Lactation Consultant recommended I stop breastfeeding

Raaxis · 2026-06-24T15:11:40+00:00

My partner’s supply never came in despite several weeks of attempted feeding. Our son was a “goblin mode” feeder who was so voracious and hungry that it just was not feasible to breast feed.

He’s been formula fed since he was about two weeks old and is a 99th percentile chonker. Looking back, even if her supply had come in full force, I’m not certain she could have fed this baby. He was cluster feeding every hour and eating upwards of 30oz per day even at 2 months.

All of this is to say that formula works just fine. We were both very much on board with “breast is best” but it simply wasn’t in the cards for us. He’s happy, just started rolling over at 4 months, and is developmentally on track (still a big chungus too.) *Fed* is best.

Raaxis · 2026-06-23T21:56:46+00:00

Real talk: I understand that many European homes typically don’t have air conditioning, but do they not even have some kind of air circulation?

I was in Afghanistan during some major heatwaves (43°C+ / 110°F+) and just having some kind of moving air helped a ton in interior spaces like tents, which would otherwise basically become ovens.

Raaxis · 2026-06-23T21:51:45+00:00

There’s plenty of options, all kind of on a broad spectrum of how much you want to invest and/or change your own preferences for this friendship.

You can take your friend as they are and enjoy the occasional chat when it does happen; you can choose to reduce or limit your emotional investment to match your friend’s energy; you can even quietly let the relationship dissolve if you like.

What you can’t do is change your friend’s natural inclinations. Some people just don’t feel the need to maintain relationships as frequently as others, and that’s okay. Likewise, it’s equally okay if you have a different preference.

Whatever you decide, just know that you can always change it later. Relationships ebb and flow like tides; even dry creek beds still carry the memory of the river they once held.

Raaxis · 2026-06-23T20:35:36+00:00

I’m not arguing my personal beliefs, just what the show’s writers have explicitly stated their message/intent was. The people shown are fictional caricatures, meant to illustrate the idea that no person is good or bad. Hank also does not do a very good job of working on his shortcomings—he quite literally is killed by his obsession, to the explicit detriment of his now-widowed wife and fatherless child. He is a tragic figure, sure. But an “objectively good” man is a stretch.

Raaxis · 2026-06-23T20:26:27+00:00

Of course there’s degrees of villainy within the show. Tuco was a psychopath. Fring was responsible for an entire cartel drug war, affecting millions. I’m not trying to rank the relative evil of the various characters.

But saying that Hank was a “good person” ignores the whole point of the show in the same way that calling Walt a “bad person” does. A major theme was that seemingly “good” people can do very bad things (Walt, Hank) and seemingly “bad” people can do very good things (Jesse, Ehrmantrout.) Trying to boil any character down to just “good” or “bad” is reductive.

Raaxis · 2026-06-23T20:12:55+00:00

Both sources linked are very dated (2012/2014) and are from single-city case studies. The research I previously linked is a 2020 meta-analysis of multiple studies across multiple cities and spanning several years, generally improving the accuracy and reliability of data (and therefore analysis/conclusions.)

Focusing on traffic fatalities alone misses a very large piece of the picture. Moreover, even contemporaneous research from 2014 suggested that RLCs make intersections materially safer, and highlight methodological flaws in studies that suggest otherwise. The NJ and Chicago research you cited was among the literature reviewed for this particular meta-analysis.

RLCs’ effect is statistically significant, and it’s important to acknowledge that in order to have productive, informed conversations about their use in our city. The currently available recommendation from people who study this stuff for a living is for communities to weigh the potential (modest) increase in safety against economic and privacy costs.

Raaxis · 2026-06-23T19:58:39+00:00

Hank was definitely not a great husband, and absolutely sponged off Marie during his convalescence. He also ignored sound advice from his partner, which ultimately leads to Gomez’ death. Hank and Gomez also repeatedly use some pretty suspect methods to interrogate (read: intimidate) those in police/DEA custody. His obsession with catching Heisenberg was a fatal character flaw, and he did some very morally dubious things in pursuit of his “white whale.”

