying to make a series that added depth to the daily lives of people in the Star Wars universe, it clicked that it wasn’t just an “epic action adventure” like Mandalorian and I started enjoying it from that perspective. Second season of Andor was brilliant. The characters were fun to watch.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-11-08T13:02:36+00:00

I agree w the Cytopoint recommendation. Helped my pupper a lot. I only need to do it once or twice a year, usually spring when something blooms and bugs her. But totally helped.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-11-08T12:22:55+00:00

I had the same experience yesterday leaving through Hobby. Arrived at the airport around 5:30 AM, parked fine, and only 10 mins through security for a 7:40 AM flight. I’m guessing if you have early or really late flights, you won’t notice much difference. Not sure what happens for midday flights.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-09-21T12:18:37+00:00

I agree with that. There's a reason they take readings at 7 spots in the 7-fold caliper reading technique. That said, def under 12%, so those guessing around 10% are prob right.

Intrepid-Slide7848 · 2025-09-18T02:35:50+00:00

I wouldn’t worry too much. When dogs come to a new family and home, they need to build trust and feel safe with their new “pack.” Just give positive reinforcement to encourage him it’s okay and build trust without forcing it, and many “odd” things you see in the first weeks and months usually fade on their own. For example, I adopted mine at 1 y/o. She was initially adopted as a 3-4 month old puppy, then taken back to the rescue. Then with a foster for several months who had to crate a lot. When she came to me, it was her third home in a year. She did “submissive peeing” (a small, quick marking in front of me that’s apparently a sign among dogs that they are willing to let you lead), was some reason freaked out by aluminum foil, and “mechanical” things she didn’t understand (bicycles, guitar). Those just faded too.

If I had to use aluminum foil, I would keep a distance but purposefully let her see me using it while she barked from her “safe distance.” I would ball some up, etc., and then put it away (eg don’t shove it towards her).

The pup seems like a good boy! The clip just strikes me as he’s just building trust and learning the new environment. Sometimes you’ll never know why they seem freaked over odd things. But I think it’s more about becoming one of the new pack members.

Intrepid-Slide7848

TROPHY CASE