2024

The most active thread yesterday was the campus protest thread that I have already discussed. That thread had nearly six times as many posts as the next most active thread which was titled, "Disney DAS" and posted in the "Travel Discussion" forum. The original poster says that she is anxious about upcoming changes to the Disney's DAS program and asked if anyone knows what to expect. I had no idea to what the original poster was referring and had to do some quick research. "DAS" is Disney World's Disability Access Service which, according to its web page, accommodates guests who "due to a developmental disability like autism or similar, are unable to wait in a conventional queue for an extended period of time." Apparently, guests with DAS access are assigned an entry time to an "experience" — as Disney calls them — that corresponds to the length of the current queue. Such guests don't have to physically stand in line, but just return at their assigned time. The current Disney webpage only contains information about DAS up to May 19 and it seems that changes to the program will be introduced beginning May 20. But with folks attempting to plan trips that will occur after that date, the lack of information about the changes is causing some frustration as in the case of the original poster. Those responding in this thread don't really have any more information about the upcoming changes than the original poster does, so instead replies focus on rumors or describe past experiences. Some posters complained that the DAS system has been abused in the past which might be the reason for the changes. In addition, the DAS program is compared to other programs that Disney offers such as Genie+ and Lightening Lanes. Several parents of children with autism explained how the program had been helpful to them and worried that it might not be continued. But parents with kids without autism complained that the long lines are difficult for young children generally and that Disney should rethink how it handles lines to better accomodate all young children. One poster reported that her family was approved for DAS post May 20 and that the rule changes were not significant. At some point the thread broke out into an argument about using both Genie+ and DAS. For those who, like me, know nothing about this stuff, Genie+ allows guests to use short, fast-moving Lightening Lanes for a select number of rides. Some posters reported using both Genie+ and DAS to keep line waits to a minimum. This upset other posters who thought that using both programs was taking advantage of system. As one poster wrote, "You shouldn't be able to use Genie + if you have DAS. It's double dipping." In response, a poster wrote, "It looks like you can only get a certain #of ride passes per day with the DAS. If you can use Genie + to get on other rides quickly, why wouldn’t you?" Most of the rest of the thread simply consisted of variations of this debate.

The two most active threads yesterday were the thread about college protests and the thread about paying off a spouses's student loans. I already discussed those threads in yesterday's blog post, so I'll skip them today. The next most active thread was titled, "Honestly, how do you manage dual income marriage with kids?" and posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that both she and her husband have "highly intellectual jobs" that don't pay all that well but are intellectually stimulating, have prestige, are fun, but also are stressful. They each make around $200k annually, which caused some posters to question the original poster's description of their jobs as not paying well. They have two kids and, despite "a lot of help around the house" are increasingly having relationship conflicts. As the original poster explains it, between their long hours and frequent travel which also requires time for recuperation, the original poster and her husband are struggling with family life. The original poster is particularly frustrated because she feels that she picks up most of the load around the house and her husband, rather than recognizing that she is tired and overworked, expects her to be the "sexy available girlfriend" when it is convenient for him. She asks how others have made this situation work. On the face of it, what the original poster is describing is a very common scenario — a struggle to balance work with parenting. It has been a decade since Sheryl Sandberg urged women to "lean in", yet as the original poster demonstrates, while women struggle to overcome barriers at work, they also encounter barriers at home. This topic has been covered a million times in the relationship forum and most of the advice offered is standard fare. Posters suggest hiring more help, attempting to better balance responsibilities with her husband, cutting back on travel, etc. Some of those responding argue that the original poster is simply expecting too much and that she should accept that she can't have it all. Almost immediately I started receiving reports suggesting that the original poster was a troll. Initially, I couldn't find any indication that this was the case and I was baffled by the suggestion because this is such a common scenario. But, after considerable digging, I discovered that the original poster was sock puppeting throughout the thread, often replying to herself in the third person. Later in the thread she introduced a new twist to her story and then immediately sock puppeted a response. Ironically, some of the original poster's sock puppeted responses contained pretty good advice. So one of the original poster's personas should just listen to what her other persona has to say. I also note the irony of someone with an intellectually-challenging and prestigious job who lacks time and energy for sex toiling away having a conversation with herself on DCUM.