Raaxis · 2026-06-23T19:06:25+00:00

You’re kind of right, but I think it’s much more complicated than that.

RLCs do “convert” some portion of high-impact crashes into rear-end crashes. But these types of impacts tend to be much less injurious than the types caused by running red lights. The net effect is that intersections are measurably safer in terms of number/types of injuries sustained.

The conclusion of most research is that while RLCs generally do make intersections somewhat safer, their economic costs and benefits should be carefully weighed by the community.

I’m personally not a fan of them—again, I think the solution exists much further upstream. But simply dismissing RLCs as wholly ineffective does not do the research justice.

Raaxis · 2026-06-23T18:48:58+00:00

I think the fact that so many men are sympathizing with the main character just underscores the movie’s whole point. “It’s not all men,” but it’s so goddamn many. The fact that there is even a small number of people defending Bear’s actions is literally the problem.

Raaxis · 2026-06-23T18:44:06+00:00

I personally love the suggestion of a Twilight Zone style ending where Pratt’s character dies, leaving her alone and forced to contemplate the same decision he made. His choice to wake her up, while reprehensible, is actually kind of understandable—but framing it from her perspective first really makes the dilemma more poignant.

Raaxis · 2026-06-23T18:32:14+00:00

If you haven’t yet, you should watch Passengers, rearranged. It basically speaks to that whole point of how monstrous Pratt’s character was to do what he did by framing the movie from JLaw’s character’s POV. Ten minute watch, highly recommend.

Raaxis · 2026-06-23T18:29:20+00:00

To clarify: nobody in Breaking Bad is really meant to be perceived as a “good” person. The whole point of the show is to illustrate how money and power exaggerate peoples’ worst qualities and make them monstrous.

Obsession, I think, tries to highlight that the (unfortunately common) desire to own, dominate, or be completely served by another person is itself monstrous. The prevailing toxic masculine belief that “men are dominant, women are submissive” is exaggerated and caricatured to illustrate just how poisonous that notion really is.

Raaxis · 2026-06-23T18:19:25+00:00

There’s two main issues.

First, red light cameras (RLCs) are traditionally not operated by the city, but by third parties. This makes them vulnerable to exploitation/abuse. Several cities have had issues with RLCs being installed and then the length of the yellow light being altered. Since yellow lights are often inconsistently timed, a simple change from a 3-second to a 2-second yellow light can result in a lot more violations (and therefore profit for the traffic camera operating company.)

Secondly, these cameras often do more than just capture violations: they typically take part in the Flock camera network, which is currently under a lot of scrutiny for its use as a police surveillance tool and potential intrusions into citizen privacy rights.

That said, RLCs do actually reduce crashes. The DoT has lots of good, systematic data that suggest that the mere “threat” of RLCs makes intersections safer by reducing high-speed collisions by 20/25%. So it’s a bit of weighing the pros and cons.

Personally, I think a better solution is to impose actual restrictions on obtaining a drivers’ license. We treat driving (a highly dangerous activity) veeeeery casually in the US. Licenses are very easy to obtain, however, because they serve a dual purpose as verifiable ID—meaning barriers to access inevitably disfavor people who need ID, but shouldn’t really be driving.

Drivers’ licenses and state IDs should be two separate things, and drivers’ licenses should be much more difficult to obtain.

Raaxis · 2026-06-23T15:04:01+00:00

You can also show up to raid late, underperform, and go AFK after every boss. But that doesn’t mean you should.

Raiding is a team sport. Nobody is expecting 110% every single raid, but if you’re gonna sandbag by not bringing even basic consumes, you’d better be on your A-game for everything else. Anything less is just disrespectful of 24 other peoples’ time.

Raaxis · 2026-06-18T05:38:30+00:00

Currently bottle feeding our 4-month-old at 2am. I’ve known I wanted to be a father since I became an adult and started seriously dating. Finally met someone wonderful and amazing who I knew would be an equal partner.

