![](/static/253f0d9b/assets/icons/icon-96x96.png)
You’re overpacking
You’re overpacking
You’re overpacking
You’re overpacking
TBF y’all pack way too much. You probably shouldn’t start packing days ahead of time unless you’re actually headed into the bush, have a host of particular medical needs, or what have you.
Relax. You probably just need a backpack with some basic essentials and a few days’ worth of clothes. You likely can pack sufficiently in less than an hour.
But what if…?
No. They have it there. You’ll be fine.
Edit: I take nothing back. My fellow Americans…
Learn to travel light and adapt instead of carrying your Big Lots life on your back everywhere you go, morons.
Does she remember to pack your angry eyes? You never know when you’ll need those angry eyes.
This is correct, especially at lower speeds. Greater fuel efficiency would come from lower wind and drivetrain resistance and use of a more efficient range of the motor’s powerband.
Most vehicles are geared for optimal speed to fuel consumption around 55-65 mph (90-100 kph) not 70+ mph (110+ kph). So just going a bit under the speed limit can have a significant impact on fuel consumption.
FYI they’re either misleading or just wrong. You were right. An Apple. A pear. Etc
There is no spelling mistake. But I haven’t had my cofefe yet today.
The primary weakness of this paper is its complete reliance on two extremely small and poorly-designed studies. The first was performed on Reddit with n = 194 Redditors who self-reported how healthy they were on a 9 point scale, how liberal/conservative they felt on a 9 point scale, and answered a series of questions to establish a personal responsibility score (PRS). The second was performed with n = 204 local students, mostly teenagers, recruited based on political party affiliation, whose healthiness was established only by how often they claimed to take the stairs.
You should be able to identify at least 6 major design flaws in the studies above, but in short the researcher not only failed to prevent but seemingly employed predictable biases, especially in regards to his measures of health, which were entirely self-reported. It should go without saying but: just because some group of people tend to consider themselves better than others in some respect does not actually make it so, yet that is precisely what this paper says.
As to contrary evidence: you typically won’t find a paper published in any serious journal whose thesis is so close to “ideology A is better.” Eschewing scholarly impartiality on politically charged topics is generally frowned upon. Doing so in exchange for publishing and/or favor with wealthy patrons has always been possible, and while increasingly prevalent in recent years, it is primarily the realm of conservative academics if only because it causes a greater stir (shares, citations, impact factor). Even using the loaded phrase “personal responsibility” in a political context, and equating it to the term used in health literature, marks this as a rather obvious insider piece not subject to the typical quality controls. So, it’s unlikely you will easily find an equivalently obnoxious antithesis like “conservatives are less fit,” “liberals have better dental hygiene,” or what have you. But does that mean conservatives are healthier?
No. We can confirm this a variety of ways, since exposure to any social science will routinely surround you with high quality evidence to the contrary, but here is where I would start:
There are some shenanigans in this paper so far, like using regional statistics (conservative places) to generalize about very particular sociopolitical cleavages (conservative ideology) and failure to control for, or even acknowledge, more obvious independent variables such as local economy, infrastructure, and socioeconomics.
This is the joke. Absurdist hyperbole only works with a shared assumption or common sense to play against.
If there’s an intended target of this joke, it’s definitely not medication. It would be the inscrutability of the wording of that clinical guideline, which seems to imply morality is divergent but can be cured with stimulants.
Three sheets to the wind
I agree. I don’t think people should be expected to do all this to be treated like they matter in a society. I do it because I don’t want to go back to living in my car, but the process offers me daily reminders of how our system is thoroughly rigged in favor of commercial interests and against the human who wishes to live as a human.
No joke, once you start structuring your life as a business, especially as formal corporations, the amount of financial, legal, and professional advantages, opportunities, and protection that appear are incredible. For example, did you know that …
This is just a sample. Most endeavors and many functional aspects of personal life are by design simpler, safer, more scalable, and more profitable if planned and executed as a business rather than an individual in the late great United States of America.
I resolved it by installing an air purifier in the bedroom where she vapes. But agreed, her vape isn’t invisible (though I think some e-liquids are) and OP didn’t mention so it’s low probability in this case.
My partner’s vape triggers ours https://www.kidde.com/home-safety/en/us/products/fire-safety/combination-smoke-co-alarms/KN-COSM-IBA/
Does anyone in your house vape?
Exactly. Backpack is usually more than enough. Bring some fresh clothes but otherwise just wear what the locals wear. Often they wear it for a reason.
Travel is simpler when you stop trying to recreate your corner of the world in a place it never belonged.
Edit: but even you are probably overpacking