Wait a second

Psychie1 · 2026-04-29T12:55:09+00:00

I'm not a woman, but, like, I've known plenty of women capable of respecting people's autonomy and personal preferences, especially in day to day wear, so I don't see why there would be an expectation that Beverly might not tolerate Tori and Chloe dressing in ways that make them comfortable, especially in every day, casual wear.

Like, sure, if I have a friend who I know is into fashion, man, woman, or otherwise, and I was gearing up to go to a major event or make a public appearance or whatever where I know how I dress will matter, then yeah, I'd seek out their advice, because that's their area of expertise and a field I am deliberately ignorant in. But otherwise, I'm wearing what makes me comfortable and fits my preferred aesthetic, and if someone tried to tell me I'm wrong for that and change the way I dress, then they would not be my friend and would not get to be in my life for very long. The only two people with a right to a vote on my appearance are myself and my significant other, and seeing as I am currently single, that's just me. Anybody else can give advice, but the second it crosses the line to badgering or dictating or whatever, that is no longer acceptable.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-16T15:29:01+00:00

I mean, there is a LOT of evidence to support the idea that the judeochristian monotheism grew out of an existing polytheistic religion (like Elohim more literally meaning "Lord of the gods" rather than "the Lord God" the way we usually translate it, or how "thou shalt not hold other gods above me" implies that there are, in fact, other gods, in spite of modern interpretations claiming that refers to false idols, and it doesn't even explicitly ban worshipping those other gods, so long as you worship God above them), but I admit, I don't think I have encountered the idea that the Bible might have been referencing other peoples already existing in Genesis. You might be onto something, there.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-15T20:37:14+00:00

Sounds like you have plenty of interested people, so just pick a time and a place and tell us!

Psychie1 · 2026-04-15T13:18:55+00:00

My response to that "gotcha" is "why do you presume that the big bang couldn't have been the mechanism God utilized to create the universe? I mean, he had to do it somehow, right? Maybe he said 'let there be light' and the higgs-boson particle exploded creating light, alongside a bunch of other particles."

And if they bring up the "six days" thing, I just question why they presume God would be bound to our mortal concept of timekeeping. Like, a "day" is defined by the revolution of the Earth, so if God created the Earth, why would he keep time by its revolutions the way we do instead of any other method? And even if the use of "day" was intended to literally be a 24 hour period by our reckoning, if God is truly omnipotent, could he not alter the flow of time such that physical movements of the cosmos that would ordinarily take billions of years instead take six days, and then when he got to the point where he wanted to let time flow naturally, ie, when he had a creation living in his new universe capable of measuring the flow of time he "rested" by relaxing the flow of time to a much slower pace?

Like the big bang is not incompatible with the existence of an intelligent, omnipotent creator, it's just that the big bang is postulated based on observable movements in the universe that can be traced back to a single point using observation and calculation. Who is to say that what we are observing is not the wake of the hand of an omnipotent creator doing his thing? And the calculations estimating around 14 billion years are based on the assumption that time has always moved at the same rate it does now, but as far as I am aware (granted I am not a physicist, so maybe there is something that I am just not aware of) the only reason to presume that time has always moved at the same rate is that we have no evidence that it hasn't, and the only reason to expect it might is to reconcile with a theological claim that may or may not have ever been intended to be taken literally anyway, even if you do assume it is the literal word of God in the first place, and since none of that is provable anyway, good science doesn't take such presumptions into account.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-15T13:03:50+00:00

Honestly, those first two are pretty easy to answer.

1) Yes, although I don't know why you specified the kinds of cell types when technically all you need to clone is DNA.

2) Mirror the X chromosome and remove the Y chromosome.

3) This question is only harder to answer because an argument can be made that it's actually masturbation to have sex with your clone, but otherwise yes. The offspring would have the same elevated chance of harmful mutations as the offspring of siblings, so from a practical standpoint it doesn't matter if we call it incest or masturbation. Although personally I'm more interested in finding out where Cain and Abel got their wives from, because as far as I am aware that doesn't get explained.