The two most active threads yesterday were ones that I discussed in yesterday's blog post, the college protests thread and the thread about unpopular pop culture opinions. I'll skip those today and start with a thread titled, "7/24/23 Trial of Usman Shahid -- driver who killed two Oakton teens" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. First some background. Back in June 22, Usman Shahid was driving a BMW at 81 miles per hour down a residential street near Oakton High School when he struck a car attempting a left turn and then careened into three high school students who had just left the school. Two of the students were killed and one was severely injured. Subsequently, Shahid was indicted for involuntary manslaughter. His trial was initially set for July of last year and this thread was created in order to discuss that legal procedure. However, the trial was delayed until recently. Since this thread's creation last July, it has been kept active by occasional queries about the status and updates as events developed. In addition, there has been significant discussion of the tragic event and with whom, exactly, responsibility lies. Given the speed at which Usman was travelling, this would appear to be rather cut and dry. However, Usman defenders have repeatedly taken to this thread to blame the driver of the car that Usman struck. Their contention is that the collision was not caused by Usman's high rate of speed, but rather the other driver's failure to yield to him and, instead, turning into his path. This thread was active yesterday because Usman's trial was finally held. Just like Usman's supporters in this thread, his defense attorney attempted to put blame on the driver of the car that Usman hit. During the trial it was revealed that Usman did not yet have a driver's license, but only a learner's permit. The BMW had just been purchased a few days prior to the collision. The car's data recorder showed that Usman had accelerated from 60 to 81 miles per hour in the 35 mph speed zone prior to the collision. Usman's defense appears to be that he was trying to beat the traffic light that had just turned yellow and the other car unexpectedly turned in front of him. Usman's lawyer apparently argued that he had no choice but to accelerate. While that may be a reasonable (or not) explanation of what happened, it doesn't seem like much of a defense to me. While BMWs accelerate quickly, they also have excellent brakes. Not to mention that Usman was driving nearly twice the legal speed limit near a school while students were around even before accelerating. Yesterday, the case was sent to the jury which convened for less than two hours before quitting for the day. The jury will reconvene today. Most of the posters in the thread seem convinced that Usman is guilty, but are  very worried that he will somehow be let off. We will probably have an decision from the jury sometime today.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "USC and Columbia Protests" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. Threads about protests on college campuses, especially Columbia, have been rampant over the past several days. As anyone who has paid attention to the news will know, Columbia University's President was called before Congress where she was castigated for not doing enough about demonstrations. She returned to the college and asked the New York Police Department to arrest student demonstrators who had camped out on campus. The original poster of this thread criticized the arrests saying that things were "going to end badly". The original poster also criticized the decision by the president of the University of Southern California to cancel the graduation speech scheduled to be delivered by valedictorian Asna Tabassum, a Muslim woman, due to unspecified security threats. The original poster concluded, "These high level administrators seem completely clueless and out of touch with their student bodies." Many of the responses in the thread described incidents at other universities in which students were punished for demonstrating against the Israeli devastation of Gaza and the US complicity in what the students describe as "genocide". The situation at Columbia, in particular, has deteriorated rapidly since this thread has started. Unfortunately, there has been considerable misinformation spread, much of it showing up in this thread. Based on first-hand reporting, the student demonstrations on campus have been peaceful and, far from being anti-Semitic as some claim, actually include many Jewish students. However, outside campus, groups not associated with the University have gathered and have frequently been very aggressive toward visibly Jewish students and have engaged in anti-Semitic rhetoric. Opponents of the demonstrators have attempted to treat both groups as one, suggesting that the peaceful student groups are committing the activities of those outside campus. In addition, the thread contains a significant amount of scolding by those who do not think the students should be protesting and who accuse the students of being uninformed and naive. Many posters warn, sometime suggesting hope on their part, that the students are endangering their future job prospects. The situation on campuses and the opposition to demonstrators on the part of many DCUM posters reminds me of something Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail". King wrote:

