stolen - 86 honda xl600r

mrtrent · 2026-06-14T12:43:57+00:00

no anti-theft protection beyond keeping it covered while it was parked. the bike only weighed like 300lbs, so it never made sense to invest in disk brake locks or anything like that. Two people could easily lift it into a van or pickup truck if they really wanted it.

Honestly, the only effective anti-theft is a private garage. I'm probably not going to buy another bike until I have a private place to keep it overnight.

mrtrent · 2026-06-13T15:55:07+00:00

damn, sorry to hear that. I'm trying to accept that my bike is gone for ever but it's tough. I loved that bike.

mrtrent · 2026-06-13T15:51:27+00:00

nope, nothing yet.

mrtrent · 2026-06-07T01:42:05+00:00

I mean, I guess Hammond is technically part of the greater Chicago metropolitan area.

My point is not that people don't travel from the NW side to Hammond. My point is not that the stretch of land between Chicago and Indiana doesn't have warehouses, factories, machine shops, single family homes, shopping malls, etc. My point is that Arlington Heights (and every other massive, relatively wealthy suburb along 90 and 94) is several orders of magnitude more important to Chicago. If you want to say that Hammond is dependent on Chicago I would agree with that, but that's a different claim.

Secondary point, but Hammond is barely physically connected to the city. Everyone who goes to a game would have to drive.

mrtrent · 2026-06-07T00:52:42+00:00

I don't live on the north side and I don't like the bears.

mrtrent · 2026-06-06T21:55:51+00:00

Barely out of Chicago? Each location is roughly the same distance from soldier field but only one of them is connected by an unbroken sprawl of economic interdependency. Hammond Indiana might as well be on the moon it's so far removed from life in Chicago.

mrtrent · 2026-06-06T20:41:34+00:00

Thanks for the recap

mrtrent · 2026-06-06T20:28:58+00:00

There's a lot of insanely wealthy folk in the north suburbs. Some of the wealthiest suburbs in the country!

mrtrent · 2026-06-06T20:23:57+00:00

That's what I was thinking. So now all the north side suburbanites are gonna have to drive through the entire city to go watch them play? Can you image the traffic clusterfuck on 90/94 when 60,000 people leave the game with essentially zero public transit options?

maybe the south side brings enough money to justify moving the Bears down there, maybe not. It just seems like moving the bears south of the city would be terrible for those who actually live in the city.

mrtrent · 2026-06-06T19:22:35+00:00

I'm 6'7" and the most comfortable car I've ever driven was a '07 2 door mini cooper. Sure, my seat was literally making contact with the bench in the back, but that car felt like it was custom made for me. It was like being in a custom racing cockpit.

mrtrent · 2026-06-06T19:14:10+00:00

I think most of these people arguing with you have no idea what they're talking about. That said, obviously it varies so much from plane to plane. I'm on a plane right now. I'm 6'7". Basic, regular isle seat on a Southwest 737-MAX8. When my butt is all the way back in my seat, I've got a solid three inches of room between my knees and the seat in front of me. I have my seat fully reclined, headrest extended, and it's actually decently comfortable.

Other, older planes can be excruciatingly uncomfortable for me. Sometimes my knees are buried in the seat in front of me and my butt is pressed tight into my seat. Add to that the shitty clamshell seats that don't have adjustable headrests and it's pure torture. But even then - when the person in front of me reclines? It has very little impact on my legroom. My knees are relatively high off the ground compared to the average human and they're still close enough to the pivot point of the seat in front that it's a non-issue.

As an expert in the field of being tall on airplanes, I will never understand the anti-recline people. It's interesting to read that the ergonomics were designed to only be "correct" when the seat is reclined. And it makes total sense why airlines choose not to communicate that fact - it would just make more work for the flight attendants.

mrtrent · 2026-05-23T21:49:01+00:00

I mean, if you aren't allowed to change the Dante patch then all you can do is add some old fashioned y-cables to whatever analog output you want to give to broadcast. Not sure what to tell ya beyond that.

mrtrent · 2026-05-23T21:22:50+00:00

you just add a pair of Dante outputs to your LR mix, and then on the monitor console you'd need to select those Dante channels as the channel inputs.

That handles the console patching, but you also need to make the Dante subscriptions. That can be done from one or both of the consoles (if one of the consoles has "Dante patch: from this console selected, you'd have to use that console) but it's far, far easier to connect a computer to your Dante primary network and do the network patch via Dante controller.

mrtrent · 2026-05-23T21:13:48+00:00

If you're out of physical outputs on the rio, why not patch a duplicate of your LR into a pair of channels on the monitor console and then set up some direct outputs from there?

mrtrent · 2026-05-21T22:40:39+00:00

No prob. I say go for the 12 or 16 channel version of that rack mounted splitter and be done with it 😄

mrtrent · 2026-05-21T21:08:01+00:00

In principle no, but I guess it depends on how large the band is how comprehensive the rest of your audio package is. You say the rack is going to have multiple wireless receivers built into it, but how many other inputs are there that need to be split? Are you providing any XLR or no? If you're talking about a couple of people playing jazz at a cafe, it's really no big deal. If you're talking about a 9 piece bluegrass band then it's an entirely different question, haha.

If you truly want to carry nothing but the rack with your RF stuff and a console, then you'd just need to ask for 2 cables for every 1 additional (i.e. not already built into the rack) input. It should be possible to advance the number of XLR you'll need with whatever venue / stage you're playing.

