search results matching tag: Trim

» channel: nordic

go advanced with your query
Search took 0.000 seconds

    Videos (72)     Sift Talk (5)     Blogs (11)     Comments (273)   

Dad Builds Halloween Candy Guarding Monsdoor

spawnflagger says...

some questions... 1) why can't the door open? 2) how does he give out candy through the door?

I've hung 2 doors as part of a DIY project last year, 1 was standard width door kit that came with a frame (still have to trim the bottom to get correct height), other door was full custom. Both were a PITA for their own reasons. I don't think such a "halloween door" kit will ever be commercially sold.

Color video of Albert Einstein actually explaining E=mc2

luxintenebris jokingly says...

at least it is not in person.

a squirrel dropped out of a tree and landed on the hard dirt in front of myself & a friend. it then* quickly srambled up a nearby tree.

the friend then explain why the squirrel wasn't hurt. went off on a soliloquy** on terminal velocity. after he was finished told him...

"that wasn't the question i would have asked. i want to know why it fell. we just trimmed that tree, so did the squirrel try to make a longer leap or just - out of habit - jump to a phantom limb?"

we just stared at each other for a while.


*swear it made an 'eep' sound when it landed. like a dog toy.
**i sure wasn't listening

BSR said:

You're just showing off now. Just trying to make me look stupit.

"My Cooch Is Dying"

Viral How Much Did Your Divorce Cost

scheherazade says...

"What on earth are you talking about?"
-newt

The rules for property and income when one or both parties decide they no longer want to be in the relationship.




"not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives"
-newt

Incorrect. If you are on birth certificate, you have the same rights and obligations.
The only pitfalls are that :
- Child support is calculated from the income of the parent with less custody (rather than from the true cost of raising a child).
- Women almost always get custody if the choice is between two parents (like when they live far apart and child can only be at one or the other).



"and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first"
-newt

Negative. Co-parenting does not conflate property.

Shared assets when not married are divided either by percentage of purchase price contribution, or by percentage stated in a contract.




"My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas"
-newt

"My brother won."
-newt

Won by your own definition. Hence I congratulate.




"You assume women take off time to raise the kids"
-newt

No assumptions. Although afaik they still do it more often.




"You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. "
-newt

Top result from a zero effort google of "men working hours vs women working hours"

https://towardsdatascience.com/is-the-difference-in-work-hours-the-real-reason-for-the-gender-wage-gap-interactive-infographic-6051dff3a041




"Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that"
-newt

I admit that women [as a group] under 35 out earn men under 35 because of preferential admittance (such as to higher education) and preferential hiring (such as to managerial positions).

I did not say that women earn more in the same position for the same hours worked. Young men are simply getting shut out of opportunities, so their incomes are lower. As by design.

It does however highlight how affirmative action is being poorly controlled.
The target statistic is based on overall population at all ages.
The adjustment is skewed to younger ages (school admission is typically for younger people).
So the system is trying to balance out incomes of older men by trimming up incomes of younger women, with no accounting for the effects on younger men or consequences of older men retiring.
The situation is doomed to overshoot with time.

A natural result is the popularity of people like Jordan Peterson, with messages like : "Young men, nobody will help you, stop waiting for someone to help you, stop lamenting your situation, you gotta pull yourself up by your boot straps. Start by cleaning your room, then go make something of yourself".






"Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk[etc]" -scheherazade "
-newt

Straw man argument.

You know I stated that those marriageability criteria exist specifically due to risk of consequences of divorce.

I never stated that I have personal issues with those attributes.
I have dated women on that list. I didn't /marry/ them.

My only criteria for a relationship that I am happy being in is :
- We are mutually attracted
- We like each other
- We are nice to each other
I don't care what your religion is, your politics, your family status, whatever. It's all just noise to me.





" And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are?"
-newt

Prenups can be negated by these simple words :

"I did not understand what I was signing"
or
"My lawyer was not present".

Poof. Prenup thrown out.




"their husbands are more likely to break their vows first"
-newt

A woman to cheat needs a willing man (easy)
A man to cheat needs a willing woman (hard)

Times have changed. Online dating made chatting someone up in person and make an impression uncommon, and even considered creepy/unusual. Now people are picked on their online profile based on looks/height/social-media-game.

Dating apps and sites publish their statistics. Nowadays, around 20% of men match with around 80% of women.
Most men aren't having sex. Most men can't find a match to cheat with if they wanted to.

The tall cute photogenic guys are cleaning up.
The 20% of men that match the bulk of women are going through women like a mill. They will smash whatever bored housewife crosses their path.

A 2 second google result :
https://usustatesman.com/economics-of-dating-2-the-brutal-reality-of-dating-apps/




"Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches"
-newt

Agreed.

