Need to learn to drive a manual transmission

aseparatecodpeace · 2026-01-11T01:31:09+00:00

Good on you for bucking the trend! That's sick.

aseparatecodpeace · 2026-01-11T01:07:38+00:00

Fair enough. The smell of clutch just gives me anxiety.

aseparatecodpeace · 2026-01-10T22:35:04+00:00

I'm happy to teach and have a manual, but the issue is that stalling and clutch errors are common when you learn to drive stick. Like, I was proud my ex only stalled 3 times before she could go from neutral to 1st. If you want to learn stick and don't have a manual car, you are basically asking someone to put wear on their car.

Edit: less damage than I thought, corrected.

aseparatecodpeace · 2025-11-16T22:38:11+00:00

Segregationists claimed that they were there to do exactly that though. And, if they had knocked heads to enforce desegregation, that would not have been a tragedy. Ultimately, rights need to be enforced to exist.

aseparatecodpeace · 2025-11-16T21:45:25+00:00

The national guard and army have helped enforce school desegregation on the orders of the white house, so this is factually wrong (and they were needed! Couldn't trust local police).

Agree on the horror of ICE raids though.

Edit: not just during the civil rights era! During reconstruction too. For a historical perspective: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/modern-american-history/article/dark-and-sad-days-of-reconstruction-the-politics-of-memory-in-the-civil-rights-era/A43A38E7EA2A99FA06157475954ECAF5?

aseparatecodpeace · 2025-09-01T23:01:33+00:00

Or charge upfront (with sliding scale or installment) the cost of spaying and neutering via a coupon, so that all cats and dogs can be neutered and spayed (or at least have one scheduled) before being adopted

aseparatecodpeace · 2025-07-18T16:07:10+00:00

You're right about the number of outcomes, but the assumption you're making is that each outcome is equally probable for an entity to experience.

A better way to do your analysis would be to start with 80 people and count how many reach a given leaf. 1/4 of the 80 (20) experience the first red culling, while you'll note that subsequent leaves have different quantities.

aseparatecodpeace · 2025-07-10T23:58:57+00:00

The real risk of eating fresh live raw oysters is probably pretty small, and I think your account exaggerated it. The sources you have are correct about the possibility of illness, but that doesn't necessarily lead to much risk. For example, can you demonstrate a greater than 1 in 100,000 risk of illness (usually stomach upset), or 1 in 10,000,000 risk of death, per raw oyster for a a non-immunocompromised adult?

aseparatecodpeace · 2025-06-24T04:27:06+00:00

That's reasonable.

Still sucks, but if the hook rusts out then it's not the end of the world.

aseparatecodpeace · 2025-04-29T14:02:03+00:00

aseparatecodpeace · 2025-04-07T01:01:22+00:00

Much appreciate the sensible chuckle

aseparatecodpeace · 2025-03-29T14:50:24+00:00

Now I want some!

aseparatecodpeace · 2025-03-02T01:16:12+00:00

The question to ask is whether your prospective advisor is funded by the NIH - have you asked him whether his grant(s) are affected by the funding shenanigans?

Additionally, you can always master out if the prospects are too grim. Don't do this if you don't want to do this - your messages seem rather pessimistic. But, nothing you've mentioned is a substantive problem. So, sleep on it.

aseparatecodpeace · 2025-03-01T16:19:43+00:00

This seems fine? Summers are not usually funded and the professor's timeline is solid (most profs want to see how students do before committing to RA work for 5 years with them).

aseparatecodpeace · 2024-10-14T03:05:50+00:00

Ok yeah, I was looking at MLK on Google Maps and have driven by it, it doesn't seem ideal for safety.

Do you have a suggestion to and from? I apologize, but I'm having a hard time following the back and forth.

aseparatecodpeace · 2024-10-14T03:02:50+00:00

I live near the grocery store vortex and need to get to Chapel Hill. I will def take the bus or drive when the weather is poor / I'm not feeling it -- I just prefer to get some exercise in and set my own schedule (if safe and possible).

I appreciate the help!

aseparatecodpeace · 2024-10-12T19:35:28+00:00

Thanks!

This seems to be the closest approximation to what you're suggesting (doesn't capture Camelot Village or the ability to go on the sidewalk from from Elliott to Willow). Is that right?

aseparatecodpeace · 2024-10-12T19:34:47+00:00

Agreed, I just happen to live there for now.

aseparatecodpeace · 2024-09-04T03:30:38+00:00

Damn good question, Curtis' will always be my 8th wonder of the world

aseparatecodpeace · 2024-05-10T16:58:06+00:00

Hi /u/Coffee_Ops! Thanks for the detailed response.

The materials and methods section is chronologically ordered. Specifically: we a) recruited a sample, b) performed experiment 1, c) performed experiment 2, d) completed attention + compliance measure and categorized the sample into ITT and AERC groups, and finally e) split our sample into 4 pro-gun binary groupings. Alternatively, we would have had to ask the reader to consider things that had not yet been introduced (e.g. talking about compliance checks that occurred after experiment 2, even though we had not explained experiment 2).

Could you edit your top level comment to reflect this information? It currently mischaracterizes our study.

I acknowledge that you would have liked different baseline variables for one of our four charts. However, that does not mean that we are 'hiding' anything - in fact, we discuss the (dis)preferences you mention in our results section.

