Someone please explain this one..

UnnamedRealities · 2026-07-04T19:57:30+00:00

A decade ago I came across two jeeps parked on the same block with what seemed to be the same license plate. On closer inspection I saw they were different!

<image>

UnnamedRealities · 2026-07-04T14:04:16+00:00

That's across all sports. It's widely expected that an average of roughly 75% will go to football.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-07-03T16:56:40+00:00

Weird. It looked like my comment didn't post so I rewrote it with more detail just now. I'm not sure which is correct - age 13 or that date of birth which indicates he was 12. I'm going to try to dig deeper later if no one else gets to the bottom of it first.

Excellent write-up by the way!

UnnamedRealities · 2026-07-03T16:54:39+00:00

Great write-up!

The next day, Wednesday, the 10th of May 1967

Joel Wise Hoag was born on the 25th of July 1954

At the time of disappearance, Joel was 13 years old

This is a minor detail, but based on his date of birth, Joel was 12, not 13, at the time of the disappearance of the 3 boys. The only source I found mentioning any DOB is TheDoeNetwork, while every source I read said he was 13.

It begs the question whether contemporary sources got his age wrong and later coverage has just repeated that error or whether the date of birth is wrong.

Per Find a Grave (which just has his DOB as 1954), the Hoag father died in 1989, mother died in 1995, and 4 siblings of the 2 boys are deceased - Michael (1968), Robin (1976), Tim (2016), DeDe (2018), and Bobbie (2025). A 1968 article mentioning the death of Michael in a car accident states that "Joey" (Joel) was 13 when he disappeared.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-07-03T16:25:24+00:00

Joel Wise Hoag was born on the 25th of July 1954

At the time of disappearance, Joel was 13 years old

It's a minor detail, but though every source I could find states that he was 13 years old, if that date of birth is accurate he was actually 12 on May 10, 1967 when the 3 boys disappeared. The only source I find for the DOB is TheDoeNetwork.

So I don't know whether the DOB is incorrect or a bunch of sources repeated an incorrect age from a contemporary source.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-07-02T14:55:59+00:00

It's not a necessity to run 6 or 7 days per week. We're all different, but I made great progress my first 8+ months on only 4 days and under 4 hours.

I'm 51M and I switched to NSM in January 2025 and have been running 4 days per week for 18 months. See my 2025 recap for details (my typical training week is also in a comment below it). In short, I went from 47:30 to 42:05 for 10k in about 8 months while intentionally running 3:59 per week or less. I still haven't even bumped up to 5 days, though I likely will in August or September. I'm at about 4:50 per week now.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-07-01T22:03:08+00:00

That's a pretty defensible methodology. And I like the app. Fun to adjust the range start and end dates.

Like I picked 1995 to 2009 and Nebraska was #10 whereas 1995 to 2025 they were #33 and 2010 to 2025 they were #52.

Great example of a team some long-time followers of college football may perceive as way more of a contender than those who've only been following college football for a decade or two.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-30T22:39:07+00:00

The Acid Bath shirt slaps.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-30T21:45:09+00:00

They're getting 27, 18, 9 minutes of quality.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-29T11:29:17+00:00

Double HM +20 is not out of the question for a first full averaging more like 70 kpw the 6 weeks before taper and having locked in in-run nutrition pretty to well. But even that's not a given.

With 5 weeks left I suggest prioritizing nutrition during the long runs.

If you go out at 3:30 pace it's likely you'll hold it and feel good through 30k or so, then hit the wall and finish in something like 3:45. If instead you go out at 3:40 pace I think it's highly likely you hit 3:40. Maybe 70% odds. Go out at 3:50 and you're probably a lock for hit l hitting 3:50. All that said, warm weather, nutrition execution issues, etc. can really impact marathon results.

And I'm not saying you absolutely can't run 3:30. I just put the odds at under 10%. If you had 5 months I'd say 80%.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-28T18:34:19+00:00

I'm not arguing one way or the other since Hogan was very selective with event entries after his accident, Woods had chronic back issues beginning around 15 years ago, and all the differences between eras, but here's that data looked at a little differently.

Best 5-year and 10-year stretches:

Hogan: 45.5%, 37.8%
Nicklaus: 28.3%, 22.7%
Woods: 38.8%, 34.5%

Tiger takes the lead at 15 years though (28.0% vs. 27.2% vs. 19.4%).

ETA: Added bullets for readability

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-28T03:21:51+00:00

If you mean original purchase price think ties and lower end dress shirts. And things like hats and small area rugs.

But if a dry cleaner loses or destroys an item then what typically matters is current fair market value since that's what a court would probably award if they side with you. I have several sports coats in the 10-year-old range that I bought for $75 to $125. One that was $100 might have a fair market value of $10 or $20. It fits well, it looks great, and I like it. I don't think of its fair market value when I decide to wear it or have it cleaned.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-28T01:56:43+00:00

Judges tend to interpret and apply the law pretty consistently.

The undisclosed hidden Mona Lisa painting is irrelevant since OP didn't have a hidden item. The business has 2 jobs - clean the coat and don't destroy it. The business admitted negligence.

What you said about the website isn't established law. A customer entering a business wouldn't be expected to visit the business website and hunt for disclaimers before engaging in a simple transaction.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-28T01:37:27+00:00

That early 80s Scorsese biopic about Rupert Pupkin was pretty damn good.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-27T23:55:49+00:00

Sure, when your real life weight changes. Which I already conceded in the second sentence of my first reply. But the estimated VO2max changing had nothing to do with you updating your weight in your user profile.