For years we've been considering going solar and having solar panels installed on our home. Finally, in January we decided to pull the trigger. Because I was pretty far behind the curve when it comes to solar energy, I had to learn a lot quickly. I thought it might be worthwhile sharing my experience, not only with solar panels, but other follow-on purchases. Beyond helping the environment, there are several ways that a homeowner can benefit from a solar electric system. The first is called "net metering". In a traditional electric supply, the electric meter on your home goes up as you use electricity from the grid. With solar, the meter runs both ways. When you use electricity from the grid such as at night or on cloudy day, the meter goes up just as before. But when you produce more solar energy than your home is able to use, the electricity is exported to the grid and the meter runs the other way. You don't pay for the electricity you produce that goes directly to your home and any electricity exported to the grid offsets electricity provided by the electric company. In March, our first full month of using solar, we came very close to breaking even, ending up having to pay about $3 for electricity. The second financial benefit comes from solar renewable energy credits (SRECs). Electric companies such as PEPCO are required to use a certain percentage of renewable energy each year. To meet that requirement, PEPCO purchases renewable energy credits. Solar energy producers, including homeowners, can sell credits reflecting their production. An SREC is created for each megawatt-hour of electricity your system produces, whether you use that energy or not. SRECs are sold on markets similar to stock exchanges, but the markets vary by state which each state having its own rules. The District of Columbia has very high prices for SRECs, maybe the highest in the nation. I was able to sell the first SREC our system produced for $430 minus a $2.50 fee for the exchange. In addition, we are eligible for a federal tax credit for 30% of the cost of the system.

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "My boyfriend steals groceries", which was posted in the "Relationship Discussion (non-explicit)" forum. The original poster says that her boyfriend routinely only rings up 75% of the items when he goes through self-checkout. His justification is that stores assume that people are stealing and have baked that into the price. He also claims that most men do this. There is pretty solid agreement among those responding that most men do not do this. Moreover, several posters claim that this in an indication of a lack of ethics on the original poster's boyfriend's behalf and that they would not want to be involved with such a man. One poster suggested that if the original poster were with her boyfriend while he was stealing and he got caught, she could also be arrested. In a follow-up post, the original poster said that was something which she had not considered. In an even later follow-up, the original poster said that her boyfriend is a government lawyer with a security clearance which makes the theft even more confounding. The general consensus among those responding is that the original poster should break up with this guy because of this huge moral lapse which, many argue, is probably an indication of other serious flaws. One interesting thing that came out in this thread is the sort of sliding moral compasses many posters seem to have. While almost everyone is appalled that the original poster's boyfriend routinely steals 25% of his groceries, several admit to their own more limited theft. Multiple posters claim that they intentionally ring up items incorrectly to save money. For instance, identifying one type of apple as a less expensive apple. Others say that if an item doesn't ring up after an attempt or two, they will go ahead and put it in their bag. Therefore, the issue is not that the boyfriend is stealing, but that he is stealing too much. I wonder what would be the acceptable limit? For instance if he paid for 90% or even 98% of his groceries, would there be less condemnation? Most of the posters don't have to struggle with this question, however. For them, any theft is wrong. Some even describe extra efforts they've made to pay for items that they could otherwise have gotten away with for free. As more than one poster noted, it is rare for a DCUM thread to have such unanimity in responses. Nobody found the theft to be acceptable and nobody thought that men are more apt to shoplift than women (some argued that the opposite is true). A few posters struggled to find explanations that would make the stealing more understandable, hinting, for instance, that the guy might be a minority in an urban area. But, the opposite turned out to be true, which, sadly, probably did nothing to cause these posters to rethink their prejudices.

