Something Random

[Chewy509]

Thanks guys. Since the surgery I've really not had much pain, but I have a pretty high pain tolerance. I'm the talk of the hospital both in the injury and lack of post-op pain.
I smashed it Monday evening right outside the house sometime after 5, in the rain. That was excruciating, nearly passed out trying to get out of the cold and rain and notify the wife.
I was in surgery by noon Tuesday and up and walking every hour by Thursday morning.
No more marathons for me but apparently I can bike all I want after a while.

Ouch, hope you're recovering well!

 

[Stereodude]

SD, what industry are you in? If you could work for any company in that industry which would it be?

I work in the display industry. For a company that makes the panels. I don't think there's a single one of them I'd want to work for. They're all based in Asia and will likely all have similar issues.

I should go back to the semiconductor industry that I worked in prior to this job. There are some companies in it I'd like to work for.

 

[DrunkenBastard]

Replaced the $5 plastic Y connector that distributes coolant to the front and rear heaters on the Suburban. Got home last week and was wondering why the rear wheel was wet, last pothole I hit must have sheared it off, part of it still in one of the hoses. Luckily the temp gauge hadn't maxed out when I got home, tho I was about 2 gallons low when I filled her back up tonight. Had a slow leak from an adjacent T connector a few weeks back but it was much slower, not catastrophic like the latest failure. I have a spare Y connector in the truck now, for next time. Will try and proactively replace the rest of the brittle plastic pieces of shit before they also fail.

 

[Stereodude]

Well, I successfully made it back to the states from China. Now my week of jet lag begins. I do pretty well going West. I never do well going East.

 

[snowhiker]

Well, I successfully made it back to the states from China. Now my week of jet lag begins. I do pretty well going West. I never do well going East.

Do you have to go right back to work the next day after travel or were you able to take a few days off? Probably been 40 years since I've been on a plane.

 

[jtr1962]

Probably been 40 years since I've been on a plane.

It's been 26 years, 5 months since I've been on a plane. That was actually the only time I flew in my entire life. While the flight was uneventful, I decided then and there I'll never fly again. Not a very comfortable way to travel compared to a train. And it's one of these low risk but high consequence activities which I tend to avoid. I can and have survived car crashes. Train crashes are relatively rare and there is almost always a great survival rate. On the other hand, air crashes typically kill most people on the plane even if they rarely occur. No real need for me to fly anyway since I don't need to travel long distances. If/when I ever do, I'm not in that much of a rush that I couldn't take a train or a ship.

 

[timwhit]

Have you taken any long distance train or boat trips?

 

[Stereodude]

Do you have to go right back to work the next day after travel or were you able to take a few days off? Probably been 40 years since I've been on a plane.

I'll be back at work tomorrow.

I did get some Glenmorangie 18 from the Duty Free store in PVG. About $20-25 less for the bottle than the price in MI ($115) depending where the exchange rate lands. Of course they have super stupid rules flying out of Shanghai for liquids on the plane. You basically can't bring any liquids on the plane even if they're purchased after the security checkpoint. This included bottle water, coffee, etc. They even confiscated a guy's yogurt. They did the same thing the last two times I flew out of Shanghai, so I guess it's normal. As a result, you end up having to gate check your duty free alcohol purchase and pick it up at the baggage claim in the US. :bstd:

 

[jtr1962]

Have you taken any long distance train or boat trips?

No. Thus far I haven't had much desire or time to do long distance traveling, not to mention I've lacked the funds. It's something I may do after I'm able to retire.

 

[LunarMist]

Well, I successfully made it back to the states from China. Now my week of jet lag begins. I do pretty well going West. I never do well going East.

I regularly travel multiple legs for long distances over a 24+ hour period, return home around 1-2AM, and have to work the next day. Jet lag is not allowed.

 

[LunarMist]

Probably been 40 years since I've been on a plane.

It's rarely 40 days that I don't go anywhere. :lol: Next week I have a trip to the Southern US. Last week there was one in the Northeast and two the week before.

 

[Stereodude]

Have you taken any long distance train or boat trips?

Obviously he hasn't or he'd be singing a different tune. As much as a middle seat in the cattle car section of a plane sucks for a 14 hour flight it beats the alternatives.

Can you even take a boat to Asia? You travel as a passenger on a container ship or something?

 

[Stereodude]

Jet lag is not allowed.

Let me know how you stop your body from having it's internal clock all messed up. You just will yourself into it?

 

[jtr1962]

Obviously he hasn't or he'd be singing a different tune. As much as a middle seat in the cattle car section of a plane sucks for a 14 hour flight it beats the alternatives.

The problem with a plane is that you really can't get up and walk around whenever you want. I couldn't be mostly in a sitting position for 14 hours. Besides that, there's the fact that planes crash, and you almost always die when that happens.

Can you even take a boat to Asia? You travel as a passenger on a container ship or something?

From NYC a trip to Asia without flying would probably involve taking Amtrak to Los Angeles. That's about 3 days, give or take. If the US had a decent high-speed rail system it could be done in under 1 day. From there you rent a cabin on a container ship. It's 6,000 or so miles across the Pacific. IIRC the container ships travel at 20 to 25 knots, so figure ~2 weeks, give or take, to cross the Pacific. China is actually planning to build a high-speed railway via the Bering Straight which would make traveling to Asia without flying a heck of a lot faster. Anyway, if you're not in a rush, you can get to Asia without flying. If/when I ever traveled, I would probably be touring Asia for 6 months or a year. It doesn't matter then if I take 14 hours or 2+ weeks to get there. I would think of getting there as part of the adventure.

Europe is even easier to get to without flying. There's both container ships or transatlantic cruise ships. Figure about a week travel time, maybe a few days more if you're on a container ship.

http://wikitravel.org/en/Freighter_travel

 

[LunarMist]

Let me know how you stop your body from having it's internal clock all messed up. You just will yourself into it?

My clock failed in the 70s so it's always about the same. I avoid lights and cover windows. I used to sleep with all the bright lights on, but don't as much anymore.

 

[Stereodude]

The problem with a plane is that you really can't get up and walk around whenever you want.

Sure you can. They're called aisle seats.

 

[Stereodude]

Besides that, there's the fact that planes crash, and you almost always die when that happens.

Per passenger mile traveled planes are dramatically safer than cars. To the tune of several orders of magnitude. They also get you where you're going in a timely fashion.

 

[jtr1962]

Per passenger mile traveled planes are dramatically safer than cars. To the tune of several orders of magnitude. They also get you where you're going in a timely fashion.

I'm not sure that deaths per passenger mile is a great metric. That skews the statistics in favor of modes which make longer trips. Point of fact, takeoffs and landings are the most dangerous part of flying. If the average plane trip was the same length as the average car trip the difference between flying and cars would be far less.

Here's some statistics based on fatalities per billion trips:

Bus 4.3
Rail 20
Van 20
Car 40
Foot 40
Water 90
Air 117
Bicycle 170
Motorcycle 1640

Source

Even these data have some glaring issues and omissions. For one thing, they don't separate conventional versus high-speed rail. High-speed rail running on dedicated high-speed lines has a near-perfect safety record over 43 years (the one exception being the Wenzhou crash which killed 40 people). So the rate for high-speed rail would be well under 1 death per billion trips. The second problem is the rates for walking and bike are way too high because incidents where a pedestrian or cyclist is killed by a motor vehicle are lumped in. These incidents should instead be attributed to whatever motor vehicle hit them. In the absence of motor vehicles, both walking and cycling are inherently very safe but there are no separate statistics for walking or cycling deaths which don't involve a motor vehicle. As an example, in 2014 726 cyclists died on US roads but of those 699 involved a collision with motor vehicles ( source ) That would put the death rates solely caused by cycling closer to 6 deaths per billion trips. That makes cycling safer than conventional rail, and nearly as safe as bus. I would imagine the stats for walking would be similar. Interestingly, one line of thinking for walking and cycling is that the exercise increases your life on average more than any associated risk decreases it. That would put the rates into negative territory.

 

[LunarMist]

I'm not sure that deaths per passenger mile is a great metric. That skews the statistics in favor of modes which make longer trips. Point of fact, takeoffs and landings are the most dangerous part of flying. If the average plane trip was the same length as the average car trip the difference between flying and cars would be far less.

Here's some statistics based on fatalities per billion trips:

Bus 4.3
Rail 20
Van 20
Car 40
Foot 40
Water 90
Air 117
Bicycle 170
Motorcycle 1640

Source

Even these data have some glaring issues and omissions. For one thing, they don't separate conventional versus high-speed rail. High-speed rail running on dedicated high-speed lines has a near-perfect safety record over 43 years (the one exception being the Wenzhou crash which killed 40 people). So the rate for high-speed rail would be well under 1 death per billion trips. The second problem is the rates for walking and bike are way too high because incidents where a pedestrian or cyclist is killed by a motor vehicle are lumped in. These incidents should instead be attributed to whatever motor vehicle hit them. In the absence of motor vehicles, both walking and cycling are inherently very safe but there are no separate statistics for walking or cycling deaths which don't involve a motor vehicle. As an example, in 2014 726 cyclists died on US roads but of those 699 involved a collision with motor vehicles ( source ) That would put the death rates solely caused by cycling closer to 6 deaths per billion trips. That makes cycling safer than conventional rail, and nearly as safe as bus. I would imagine the stats for walking would be similar. Interestingly, one line of thinking for walking and cycling is that the exercise increases your life on average more than any associated risk decreases it. That would put the rates into negative territory.

Per trip is a bogus metric since the average auto trip is far less than an average plane trip. If you fly Boston to SFO it is safer than driving. Comparing flying across the country to driving 10 miles to works is pointless.

 

[LunarMist]

The problem with a plane is that you really can't get up and walk around whenever you want. I couldn't be mostly in a sitting position for 14 hours. Besides that, there's the fact that planes crash, and you almost always die when that happens.

The long international flights often are on foreign carries. Their pilots are usually more reasonable with the seat belt sign than the paranoid US pilots. Obviously when the usual diarrhea strikes one just gets up anyway.

 

[jtr1962]

Per trip is a bogus metric since the average auto trip is far less than an average plane trip. If you fly Boston to SFO it is safer than driving. Comparing flying across the country to driving 10 miles to works is pointless.

I'm just pointing out that you can use statistics to "prove" anything you want. Absolute numbers killed annually is yet another way to look at it since that takes into account both safety per passenger mile and use. By that metric cars kill about 100 times as many as planes in the US in a typical year.

My issue with flying isn't that it's statistically dangerous but when mishaps do occur, your chances of surviving are pretty low. Per trip data actually gives you a better idea of how often on average you might experience a mishap than per passenger mile data. Driving is obviously way more dangerous than flying no matter what metric you use, but I never said it was safe. I wouldn't choose to drive from Boston to SFO in lieu of flying. My choice would be rail, which is either much safer than flying if you go by deaths per billion trips, or marginally more dangerous if you go by deaths per billion passenger miles. If we're talking HSR on dedicated high-speed tracks, rail is safer than flying no matter which metric you use. Interestingly, a lot of train crashes are at grade crossings, so it might be fairer to count these as road deaths rather than train deaths. After all, it's not the fault of the train if some bozo decides to blow a crossing gate. I recall some data from years ago which suggested the US could reduce train crashes by easily a factor of ten just by eliminating grade crossings.

 

[LunarMist]

I'm just pointing out that you can use statistics to "prove" anything you want. Absolute numbers killed annually is yet another way to look at it since that takes into account both safety per passenger mile and use. By that metric cars kill about 100 times as many as planes in the US in a typical year.

My issue with flying isn't that it's statistically dangerous but when mishaps do occur, your chances of surviving are pretty low. Per trip data actually gives you a better idea of how often on average you might experience a mishap than per passenger mile data. Driving is obviously way more dangerous than flying no matter what metric you use, but I never said it was safe. I wouldn't choose to drive from Boston to SFO in lieu of flying. My choice would be rail, which is either much safer than flying if you go by deaths per billion trips, or marginally more dangerous if you go by deaths per billion passenger miles. If we're talking HSR on dedicated high-speed tracks, rail is safer than flying no matter which metric you use. Interestingly, a lot of train crashes are at grade crossings, so it might be fairer to count these as road deaths rather than train deaths. After all, it's not the fault of the train if some bozo decides to blow a crossing gate. I recall some data from years ago which suggested the US could reduce train crashes by easily a factor of ten just by eliminating grade crossings.

I suspect that taking good care of one's health is more statistically important than flying or driving a reasonable amount. There are also other things that will increase lifespan that small statistical amount.

Everything has risk. Wasn't it Daly who said, "Do you want to live forever?"
I've seen most of what is interesting to me in the US, but I've visited less than 80 other countries.

 

[Howell]

Less than 80 other countries than you've seen of the US? Or fewer than 80 other countries?

 

[Stereodude]

Point of fact, takeoffs and landings are the most dangerous part of flying. If the average plane trip was the same length as the average car trip the difference between flying and cars would be far less.

Except they're not the same length, so it's a moot comparison.

Look, I get it. You have a fear of flying. That's okay, but lets not try to massage the data into some sort of sound scientific basis for not flying.

 

[LunarMist]

Less than 80 other countries than you've seen of the US? Or fewer than 80 other countries?

The total including the US is also under 80. It is a rounded number.

Glad to see you are back.

 

[LunarMist]

Except they're not the same length, so it's a moot comparison.

Look, I get it. You have a fear of flying. That's okay, but lets not try to massage the data into some sort of sound scientific basis for not flying.

Everyone has different concerns. Two engines and two pilots is usually just fine. A 6 seater with one engine and one pilot is not my favorite, but I'll do that once a while.
I've been robbed on a train, but never an airplane.

 

[Stereodude]

I've been robbed on a train, but never an airplane.

No, the airline does that before you board at the time you buy the ticket instead. :rofl:

 

[LunarMist]

No, the airline does that before you board at the time you buy the ticket instead. :rofl:

That don't take your wallet and password.

 

[Howell]

Mom was walking 2 days after each of her hip replacements. One inch incision and mostly automated/robotic surgery.

Walking without any aid? I'll have to ask in a week why I was not so lucky. I have a 10" incision currently held together by 30 staples. Looks like a zipper. Was supposed to be anterior method but turned out to not be possible I hear.

 

[timwhit]

Are you back home at least? My mom had a hip replacement about 15 years ago, it still works from what I understand.

 

[Howell]

That's good to hear Tim. The engineers have been improving the devices over the last 15 years so I hope to get at least 20 out of mine. I came home mid-day last Friday and it has been better to be home. The physical therapy is more painful than expected. I can see why people stop PT and don't improve mobility.

 

[LunarMist]

That's good to hear Tim. The engineers have been improving the devices over the last 15 years so I hope to get at least 20 out of mine. I came home mid-day last Friday and it has been better to be home. The physical therapy is more painful than expected. I can see why people stop PT and don't improve mobility.

I've had plenty of PT over the years. Do what is required and if you don't like it consider a different therapist. It may take a year for maximum recovery.

 

[Stereodude]

They've apparently got some interesting problems in China and a thing against bugles.

 

[LunarMist]

They've apparently got some interesting problems in China and a thing against bugles.

In the old days maybe some Chinese cars had air horns.

 

[snowhiker]

Walking without any aid? I'll have to ask in a week why I was not so lucky. I have a 10" incision currently held together by 30 staples. Looks like a zipper. Was supposed to be anterior method but turned out to not be possible I hear.

She used a walker for a while to ensure she didn't fall, and had some in-home physical therapy but her recovery went smoothly. Sounds like you had more damage to the socket area than she had, hence your 10" incision, vs her tiny incision and "robotic" surgery.

 

[Stereodude]

In the old days maybe some Chinese cars had air horns.

I know what the sign's supposed to mean. That doesn't make it any less funny.

 

[LunarMist]

I know what the sign's supposed to mean. That doesn't make it any less funny.

I'm not up to speed on the Chinese traffic laws, but have seen similar signs in other countries.

The strangest one is the "no exploding car."

 

[ddrueding]

This is the first month my ISP has enabled a data cap. I've exceeded my 1TB allocation on day 8 of the billing cycle and already accrued another $30 of overage charges by day 11. For another $50/mo I can go unlimited. Seem prudent.

 

[LunarMist]

This is the first month my ISP has enabled a data cap. I've exceeded my 1TB allocation on day 8 of the billing cycle and already accrued another $30 of overage charges by day 11. For another $50/mo I can go unlimited. Seem prudent.

I would not use 1TB in total if I lived another 10 years. Are you using internet for business purposes?

 

[ddrueding]

Just home stuff. Mostly video streaming. Since everything is HD (much 4k), it doesn't go as far as it used to. And there are three of us that watch separate things simultaneously.