Harry’s Razors

Look, I’m not paid for this.

Well, not directly.  My husband has had several different “holy crud, this razor actually works” companies either die off under him, or stop selling the blades he likes because the demand isn’t high enough. So I could be interpreted as being “paid” by keeping access to a product I think is really good, at a good price.  But that doesn’t count.

Elf is one of those guys who has a five o’clock shadow by noon; his facial hair also eats blades like they are anime plot points during normal use, and let’s not talk about what pretty-good blades do to his face.

We tried Harry’s because, before Ricochet went nuts, I was trying to support them and I figured doing a ten dollar trial after the free razor would be fine.

I for some unknown reason tend to cut very easily when I’m shaving my legs, which is a defect I really don’t need.

Harry’s doesn’t do that.

And even with Elf being very… non Scottish… as use of blades goes, we end up skipping AT LEAST every second shipment of the longest subscription that Harry’s offers for blades, and have a lot of spares.

That is with two adults.

So yeah, really good razors.  Try them.

Advertisements

“We Hold These Truths to be Self-Evident, that all Men are Created Equal…”

Cat Rotator's Quarterly

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declarationof the thirteen unitedStates of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of…

View original post 1,528 more words

Proving The Court’s Point:

It’s buried right at the end of a rather biased article (the USCCB didn’t say anything; a committee chairman did) but this really jumped out at me:

Teachers’ unions could be “permanently crippled” by the decision, the journal Education Next reported, though the decision could provide an impetus for other changes.

A loss in teachers’ unions membership could result in a decline in revenues and ability to affect policy. The National Education Association has planned a 13 percent cut for its two-year budget, totaling about $50 million, with its estimated membership losses of 300,000 people, about 10 percent.

Means that yes, they were in fact using “agency fees” to lobby for political ends, not (as legally required) only for union services.

BMI, again

Yes, it’s a pet peeve.

This is a comment from over at Instapundit, figured I’d copy-paste it so that it has a chance of being read.

***************

Found the article.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/article-abstract/2685908

Those who looked at the years and went “hm, first one is before the BMI change, second is after,” yes they used BMI studies for each span.

On the upside, they did at least pick a cohort that has almost entirely hit puberty, 16-19.

On the other hand, they were using a screening test to diagnose “overweight.”

It’s known bad:

To find out whether BMI correlated with actual markers of health, a team of UCLA researchers analyzed data from 40,420 individuals who participated in the 2005-2012 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. They looked at individuals’ blood pressure, triglycerides, cholesterol, glucose, insulin resistance and C-reactive protein data — markers that are linked to heart disease and inflammation, among other issues.

They found that nearly half (47.4%) of overweight people and 29% of obese people were, from a metabolic standpoint, quite healthy. On the flip side, more than 30% of individuals with “normal” weights were metabolically unhealthy.

http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-bmi-does-not-measure-health-20160204-story.html

And “overweight” isn’t significantly associated with bad health outcomes– the ‘risk’ there is that you MIGHT be headed to “obese.” The lowest health risk appears to be situated inside of “overweight.”
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/119/25/3263

Which makes sense for a screening test– having more body fat improves the outcomes if you get sick, but you don’t want so much body fat that it makes you sick, so logically the healthiest folks would be inside of the false positive.

A former sailor's ramblings on anything from family, country and Church through general geek-ness.