Yesterday must have been groundhog day, at least as far as the two most active threads were concerned. Both dealt with topics that I thought had been put behind us. The first of these threads was titled, "People still masking every day at work" and posted in the "Off-Topic" forum. The original poster says that she works in a federal office and there are a few people who mask every day. She finds this weird and wonders if they are not vaccinated or just super paranoid. The first poster to respond claims that those who are not vaccinated are unlikely to wear masks. I am fairly certain that nobody disputed this contention. Other posters claim that these individuals are likely just very concerned about catching COVID, though not necessarily without justification. For instance, they may have conditions that put them at high risk or live with someone who does. Multiple posters pointed out that for some people having COVID was very traumatic, in some cases requiring long hospitalization and causing them to be near death. Others lost family members. In such cases, the individuals might be suffering from something akin to PTSD. I noticed that when masking was common, a number of those who suffer from allergies found that masks provided relief. Along these lines, some posters said that they know of people who are now masking due to allergies or asthma. Several posters took the position that it is none of the original poster's business why people mask and argued that it is strange to care so much about this. To be fair, the original poster simply seems to be curious and doesn't really appear to care all that much. On the other hand, masking seems to infuriate some people and send them completely over the edge. One poster compared those masking today to "an unkempt man muttering to himself". Another wrote that "They're mentally ill and should not be coddled". Some posters just can't stop themselves from turning everything political such as the poster who argued that "lefties are nuts about Covid." One poster suggested that masking and showing other signs of being overly COVID cautious was simply a ploy by those individuals to be "weird out" their colleagues and, thereby, be allowed to work from home. The 2024 version of Corporal Klinger from M*A*S*H, I guess. Personally, I agreed completely with the poster who wrote:

The most active thread yesterday was titled, "Harvard will require Test Scores starting next year", and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. As the title says, Harvard University announced yesterday that it will require students who are applying for the Fall of 2025 to provide standardized test scores. Harvard follows a number of other selective universities in reversing course regarding tests. I have discussed several similar threads on the topic of standardized tests and I don't see much in this thread that is different from previous discussions. For years there was opposition to standardized testing because opponents believed that testing favored the privileged who could afford test preparation classes and multiple retakes. Then the COVID pandemic caused test centers to close and universities resorted to test optional policies. In the midst of all this the US Supreme Court, partially due to evidence that applicants with higher test scores were being refused admission in favor of minority students with lower scores, prohibited the use of race as a factor in admissions. Joyful test supporters celebrated a return to a time in which the best and the brightest — as evidenced by test scores — would be selected for college. But standing in the way of that vision were test optional admissions policies which critics viewed as a way to continue admitting less qualified minority students. Now that selective colleges are again requiring test scores, this group believes their goal is being achieved. But, not so fast, at least if you believe university officials. As a string of prestigious colleges have reinstated test scores requirements, they have all consistently broadcast the same message. School administrators have argued that test scores, far from disadvantaging underrepresented minority students, can actually help them and, they argue, test optional policies have harmed rather then benefitted URM applicants. So standardized tests, previously viewed as a hurdle to the disadvantaged, are being reintroduced not in the manner that test supporters have hoped — as a clear cut means of distinguishing academic capability — but rather as a tool for increasing diversity. As the Washington Post article cited by the original poster quotes Harvard Professor Raj Chetty as saying, "Considering standardized test scores is likely to make the admissions process at Harvard more meritocratic while increasing socioeconomic diversity." The argument about tests has flipped 180 degrees. The argument being made by the universities is that a student from a disadvantaged background who has fairly decent test score may be seen as a better candidate than a more advantaged applicant with a higher score. By not submitting those less than top scores, these applicants have been hurting their chances. Now their chances will improve as the test scores are viewed in the wider context of a student's background. This raises two questions for me. One, are these school officials to be believed? Are they really going to select disadvantaged students with lower test scores than advantaged students they reject? Or, is this just a nice argument that makes the policy change more appetizing? Second, if schools actually do follow through and do this, won't they end up back in court?