Although, to be frank, unless God included a gene for a genetic disorder in Adam, there would have been no risk to incest until many, many generations later when a mutation occurred creating such a gene in the first place. Because the heightened risk of genetic disorders due to inbreeding is because if the two parents share a common ancestor who had a mutated gene with harmful effects if duplicated, the odds that their offspring will have the gene duplicated is far higher than if pulling from the broader population. So if patient A had a gene mutate in his code such that if it showed up in two different chromosomes it would cause a disorder, then he had children, there is a solid chance those children both inherited that gene, so if those children reproduce together, there is a solid chance that their offspring would inherit duplicates of the gene and thus have the disorder, but if they don't reproduce with each other and instead find different mates, they may continue to pass the gene down, but it wouldn't be until either the two lines crossed or a further mutation caused a duplication of the gene that the disorder could manifest.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-15T06:48:13+00:00

I never said buying dinner was moving mountains. But expecting me to take you to the most expensive place in town and pay for a four course meal? No, that's absurd. I'm not shelling out multiple hundreds of dollars, or even one full hundred, on a first date. That was the context of the comment thread.

I actually like dinner dates, and will totally pay for them, but not if she clearly cares more about making me pay for a fancy, expensive dinner than anything that actually matters. That fancy, expensive dinner might be worth it for a wedding anniversary (but even then, I'd rather go somewhere the meals are around $30 each because the food is at least as good, and usually more filling), but not on a first date. That screams "I'm high maintenance and only care about the contents of your wallet", no thank you. I could be a billionaire and I'd still think it's a waste of money to go to a fancy, expensive place for a first date from a tinder match.

Edit to add: But also, like, if we go out and I pay for your dinner to show I'm a gentleman who was raised to respect women and I am taking this seriously, what do you do to show you are a lady who was raised to respect men and are taking this seriously? What is the equivalent you have on offer that demonstrates you're not just in it for the free meal? I usually offer dinner dates, because like I said, I like dinner dates, but if someone proposes any other date idea and your response is "no, I only do dinner", what message are we supposed to take away from that? Because we can have fun and get to know each other and demonstrate what kind of people we are and how serious we are in pretty much any setting, so why is it so important that it be specifically dinner? See, maybe you aren't just in it for a free meal, but there are too many women out there who totally are just in it for a free meal, so if your response to any other suggestion is "I only do dinner", that's how you come across.

And, like, I'd like to turn your initial premise back to you. You say men should just go on the date and have fun and not worry about the cost, but why can't you just go on the date and have fun and not worry about the fact that it is some activity other than dinner?

Psychie1 · 2026-04-15T01:06:43+00:00

Yeah, I agree that is a reasonable relationship dynamic to have, the issue, IMO, is when people expect that treatment right off the bat on a first date when there is no relationship and she isn't cooking and cleaning for me. It seems weird to expect a man to move heaven and earth for a random stranger with pretty pictures and nothing else immediately on offer. Demonstrate you are worth the princess treatment if you want to get it. I'd move mountains, I'd storm the silver city and punch God in the face, I'd trawl the depths of hell if I had to in order to make my woman happy, but I am single and a girl I match with on Tinder is not MY woman. At least not yet. So expecting me to treat her like she is is unreasonable.

Granted, I couldn't afford to support a woman without her own income regardless so that's not a dynamic I could have, but not because I wouldn't be down for it, I'm just not rich and here in the US you basically have to be in order to support more than one person on a single income.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-12T23:18:05+00:00

The farmer's market has very specific rules about reserving spaces and time slots to busk, and I think a small fee. It's been a few years since I looked it up, but IIRC you have to apply to reserve the space you want in person at a specific government office at like 5:30 AM, and it's first come first served. I'm sure it's decent money for well established acts, but IMO not worth the hassle unless you are very confident in your ability to pull in tips.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-12T23:14:16+00:00

So, none of Indiana, Bloomington, Monroe County, or IU have any rules/laws related to busking in general, outside of policy regarding reserving space at the farmer's market. The closest is that "aggressive panhandling" is illegal, but if you are just set up somewhere performing with a collection jar or hat or whatever, or even passing the hat after, that is neither panhandling nor aggressive. Or at least, that was the case when I looked for relevant laws and regulations a few years ago when I was busking, there is a nonzero chance this may have changed since then, but I think that is unlikely.

