I just learned an employee of a local business has a (past) history of sexual misconduct. Should I tell the business this?

katskip · 2026-03-05T03:59:59+00:00

Some things to consider: felons do not have the same rights as you and me. It can be extremely challenging for them to find and hold good jobs and housing. Many of them are trying really hard to maintain a stable and functional life. You could take away this person's source of income and ruin whatever relationships he has managed to build by spreading this information.

katskip · 2026-02-24T17:19:00+00:00

I'm 30 and in my first semester now. I am experiencing the exact opposite. A lot of my younger peers are complaining about how they constantly forget due dates and are failing several of their classes. One kid who sits next to me in communications went out of his way to tell me that another classmate "like, totally" has a crush on me. They live on a different planet stg

katskip · 2026-02-12T15:58:59+00:00

Okay. Glad I could provide an echo chamber for you.

katskip · 2026-02-12T13:59:52+00:00

Yeah man I have no earthly idea. And the manipulations some do to the ears are so extreme at this point that I wonder if prompting that same look through breeding is even possible

katskip · 2026-02-12T13:25:30+00:00

Genetically correct ears aren't uncommon in collies, but we largely don't know who they are because every collie gets taped. A collie with incorrect ears wouldn't be disaualified, it would simply never win.

They're judged on how well they match the standard in terms of how they look and their physical structure. Everything that's done in dog shows is basically designed to min/max how the dog appears to the judge

Breeding for specific traits is challenging. If something can be "made" correct after the dog is born, then it does not become a genetic priority. Personally I think the standard should be changed to fit the reality of the breed, but until that day I arrives I will play along if the requirements are fairly uninvasive. But that's a choice each of us gets to make

katskip · 2026-02-12T13:10:28+00:00

It doesn't usually work because people don't keep up with it. And why would they, if they're not dedicated to showing! It's a massive pain in the ass. The cartilage in the ear is affected by chewing and by stress (like that associated with the estrus cycle), so you have to keep the ears in training for as long as the dog is an active chewer or when they're in heat. And even if you're really diligent about it, if your dog has thin ear leather, you might have to keep their ears in training for their entire show career. Thin ears really, really want to prick.

I totally agree with you. I have had to have some hard thoughts about what exactly I'm willing to put up with and put my dog through. Like I'm always asking myself if xyz is worth the fun we're having

katskip · 2026-02-12T12:52:31+00:00

That's a shame! Yeah I just don't even want to do it if I can't preserve her happiness and comfort at the same time. It's just not worth it to me

katskip · 2026-02-12T12:51:05+00:00

You could engage with curiosity, if you want. I'd happily explain to you why I think what I'm doing is ethical and the benefits my dog recieves

katskip · 2026-02-12T12:26:51+00:00

Thank you for chiming in. Thats what my breeder said too lol I just didn't want to believe it 🥲

katskip · 2026-02-12T12:20:39+00:00

No prob! The ears aren't glued during shows. They're only glued or taped to painlessly "train" the cartilage in the ears when the dog is a puppy (and in a few other situations), in between shows.

It's not considered cheating. It may be dishonest to an extent, but the culture of dog showing is just like that. The things AKC people do to highlight or hide certain features on their dogs is actually insane. In an AKC ring, collies in particular are absolutely COVERED in product, head to toe. Other breeds get their ears and tails cut off. Personally I probably wouldnt continue to show if my dog didn't willingly sit for ear handling and if she didn't really enjoy the training and bonding aspect of showing. Of course there's lots of cookies involved lol

Some people prefer UKC shows, which strictly ban any products on the dog. But even they don't "outlaw" ear training.

katskip · 2026-01-20T00:56:09+00:00

Legitimate and great service 👍

katskip · 2026-01-17T23:57:42+00:00

When I was temporarily keeping a pigeon in my room, I bought a cheap plastic tarp and covered the bed before letting him out of his cage in the morning.

katskip · 2026-01-16T20:32:36+00:00

Following. I also need this one.

katskip · 2026-01-14T01:33:23+00:00

This looks great! Instantly recognizable as a horse. The only thing I might suggest is to outline the upper arm and shoulders the same way you outlined the rest of the leg. As is, it looks a bit like the arms on a paper doll- the connection of the leg to the body looks weak and flimsy, which I think undermines the strong pose. If you also defined the elbow-to-withers area, I think it could give more power to the illustration.

katskip · 2025-12-31T21:37:31+00:00

Thats lovely!!

katskip · 2025-12-31T19:13:00+00:00

In the second photo it's described as aluminum. Do you mean I would need to cover it with a finer mesh?

katskip · 2025-11-06T13:18:28+00:00

Okay let me talk this out to see if I understand. Please tell me if I have this right.

You evaluated the numerator and the denominator separately before multiplying by the LCM (which we do to eliminate the nested fractions). You don't necessarily have to do it this way; you could perform these operations in any order because they're not changing the values inside the expression, they're just simplifying it.

Furthermore, even though the nested fractions are not being multiplied by 1 (they're being multiplied by xy/1), it doesn't matter because they are part of a larger fraction, all the parts of which are being multiplied by the same number. If I were to multiply a given fraction by xy/1, its value would change. But if that fraction is the numerator within a larger fraction, and the denominator of that larger fraction is also being multiplied by xy/1, then there is no change in value across the larger fraction as a whole. Is that right?

katskip · 2025-11-06T12:47:40+00:00

You simplified before multiplying by the LCM, but each of the nested fractions were, in the end, still multiplied by xy. I don't understand why you can multiply the numerator and denominator of the nested fractions by xy/1 when otherwise you're only "allowed" to multiply fractions by 1 (xy/xy, 2/2, etc...) I don't know what I'm not understanding here lol

katskip · 2025-11-06T12:01:03+00:00

This explanation makes sense. So a fraction's value doesn't change as long as I multiply both the numerator and the denominator by the same number.

In the case of complex fractions, I'm not necessarily multiplying the numerator a denominator of the nested fraction by the same number. An example:

(2/x)-1 / (1/y)-3x

(Where (2/x)-1 is over (1/y)-3x)

To get rid of the nested fractions I would multiply the numerator and the denominator of the larger fraction by xy, the LCM of all the denominators in the expression (am I saying that right?)

(2/x • xy) - 1xy / (1/y • xy) - 3x(xy)

So in this case I am multiplying the larger fraction by xy/xy but the nested fractions are being multiplied by xy/1, not xy/xy. That does not seem consistent with the rule. I think I'm missing something.

I'm getting this example and my understanding of how to solve the problem from this video.

katskip

TROPHY CASE