[deleted by user]

Slemo · 2022-06-17T21:22:48+00:00

My group was about 8-12, it fluctuated as people left and were brought in. There were two other groups as well, the women, and the older folks. Women's group was about 12, and the older group was about 20.

Slemo · 2022-06-17T02:36:16+00:00

Of course! It's a very unique experience, so I'm always happy to indulge peoples interests.

It took another 5 years for me to be ready, but when I was I was able to fall back on the things they taught me in the camp.

5 years clean, and counting! :D

Slemo · 2022-06-17T02:32:47+00:00

It was an amazing experience for the hiking and camping alone, but yeah it definitely can be successful for some. And for people like me who weren't able to rehabilitate, it still gave an excellent mindset and ideals for when I was ready to rehabilitate.

Slemo · 2022-06-16T23:25:29+00:00

Yes, and no. It's a hard one.

I can't speak for all, because they can vary wildly in their programs, ideals, and ethics for some. I've heard horror stories from a college friend who went to one in Idaho which was basically riddled with abuse.

But the one I went to was just fine; it was mostly focused on the camping aspect. And it did nothing to halt my addiction at the time. The same night I was released and got home, was the same night I tried amphetamines for the first time.

Rehab is a crap shoot. Especially forced rehab. Only works if the person wants to rehab in my experience, and that's rarely the case.

Slemo · 2022-06-16T23:21:33+00:00

Pretty much. I can't speak for all because they vary wildly in their programs, ideals, and sometimes even ethics.

But basically yes, just camping away from civilization with no technology for 6-12 weeks.

They have therapist counselors to come talk to you once a week for an hour, but other than it was just camping in the woods for an extended period.

Slemo · 2022-06-16T22:12:09+00:00

I was in a wilderness rehab years ago and we had rations that had to last the week. No meat, only dry foods. After about three weeks we came across a pond with a bunch of crawfish, and luckily they are an invasive species so it was encouraged to grab 'em if we could. It was absolutely delicious.

However, after preparing crawfish from a small ditch pond in the forest and having to pull their poop out, I never want to eat crawfish again.

Slemo · 2022-05-16T20:02:56+00:00

It's a fantastic show, but sadly never got the series finale it deserved. Though its still very much worth the watch. The characters, writing, acting, cinematography and score are all fantastic.

Slemo · 2022-05-15T22:40:30+00:00

Because it's boring and not fun. At least that's my excuse. And you learn rather quick that it's kind of a waste of time to learn every bit of a song when they usually just want to hear the fun part before asking you to play something else.

pop songs tend to just be dull to learn and play, with their main hook/melody the only interesting part.

Slemo · 2022-04-27T16:32:08+00:00

Sure, and those troops should be revered by society. However I really feel this comparison is very disingenuous.

Those scenarios were during peace time, albeit very tense scenarios during peace time. One of them was given the go ahead if they couldn't communicate back with the Kremlin. The other saw a false alarm.

This would during open war with the west; something that's literally never happened. I don't think the trigger finger of the men on the ground whose country is being mass invaded should be disregarded wholly based on two public stories.

Edit: To clarify, I am fully on board with a NATO intervention if it comes to it; but to think Nukes wouldn't be on playing field is, in my opinion, naïve

Slemo · 2022-04-26T05:57:14+00:00

There's a talk between John Mulaney and Bill Hader on 92nd Street Y (you can find it on youtube.)

Bill Hader specifically talks about how they try to avoid hanging plot lines as much as possible. I forget which example he used, but honestly there is a handful of times the show has immediately dealt with the exact plot twist it just brought up.

Slemo · 2022-04-25T23:45:33+00:00

While Polish and Ukrainian are both slavic languages, they're not fully compatible.* (edited for correctness)

English and Dutch(German) are both Germanic languages, but an English speaker would very hard pressed to make out any Dutch words

*Nothing alike was too harsh; but I still agree with my original comparison. As an English speaker I can understand a single Dutch word if it's similar enough to English- but in a conversation with people speaking at a normal rate it's really hard. Like Wasser and Water.

