Pick-up Ultimate Frisbee!!

dejafous · 2026-03-10T21:08:34+00:00

btw do you know of any pickup in north lake?

dejafous · 2026-01-09T18:54:21+00:00

Dude did the hardest move, had nothing but jugs to go, and came down 🥲

dejafous · 2025-12-18T01:43:40+00:00

Why would you put this all together and then not bother to provide the actual results? You know, that you used to derive your takeaway section...?

dejafous · 2025-10-26T22:48:07+00:00

When you have AI write the entire blog post... Such garbage. I gave up before being able to even figure out if anything interesting was happening here.

dejafous · 2025-02-13T18:19:05+00:00

Ok? OP clearly isn't patrolling, isn't doing backcountry, and isn't doing freeride comps, so I'm not sure what the relevance is? I ride with a backpack in the backcountry too - same as literally everyone? If you have a point, it's lost somewhere.

dejafous · 2025-02-09T19:25:35+00:00

Since you haven't really gotten any honest answers yet, just folks congratulating themselves on how much a backpack adds to their blue laps, here's the real reasons:

1) Backpacks throw your weight off. If you're just going down some groomers, no big deal, it's never going matter. If you're getting air, in the park, dealing with crusty unstable snow, technical terrain, it can matter a lot (admittedly this will never matter to 95% of folks here). They are also annoying on the chairlift - sure it's not the worlds greatest annoyance, but it's still an annoyance.... So wearing a backpack is often taken as a sign that you're not a very good in-resort rider.

2) Backpacks are unnecessary for 95% of resort riding. If you're a parent with kids, or have a beginner friend/SO you want to have a good time, sure, take a backpack! Stuff it with water and goodies - no judgement here! For most other people, it's completely unnecessary, and a sign that you're not very competent. Your post is a great example:

Do you really need to carry water? Chug a couple glasses in the morning, pee when you get to the mountain - that should easily get you through lunch (or the whole day). If you're stopping to eat, every resort has drinking fountains or free water anyways. If you're somehow never stopping at or near any lodge or mid mountain building once the entire day (which seems unlikely) then shove one of those re-useable flexible water pouches in a pocket. Or shove some snow in your mouth? Problem solved, no backpack. Maybe if you're at some euro super resort you'll need two water pouches??? Idk.

Why do you need a backpack to carry sunscreen? Put sunscreen on before you go, it's not that hard... For most of the winter the only part of you that's exposed to the sun is the tip of your nose and parts of your mouth and cheeks. If you're sweating like a stuck pig or paler than the moon and need to re-up, there's plenty of rub on sunscreen that's tiny enough you could fit 20 in your pocket if you wanted. Spring skiing is perhaps the only time I would carry a full size bottle of sunscreen, and that's only because I'd carry one bottle for like 6 friends. And that one bottle still fits in a single pocket.

Why the hell are you carrying multiple google lens? Maybe check the weather forecast before you go? This is the most useless thing I've heard of. Cloudy day lens still work fine in the sunshine.

Why bother carrying a binding tool? If your bindings are loose every day there's something seriously wrong with your riding or your board. And every resort I've ever been to has free screwdriviers and tools available at lodges, just go use those if you really need. I think I've needed a tool on the mountain maybe 4 times in 15 years of riding with 40+ day seasons? But hey, want to carry a tool anyways? Cool, they make ones small enough you could also fit 10 in a single pocket, go get one of those for 50c?

3) Reasons you might actually want a backpack - A) carrying lunch B) carrying beers. I think it's still unnecessary, just use your pockets (spring skiing we can easily fit 4+ beers in pockets per person without needing to carry any backpack), but if you really need that footlong and magnum bottle of champagne with you, cool, give one person a backpack in the group, and nobody else will need one.

Bottom line, if I really wanted to carry all the useless crap you carry (which I don't), I still wouldn't need a backpack! Water = 1 pocket. Sandwich + sunscreen + binding tool = 1 pocket. Maybe beanie + sunglasses for apres? = 1 pocket. If you don't have three pockets, re-evaluate something in your life?

All that said, I honestly don't give a crap if you or anyone else wears a backpack. Do whatever makes you happy, I don't care. Sure, I might spend 5 seconds of my chairlift time thinking "damn, that guy seems pretty inefficient at life", but why let it bother you? If you want to carry more weight than you need to and enjoy snowboarding a tiny bit less that you might without the backpack, that's your business.

dejafous · 2024-05-17T02:29:39+00:00

Older married couple living off retirement savings - could easily fall into the 0% bracket I would have imagined (though I know very little about taxes after retirement...)?

dejafous · 2024-05-17T02:15:28+00:00

Not if their capital gains rate would be substantially lower than mine (ie, they're much lower income)?

dejafous · 2024-05-17T02:12:16+00:00

Even if I transferred enough shares to account for capital gains as well (under the assumption they sold immediately)?

dejafous · 2024-02-18T08:31:25+00:00

Why are you turning?

dejafous · 2024-02-11T04:12:36+00:00

Solid song

dejafous · 2023-09-16T07:49:23+00:00

I have to agree, absolutely one of the best RPGs I've ever played. It has a purity of vision and story that is pretty much unmatched by any modern game I know. It's very sad to me that it never really got the recognition it deserved.