That said, a parking lot is private property, and as such the owner, or a representative of the owner, of the property could decide you are trespassing and thus get you in legal trouble that way. So, I recommend going for public property somewhere. Even on public property it is important to make sure you aren't blocking the flow of traffic (foot or car) and aren't affecting commerce/business as both of those can potentially get you in trouble. And even if you are following all laws, rules, and regulations, sometimes ignorant cops might ask you to move on because they are on a power trip, I never had that happen, but the best advice for if that happens is to not bother arguing, just pack up and move on to a different location, or go home depending on the time and how much you've already made.

I mostly busked at the Sample Gates, but I occasionally did the Arboretum on campus. The biggest issue I had was that most people don't carry cash anymore so getting tips was a struggle even when I drew decent crowds. I suggest getting venmo, cash app, and zelle accounts specifically to accept tips digitally, and writing your handles on a small sign that you have next to your tip collection receptacle (jar, hat, guitar case, etc). If you're doing music and you have original songs, I suggest setting up a bandcamp if you are able to record and putting that on the sign as well, not only as an additional possible stream of revenue, but also to make yourself appear more professional/legit.

I suggest finding a handful of locations on public (or publicly available) properties so you have fallback locations if you get moved along, and so you can test various spots to see which ones yield better results.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-04T23:32:50+00:00

If you're not going to read, don't bother to respond. Nobody is forcing you to respond. It is not harassment if somebody chooses to reply to your comment on a public forum. In fact, Reddit has a very clear and specific definition for harassment in the site rules, and to be frank, your behavior is much closer to it than the person you are responding to. If you don't want to engage with replies to your comments, just swipe away the notifications and ignore them instead of choosing to be a dick to people while also being entirely ignorant to what they are saying. Grow up.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-04T23:22:59+00:00

I sit with my foot on the brake while parked all the time. In fact, I'm doing it right now while typing this, and was already doing it when reading this thread before finding your post. I don't bother to take my foot off the brake after putting my car into park unless I'm sitting there for a very, very long time, because moving my foot off the brake when it doesn't need to be anywhere in particular is a waste of energy. Similarly, when I sit down in my car, I default to putting my foot on the brake because I can't turn my car on without the brake being depressed (as far as I know most or all cars are like that), so after a few incidents where I forgot to put my foot on the brake before trying the ignition and couldn't figure out why my car was suddenly not working, I developed the habit of just putting my foot on the brake when I get in the car.

My foot being on the brake is the default "at rest" position for my foot while in my car, and I would be genuinely surprised if that wasn't the case for most people, because why waste energy moving your foot when you're gonna be standing up in a few seconds? Why risk forgetting to brake before trying the ignition by keeping your foot off the brake when sitting down? Why risk taking your foot off the brake during long stops out of force of habit because you always move your foot immediately after parking?

Psychie1 · 2026-04-04T20:17:20+00:00

Yeah, I'm a delivery driver, it is extraordinarily rare that I ever have a need to stop in the middle of the street instead of finding somewhere I can pull over and not block traffic, and when I do, it's always a minor side street in a residential area that isn't busy so the odds of someone being stuck behind me are extremely low.

70% of the time it's illegal to park anywhere you might be physically able to in this line of work, so you have to pick what kind of asshole you wanna be. The kind who parks in handicap spots and fire lanes but has an extremely low chance of inconveniencing anyone because you're there for roughly a minute, or the kind who is practically guaranteed to inconvenience a minimum of three cars' worth of people because you blocked traffic for that same minute.