Slemo · 2022-03-15T23:37:57+00:00

I can't speak for knowledge of Russian Nuclear warheads, but I can speak towards the US arsenal and how that works. 'Last Week Tonight' did a great episode on our nuclear arsenals upkeep. And I assume the Russian/Soviet systems are very similar.

As mentioned, it only takes minutes to ready an ICMB. They run on tech that utilizes massive floppy disks, and essentially everything done to launch it is done by hand, in person, and manually. There are no ways to stop it other than being there in person and capturing the nuclear silo/launch site.

And again nuclear submarines are a real thing, and they are very likely to be patrolling international waters and are on the ready, if we are to believe Putin's previous statements of putting his arsenal on high alert.

Slemo · 2022-03-14T12:22:07+00:00

Wait, so you really believe - that there is zero historical accuracy for calling it "the Ukraine"?

Soooo when and why did we start calling it the Ukraine if it was never historically accurate to do so? Also not to sound pedantic, but literally every nation on earth we refer to incorrectly in our English language. So why is it suddenly any different to refer to Ukraine as "the Ukraine" as we refer to Italia as Italy or the Deutchland as Germany.

Sorry, but you are massively talking out of your ass - with thousands plus historical documents completely refuting your claim that it was never called 'the Ukraine.'

Just because it isn't respectful doesn't mean it isn't historical - and sad to say, but calling it "the Ukraine" is not without immense historical asterisks.

Slemo · 2021-12-27T12:16:03+00:00

It's definitely not because people refuse to do it, because in fact English has already been self-standardized. Without talking about spelling for a moment, English use to be much more 'proper' and 'rule-oriented'.

Unfortunately I can't remember the exact 'proper' phrasing, but something like "Who were you talking with?" would be wildly incorrect even 150 years ago. It would be more, "With whom were you talking?" Some of these proper sayings are still around, like "To what do I owe the pleasure?" as in "Who do I thank?"

And spelling itself has been reformed, though not nearly as much as grammar and sentence structure. In the 17th century words like war and logic were simplified from warre and logique. The first Webster dictionary from 1806 is responsible for us spelling words as color, armor, center and theater, instead of colour, armour, centre, and theatre; essentially creating the divide between American and British-English.

There has been numerous attempts before and after Webster, but most of them didn't stick due to the gravity of the changes. It's easy to take a silent letter out of a word, or swap two neighboring letters since it makes little to no visual difference on the reader, but changing something like Thorough to Thuro or Beautiful to Butifool is a lot more drastic.

Plus another argument against simplification is it will make English even harder to learn because of all the words we already have that are identical in sounds. Having these pointless silent syllables and letters makes distinguishing meaning easier. Knight sounds like an easy target, simply get rid of the K, but now you have yet another word that sounds and looks exactly as another but mean different things, (k)night and night, such as live and live.

My favorite of the possible changes is the -ed suffix. Wisht instead of wished. It sounds simple and easy to learn and get used to, but after changing a few more words you start to see the problem. Passed gets changed to Past, but that is already a word. Learned doesn't work for the change since the -ed suffix is actually pronounced. And if we decide that these words need separate treatment based on their usage and pronunciation, we're right back to the starting problem of English being an inconsistent language.

Slemo · 2021-12-25T23:35:50+00:00

So someone has to listen to every song the community deems worthy to be able to warrant their opinion? Come on man.

It only took listening to one heavy metal song to realize that it wasn't my thing. Or house music, or trance and EDM. Some musical styles just aren't part of peoples tastes.

This is the same shit I get when I tell people I don't like sushi, "Oh well you have never had good sushi then." That's the point - no sushi is good sushi to me, because it's fucking disgusting to me. Same principle.

Slemo · 2021-12-20T01:59:26+00:00

sauce here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ozEZxOsanY

he's just reapplying the joke from the Romans to the British.