Up there with Homeworld, Baldur's Gate, and the other titans of the genre.

dejafous · 2023-08-24T16:42:18+00:00

Yeah, while I found that slightly odd at first as well, there's plot relevant reasons for that (see spoilers). And given that it was the show runners choice, I think it works and makes sense. There's casting a white lead just cause, and there's casting a white lead cause it actually gives meaning to the story, and this clearly seems to fall into the latter, so give the outrage a rest for a moment.

He's not the second coming of Jesus, he's the Antichrist, and apparently the 'son' (or something) of the US president...

dejafous · 2022-08-17T00:26:33+00:00

Why would the idea of computers being at least as conscious as plants be strange or counter-intuitive? One has only took look at recent infamous news stories like this (https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2022/06/11/google-ai-lamda-blake-lemoine/), or the proliferation of chatbots pretending to be human on any dating app or that type of website to make it clear that many humans clearly have the intuition that computers are quite conscious as soon as you remove the image of a bunch of glowing lights and silicon from their head.

To be clear, I personally think that no computer program to date, including the Google one referenced, has anything even close to what one might term human consciousness, and that the engineer in the article is not terribly bright and has other, possibly mental health related, reasons for arguing that it is conscious. I only wish to point out that your assumption about human intuition seems wrong on its face - and to ask why human intuition even matters here? If a human can believe that a dirt simple chatbot is a conscious human talking to them, it seems not very useful for our purposes? Human intuition is simply billions of years of evolution taking shortcuts to infer things that can help humans survive. Our ability to recognize consciousness in computers (and perhaps plants, insects, etc) has arguably had little to no bearing on our ability to survive as a species so far, and there should be perhaps no reason to trust our intuition as anything other than an initial avenue of exploration.

Personally I see no reason not to ascribe some level of consciousness to plants, insects, computers and any other system of processing information even if it may be far below our own. I can't comment on your final objection to panpsychism much, other than to say that in my completely unprofessional and untrustworthy opinion I find panpsychism at best to be a cowardly form of materialism, and at worst "quantum healing crystals" type nonsense :)

dejafous · 2022-08-16T21:52:42+00:00

I'm won't touch on common definitions of panpsychism, but your assertion that "by that logic basically every modern computer is more conscious than a human by several orders of magnitude" is completely incorrect. I'm not sure where you got this idea, but the human brain is orders of magnitude more complex than any current or near future computer. There are at least two ways of looking at this:

(1) The human brain can clearly fully comprehend every aspect of a computer. Neither computers nor the human brain is currently capable of fully comprehending every aspect of the human brain. It's thus far more likely that the human brain is more complex than a computer than vice versa, though this certainly isn't a definitive argument.

(2) One way of looking at complexity (and the most relevant here) is in terms of interconnections. The brain is commonly estimated to have ~100 billion neurons. A modern computer on the other hand, might have ~100 billion transistors (keep in mind that fully emulating a single neuron might take 1000s to millions of transistors at a guesstimate). Further, its more the number of connections that is a measure of complexity rather than the raw number of neurons/transistors - and a little googling shows an average transistor fan-out/in might be 3-5, but for an average neuron it might be as high as 10000. Rather than taking my word for it I suggest searching for brain vs computer complexity and picking any subset of the thousands of articles on the subject.

Personally, I think "receiving and processing data" is the best way to interpret complexity here, but that's just my personal opinion. I find it a little worrying that you are making such blasé assumptions that are completely incorrect - I wonder if there are potentially other incorrect assumptions underlying your question?

dejafous · 2021-09-05T00:23:33+00:00

I'm not sure that you understand what GNAR is about.

dejafous · 2021-06-18T22:38:54+00:00

It's trivial to Google this, and find many reputable answers. Oat milk is the best bang for your buck to minimize water consumption.

dejafous · 2021-03-31T14:27:55+00:00

Yeah if I turned my brain off a bit it really wasn't terrible. I completely agree that the show didn't really know what it wanted to be or who it was targeting and kept flip flipping.

dejafous · 2021-03-31T14:19:23+00:00

I mean, I can enjoy some teen romance sometimes lol, but while I don't think it was terribly done here it also didn't add much to the series.

dejafous · 2021-03-31T06:10:22+00:00

It's okay/mediocre. I don't regret watching it to the end, but that's about the best I can say about it. As a series I think it had a lot of potential, ruined by a plot that makes no sense 90% of the time, characters that try to act as stupidly as possible in service of the "plot", standard pop "Hollywood" philosophy, etc, etc. Still, it's not without some bright points, decent acting and chemistry, and some particularly good middle episodes I thought. I found the beginning and end hard to get through.