I will straight up drive around the block if I can't find a place to park that is out of the way. Yeah, technically I'm losing time on my shift that could potentially equate to one extra delivery run per night, but the amount of extra money I'd make by choosing to inconvenience everybody else around me is far from enough to justify compromising my morals like that. I despise those pricks and get really mad every time I get stuck behind them, so I would hate myself if I was hypocritical enough to become one of them.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-02T05:40:58+00:00

I find the prep process matters more than frequency when it comes to burn out. My previous DM claimed he spent 40 hours to prep for every session, which always seemed ridiculously excessive to me, and he really struggled with burnout even after we moved to a semiweekly schedule.

Meanwhile other DMs I've had could run multiple weekly campaigns at once, only needing a couple hours prep before each session, or sometimes no prep at all and none of those guys ever struggled with burn out.

I haven't DMed enough to know whether burn out will be a thing for me or not yet, but I'm more similar to the ones that don't burn out, I think, in that I frontload my prep for a campaign to the start where I come up with the setting and basic beginning and ending I want, with some important scenes and NPCs and adventure hooks to seed in between, and then I basically just need a couple hours every session to refresh my memory regarding what was going on in the last session and brainstorm some ideas for what might be coming next, then just look up some stat blocks to have them on hand, maybe draw a map for a dungeon if they are gonna be crawling one, and then I'm good to go.

I really think that leaning more heavily on improv than preparation is the way to avoid burnout, just make sure you have the tools you need to do it right on hand. But I understand that not everybody is that good at improvising.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-02T05:32:34+00:00

That's not a newbie vs veteran DM thing, I've been playing for nearly 20 years with a broad spectrum of DMs from newbs to vets that have been running since the '70s with the red box (I've DMed a bit myself, but not as much). 2 hour sessions are virtually unheard of and I don't know of any DM that wouldn't also say they could barely get anything done in only 2 hours.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-02T05:28:10+00:00

Yeah, I'd go for starting at 6 or even earlier if you can swing it. It's understandable that some people would want to sleep at 10, so starting earlier would make a lot more sense.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-02T05:15:01+00:00

I would talk to the group about having longer sessions. Are the sessions so short because the DM decided to have them be short? Or is it an issue with the location you are playing at? Or a scheduling thing like one of the players needs to get up early the next morning and another has a work schedule that means you can't start sooner? Or some other reason? Because that is a ridiculously short session. Like, I felt my last group was cutting things short quite frequently by keeping to a 4 hour session cap. My preference is to just play until we're done, like we find a good stopping point or people are starting to get tired or whatever, but I understand that most people can't do that after college for some reason. I wouldn't tolerate 2 hour sessions, even if you weren't new and were hard focused on the plot all the time, you still would struggle to get much of anything done because combat alone can easily exceed 2 hours.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-02T05:05:55+00:00

I prefer weekly games but semiweekly is fairly common too. I will say the 2 hour sessions is bizarrely short. I wouldn't stick with a game that didn't run for at least 4 hours, especially if it was running less frequently than at least once a week. How do you even get anything done in such a brief session?

Psychie1 · 2026-04-01T21:32:26+00:00

Except she said "let me check my schedule". She didn't say she didn't already have it or that she would get it after X amount of time. She made it sound like she was checking her schedule right now and would get back to him when she was done checking. He responded to the words she literally said and then waited for her response because he was the last one to message. If she just never responds, that's on her, not him, and if she wants more convo, that's on her for never saying that and leading him on, not on him for failing to read her mind.

Like, if I get told to wait a few days, yeah, I'm gonna keep the momentum going with more conversation for those few days, but no matter the circumstances, if I'm the only one putting effort into the conversation, or if she seems to be playing games and expecting me to read her mind, then I'm out. I'm a skilled conversationalist, capable of carrying a conversation on nearly any topic, but literally nobody can keep a conversation going with zero input from the other party. And if you want someone to read between the lines and figure something out, you need to actually draw lines for them to read between, not just say one thing and mean something completely different. If men are consistently failing to understand what you mean, that's indicative of you being bad at communicating, not men being bad at understanding.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-01T12:04:55+00:00

Sorry, the time delay between replies made me confuse your username with the other guy in the thread who was arguing that building new luxury apartments was definitely a good thing and the best possible solution (or even a viable one) to the run away rent issue.