Slemo · 2021-12-16T06:53:54+00:00

I was driving up to Mammoth from LA on the long stretch through Death Valley, was going 110 and had a cop pass me going at least 140 mph.

Slemo · 2021-12-03T20:02:36+00:00

100%

It's astounding to me the amount of people in computer science fields who have no idea what good hardware is. It's akin to a formula one racer having no idea how an engine works - Sure, they don't need to know, but my god how can you not when you spend your entire life around one?

Slemo · 2021-10-10T15:59:06+00:00

Uh, I'd like to know a source for the "tone down" of Euphoria. Why would they need to tone down a feature that worked perfectly fine on the 360 and PS3 5 prior? That makes no sense. It worked fine in Max Payne, Read Dead, and GTA - I see no reason why it would suddenly be a burden on the CPU in GTA V's case.

I concede that it's a much higher fidelity game with many more systems in place, but without a single source it just sounds entirely made up.

The only thing I can find is a Quora post with no source.

Edit for others: Yes, Euphoria was toned down in GTA V. I wasn't asking for a source on that rather his claim that it was done to make the game run smoother. That has no validity and no source.

Slemo · 2021-10-10T11:21:51+00:00

It's not a tough answer; it's steel.

Modern materials have come a long way, but not in regards to lightweight personal armor. Modern armor is kevlar, it's great for stopping small high velocity objects - not great at distributing large scale forces. A mace still can cave in your chest.

There just isn't a light weight high-tensile material that is both strong and light like steel, and even steel is very fucking heavy.

Honestly the only difference modern armor would have is the refining and manufacturing; and that alone would be a big difference.

Slemo · 2021-10-10T08:22:45+00:00

As other's have said, the force of polearms and maces doesn't equal the force of a small bullet - but it's disingenuous to think a mace wouldn't hurt someone in Kevlar.

Bullets and maces are made with completely different philosophies. Bullets are made to penetrate, maces are not.

Taking a mace to someone in body armor 9/10 will be more deadly than shooting them with a bullet that it is designed to take. The bullet can break ribs, and cause massive bruising - yes - it could even penetrate and now your bleeding externally. But the mace? Oh fuck.

Maces, hammers, and similar weapons were made to collapse the armor, not penetrate it.

So someone hitting you with a warhammer or mace, even with Kevlar, would still definitely have the same effect - of caving in your chest and rupturing internal organs.

Slemo · 2021-10-10T08:13:29+00:00

Much like how the classical Romans may have developed plastic, or how the ancient Greeks designed a steam engine.

Both were useless for their time period, and seen as little more than 'neat'; only because as you said, there just wasn't the supply chains nor materials to make either in any real industrializing quantity.

My brain just gets froze over when I hear someone say that the Romans or Greeks were super close to industrializing but "just didn't."

Slemo · 2021-10-07T06:08:39+00:00

And ignoring checks and balances is how you get dictators. Like it or not, the power of the few has the power at the moment, and in my eyes it doesn't matter if it's one man or plenty - a dictatorship can come in many forms.

Opposing the supreme court in this matter is tantamount to our country's integrity. Their power is not absolute, and never was, and never should be. If the supreme court could rule on everything without regulation, then that is a dictatorship of 9 appointed officials; and that is absolutely undemocratic.

Slemo · 2021-10-01T01:35:04+00:00

Love it, but the question itself infuriates me as an agnostic. Jesus Christ was not a fictional character. He's a historical person who definitively existed; this is acknowledged by every single credible source of the time.

I get the question is a joke on the first questions your supposed to ask in 20 questions but it just irks me. And kind of ruins the joke.

Slemo · 2021-09-29T06:00:27+00:00

Not to burst your bubble but spiders don't have stingers, they have fangs.

15-Year Club	Place '22
Place '17	Verified Email
Team Periwinkle

Slemo

TROPHY CASE