yggstyle

@yggstyle@lemmy.world

This profile is from a federated server and may be incomplete. For a complete list of posts, browse on the original instance.

yggstyle ,

Flipped. Houses are in essence bottled / shelved inflation. Purchasing a house aligns you with inflation until you attempt to sell (at which point you realize that shelved inflation and generally pass it on to the buyer.)

Home owners are the least likely to want to get burned by pullbacks in this transaction so they will typically resist negative price movement when listing. The same goes for valuations being inflated as well as a host of other dubious practices. So basically we are artificially holding a price on part of the sell side market while builders are trying to sell homes and the prices are falling to entice new buyers (... which still aren't buying.)

When the price falls too much: homeowners flip and become 'motivated' (see big short scene with the realtor.) This becomes precipitous and the bottom falls out on the market.

yggstyle ,

Unions.

Not all are good and there's an argument to be made that they shouldn't be necessary but: unions are the working man's militia. Capitalism will continue to squeeze the life out of workers until it becomes unprofitable to do so. Our lawmakers are owned by the corporations so expecting change from on high is akin to wishing on a star.

These are companies are posting record profits year over year while producing less for more... while taking more for less. This needs to change or those companies need to die.

yggstyle ,

It pains me to agree.

yggstyle ,

Alright so let's follow this line of thought:

If puberty blockers inhibit hormones and hormones are responsible for the development of our brains and identity: how is hitting pause allowing for an informed decision?

I have more to say on this but I want to keep this discussion focused.

yggstyle ,

Blockers are still a change. Inhibiting your sexuality at that age drives a bigger rift between you and your peers. More so than feeling a bit different. I was blessed enough to grow up with a profoundly diverse group of friends and we supported each other regardless of our choices in sexuality as we grew into our identity. Choosing to deny a change may as well isolate them further.

To your point about state laws against trans rights there is a LOT to unpack there but I was very clear about my stance of protect and support but do not intervene (in development.)

yggstyle ,

Alright I'll play:

Why are you forcing prepubescent children to stay that way? What the fuck is wrong with you?

Am I doing it right?

If you cannot comprehend what I wrote then you clearly are either a child or have the mental capacity of one. I have no issue treating you as such.

yggstyle ,

What's your source for this?

Growing up. Life experiences of myself and friends.

Kids are shitty and form cliques. Frequently. If your opinion or (perish the thought) your appearance were to differ - it makes you a far bigger target. Taking something to increase that difference will result in more of that behavior.

On blockers:

I won't disagree that blockers are a gentler approach but they are not a magic bullet and do actually run the risk of lasting effects. Very little long term research has been done outside of animals and frankly I don't think testing on children is the best way to go about it.

Much like steroids or any other drug you can absolutely stop if you don't think it's for you but what of the physical changes that occur in the meantime? Side effects are known and listed on even the mayo clinic website. Ill reiterate: why are we letting children take on these additional risks as if they don't exist?

yggstyle ,

Alright so I'm happy to expand on this but you first: You have only said gender isn't what I said it is. Go ahead and explain simply what you believe it is and what you perceive it's purpose to be.

Your dinner statement is comparing apples and oranges but sure, I'll bite:

A child hates brussel sprouts. They know this because they have had them and can form an informed decision based on their experiences. The first time at aunt Mary's party they were bad but that was one time. Since then there have been multiple times of eating and disliking this food. They are sure they don't like them. Experience helps form our decisions. I could continue but I trust you understand and can extrapolate from there.

I'm happy to continue this dialogue (on either front) but would like you to actually place your definitions and where you stand on the table first.

yggstyle ,

Keeping things ambiguous makes your statements hollow. Expand and express some actual capacity for conversation or don't bother.

yggstyle ,

You’ve now made it absolutely clear that you are just yet another anti-trans bigot who is pretending to want a conversation, but instead is just trying to weasel your abhorrent views into the public discourse.

