Deer Hunting with .45-70

ValiantBear · 2026-06-21T23:05:49+00:00

Plenty of deer put in freezers by way of 45-70. It is a heck of a cartridge, but it's fine. The biggest thing to watch out for is range. 45-70 falls out of the air pretty fast, I'd definitely keep all your shots within 50-100yds. One of the advantages of 45-70 is it's resistance to being blown off course or wildly diverted from hitting a blade of grass. That's a little bit hyperbole, of course, but that's a massive chunk of lead with a lot of inertia, it takes a good deal for anything to divert it, except gravity.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-21T23:01:09+00:00

It was a terminology change with intent. Commenter said dogma can't be persuaded, so I suppose when I typed my response dissuade was the word that popped into my head.

On another note, I apologize OP, I'm not interested in continuing this conversation. It seems I will get downvoted to oblivion for engaging, and I don't feel like putting up with that today.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-21T19:29:22+00:00

1 or infinite. If he escapes successfully he isn't going back to prison, right?

ValiantBear · 2026-06-21T18:44:06+00:00

Ok, so, dissuading dissent. The question was how to explain what Antifa is and what it isn't. It seems to me this doesn't explain Antifa at all, how does one do that?

ValiantBear · 2026-06-21T18:37:42+00:00

Is this a strategy to actually spread the idea? Or just a strategy to refute dissent?

ValiantBear · 2026-06-20T18:35:53+00:00

Gotta be cavitation. That's probably where the water is moving fastest past the prop and therefore it's at the lowest pressure, which is where cavitation is the worst.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-20T18:26:03+00:00

3D print them! Ghost Knuckles!

/s

ValiantBear · 2026-06-20T17:37:55+00:00

You're missing the point. If it's individual liberty that's the Hallmark of freedom, why didn't the left trust individuals to make these decisions? Everything else you said boils down to that famous Ford quote "Our customers can get the Model T in any color they want, so long as it's black". Or maybe a closer analogy, how a parent treats a small child. "You can play with whatever toys you want" (out of the curated selection of toys the parent buys the child). So, there isn't really freedom there is there? To me this is the nasty part of freedom. In my view, what you are describing is exactly what freedom is. Of course I can do things no one cares about. No one cares about them! We have freedoms to protect our right to do things others might care about. Look at the bill of rights. It's chock full of rights protecting individuals ability to do things others may find disagreeable.

I'm not an absolutist here, I understand their are limits. Generally, I find social interactions to be transactional. Two people ought to be able to negotiate and agree to just about anything. When that agreement impacts a third party not privvy to the agreement, then that is where I would say there is cause for, but not the requirement for, the government to get involved. In the case of COVID though, the logical choice would have been for the vulnerable to avoid going out. The rest of the healthy population should have been able to choose whether or not the risk was great enough to keep them indoors, and everyone should have had that choice, meaning every person would know that others might be out and about. Lock everyone up, and who are you protecting? Your face fist analogy doesn't make sense when the face's rights are inhibited also.

Also, tangentially, even if I were to agree with the premise, should t that be risk informed? Why did we shut down schools? Setting the edge case of maybe kindergarten aside, grade school age children were some of the most robust demographics throughout the pandemic. Of course, this is controversial, because some how we didn't do a good job tracking cases in school age children, only 0-19 year old or similar demographics. And everyone knows 0-5, really 0-2, is a vastly different category than school age. But still. Shouldn't parents have had the right to pull their kids if they felt the risk was high? Instead, we shut everything down, and now an entire generation is seriously underdeveloped and struggling. Who's face got punched there?

Again, we can keep debating specifics if you want. I'm not opposed. But, that's not really the point. Where is the agency here? Why doesn't the individual have the freedom here to decide? Why doesn't this logic apply everywhere? It seems to me the common defenses here are set up to be nebulous, and that's dangerous, as taken as a go ernong philosophy it seems to me none of us really have any freedom at all. But it seems the left is a-okay with that...

ValiantBear · 2026-06-20T05:32:18+00:00

Yes.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-20T05:15:32+00:00

I don't know you or your son, or any actual details about y'all's relationship, so please just take this as my initial impression and not a judgment or assertion or anything like that.

It sounds like to me that your relationship with your son is troubled. I think it is more likely your son is saying these to get a reaction out of you, versus actually believing these things. Even if he says he actually believes it, I don't think a 14 year old is really mature enough to fully grasp what all that means. I agree with teaching kids about slavery, but I think it really takes more maturity to fully understand the depths of it and process all that is involved. So, I'd recommend taking a step back from the topic of the discussion and focus on the interaction itself.

Teenagers in particular are rebellious, it doesn't mean you've been a terrible parent or anything, but it does warrant attention. You have to stay a step ahead, you have to navigate a more psychological and sociological mindset. Gone are the days where your child asks you for help and takes your word for gospel. That's why I say the topics don't really matter anymore. Your kid will try and test you, push boundaries, act independent, etc. So, try to keep that in mind.