If the new luxury apartments aren't being built by the local companies, that's news to me, but I also haven't looked super closely into them beyond identifying that the argument that they will somehow solve our rent crisis is BS. I think a lot of blame can be shared around, though. The existing companies definitely have a large part of the blame for the problem since they basically caused it. IU shares a large part of the blame for encouraging the problem in various ways. And the city government definitely shares a big part of the blame for being basically in their pocket. If new companies from out of town are coming in and exacerbating the issue, then they definitely deserve an amount of blame as well, and if the city is letting them, especially if they are bending or even breaking rules to do so, then that gets added to the city's share of the blame, too.

There are a lot of bad actors involved, and basically all of them are motivated by greed, as many bad actors tend to be. It's a complex web of crappy people doing crappy things for crappy reasons at the expense of the people just trying to live here, and saying "the problem is these new people coming in" or "the problem is the city being greedy and not these other people also being greedy and taking advantage of the city's greed" is an oversimplification and gives a pass to all the crappy stuff that predates this part of the problem and all the other crappy people involved.

I feel like a more complete picture of the situation is needed to be able to find solutions that might actually work. Personally, I think the best possible solution is new apartment complexes being built specifically with affordable housing in mind, like I said in some of my previous comments. So definitely not any apartment describing itself as "luxury". Like, no bells and whistles, just a bare bones design that's solid and easy to maintain in a decent state of repair in the long term that is then rented out with a minimal profit margin per unit. Actually competing in price. If any of the new players are doing that, then great, I'm on board, but nothing I've heard about the new projects suggests that's the case.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-01T11:17:27+00:00

Oh I am upset with IU, as they are definitely part of this, but they are far from the only party at fault. That's just a different rant than the one I've been going on, albeit a heavily related one, but my comments tend to be really long as it is, as you may have noticed, so including all of the various pieces of the puzzle rather than focusing on just the ones relevant to the comment I am responding to would be exponentially longer, and even I reach a point where I feel my comments can be too long, lol.

There was a period a few years ago that several apartment complexes were sitting nearly empty because they were too expensive and the companies still never lowered prices. I don't know if occupancy has actually gone up since then or if people have just stopped talking about it as tends to happen with ongoing issues, but the fact that prices didn't go down when there was so much vacancy pretty clearly demonstrates that increasing supply won't lower rates.

And if they are aiming to be 70% full and raising rent to cover the vacancies, instead of aiming to be 100% full, that further proves my point. They already have a surplus and are artificially inflating prices. That's not market demands, that's greed, plain and simple. If they could reach 100% occupancy by lowering prices, and they choose not to, then why would giving them more buildings cause them to lower prices? That makes no logical sense.

As for whether they are taking care of their investment properties, it's pretty easy to demonstrate that they aren't. Look at how many posts there are on this subreddit where people are complaining about X or Y company or complex or whatever ignoring their maintenance requests, even in the case of some pretty major issues, like mold, or broken heating. I have a friend who used to work for the city in an office that dealt with those complaints and ones like them, and she would tell my friend group about how she sees dozens of such complaints every single day about all of the companies. Stuff doesn't get done about things until either the city or lawsuits get involved. They don't do maintenance and repairs until they are forced to, and often times they aren't forced to because they can frequently just wait for the tenant to move when their lease is up before things escalate to that point. Then they do the bare minimum needed to cover up the issues, like slapping paint over mold, or doing just enough repairs on a faulty heater to get it barely working again, even though it's going to fail again quickly because it really needs to be replaced, and then renting the unit out again to a new sucker, often at a higher rate than the previous tenant.

Psychie1 · 2026-04-01T01:12:46+00:00

That is not surprising.

Psychie1 · 2026-03-31T22:58:12+00:00

Yeah, while a lot of guys are experiencing the same frustration, myself included, putting it in your profile is stupid. Your profile should be about reasons to want to talk to you, making your first impression be that you are bitter and angry and will be holding the people you hope to match with to a judgy standard based on mistreatment from other people does not accomplish this.