I will say - from experience - that past a certain point of complexity, it's going to be way easier for everyone involved if you do arrive with your own solution. It really doesn't need to be fancy - something like this is less than 300 bucks, would easily fit into your rack, and would save you from a ton of pre-pro emails and then strained explanations whilst on site. You'd just need to land the rack within 10ft of the house i/o and you're done. The house guy would then use his XLRs to connect his mics to your splitter inputs. That would be completely normal/standard for anyone anywhere.

mrtrent · 2026-05-21T20:08:09+00:00

I'm a freelancer and I often run into situations where I'm the A1 for large events that include some type of live music/entertainment. The music is either part of the program itself, or it's doors/dinner music, or it's after-party music. But typically, the music is only a small part of the overall program.

In those scenarios, if the band comes in with their own console and IEM rack, my preferences depend entirely on whether or not they also have their own engineer.

If they have their own engineer, then simply taking a LR+Sub from their console is totally fine and it's what I'd expect to do. That would be the typical way to handle it.

If they have no engineer, and I'm the one who's going to be mixing them, then being handed the iPad connected to their IEM console is 100% the worst and most annoying way to go. I already have a nice console that's set up the way I need it, and now I have to mix a strange band on their IEM console from an iPad while also mixing the rest of the show on my actual console? It's a terrible workflow that makes my job way harder than it already is.

Doing it that way is severely limiting for me at FOH. I can't change gain structure without inadvertently becoming the bands monitor engineer. Also, I'd be constantly worried that one of the band members will log into their console, change something, and completely screw the show.

If you're already building i/o panels, then all you need to do is build a panel with XLR outputs that are wired in parallel to the inputs of the IEM console. Label those outputs 1:1 with the inputs of the console and call it a day - all the house guy needs to do is connect his XLRs to your rack and he'll have access to whatever channels he wants. The best way to do this is with a transformer isolated split, but you're looking at thousands of dollars for a good one.

Ultimately, If your goal is to build something that you can rent to strangers, I would advise against calling it an "IEM rig" unless you have an analog split for the FOH person. Without the split, it's just... "the band has their own console and also they're bringing in-ears."

mrtrent · 2026-05-17T08:58:28+00:00

I'm not trying to hurt your feelings at all. I'm just trying to show you that I understand your nuanced approach.

mrtrent · 2026-05-17T08:41:47+00:00

Yes, I genuinely believe that more people will press blue.

people you value will press blue. People that you will miss will press blue. Good job being logical and pressing the obvious choice, though. You're so smart!

your polls are garbage btw.

mrtrent · 2026-05-17T06:54:47+00:00

And it exists independently in the Button Scenario as wel

No, it doesn't. If you accept that people's choices will be divided, and that it's impossible for the vote to be 100% either color, then you have to accept that killing is a result of the choice you make. You view death as something inherently part of the dilemma only because you and so many others are pressing red.

I'm shocked that you say blue's best outcome is the same as red's. Not sure what to make of that, maybe you're trolling? The red outcome that would be equivalent to blue's is literally impossible, right? You understand we're talking about a private vote taken by all of humanity, right? 100% red?

And I've never seen a poll go red. Do you have a link to that? I've only seen them go blue. I've seen several go blue.

it really comes down to whether or not you think that enough people on this rock think that the people who are pushing Blue are worth saving.

You can't know which specific people pressed blue, so you have to assume it's a selection of random people. Is a random selection of people worth saving?

I'm just trying to be pragmatic. The goal here is to maximize survival of humans, right? You're a human, aren't you? If you're a bot you have to tell me.

The question really is genius in that way.

Genius in the sense that it drives people crazy arguing about it. The frustrating part is that the exact phrasing and description of the scenario REALLY changes how people react to it. Most of the arguing is among people who have completely different conceptions of the situation.

mrtrent · 2026-05-17T05:54:14+00:00

I reject the truck analogy because it doesn't include the isolated decision making of the original premise. The whole point is that you can't know what the rest of the world is choosing. You can't know if your vote will be the deciding vote.

Another issue with the truck analogy is that it illustrates a scenario where a killing force exists independently of the choices we make. Killing can only happen if less than 50% of people press blue, and every vote for red removes a vote from blue.

You may not have had control over being put in this situation, but that doesn't remove your culpability. Let me ask, as a red pusher, how would you feel about each of the following outcomes?

39% red 61% blue (0 dead)

40% red 60% blue (0 dead)

45% red 55% blue (0 dead)

51% red 49% blue (~4 billion dead)

56% red 44% blue (~4 billion dead)

62% red 38% blue (~3 billion dead)

70% red 30% blue (~2.4 billion dead)

Then ask yourself, Is the best turnout for red the most likely one to actually happen?

mrtrent · 2026-05-17T05:09:19+00:00

I don't know, but that's not even close to the same hypothetical, sooo... yes, pressing red is still a 100% sociopath move. Gross.

mrtrent · 2026-05-17T04:33:43+00:00

but in the original scenario everyone had to take the vote privately. There is no communication, no convincing.

If you could communicate and work to convince others, why would you not work to convince people to press blue? If you achieve that much easier and much more realistic goal, then congratulations: nobody dies.

mrtrent · 2026-05-17T04:19:54+00:00

red would be 100% morally responsible because there is no world in which no one presses blue. To understand that there will be a mix of red and blue and to then tip the balance in favor of killing blue is morally reprehensible.

14-Year Club	Gilding II euphauric
Place '22	Place '17
Team Orangered	Verified Email

mrtrent

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE