you didn't even read the article. moron

thanks for the link. looks like he was a fan of eugenics, talks about it page 12. case closed. appreciated.

could’ve gone without the snark, i did the basic 2 minute googling. but thanks for the info.

Sounds fun. Good point that the rails are gonna be minimal elecation by design. Adds a bit of difficulty given that it's gravel and not road, but I'll trade that over having cars any day of the week! Good luck!

This looks like an awesome ride. Any idea what the elevation change is over the whole thing? I did a century last summer and it absolutely kicked my ass, tbf I had a 20mph headwind the entire damn time haha but I'd love to give another shot at one.

would be nice to see what Mead actually did & said. information is slim in this article, Middlebury College's article, and the wikipedia page for him. is this actually a nuanced subject, or is this "old man yells at clouds"? Likely the former, but it'd be nice to read more.

> The basis for the name removal was Gov. Mead’s support, in his farewell address of 1912, “for proposals to restrict the issuance of marriage licenses and to appoint a commission to study the use of a new operation called a vasectomy, which was a safer and more humane process of sterilization,” the lawsuit states. But claims that his comments caused sterilizations to happen 20 or 30 years later “is factually baseless and legally unjust,” Douglas wrote.

considering the republican and democratic parties swapped platforms somewhere around that time I don't think this is just blatant "im a republican and republicans good" move, but it could be. studying vasectomies is fine, the dude WAS literally a doctor so that makes sense. Restricting the issuance of marriage licenses is sus but I don't know what those licenses are, how they're given out, etc etc.

Any historians here to educate? I'd love to learn more.

edit: it’s not looking good for mr mead imo

I don't want to dox myself, but I assure you it was not low volume. Hundreds of employees, millions of dollars a day.

Obviously, you've never worked in a warehouse lol.

I worked in a warehouse for four years lol. That's why I specifically used that example, is because I actually know about it. What do you mean by "biased"? There's a lot of fucking off that happens that would definitely be reduced. Just general standing around and chatting, or not doing the best thing at that moment, trying to sneak off and mess around for a while, etc.

Maybe you've never worked in one, but there's a lot of shenanigans that goes on.

That said, it was awful and the company treated us like dog food, so it's possible in a company that has more respect for its workers, this would be less of the case. I'd also expect mistakes (ie, tipping over pallets and other very time consuming stuff) to happen much less frequently if employees could actually recharge between work weeks. At the end of my stint there, I was one of the most senior guys, and I'd only been there three years. Turnover was very high.

probably a plurality of jobs are office jobs or jobs where reduced hours don't effect productivity. it may not be a majority but it is probably the largest piece of pie.

obviously warehouse workers will load less trucks in 4 days than 5. even then I don't think it's a 20% loss of productivity (there'll be a lot less lazy shit going on), but I don't imagine it could be a positive for productivity like office jobs.

maybe not the majority of jobs, but probably the plurality of jobs could cut hours and still remain productive

> And what does a 4-day work week really entail? Are we talking about working 20% fewer hours/week for the same pay? For less pay?

32 hours of work per week with the same pay is generally what people are going for

you really don't lose even close to 20% productivity. personally when I swapped to 4 day work weeks, it meant I didn't want to drive into a lake for 2-3 work days a week, so I ended up being more productive overall. I don't dread monday as much.

https://www.cam.ac.uk/stories/fourdayweek

looks like sap boils at 215-220F depending on sugar content

but boiling may kill pathogens while leaving toxins intact. if you shit in a bucket and pour some water on it, you can boil it all you want, I'm not touching it lol

it's specifically good for drinking, because it is good for teeth

you're drinking such a tiny amount in treated water, there are no negative effects

anti-flouride is not a particularly well informed POV, especially considering it naturally occurs in groundwater anyway (sometimes in higher concentrations than treated water!)

damn this person knows what 2 colleges in the state cost per year, wrap it up, we’re done here.

maybe uvm is, there's plenty of other places to go to school though...

> please don't belittle my experience.

I never belittled anyone - sorry if my words came across that way, it was not my intent

> not everyone can afford $7,000~ a year.

I mean, if you spent a year at home working (rather than in the south) and worked during the summers, you easily could have afforded 7k/year, same as me... it's not cheap, yeah, but it's within reach for anyone who doesn't have dependants and can live at home (or other cheap housing) for a year.

moreover, uvm isn't the cheapest school in the state, anyway. kind of irrelevant how much it costs. "I can't go to school in Massachusetts because Boston University is too expensive!" there are other options in the state for less

this is not to say you made the wrong decision or anything like that! but if someone wants to go to school in-state, it's easily achievable for almost everyone (again, besides those with dependents and who cannot rely on their parents for housing while in school).

meanwhile, buying property is completely out of reach unless you make 80k a year and can live at home/very cheap housing for 2-4 years to save up for a house. one is a far larger issue for young people in general.

uvm was my cheapest school lol that's why I went there. 24k in debt total, paid 7k/year up front. definitely not nothing! but not particularly unaffordable, and there's plenty of places more affordable in-state that you could have chosen to go to. I am glad you found somewhere that works for you, but don't pretend that's a choice you were forced into. hell, college fucking sucks and I wish I didn't go at all! maybe one of our many trade schools would've been better!

the real reason people leave is because housing fucking sucks here. it's a problem everywhere, but it's particularly bad here.

young people are leaving AFTER college

graduated uvm in 2021. I know 1 (one) couple who is still here, and they're moving in the next few months

colleges leaving sucks but it's not why young people leave (or at least, not a major, top 5 reason they leave)

none of my comp sci physical books were free, either

thank god for LibGen tho lol

> One, H.439, would strike psilocybin, mescaline and peyote from Vermont’s definition of hallucinogenic drugs, effectively allowing the substances by removing them from state control. That measure is sponsored by Rep. Brian Cina (P/D), who has introduced similar legislation in the past.

> The other proposal, S.114, from Sen. Martine Gulick (D) would remove only psilocybin from the state’s definition of hallucinogens.

that seems like a silly way to go about it lol

I'm all for decriminalizing drugs, but shrooms are what they are...

maybe. at least the option would exist, and no doubt that option would be taken more than its being taken now (ie, never)

> Contractors aren't making cheap housing because it's not as profitable for almost as much effort.

Wrong! Contractors aren't making cheap housing because they literally can't due to current regulations. All condo buildings are luxury because they have to be, it could easily be profitable if there was less regulation around building multi unit mixed use housing in VT.

slippery slope fallacy. zzzz address the bill, not some wild "what ifs" pulled from your ass

it's pretty unlikely that this bill passes anyway

do you know why you can see plenty of houses for 300k+ on realtor.com right now, and barely any for 200k under? because the cheap ones are bought up immediately.

anyone who can afford a mortgage for a cheap house can easily get a mortgage. it's really not hard to get a mortgage if you can actually afford the house. i can ACTUALLY AFFORD a sub 200k mortgage, but I've been approved for a 260k mortgage. it is way too easy to get approved for way too much mortgage.

the risk is whether there is someone who wants to buy that $500 item vs if you had just built two of the $150 item for the same amount of money and definitely had buyers.

it's way more complicated than your simple math equation. of course there's risk for investing in real estate lol.

this bill is not giving more control to the state, though...