Fortunately, I never say that about women.






" you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks"
-newt

False equivalence.

Cohabitation and Partnership are mutually independent.
Meaning both can exist at the same time.


-scheherazade

newtboy said:

What on earth are you talking about?
Do you believe the government dictates your vows? What "rules"? You just cannot grasp the concept of no fault divorce or prenuptial, can you?

I guess you never planned on kids or shared assets. If you do, not having a marriage means you almost certainly will pay for them for 18+ years but won't have many rights to be in their lives, and may lose your rights to any assets if she grabs first. Uncle Sam is in your relationship, married or not....without a marriage contract, he makes ALL the rules and you have no say.

My brother paid well over a hundred thousand dollars for his divorce in Texas that in my state would have cost under $10K and you congratulate him? You are one strange person.

Again, your perception, not based in fact since the 60's. You assume women take off time to raise the kids and take care of parents and assume fathers don't take paternity leave or have obligations outside work. How 50's. You start from a false position that men work both harder and better, but you have no data to back that up. It certainly hasn't been my experience, I've seen women in the workplace working harder and longer for less pay, sacrificing just like their male counterparts if not more, putting off having families until it's too late while men can have kids long after normal retirement age, putting themselves in dangerous situations where those with power over them have opportunities to abuse that power and abuse those women in ways that rarely happen to men. These aren't exceptions, they're the norm.

Um...so since you admit many women outearn men and the trend reinforces that, meaning soon women in most catagories will out earn men and have more to lose, you admit you're wrong in your position now, right? Of course not, I expect you will still start from a point that hasn't been correct since the era and sexual revolution, early 70's at latest.

No, many of the studies I've seen compared people in the same exact positions in the same industries, even same companies, and women consistently get paid less for the exact same job and hours, and women rarely work less today, and just as often out work their male counterparts knowing they are often token hires not valued by the bosses so have less job security. If I recall correctly, 80% of job losses due to Covid were women, and the men are getting rehired faster. I think you are thinking of some studies from the 80's that made those assumptions and accusations. Comparing apples to apples, women still get shortchanged and as often as not overworked.

Bullshit. You said you would immediately dismiss any woman who has...
"Long dating history? Too much risk
Tends to have short relationships? Too much risk
Likes attention? Too much risk
Single mother (non-widow)? Too much risk
Any mental issues (depression, bipolar, narcissist, anxiety, etc)? Too much risk
Older (why you still single...)? Too much risk
Likes to party? Too much risk
Drinks? Too much risk"

And again, prenuptial. Do you not know what they are? Specify what you expect and agree, and you walk with exactly what you agreed to, no government rules or split involved. Geez. You speak as if you had never heard of them.

Most divorces may be initiated by the woman (if that's true, I expect it's just another assumption) because their husbands are more likely to break their vows first, but are not willing to pay to end the marriage, including penalties for breaking the marriage contract, and we're too dumb to get a prenuptial (or got one that spells out harsh penalties for cheating). Yes, I am assuming men cheat on their spouses more often than the reverse, because men are wired that way.

You are not more likely than not to face a divorce, because it's unlikely any woman meeting your criteria would give you a second thought, and you need to get married to get divorced.

I bet if you show your significant other this thread your 20 year relationship will be in big trouble, or at best enter a long dry dark spell. Women don't like men that believe wholeheartedly that all women are just lessers, leeches that take more than they deserve or even could give back and destroy you whenever they think it serves them. It's probably a good thing you aren't married.

Laws and family court aren't as you describe. Maybe when you enter the 21st century you'll recognize that. The rules of your marriage can be whatever you agree to, including the specifics of the split if it ends.

It's a sad thing you can't grasp that a codified, delineated, agreed to partnership is almost always better, more fulfilling, and has many benefits cohabitation lacks.....almost always unless one or both of you are total douchebags.

VLDL: Insensitively looting dead bodies - Insensitive

BSR says...

It can be kinda challenging getting rings off the deceased but I haven't failed yet. Thin necklaces with the really small clasps are tough to unlock when you're wearing rubber gloves with well trimmed fingernails.

Notre Dame Faculty Pens Open Letter To Delay Hearings

Mordhaus says...

Yeah, I can only say for certain what has happened here. Most doctors that run private practices and are rated well slowly started transitioning to either a service that charges a large amount of money per patient per year, in addition to insurance, or they simply posted on their website they no longer accept insurance. They call it direct primary care, like you pay a fee per month.

https://reason.com/video/doctors-direct-primary-care/

My doctor joined a concierge service called MDVIP. I just checked and he lowered his rates to 1,800 per year per patient. Whether you go or not. He was a great doctor, but I refuse to pay 3600 per year for my wife and me to see a doctor. Not when they will bill our insurance as well for any actual visits/treatments.

