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.
(On tiny touch screen, sorry.)
Read the whole thing, and then go buy the audio, but:
last two lines:
To that I reply, “Bull Feces!”
They’re just hard to see from the road.
Grew up listening to him…in a family of said vanishing breed. ;) Really can’t beat his delivery. Some 30 years later, my mom is still excited talking about seeing him at one of the fairs.
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.