Prez wrote on Feb 10, 2024, 17:08:
My opinion remains unchanged: It's still not anyone's place to tell someone else what they 'need'. It's pretty arrogant to take that right.
(...)
I believe you have the right to live how you choose. If it's legal, I mind my business.

You want to go there? Ok, let's go there.

A SUV is not a need unless there is a real life practical need for it. If you don't have a real life practical need, it's a DESIRE.

Unless you live in the boonies ( or have a very rare and specific need for a SUV's capabilities above and beyond what a sedan can do ) you really don't NEED a SUV, you just DESIRE it. A desire is a PRIVILEGE, not a right.

And when someone's desire, someone's privilege, results in someone else's avoidable death or a lifelong handicap instead of minor wounds, that's where I draw the line. You don't have a right to put someone else's life in danger because of a selfish desire.

Legality doesn't mean morality. Slavery was once legal ( some can argue it still is in an "evolved" form ), did that make it moral? Would I "mind my business" about slavery? Fuck no. That's why I loathe prison systems in countries where it's legal to exploit the inmates for labour as an example among many others.

In a nutshell, please stop mistaking "need" and "desire" as well as "legal" and "moral".

That being said, if only the "nose" of those SUVs was lowered to the same height as a sedan, it wouldn't even be an issue. Very few SUVs do have a lowered nose and they are mostly sold in Europe where there is regulation regarding that issue. Lower all SUVs noses and I couldn't care less even if 100% of all vehicles sold were SUVs as long as the casualties drop back down to sedan levels.

As a side note, the same problem has been noted about pickup trucks, older pickups had a lower nose, newer pickups higher nose also cause the same issue as SUVs higher nose. Regulation ( or the manufacturers collectively putting their "man pants" on and solving that problem ) that solves that issue would also be welcome by me.

This comment was edited on Feb 13, 2024, 19:58.

I admit that what I thought your point was, was wrong. But are you just assuming that you know for a fact that:

1) I didn't know those stats already if not specifics, at least in a general sense, and
2) That it would make any difference?

My opinion remains unchanged: It's still not anyone's place to tell someone else what they 'need'. It's pretty arrogant to take that right upon yourself if you ask me.

I believe you have the right to live how you choose. If it's legal, I mind my business.

Prez wrote on Feb 8, 2024, 16:34:
No I think I get your point. I just choose to subtly remind people that they don't get to dictate what other people 'need'. But I would agree; you don't need to walk me through it, and in fact I would rather not hear it.

As I thought, you're unaware of the problem and the consequences.

If you want to stay that way, I won't interfere.

Only reveal the secret/"invisible" text below if you're curious:

A simple internet search regarding the sharp increase in the quantity and also the severity of road casualties caused by the move to SUVs will do the trick.

I hate Guinness World Records. They suck at what they purport to do. They are just a greedy marketing/PR company.

Speaking of sort-of Indian food, there is a region in India with a large Chinese population. Over time, the food there came to be sort of a fusion of Indian and Chinese. I've been wanting to check it out. Supposedly, the distinctive Chinese influence on the region is thinning out these days.

In Australia, the car manufacturers still sell utes. Sort of a low station wagon with sort of a truck bed. But without the bed being separate. Basically like the old Ford Rancheros or Chevy El Caminos from the 1950s to 1980s.

Although a few of the modern utes in Australia are starting to look more and more like regular pickup trucks.

This comment was edited on Feb 9, 2024, 01:24.

jdreyer wrote on Feb 8, 2024, 22:11:

Simon Says wrote on Feb 8, 2024, 13:14:

World has gone mad, unless you live out in the boonies, you don't need a SUV.

People want station wagons, but they don't sell those any longer.

Station wagons rock! My wagon is way more sporty with as much (if not more) utility than an SUV, and it gets 40+ MPG. I used to have a truck. It was useful, but I was considering putting a bed cap on it because most of the time when I was hauling stuff, I didn't want it open for the taking. I sold it, bought a station wagon and it's been much more useful. It seats 5, has plenty of cargo room (more if I fold the rear seats down). If I ever need more space (which I haven't) I can rent a trailer.

Erectile Dysfunction Drugs May Protect Against Alzheimer's.

Their extreme and bizarre "per person years spent in the study" data massaging is questionable for a large number of reasons. If you just look at the percentage of the two groups who went on to get Alzheimer's, it actually looks like the ones that took the ED medication were far more likely to develop Alzheimer's (.3% of non-ED drug takers got Alzheimer's but .5% of ED drug takers got Alzheimer's. That means that ED drug takers were actually 66% more likely to get Alzheimer's

The study is quite possibly bunk. I don't completely dismiss it, but there are such a large number of problems with the study. The old guys still having sex and taking ED drugs are likely slightly healthier than the ones who aren't. All were diagnosed with ED. Only one group bothered to get the prescription.