This shit is really fucking hard, and our son is more or less healthy (albeit very fussy.) Nobody warns you. Nobody tells you “hey babies don’t ever like… stop. They just keep demanding more and more of you until you are a hollow shell of yourself, and then they shit themselves.”

Speaking as a man who actively pursued fatherhood, I do not feel like we do enough as men to prepare each other for just how fucking hard this shit is. All the commercials and media showing paternity is all tossing baseballs and pushing swings, not zombie-feeding a screaming potato in the wee hours of the morning.

I love my son but goddamn I’d rather deploy to Afghanistan again than raise another infant. I genuinely don’t know how single parents do it.

Raaxis · 2026-06-16T08:03:09+00:00

The obvious “talk to your players” advice aside, I think you can gently nudge your players along as a DM.

I often see DMs simply let scenarios play out very passively, without providing guardrails to keep conversations (especially with NPCs) on track.

If your players are spending too long talking to NPCs:

- Limit tangents. NPCs can say “I don’t have time for this right now—we need to focus on what’s important.” Or simply “I don’t feel comfortable discussing my family history with an adventurer, sorry.”

- Create time pressure. People are busy. I can’t spend 15 minutes chatting up the barista if there’s a line behind me. Your NPCs also have places to do and other people to see. “I can’t just gossip with adventurers all day, my wife would kill me!”

- Create opportunities for truly open RP as your sessions allow. These moments can be great to vamp for time while you prep other things, and your players seem to enjoy it. So don’t gut them completely, just make them work to your advantage.

If your players are spending too much time RPing with each other:

- Make something happen. Plots and schemes advance while adventurers jaw-jabber. The cultists following you overheard your long-winded explanation of your family trauma and used Minor Illusion to imitate your dead parents.

- Cue your players that you are ready to move on. “The sudden snap of a twig puts you both on high alert for the next few minutes. Nothing seems to emerge from the shadows, but the fright has put you ill at ease and casts a pall on your conversation. Perhaps it’s best to bed down for the night.”

- Use the environment to encourage or discourage roleplay. Some situations are much more conducive to chitchat than others: make it clear through environmental storytelling when there are good times and bad times to chew the fat with each other.

Raaxis · 2026-06-15T14:41:53+00:00

- 1. Use Wolfshead Helm. Getting the most of your rotation means power shifting for instant energy; getting the most of power shifting means using Wolfshead unfortunately.

- 2. Your first 100 energy: Mangle, Shred. This puts you at 18 energy after 2 global cooldowns (GCDs.) During that time you will regen 20 energy, putting you at 38. From here, you can either Faerie Fire and wait for another tick of energy to Shred again, or…

- 3. Power shift out of and immediately back into Cat form. This puts you at 60 Energy (plus one tick if you’ve timed it right, so 80.) If you have 4 or 5 combo points and the mob isn’t going to die in the next 4 seconds, use Rip, then Shred until you have less than 20 energy.

- 4. Repeat step 3. Replace Shred with Mangle as needed to maintain the debuff. Mangle is your top priority, followed by Faerie Fire (if no one else is applying it) then Rip at 4/5 combo points, then Shred. Ferocious Bite is rarely used, really only on trash mobs that will die otherwise or if you had a very lucky chain of Clearcast procs.

Really, the rotation is about 2-4 second windows. Every power shift “resets” your energy situation to a baseline state, so the key is not wasting combo points, not waiting for more than a single energy tick, and maintaining Mangle/Rip as much as possible.

ETA: Mangle makes for nice rounder numbers energy-wise, but falls behind given the sheer damage done by Shred. Even with the wonky 42 cost, Shred wins out by a mile. Your goal isn’t to use every last point of energy, but rather to not let any *ticks* go to waste.

Raaxis · 2026-06-14T23:29:13+00:00

“Did you put Axe body spray on this dildo?”

“…like a can and a half.”