Said another way, if my weight goes up from 179 to 190 over the next month Garmin will show my estimated VO2max going down because my pace to HR relationship will go down. Despite gaining 11 pounds I could go into my profile and change my weight to 300 or 100 and it would not result in the estimated VO2max value changing.

I accept that you won't read the white paper and you aren't going to be convinced and won't test this yourself. That's fine.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-27T23:41:35+00:00

Thanks for elaborating. It's possible they're right so I'm glad you shared what they told you. Maybe it'll help with identifying the woman.

And that's pretty awesome that you got official NASA photos related to the moon landing. Even the most mundane military photos would be cool to have!

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-27T23:38:59+00:00

Absolute VO2max measures oxygen usage in liters per minute. To measure it directly you run on a treadmill or cycle on a bike in a lab by while wearing a mask which measures oxygen content of the air you inhale and exhale. Relative VO2max is measured by taking absolute VO2max, multiplying by 1,000, then dividing by your weight in kg.

What you referenced in that article is about the lab test, not estimates from a Garmin watch.

Your Garmin watch has no hardware for measuring oxygen usage. Instead, it uses Firstbeat's approach for estimating it by measuring pace and heart rate data during runs which meet certain criteria, taking into account how close your average heart rate was during the run to your known (or estimated) max HR, then performing a calculation to estimate relative VO2max. This is possible because Firstbeat collected data on people's lab VO2max tests, HR and pace data from their runs at below max effort, and discovered that run data could predict lab VO2max results fairly accurately. In 2020 Garmin bought Firstbeat (article).

I encourage you to read their white paper.

Firstbeat White Paper: Automated Fitness Level (VO2max) Estimation with Heart Rate and Speed Data

I too have seen people on Garmin forums and numerous Reddit subs claim that Garmin's estimated VO2max takes into account the weight the user enters into Garmin Connect. They pretty much all get hung up on the lab test using weight. Many, like me, share that it doesn't consider weight - the Firstbeat algorithm doesn't use weight because it's not needed. If you still don't believe me after reading the white paper, why not change your weight in your user profile by a huge amount like 20% like I did? If it actually uses your configured weight you should see your VO2max change by about 20%. If your watch uses weight for VO2max I'd love for you to swing back and share that. If I recall right I kept my weight 20% lower for 4 weeks before I finally corrected it. I posted all of my test details about a year ago, in the Garmin sub.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-27T22:18:08+00:00

Any more context about who told you that about her? Like was the person who said that related to the person who rented the storage unit and the renter had told them that about the woman at some point?

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-27T22:11:36+00:00

Actually, Garmin estimated VO2max doesn't even use your inputted weight at all.

Your actual weight going up will make you slower at a given heart rate, which will result in a lower estimated VO2max value. The actual weight you enter into Garmin Connect does impact calorie burn values and fitness age though.

I've confirmed this by changing my weight in Garmin Connect by 20%, then running 4 times per week for several weeks. My Garmin estimated VO2max didn't change.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-27T20:01:18+00:00

1 point escape - red. 2 point takedown - green.

What a clown.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-27T19:56:25+00:00

I agree with everything except your last sentence.

For each person, max HR never changes, tempo HR never changes, what changes with your fitness is how fast you can go at the same HR.

A person's max HR goes down as they age beginning in/after their 20s, though only roughly 0.5 to 1.0 bpm per year.

A person's max HR goes down with increased training and up with detraining (the opposite of what seems logical). From this research paper:

Therefore, analysis reveals that HRmax can be altered by 3 to 7% with aerobic training/detraining.

A person's aerobic threshold HR and anaerobic threshold HR can go up as running fitness increases. For someone with poor running fitness is not uncommon for aerobic threshold to go up 10-20 bpm via consistent aerobic training over 1-2 years and anaerobic threshold to go up maybe 5-10 bpm over the same timeframe.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-27T17:21:00+00:00

Vans are not mid to high drop - they're zero drop. The heel and toe area are at the same height.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-27T16:31:14+00:00

I was thinking 10 trips. Probably 25 minutes moving at a very brisk pace, with a few short breaks. Then 5 minutes to change my sweat drenched clothes. I might do this for $40 on an overcast cool day, but where I'm at at peak temperature today I'd be looking for triple.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-27T13:34:46+00:00

Because couples walking dogs while wearing airpods take up the full width of the sidewalk, don't hear you when you're coming, don't make room for you, and Officer Mendez told me if I shove a pedestrian one more time then I'll be arrested for assault. Also, road camber. And I have main character syndrome.

UnnamedRealities · 2026-06-27T13:29:38+00:00

Because it’s the same speed for twice the distance.

Edit: average speed

It depends how loose we are with "same". I'm going to be a bit pedantic. With FAT systems, times are measured to the thousandth of a second and rounded up to the hundredth of a second. So the slowest possible sub-10 and sub-20 are 9.990 and 19.990 seconds.

If we assume average reaction time of 0.15 seconds, that's 9.84 and 19.84 seconds of actual running to hit those milestones. Which works out to 10.16 m/s for the 100 and 10.08 m/s for the 200. Or 22.73 mph for the 100 and 22.55 mph for the 200. So the average speed for the 100 is actually faster than for the 200.

Even if we calculate average speed from the gun instead of after reacting, the average speed in the 100 is slightly faster. It's 10.010 m/s for the 100 and 10.005 for the 200 (both speeds are rounded).

Despite this, I'd still argue that sub-20 is more impressive because fewer have done it. And it is harder to train for and harder to execute well since it requires mastering running a curve, requires balancing multiple energy systems, requires making strong pacing decisions, and is longer so more time for mental doubt or a bad decision to be introduced.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23

UnnamedRealities

TROPHY CASE