You appear to be assigning a whole lot of assumptions on me there with a ton of baseless claims. Calm the fuck down.

I can comprehend what you wrote perfectly well - I’m just verifying that you didn’t make an error in what you said.

Based on what you've called me, and insinuated what my stance was: I doubt that sincerely.

You have failed, and everyone here sees through your bullshit.

And yet others are having a perfectly reasonable conversation about the topic with me without coming to the utterly insane conclusions you have.

You are what is wrong with discourse, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I am perfectly happy with my opinions and am willing to discuss them with others. I know it's upsetting that my opinion differs from yours but that is no reason to kick and scream like a petulant child.

Side note to anyone else reading this: it’s SUPER easy to block people like this on lemmy and there really aren’t as many of these chodes as you’d think.

I disagree with this guy so fall in line because I said so.

As I said. Petulant child throwing a tantrum.

If someone is that simple minded that they would actually do that - I'm not sure their choice would register as a negative to me.

yggstyle ,

This is the first half that everyone wants to champion but reality is that drugs of any kind - treatments of any kind - have side effects and lasting effects.

Hitting pause as everyone so eloquently puts it does actually have effects outside of underdeveloped sexual organs. It's not a magic bullet.

I'm not against someone being who they want to be but do so after the age of consent when your development is slowing down. It's safer.

As far as what children are equipped to deal with: That age range is for discovering their identity. Hitting pause is a disservice to that cause. Yes the physical changes are a real thing - but those changes aren't all sexual either and are affected by the drugs we're shoving onto these kids.

If anything the current culture is forcing them to make a decision on "take these drugs now or you won't be perfect." Fuck that. Pushing a decision on them like that, regardless of our intent, is no better than denying who they are (or who they may become) outright.

I may not advocate for changing children when they are developing but once they have more time to be certain of who they want to become - I'm all for it.

yggstyle ,

Man I have to disagree on the heart example. One means death if it's not 'treated' and the other is a life choice.

Of course pre-hormones is a great time to start but for external / appearance reasons. Do we not force body types on kids enough? It's shallow thinking and reinforces the worst parts of society.

I do understand the urge to just dive into it but it's not as clean cut as just "push pause." There are known risks, unknown long term effects, and a lack of sufficient testing on how it affects brain development. We need to stop rushing into shit just because it's easy or highlights how virtuous we are.

yggstyle ,

It's a balance. This isn't a disease - many of the things you listed are psychological and the result of how family and friends treat that person. It's not terribly different from someone starting to realize they may be gay, asexual, or any other of many non-typical alignments. We shouldn't be so quick to push someone on the path for drugs when what they need is time and emotional support.

yggstyle ,

And if the therapy aligns with their physical gender? No treatment for a girl who goes through puberty too young? Nothing for a girl of 17 who is worried because she hadn't started "developing" or gotten her period? Nothing for a boy who isn't going through male puberty, or starts it at 5? Intersex kids who are mis-assigned at birth and panic as adolescents?

This is EXACTLY the point I'm making. Should we shove steroids into the boy and estrogen into the girl? Push up and padded bras in lieu of boob jobs? Are we in such a hurry to cram drugs down someone's throat that we can't let them develop and then make a decision on their own when they are capable of? My original statement is just that. We can't say one is right when the other isn't. Provide emotional support and education? Absolutely. Provide drugs and potentially life changing side effects on "proven" yet not thoroughly tested treatments? No. It's my opinion, sure, but my reasoning is sound.

Yes the therapies are not without risk, but doing nothing is also not without risk. The only reason doctors will prescribe puberty blockers is if the kids are suffering, otherwise the "care" that is getting outlawed is counseling. I have a trans kid and the doctor prescribed counseling but they can't get it because the clinics aren't allowed to "treat" the transgendered now.

This is a complex topic. Absolutely counseling should be available and it's positively evil that someone would block that. I don't disagree. Many doctors are simply a walking prescription book and will provide what is asked for... so I will typically discount when someone uses doctor prescription as an argument. Kudos to that doctor, though- I respect that.