There are also quite a number of other factors that may differentiate the ED taking population from the non-ED taking population. They may also be more proactive about dealing with health issues. The list goes on and on. The few factors that they mentioned that they tried to control for don't even begin to cover it. After all that data massaging, it's a somewhat small difference.

They also took a bizarre step to supposedly control for how long the participants in the two different groups were studied. However, the way that they did it doesn't make any logical sense.

Also ,the ones who didn't get a prescription likely dropped out sooner. If they were getting Alzheimer's, that would certainly explain why they were then not interested in ED issues. A small difference in that would make a large difference in their analysis.

Correlation is not causation.

Maybe worth following up on, but certainly not worth the hype and overinflated claims that this has received. Especially with the absurdly extreme data massaging that went on.

It's a common tactic if a group's study doesn't get the results that they want. If people just keep trying weird permutations and cherry picking and such things, they are bound to come up with something just by random chance. Often called statistical P value hacking.

This comment was edited on Feb 9, 2024, 00:49.

Chernobyl's Mutant Wolves Have Evolved Anti-Cancer Abilities.

The STALKER effect is real.

Simon Says wrote on Feb 8, 2024, 13:14:

World has gone mad, unless you live out in the boonies, you don't need a SUV.

People want station wagons, but they don't sell those any longer.

I roll around in a full sized truck because it meets my needs. Simple as that. Meeting those needs were the only considerations in buying it.

Burrito of Peace wrote on Feb 8, 2024, 19:51:
I love it when someone says "You don't need X" based solely on their idiosyncratic view of the world.

bop rolls around in a big ass smolpp wagon?!?

Too bad we never got to see Mojoworld with BBQ Sauce in the waterslides.....

Prez wrote on Feb 8, 2024, 18:55:
You made my head hurt for a second there Cutter. But it was a reduction from 9.7 to 8.1 per 10000 when the drugs were taken. Still, it always seemed beyond useless to report associations without establishing causality. To me it seems about as scientific as saying cows are associated with reducing crime because the prevalence of cows is higher in lower crime areas.

Still, the numbers given don't really add up.

270,000 participants: 1,119 people developed Alzheimer's - 0.4144%
148,500 took the drug: 749 people got it - 0.5044%
121,500 didn't take it: 370 people got it - 0.3045%

Once researchers adjusted for other factors that could affect the rate of Alzheimer’s disease, such as age, smoking status and alcohol consumption, they found that people who took erectile dysfunction drugs were 18% less likely to develop Alzheimer’s than people who did not take the drugs.

I think this is key, but this also means that the info we're given in this article is effectively useless. "Hey if you take these numbers and alter them in unspecified ways, you get different results!". Yeah ok, cool. I'm sure the actual research paper will be more specific on the other factors but this article is too vague.

I love it when someone says "You don't need X" based solely on their idiosyncratic view of the world.

You made my head hurt for a second there Cutter. But it was a reduction from 9.7 to 8.1 per 10000 when the drugs were taken. Still, it always seemed beyond useless to report associations without establishing causality. To me it seems about as scientific as saying cows are associated with reducing crime because the prevalence of cows is higher in lower crime areas.

I sure hope the more Dan Dan Noodles eaten the more luck!
Now where's my Jethro Bodine Bowl !


90% of the guys here in Texas, driving big suv(s) and dualies don't have a need for them, other than ego.

Armored Core VI is $36.50 at GMG. Pretty sure it's the cheapest it has been since release.

My buddy Jim, who's a bankruptcy and insolvency lawyer, turned me on to Mojo Nixon and Skid Roper 35 years ago. Even saw them once in Toronto. He was a whacky guy. Guy had a lot of good tunes. One of my faves was always I Ain't Gonna Piss in No Jar.

The study involved 269,725 male participants with an average age of 59 who were newly diagnosed with erectile dysfunction. Participants did not have any memory or thinking problems at the start of the study. They were then followed for an average of five years. The study compared the 55% of the participants who had prescriptions for erectile dysfunction drugs to the 45% who did not have prescriptions.

During the study, 1,119 people developed Alzheimer’s disease.

Among the participants taking erectile dysfunction drugs, 749 developed Alzheimer’s disease, which corresponds to a rate of 8.1 cases per 10,000 person-years. Person-years represent both the number of people in the study and the amount of time each person spends in the study. Among those who did not take the drugs, 370 developed Alzheimer’s disease, which corresponds to a rate of 9.7 cases per 10,000 person-years.

Not being a maths guy someone want to explain this to me. So splitting the group 55% ED drug takers vs. 45% who don't, how does 370 non-drug users rate a higher amount of cases than the drug users who had twice as many cases? Just looking at that says to me you're almost twice as likely to develop Alzheimers if you take ED drugs than not.