The three most active threads yesterday were all ones that I've previously discussed and will skip today. Those were the Gaza war thread, the Fairfax County murders thread, and the thread about not allowing children to attend a wedding. Yesterday's fourth most active thread, but the first that I will discuss today, was titled, "Biden’s latest Poll numbers" and posted in the "Political Discussion" forum. This thread was started back in January and has been more or less active since then. Apparently it was particularly active yesterday though I am not exactly sure why. As with the last several elections, polls are a source of great controversy these days. Conservatives, in particular, have long argued that polls are biased against them and a popular theory during the last two elections was that former President and current cult leader Donald Trump's poll numbers were lower than his real support because Trump supporters refused to talk to pollsters. More recently, suspicion of polls has shifted towards the left due to the belief that younger voters — who are more likely to vote for Democrats — would more likely voluntarily undergo a root canal operation than answer an unidentified caller. It is true that since the US Supreme Court ruling overturning the Roe vs. Wade decision, Democrats have out-performed the polls. The result is an almost total flip of positions regarding polls. As poll after poll shows Trump leading President Joe Biden, Republicans tout poll results as infallible and clear indications of a certain Trump victory in November. Democrats, on the other hand, warn that the polls shouldn't be taken seriously and that they don't reflect the eventual outcome. If there is one thing that does seem to be consistent with polling of the Presidential race, at least at the national level, it is that they show the election to be close at this point. One day Trump may be slightly ahead and the next day Biden is ahead by a hair. But, the Presidential election is a state-by-state election rather than a nationwide vote. In the critical battleground states, Trump has been consistently leading most of the polls. But, not to fear say Democrats. Biden still has time to build support and Trump will be hanged on his own petard due to his opposition to mail-in voting. This thread demonstrates that there are two battles going on. One to publicize favorable poll results and the other over the interpretation of those results. This creates a pattern in which partisans rush to post results of polls that support their side while simultaneously criticizing and expressing disbelief about poll results that are not favorable to them. I believe that there is a rule of thumb that you should not pay attention to opinion polls before Labor Day. If this is true, we still have several months of what is likely to be meaningless chatter in this thread.

The most active thread yesterday was an old thread that I have already discussed and, therefore, will skip today. That was the thread titled "Travis and Taylor" which is about Travis Kelce and Taylor Swift. The thread has received renewed interest because Kelce is going to the SuperBowl and Swifties, who doubted the authenticity of this relationship in the beginning, are starting to have second thoughts. The second most active thread is another one that I will skip, the Gaza war thread. The most active thread after those two was titled, "Favorite College that changes lives?" and posted in the "College and University Discussion" forum. This will require a bit of explanation for the uninitiated. "Colleges That Change Lives" was originally a 1996 college guide written by Loren Pope that profiled 40 liberal arts colleges that Pope believed were particularly focused on educating students and performed better than many of the traditional "top" colleges. In 1998, a non-profit with the same name was created to promote the colleges reviewed in Pope's book. DCUM has a small group of posters who are huge fans of CTCL colleges and either frequently start threads about the schools or bring up the colleges in other threads. Similarly, there is a group that is very cynical of this entire endeavor and consider CTCL to be little more than a marketing organization that promotes second-rate schools. Whenever these two groups interact, it results in many posts being reported and an increased workload for me. This thread was started by the original poster asking which schools users like, hate, or about which they know nothing. Several colleges from the list are mentioned as ones that posters like and several posters also asked for recommendations of colleges with specific characteristics. It is clear that several posters accept the premise that these schools punch well above their weight. Almost implicit in the CTCL discourse is the assertion that traditional college rankings should be ignored because these schools are flying under the radar. So much so that when a poster mentioned the two CTCL schools ranked highest on the US News & World Report rankings, the poster was criticized for pursuing the "wrong outcomes". One of the usual critics of CTCL argued that the schools are second tier and "attract mediocre students who wouldn’t have a chance at top schools." One thing about CTCL schools that I think is misunderstood is that the schools are chosen based on their perceived commitment to student achievement. Outside of that factor, the schools don't necessarily have much in common. This provides both fans and critics the ability to cherry pick and promote either one school's accomplishments or another school's failures as representative of the entire list. I suspect that for many of the CTCL colleges, inclusion on the list provides little more than marginal benefit as several of the schools have reputations that have been established independently of CTCL.