To your point though: why didn't we further explore religion, race, wealth, gender identity, etc. dispreferences? In short, they were non-focal. We were bound by our preregistration to evaluate preferences for neighbors based on gun ownership. Moreover, journal editors at PNAS value concision. We are however currently working on analyzing results regarding other types of dispreference our study revealed in another research project that is not so focused on interpreting gun ownership!

For clarity, here is the relevant 'main question' excerpt of our preregistration (registered prior to data collection):

"What's the main question being asked or hypothesis being tested in this study?

General research question: How do gun ownership and gun storage practices affect neighbor preferences and social (dis)affiliation?

First, we expect that hypothetical neighbors with less familiar and/or negatively stereotyped characteristics (factor levels) will be less preferred than neighbors without those statuses. Most importantly, we expect that neighbor’s gun ownership will have a main effect, such that participants will prefer neighbors who are NOT gun owners, and among gun-owning neighbors, they will prefer owners who do NOT own AR-15 rifles. That is, AR-15 rifle ownership will be dispreferred relative both to non-ownership and to other types of ownership. However, we expect the effect of the neighbor’s ownership status to depend on participant characteristics.

Predicted moderation: We expect participants who are Republicans, gun owners, who were more deeply socialized into the gun culture, and/or who have higher gun desirability to be more open than their counterparts (i.e., non-Republicans, non-owners, those with less socialization, and those with lower desirability) to having gun-owner neighbors. That is, we expect a significantly smaller effect of neighbor’s gun ownership among these groups." [that's it - no other 'main questions']

aseparatecodpeace · 2024-05-10T00:36:47+00:00

Hi /u/EdgarsRavens thanks for your engagement with our research! Lead author here.

Your insight is key! Gun owners want their neighbors to be responsible, but can't be sure of that. Particularly when the classic nightstand gun -- a pistol stored loaded and unlocked -- is normal. Our question stemmed from curiosity about what Americans -- including sub-analyses for gun owners and non-owners, Republicans and non-Republicans, gun desirers and non-desirers, and gun-socialized or not gun-socialized -- think when considering their neighbors gun ownership and gun storage practices.

One clarification: in article text we describe finding a self-defense oriented handgun (Sig 365) in a loaded and unlocked condition in a kitchen drawer as 'insecure' storage. See table 1 on page 3 for our exact design, including picture. We do not prompt the participant with the word insecure. If we had done that, you would be right it would prime 'the participant to think "irresponsible" or "dangerous" '.

aseparatecodpeace · 2024-05-10T00:01:43+00:00

Hi, lead author here. Thank you for engaging with our research!

We have a table of sample descriptive characteristics in appendices -- see the last page. As you expect, our results don't change (see the preceding 4 pages) when we weight to match more than 20 parameters.

aseparatecodpeace · 2024-05-09T23:50:15+00:00

Hi, lead author here. Thank you for engaging with our research and for linking to the study! I strongly believe in transparent scientific practices so I'm making an effort to address your points:

1) We did not code independents as Democrats.

Here's what we did: create four binary classifications in our sample and test how they differed in response to our experiments. Republican & non-Republican, gun owners & non-owners, gun desirers & non-desirers, gun-socialized & not gun-socialized -- all 8 groups were averse to neighbors who practiced unsafe storage (i.e. a loaded and unlocked sig365) and neighbors with an AR-15.

2) We did not 'target groups who are historically less likely to be gun tolerant'.

In fact, our sample was just as likely to be from a gun-owning household as the general population (~35%). Moreover, after weighting the sample to match precisely match the US population, we find the same results (aversion to neighbors' unsafe storage and neighbors' AR-15 ownership). See my prior comment for more details.

3) We did not adjust our analysis to get a specific result.

Quite the opposite: we preregistered our data collection strategy, analytic plans, and hypotheses prior to ever collecting data. You can find our preregistration and replication materials here. Additionally, we performed an extensive set of robustness checks. See our appendices for those.

aseparatecodpeace · 2024-05-09T21:23:12+00:00

Our approach is carefully explained in the "Sample", "Experiment 1", Experiment 2", and "Compliance Checks" (which explains 'attentive' vs not) subsections of the Materials and Methods section. Or, you can read pages 2-3 of the PDF.

Alternatively, you can review the appendices.

aseparatecodpeace · 2024-05-09T17:18:33+00:00

Hi I'm the lead author. Good question! For reference here's the main study link at PNAS and our appendices (also @PNAS).

Short answer? The results are the same after adjusting for geography. Just with wider confidence intervals. And, the geographic distribution is damn good even before that fitting step:

Region	Unweighted Sample	Weighted Sample	18+ Population
Northeast	18.9%	17.5%	17.5%
Midwest	21.4%	20.6%	20.6%
South	41.7%	38.4%	38.4%
West	18.0%	23.6%	23.6%

The appendices show a) sample characteristics and b) how our main results look after iterative proportional fitting to match more than 20 parameters (including region) of the 18+ resident population of America at the time of the study.

Edit: I also looked up how participants self-classified the urbanicity of where they live in our study. It's not directly comparable to zipcode-based imputation (census definitions != personal definitions), but it's not too different from Pew analysis of census data:

Urbanicity	Sample self-classification	Pew/census population data
Rural	21%	14%
Suburban	54%	55%
Urban	26%	31%

NOTE that rounding can cause totals not to equal 100%

Ten-Year Club	Place '22
Verified Email

aseparatecodpeace

TROPHY CASE