The Most Active Threads since Friday

Today I'll look at the most active threads since Friday. During that period, the most active thread was titled, "Why don’t college students understand that they’re supposed to preserve optionality?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. Somehow this thread managed to escape my notice until just now and at 14 pages in length, I'm not able to do more than skim a few pages. Because I am unfamiliar with the term "optionality", I was immediately confused by the title. After reading the original post, I realized that the original poster simply meant "options". I see that the first poster to respond had almost idenical thinking. The original poster strongly believes that college majors and even first jobs should be chosen with the goal of preserving options. The poster recommends pursuing STEM majors and then working in the fields of investment banking or management consulting. Several of those responding have little regard for those fields and don't seem to believe any number of options would be worth preserving if working in such jobs were a requirement. Skimming this thread, it appears to be a rehash of a common theme of the college forum. The original poster sees the primary goal of college to be upward mobility, preparing students for a job which should put them firmly on a path for financial success (where "financial success" is defined as "wealthy"). Not explicitly said, but clearly implied, is that these students must, of course, attend elite colleges. The path of top high school -> elite college -> Goldman Sachs or McKinsey is somewhat of a DCUM archetype, aspired to if not always achieved by a number of posters. In contrast to this idea of the road to success is the view that the point of college is to get an education and that success is achieved through happiness and a range of goals beyond the purely financial. In some ways, this debate is a version of the STEM vs humanities clash that seem ever present in the college forum, but with a twist because the goal of the STEM degree is investment banking or management consulting rather than in a FAANG company. There are representatives of both sides of this dispute in the thread with many who see some truth in the original poster's position, either claiming to have followed a similar path or known those who did. In contrast are posters who are working in fields that they love and wouldn't wanted to have done things differently. As one of them says, "I’m 50 with a successful career and I can’t imagine anything worse than working for one of the Big 4 or similar types of consulting firm."

The next most active thread over the weekend was posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. Titled, "Small dog attacked toddler while in walk", the original poster describes being out walking with her nearly 2-year-old daughter when a small terrier-mix dog came running from a yard and bit the girl. The original poster, who was also carrying a younger child, kicked the dog in order to make it release her daughter. The original poster and her husband took their daughter to urgent care and the girl is now doing okay. The police visited the dog's owner to check on its vaccination status and were told by the owner that the original poster and her daughter had come on to her property and assaulted the dog. This infuriated the original poster's husband who wants to get a lawyer and sue for the medical bills, which weren't that much. Again, this is not a thread that I have to time to read thoroughly. But, it looks like the length of the thread is attributable to the fact that the incident seems to have a few different aspects to it and there are posters with strong feelings about all of them. For instance, there is the issue of kicking the dog. While the vast majority see that as simple self-defense and fully-justified, at least one thinks it did constitute assault, and other argue that since we are only hearing side of the story, the truth might not be what we are hearing from the original poster. Next is whether the original poster should get a lawyer and sue. Even self-described lawyers are split on this question. Some say the cost of a lawyer would exceed any damages and the case might be hard to win in the first place. Others advise getting a lawyer for defensive purposes in case the dog owner decides to take legal action. A number of posters, whether they think a lawyer is necessary or not, tell the original poster to get a copy of the police report and retain the medical records so they have the documentation available if they need it. Another aspect of the incident might be described as "neighborhood relations". The original poster is fairly new to the neighborhood and doesn't want this to become a bigger issue that might hinder their acceptance by neighbors or to have a long-running issue with this neighbor. Some posters share the concern that neighbors might side with the dog owner but others argue that longterm residents are probably aware of issues with this neighbor's dog.

The third most active thread was titled, "Worried for my friend—could this be grooming?" and, like the previous thread, posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster explains that her friend recently moved to a new home that is "in the middle of nowhere". She has a neighbor who is a man in his 80s who the friend invites over daily for coffee. The original poster believes that man has become a sort of father figure to her friend. The friend also allows her two preschool-aged children to go off with the man as he does chores around his property such as feeding chickens. The original poster is worried that the man is "grooming" the children. The majority of those responding don't share the original poster's concern about grooming and see the interactions with the neighbor as harmless. Many have fond memories of older neighbors with whom they spent time growing up. Other posters fear that anyone could be a child predator and would not allow the children to be alone with the neighbor or, in some cases, with anyone who was not immediate family. Other posters are less concerned about grooming then they are about the behavior of the young children, thinking that they might put themselves in danger of getting hurt. The thread fairly quickly diverges from the original topic with posters instead arguing about a host of related issues. One topic of debate, for instance, is the likelihood of a man in his 80s being a child predator. Another debate is between the chance of a man being a predator as compared to a woman, with some posters referring to statistics showing that men are overwhelmingly more likely to be predators while others accuse them of being "man haters". Some posters are certain that the neighbor is a child predator and can't imagine any other possible motivation for his wanting to spend time with the children. Other posters feel sorry for what is likely an innocent man showing kindness to his neighbor's children and being suspected of being a child molester in return. There is actually very little advice for the original poster beyond some posters telling her to mind her own business and others suggesting that she perhaps give a gentle warning to her friend.

I'll end today's post on a bang, or maybe a boom. Posted in the "Off-Topic" forum, the final most active thread at which I'll look today was titled, "What was the big boom?" and is about the sonic boom heard all over the Washington, DC metro area yesterday. I was out waking in Rock Creek Park at the time of the boom and didn't notice it. I guess the noise cancelling feature on AirPod Pros really works. I received a text almost immediately from my wife asking about the noise and had no idea about what she was talking. I am so disappointed to have missed it. This thread started out with confusion about what had happened. Posters from all over the area posted about hearing it, with some saying they or their neighbors had run out of their houses to see what was going on. The original poster thought it might have been an earthquake. Others suggested anything from a meteorite to an explosion or even the zombie apocalypse. One poster first ridiculed the suggestion that it was a sonic boom and then chastised another poster for posting a tweet that correctly outlined what had happened. What that tweet said, and what occurred, was that a privately-owned jet that had taken off from an airfield in Tennessee headed to Long Island had nearly reached its destination when it made an abrupt u-turn and headed back straight toward Washington, DC. As it approached the District, the aircraft was unresponsive and fighter jets were scrambled to intercept it. One or more of them was given permission to reach supersonic speeds, causing the sonic boom. The fighter jets could not see a pilot in the cockpit of the private aircraft nor provoke any response. They allowed it to proceed through the no-fly zones over DC and into Virginia where it later crashed near Staunton. All of these details were posted in the thread as they were learned, along with additional information about the jet's owners and its occupants. There is considerable discussion about what could cause those on the aircraft to become disabled. For many, this was their first experience with sonic booms with some needing the entire concept explained to them.