Instead we had to switch to Austin Regional Clinic, who has an amazing lab and bloodwork team, but the doctor situation is as I mentioned before. There is no feeling that I have a personal doctor. Usually they schedule me with whichever one is available or a PA. Every time I have to re-list what meds I am on and what existing conditions I have because they don't remember. You would think they could look at a chart, but they are so busy every time. It's like sex in high school, in, out, and thanks for coming.

We've tried some others, even a few private practices, but none have been up to par. All of them seem to be super busy and have trimmed their staff to the bone.

If the ACA isn't changed or doesn't go away, I don't see it getting any better.

newtboy said:

That I won't argue...it's your personal anecdotal experience and how you feel. That's different from general facts.

My anecdotal experience was I kept my policy, my doctor, and under Obama my cost went up 5% over 6 years, and under Trump my cost went from $205 a month to $485 a month, my deductible went from $3k to $4.5k, coverage went down and many procedures aren't covered at all. I'm going to try to get Obama care this year, I should save thousands and get better coverage.

bjornenlinda (Member Profile)

Butchers Attempt to Make a Giant Beef Porchetta

Ashenkase says...

So, some silly math. The cost of a side of beef in Canada is approximately $1125:

A side of beef (½ beef) is sold by the hanging weight. Hanging weight is the weight of the animal before it is trimmed and cut. The approximate hanging weight of a side is 300 lbs. The cost is $4.75/lb cut and wrapped. Therefore the approximate cost of a side of beef is $1125. On a 300 lb side, you will take home approximately 200 pounds of actual meat. A side of beef is cut to your specifications.

The roast was 60 pounds which is 30% of 200 pounds.

So $1125 * 30% = $337.50 CDN

or

$256.74 US


That is one roast you do not want to fuck up in the oven.

SFOGuy (Member Profile)

Mowing the hedges

What you need to know about the Obamacare repeal

enoch says...

@Drachen_Jager
yeah,the way i am reading it is that this new plan is going to defer much more control,and therefore responsibility,to a state level.

considering that many local municipalities are broke,bankrupt or on the verge of both.i do not see this ending well.with local and state governments being forced to trim plans to non-existent coverage,or raise premiums.

as it is written right now,this is a lose -lose for the republicans.

and to answer your question @ChaosEngine,the american people are down with single payer according to the polls (when the right questions are asked),and this includes moderate republicans.

so it is not the american people,it is the multi-billion dollar health insurance industry,and THEIR politicial bullshit is an entirely separate conversation.

let's just say they are cunts,and leave it at that.

The Garden Masterpiece Grown From Rescued Plants

oritteropo says...

I thought that too, and was also wondering how he trims the tops of the 10m high trees.

CrushBug said:

Can we get Pearl an exoskeleton to help him with his work? Man, that step out of the shed... I was so concerned.

When a rhino wants belly rubs, you give it belly rubs

UsesProzac (Member Profile)

Watchmen - Adapting The Unadaptable

Mordhaus says...

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the movie for what it was as well. Jackie Earle Haley was an amazing Rorschach and while the other characters weren't as strong, they did fit into the roles. However, it was not as powerful as the comic version and Snyder did fall into his slow motion 'moment' vs 'scene' trap. If you compare what Jackson did with the Lord of the Rings, Jackson had to trim some of the source material but he stayed true to the 'feeling' of the books. If you were a diehard fan of the books, you might not care for his interpretation, but he did give you the majority of the work. Snyder didn't really do the source material justice and while some of that may lay with the script, it still is his fault to a point.

He is a very bombastic director if given a mostly action based movie to work with. As soon as you take him out of that comfort zone, he tries to apply the same formula and that can kill movies that require a defter hand to work all of the nuances.

Jinx said:

I enjoyed the movie. I read the book first, but only because I saw the trailers and wanted to see the movie, but I was advised to go to the source first. Perhaps because it was all fresh to me etc, that when I saw Zac's "moment montage" I was able to fill in the gaps.

I guess it depends on your definition of adaption. I feel that implicit in adaption is transformation or evolution. The story is in the telling no? Can you cut the story out, leaving behind all context, and still call it "Watchmen"?

The homage to Batman's suit is perhaps not literally true to the source material, but I think in some ways it is kind of true to the spirit of it. Here's Watchman, the graphic novel, was playing with our preconceptions of what makes a superhero comic book. Perhaps Snyder's intention was to use motifs of superhero movies in the same way Watchmen used preconceptions of its medium. maybe.



Send this Article to a Friend



Separate multiple emails with a comma (,); limit 5 recipients






Your email has been sent successfully!

Manage this Video in Your Playlists

Beggar's Canyon