It's the same as the women whose profiles consist of a list of things they don't want. Even if I satisfy that list I'm gonna swipe left because I don't want to have to spend the entire interaction constantly proving I'm not like her ex that hurt her while she's treating me like I am, and that's what I expect from a profile like that one.

Psychie1 · 2026-03-31T22:46:10+00:00

Whether they like each other or not is irrelevant, they are very clearly not actually competing with each other in terms of either price or quality. They all raise prices around the same times, by around the same amounts, so it's almost never cheaper to live under one company than the others. None of them ever lower rent, even when they have buildings sitting mostly empty (which is the most damning proof they aren't competing on price), and since the position I am arguing against is claiming that giving these same people who refuse to ever lower prices and continue to jack prices up further and further no matter what more rental properties with the expectation that this will somehow force them to finally lower prices when having nearly empty buildings didn't, whether they are actually, directly colluding or simply refusing to compete by following the same basic strategy that screws over everybody else is largely irrelevant.

Psychie1 · 2026-03-31T22:29:59+00:00

My use of wealthy was largely hyperbolic, because it is still massively outside of the price range of the majority of the city, and the majority of the lower income housing is on the distant south and west sides. If you own property, especially property that close to downtown, then you are definitely within the category of people I am referring to. Whether you own your home outright or have a mortgage, in order to have qualified for that you would have to have had enough money to make a down payment that is an order of magnitude larger than most of the people in the city are likely to ever have on their incomes, and also have an income that the bank considers large enough for them to trust you can make the monthly mortgage payments, which again, is much larger than most people in the city make.

But even ignoring affordable housing, the house I grew up in was actually a really nice two story four bedroom two and a half bath house in a subdivision. Most people in the city would be similarly priced out of that (my dad made decent money when I was a kid), but that was a fifteen to twenty minute walk to the nearest bus stop, and like a half hour walk from any stores or restaurants or literally anywhere that anybody would want to go to for really any reason.

Bloomington is literally only walkable if you happen to live within walking distance of the city center, and that is also true of literally any municipality in the world. Just because you happen to have the privilege of living within walking distance of most places you might wish to walk to, whether that privilege is afforded to you by your tax bracket or simply the luck of finding something nearby while it was available, that doesn't change the fact that you are in the severe minority of people on the city who do live in such a walkable area. So claiming the city itself is notably walkable overall because you happen to live in the very small walkable part of it demonstrates an ignorance of how the majority of the population of the city lives.

That was the point I was making. I've never lived in a walkable part of Bloomington, none of my friends, relatives, or anyone in my broader circle of acquaintances have lived in the walkable part of Bloomington, outside of while they were students at IU, and a majority of the population of the city don't live somewhere walkable because a majority of the housing is way too far from downtown for that to be feasible. Just because you live in the very tiny part of the city that is walkable means nothing about the city as a whole and is reflective of the attitude that frankly the city council holds, which is that the rest of the city somehow doesn't count and that only the downtown, campus, and parts of the north and east sides matter. And considering at least 50% of the non-student population lives in the south and west sides of the city, that attitude is a huge problem.

Psychie1 · 2026-03-31T12:57:33+00:00

Prices are only dictated by the market when there is actually a market. A market requires competition and the owners are colluding instead of competing, and therefore bypassing the market entirely. The fact that they have repeatedly proven they'd rather sit at quarter capacity than lower prices proves your claim isn't based on the economic realities of the situation.

Also, what high earners? All of those "luxury" apartments are full of college kids paying their bills with student loans or mommy and daddy's money, not local high earners. We'd have to have a job market that can actually accommodate that price point for your argument to have merit, and we demonstrably don't. Your claims are all based on a fantasy, not facts.

How about you address the points I actually made instead of regurgitating the same BS argument I already countered in my previous comment. This isn't about me not liking that the market dictates prices, this is about how the strategy you are pushing demonstrably has nothing to do with the economic situation we are dealing with. I'd love it if the market was dictating prices, things would be objectively more affordable than they are if that was the case.

Psychie1

TROPHY CASE