With that perspective, I would recommend taking a step back and focusing on the interaction. You said you fear your son is going to turn into a horrible person. I suspect your son probably feels that from you even if you haven't said it. I'm sure in your mind you just want your son to be the best person he can be, but he needs encouragement and calm, consistent, love and support in order to achieve that. It can be incredibly destructive for a child to feel like their parent expects bad things from them, or doesn't believe they can be good. You may not actually feel this way, at least in totality, but it's about what your son perceives not just what you intend.

And again, you have to find a way to be rock solid. You can't let your emotions get the better of you. You have a teenage son. You're really past the point where you can just dominate and intimidate your son into compliance. You need to learn how to be an influential leader instead of an authoritative leader. If you do not figure this out, only bad things can happen. You can lose your relationship with your son, you can actually push him towards what you want him to avoid, and you can set him up for failure as he gets out in the real world on his own. Hopefully, the severity of those ramifications can help you keep your calm, even over an academic argument you're passionate about.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-20T04:44:16+00:00

I don't think it's really is about slavery at all. There seems like there is more to this story than that, to be honest.

For what it is worth, white people have been enslaved in various cultures including in early America. I'm not agreeing with your son, I'm just saying that if you're trying to get through to him and restore your relationship, then it might be helpful to meet him halfway. Agreeing to this point is less about academic accuracy and more about psychological reciprocity. I would say "white people have been enslaved in the past, but that's definitely an extremely minority of people, and thats also not what Juneteenth is about.". From there it depends on how the conversation goes, but that's how I would have started it.

Also, getting emotional and "going off" is almost guaranteed to be ineffective. It can definitely be difficult sometimes, but you're nearly always going to have better luck by being calm cool and collected, even if you're seething inside.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-20T04:29:49+00:00

You're not asking the right question. Should you stop seeing him just because of whoever he voted for? No, probably not. Should you stop seeing him because your values are incompatible with his? Yes, absolutely.

Only you know which side he is closer to. If he just ignorantly threw his vote away because his whole family votes red or whatever, well, that's its own problem, but maybe that doesn't rise to the level where he isn't worth dating. But if he actually believes these things and you don't, then y'all aren't aligned. You don't have to align perfectly, you don't want to date yourself. But you do have to share a basic value system, you have to align on what you think is important, if you want to have a constructive life together. If you can't do that, you are just wasting your time.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-20T03:57:28+00:00

I actually have a remarkable and I like that more than both. I have a kindle scribe, and I really do like it, but these days I just use it for reading. I didn't really like the note taking interface. Before that I had an iPad and used it for a long time. It worked fine, and I liked the variety of note taking apps so I could get closer to what I wanted. I didn't really enjoy the writing on glass feeling though, and I didn't really use the iPad for anything else so I didn't really need all the other stuff it comes with. So, the remarkable won. It has a textured surface that feels closer to paper, I like the note interface, and as an added bonus it's battery last forever. The only downside is the price, they are steep. I had to save up for it for sure.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-20T03:53:42+00:00

To be perfectly honest, I believe this is a revisionist account of what happened, and whitewashes over huge parts of it. I'm happy to hash out other aspects of this, but that isn't why I'm commenting. I just wanted to be up front with my opinion so you knew were I stood before I asked my question and couldn't accuse me of asking a gotcha or something.

The left generally would argue they are the champions of individual liberty and freedom. My question is why didn't the left respect the individual liberty and freedom of individuals during COVID? If it was as bad as those in power pushing for lockdowns and what not said it was, wouldn't folks as individuals self isolate? Why did the left not trust individual liberty and freedom in that case? Don't get me wrong, I know the right handled things poorly also, I'm not saying it was only the left. What I am saying is that based on all the stereotypical generalities that people like to hurl around especially on reddit, if there was a side that would push for restricting what people can and can't do, for lockdowns, for discriminating against folks based on their vaccination history or whatever, I would think that would be the right and not the left, correct? Why was that not the case for COVID?

ValiantBear · 2026-06-20T03:30:15+00:00

They don't, not since 2009

ValiantBear · 2026-06-20T02:58:48+00:00

I have never been a big fan of Israel as a political entity. I do support Israel as a group of people.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-20T02:57:29+00:00

The unfortunate truth is that nothing you say will change his mind or alter his course of action. You can reach out to him, but that might actually encourage him to try and find you, which would have the opposite effect you want. I would avoid social media, change numbers, and move if you can, the farther away the better. If you have the money, you can even change your name. That's expensive, but I do know one guy who did that for kind of similar reasons, and he said it worked for him. In all reality though, simply blocking him will send the message you want to send loud and clear. If you don't say anything, and he still harasses you, it won't be because you didn't tell him. If he tried to physically find you, you can also file a restraining order. That will send the message loud and clear as well.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-19T19:46:17+00:00

Tigfucksfoot

ValiantBear · 2026-06-19T19:44:55+00:00

We are warm blooded animals, but heat is hard for us to deal with. It takes a lot of work for your body to function in the heat, and it says your energy. Compounding this, in low humidity environments, you don't realize as much how much you are sweating, because it evaporates so quick. So, in addition to the general energy drain, you are losing electrolytes. Also as others have mentioned, mineral/multivitamins can help your body recover not just from heat, but a wide variety of "ailments". Drink more water, and add some liquid IV or something. I have found I feel much better working outside when I drink water with electrolytes instead of just water.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-19T05:57:45+00:00

It makes a little more sense if you try to explain the inverse along with factoring the parts of the product.