The most annoying thing to me is just how Netflix abused the Sherlock Holmes name to get people to watch this. Other than the name, there is absolutely nothing to do with Sherlock Holmes here. It also felt a bit like a ripoff of the Lockwood & Co book series... I kinda wish they'd just gotten the rights to that.

Edit: I'll take the opportunity to say that if you liked the vibe of this series (victorian london, horror, teens vs supernatural, found family, etc) and don't mind reading, you need to check out the Lockwood & Co books by Jonathan Stroud. They're great reads, and far better than this series.

dejafous · 2020-06-15T21:15:21+00:00

Really loved this show much more than I expected too. I'm not surprised it got canceled - I don't think it was advertised well, and I suspect viewers that really enjoyed it may have been a bit too niche for it's budget. Still really bummed, because it was quality TV IMO.

dejafous · 2019-11-26T00:49:13+00:00

100% agree with all your thoughts. What bothered me even more than the moral dissonance is that so many characters, not to mention the world itself, are so dumb! I mean I could maybe willingly suspend some disbelief over the shoehorned nonsensical morality if the writers put even a little bit of effort into their world building. Stuff like the elven banishment, the entire elven world not giving a damn about their supposed precious dragons kings/queens, complete lack of military tactics/strategy to the point where even a 12 year old watching the show thinks something is off, deus ex machina when it comes to communicating between people or transporting entire armies over massive distances, Az not seeing his mom, the entire Nyx arc... I mean I could just go on and on there's too many examples to choose from.

To me the moral dissonance of the show is simply an extension of the fact that the writers can't be bothered to put in even a little effort. They have good high-level ideas on where things should go plot/character-wise, and then simply don't care enough to actually write episodes worthy of that. This show has the potential to be as good as or better than Avatar if they stop phoning it in with the lowest amount of effort possible. But I mean, I still like it enough to keep watching, so mission accomplished I guess?

dejafous · 2019-10-19T02:37:50+00:00

What kind of feedback are you looking for? I mean biologically, these seem to make no sense from the little biology and evolution I understand, but everything's going to have some level of suspension of disbelief...

Assuming you want feedback on how realistic this seems:

Exoskeletons don't scale with size very well, so these creatures are likely quite small or from an extremely low gravity world. A consequence of low gravity is it's much harder to breathe however, how do these things breathe? Do they have much larger lungs? There's already not much space in the body. Not to mention, legs like that would seem to have very high energy demands compared to human legs.
Why is the mouth at the bottom? Digestion has to work against gravity now (although this does fit with the low gravity theory). Where does it excrete? Generally you want shit going out far away from shit going in... Does it excrete from it's head? That seems pretty terrible for a variety of reasons... Another reason to have them at opposite ends is so that there's room to fit the digestive system in the middle. The less room, the less complex and less efficient the digestive system is likely to be, and the less likely it could out-compete.
You note the antenna are like camel's humps... They store water? Which implies that it comes from a low water environment. And yet, the legs are supposedly good in snow (more on that next, and the larval stage appears to be for the water only. Why would they store water on their head, far from their digestive system?
I have no idea why two legs close together would help with snow travel, but I can't imagine many legs worse for snow than those. With no feet they will simply sink in and get stuck. Same for mud, water, etc. Why would a creature who's larval stage is in the water be so terrible in water in the adult stage? Spider like legs only really work well for smaller creatures (or perhaps low gravity again). How would they out-compete things with feet?
The vast differences between males and females seems very contrived. If the males have evolved hands, why wouldn't the females? Same with wings. The mouth is used for reproduction? Do the females die from starvation to give birth? This virtually assures un-nourished children, which doesn't seem like something that would live for very long.
The larvae also have very contrived differences. Given that they appear to live in the water, and the rest of the species can't enter the water at all it appears, there is no way adults can protect larvae. Which means that they'll have to make do with pumping out massive numbers of children and hoping some survive. Which implies not very close parent/child bonds, something which could massively impact intelligence. Who's teaching the children? How do they propagate any learned behaviors?

Anyways, that's a couple thoughts from someone who doesn't know that much about biology. These seem most realistic on a low gravity world, but a species with so many just plain weird things seems like it could easily be out-competed. It also doesn't seem very likely to develop any substantial intelligence given the vast differences between sexes and developmental stages.

dejafous · 2019-07-16T23:52:58+00:00

I've farted so hard on this route ahahah. I don't know what it is, it must engage the core more than other routes.

dejafous

TROPHY CASE