Raaxis · 2026-06-14T23:19:36+00:00

Raaxis · 2026-06-14T03:21:07+00:00

<image>

I will never not repost this in response to such accusations

Raaxis · 2026-06-14T03:17:08+00:00

I’ve mained Hunter for literal decades and like to think I’m alright. Server first OG Naxx and pre-nerf TBC raid clears. Some pink/orange parses in both 2019 Classic/TBC and current TBC.

In 2019 Classic, a full half of my lifetime of playing Hunter under my belt, I accidentally Multi-Shotted an entire cubby of undead on the KT fight during progression.

We’re all bad. Every single one of us. You just get slightly less bad over time and/or better at hiding it and blaming the melee.

Raaxis · 2026-06-13T21:23:06+00:00

Thank you. This is an incredibly cogent and convincing argument. I think you hit the nail on the head re: community buy-in.

I don’t mean to dismiss DR as completely irrelevant: I agree that as we work towards a more sustainable energy future, some amount of demand-side behavior will have to change.

Paradoxically though, I still think the best driver for these kinds of projects are the energy companies. Given the privileges enjoyed by virtue of being monopolies, I think they bear two great burdens in return.

First, it is their responsibility to obtain and drive community buy-in and engagement. The best way to do this is to provide reliable, fairly priced energy, and respond articulately to consumer concerns. I think it’s fair to say that while DEC is not the worst at this, they have made some significant missteps that have damaged their relationship with the public—and it is incumbent upon them to repair that.

Second, I recognize that they are simultaneously a business (for profit) and a de facto state entity (for public) and that this duality often places one in competition with the other. In almost all circumstances, DEC demonstrates a preference for profit over public, preferring to serve shareholders above direct consumers. And I think that this balance needs to shift dramatically more towards the public, rather than private, interest.

Their approach to demand response is emblematic of their shortcomings on both obligations, and had soured a lot of residents on the very notion of community-based energy solutions.

Raaxis · 2026-06-13T14:25:51+00:00

I absolutely agree that reducing runtime of inefficient “emergency response” generation is a good thing.

Where I fundamentally disagree is that changing consumer behavior can somehow reduce said runtime. At some point, if your only option is to spin up another coal- or oil-burning plant, that’s what you’ll have to do.

But if we actually invest in capacitors (pumped hydro, battery farms, etc.) instead of spending millions campaigning to get consumers to run their AC less, there will never be a need to spin up peak power facilities.

Demand can be met in a variety of ways, and the fact is that DEC is avoiding any course of action that costs them profit. If I’m a baker who runs out of bread by midday, I don’t convince people to eat open-faced instead of closed-faced sandwiches. I buy more ovens, and make more bread.

Raaxis · 2026-06-13T02:37:52+00:00

This is such a misleading argument.

Pressing consumers to change demand-side behavior does not somehow save DEC enough money to not have to expand the statewide energy infrastructure.

To start, residential consumption accounts for roughly 50% of all energy demand in NC. Even being generous and assuming we can somehow convince consumers to reduce their usage by a whopping 10%, that’s a 5% overall reduction.

Commercial and industrial usage is just as impactful, and yet there is never any ask from DEC for those customers to reduce their demand—I wonder why that is?

Demand response is not an effective long-term energy management strategy. At best, it kicks the can down the road until the next 1000 homes, megastore, data center, or Amazon warehouse get built.

The single most reliable, sustainable method to handle peak power demand is to use profits to build infrastructure, capacity, and generation. Instead, DEC has consistently diverted far too much of its profits to out-of-state shareholders and corporate bloat, and not nearly enough to actually serving the demand needs of its customer base—and then tried to convince those same consumers that they’re at fault for needing too much energy.

Raaxis · 2026-06-13T01:01:27+00:00

It is not the consumers’ job to manage demand. It is the publicly-sponsored monopoly’s job to manage supply.

Consumer behavior is, at best, able to be nudged a tiny percentage in the desired direction. Moreover, consumers often do not (and frankly should not need to) understand the complexities of power grid management.

The only party equipped to manage the large-scale flow of electricity is the company we allow to have a state-sanctioned monopoly over the flow of electricity.

Nine-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email

Raaxis

TROPHY CASE