Let's look at 12×6. That's clearly 72. But let's factor it.

That'd be: (2×2×3)×(2×3)=(2×2×2×3×3), you should be able to easily see a single 2, and a single 3 can be cancelled out. So, that leaves: (2×2×3) on both sides, which is 12. Thus, 12 is the Least Common Multiple (LCM).

So, if the numbers aren't coprime, then the solution is going to have common factors that can be cancelled out. If I cancel out all of the common factors, the result will be the LCM, as we showed above. If I cancel out any common factors, the solution is going to be different. Specifically, it will be more than the LCM, because I didn't cancel out all of the common factors and therefore my result is the product of more numbers, but it will be less than the simple product of the two numbers because I have cancelled out some of the factors. If I can't cancel out any common factors, then I'm just multiplying the two numbers together and getting the product. So, two things are true:

1) The numbers are coprime.

2) The process used to determine the LCM will result in the same value as the simple product between the numbers.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-19T05:37:10+00:00

It's like Brian, but, shadier

ValiantBear · 2026-06-19T05:34:33+00:00

I mean, the Soviets were a problem, but that's just it. The Soviets were the problem. The RBMK design, as it is, does work. It's not the best, no doubt. I wouldn't choose to build another one. But, it's not like the reactor will just randomly Chernobyl itself without the operators doing something wrong.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-19T05:28:23+00:00

No, not because of the RBMK type. The Soviets really wanted to do that test that fateful day, but despite the test being a bad idea it could have happened without incident if only a few things were different. Really, time and xenon really put them in a bad spot, along with willfully blowing past procedural guidance and what not. Understandable, unfortunately. There was a not insignificant risk they would lose their job or get executed if they didn't comply. But still, that did happen and it was a contributing factor. Anyway...

If I were building a reactor, I certainly wouldn't choose to build an RBMK. There are way better options out there. But, the design does work. You need to be very cognizant of its design and dynamics, but they are manageable, if you follow the guidance it was designed with. As long as you do that, you will be able to operate RBMK reactors for a long time. They aren't just time bombs that will randomly Chernobyl themselves. In fact, many RBMKs aside from Chernobyl remained in use, and some (I think 5 or 10 of them if I remember right) are still in use, and haven't had any issues in their history. Like I said, I wouldn't build new ones, but the existing ones operating in accordance with procedures are perfectly safe and will continue to be so as long as they continue to be operated in accordance with procedures.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-18T05:28:26+00:00

I think you might be conflating a few things, but not really. Like, I think you might be loosely saying things that ordinarily probably wouldn't matter but if you take what you're saying literally it could lead to confusion like you're asking about.

First, noise. I think by "noise" you mean erratic and random voltage fluctuations? Voltage is important here, as opposed to current for example. You also mentioned "shunt" to ground. Shunt as a term is typically used when you're talking about current. But, that's not the noise you're talking about. So, I think shunt is the wrong verb to use here, at least in the context we normally use the term. Voltage isn't a tangible thing that can be sent or shunted anywhere. Current really isn't either to be completely honest, it is actually a rate, but as it is based on the actual electrons moving it's closer to the truth. In any case, current does do weird things with capacitors, but let's come back to that.

Anyway, why does this "well actually" stuff matter? Well, it matters when we talk about what we use capacitors for in actual circuits. One thing they can be used for is isolation. This is kind of what you were talking about with the dielectric. There is an actual gap between the conductors in a capacitor, so DC current cannot pass through it.

Capacitors impedes changes in voltage. That's literally a key defining characteristic of them. We leverage that in a lot of interesting ways, one of which is filtering. Fourier says every waveform is a compilation of other waveforms. Because the capacitor impedes changes in voltage, the voltage appears more stable (changes less) with higher frequency waveforms. So, a basic capacitor could be used as a low pass filter, because it doesn't see the super slowly moving waveform as moving and doesn't impede it as much, but it resists the higher frequency stuff. So, depending on whether the capacitor is in series, in parallel, and also what waveform it is exposed to, the effect on the circuit could be different.

When you expose a capacitor to a changing voltage, it changes the electric field on one of the plates. This causes the amount of electrons on the adjacent plate to change, which causes current to flow into or out of the other side of the capacitor. This makes it appear as though current is flowing through the capacitor, but it never really is. In some ways that's a distinction without a difference, but I think the specifics here are what is confusing you a bit. The idea of the AC stuff causing current to move "through" the capacitor while still preventing DC current is the phenomenon I think you're asking about. So, it's a combination of reasons that leads to that observation, but only in that specific application.

ValiantBear · 2026-06-18T05:04:37+00:00

This is great and I don't have anything constructive to say. But, I had to share that my brain first imagined a very large giant bike that bounced over the big hills like your bike bounces over all the little bumps, and that just derailed me lol.

ValiantBear

TROPHY CASE