A great deal of that suffering is from lack in of emotional support. I know it's common to solve this with drugs but let's ease off the gas a bit.

yggstyle ,

There are better ways to support a child struggling with their identity than affirming that they aren't right and need drugs to fix themselves. It's not meant that way but it's certainly a perception that isn't uncommon.

yggstyle ,

I'm getting downvoted because I made a strongly worded statement that makes a parallel that makes people uncomfortable. It's easy to push a button and feel like you've somehow confirmed your social values. It doesn't bother me. If they don't speak up they had nothing to contribute.

No, pretty much nobody thinks a child should be having a sexual relationship with whomever they want. However, teens do have those relationships, and most of us acknowledge it happens and are generally ok with it provided there aren’t clear signs of abuse.

However we aren't okay with early teens having those relationships outside of controlled environments (age etc.). You can decide as long as it's within our parameters. And while this is happening - we still legally eviscerate teens that have sex with each other. I digress.

Likewise, no one thinks a child should medically transition. [truncated] Your hypothetical example was to give people a mental image of 6 and 7 year olds when you know damn well the conversation is about 16 and 17 year olds. And if you genuinely weren’t aware, you are now, so it’s time to rethink your position.

I'm all for it at 16 or 17. This is being done on/to 12-15 year old highschoolers. This is the target age range I was looking at as well. I selected an ambiguous age because it drove the point home. I know damn well what I wrote and why I wrote it. Everyone loves to assign additional meaning to someones actions- not dissimilar from forcing kids into a risky decision early on in their development.

If you want to talk about these decisions in the age group where they’re actually happening, then sure, let’s talk. But it’s not going to be conversational if you’re not willing to start from a position of intellectual honesty.

I've been nothing but honest. I come from a family of educators and medical professionals. My opinions are founded based on my experiences, my friends experiences, and my families experiences. But I guess intellectual honesty isn't that. Please direct me which line I need to intellectualy fall into?

yggstyle ,

You opened the dialogue with me, friend. You asked me about my opinion and I explained it. I asked you for the same courtesy and you responded with that. Be civil.

I even made a pretty good example of that laughable comparison you asked me to. Rather pleased with it, tbh.

Now: If what you say is true then nobody would be needing reassignment therapy. It doesn't matter who you sleep with or what's in your pants after all.

Now we know that is not true and there is a difference between a man who is gay and a man who is transitioning to a woman. Further it is absolutely about sexuality. We are sexual beings. Our identity is tethered to it. That is the whole point of the transition. Becoming a ______ (who you believe yourself to be.)

Yes: relationships are not only sexual and can be formed for many reasons ... but to say that it isn't sexual nor tied to what is in your pants is simply incorrect or misinformed.

yggstyle ,

I understand your view however I disagree fundamentally on a few aspects of it.. please bear with this line of questioning:

Why is it imperative they chose so early? (I know the answer but play along... I promise this has a point)

If the reason you stated is physical ... why are we discounting the physical risks associated with the side effects? Do those outweigh the safety and healthy life of that person later in life? Are we overly applying weight to physical appearance over safety? It's common in a lot of other scenarios...

Recall that my assertions are pointed at effectively highschool age and below: not all of a body's development (sexual and otherwise) occurs at this phase. Post highschool the young adult is now able to make decisions (largely) for themselves. Around that time they have a much better sense of identity as well. Is it absolutely critical to force that decision prior to that considering that?

Why not counseling and emotional support during their early development and let them make the decision when they are more legally capable after that time?

That got longer than I wanted but I'm curious what your thoughts are.

yggstyle ,

I didn't ask you for anything and you didn't explain anything to me. This was my first comment in this thread. Maybe take some time and see who you are responding to first?

Forgive me for mistaking your hostility on your -first- interaction for being the same blind hostility the prior poster was expressing. That said: find some chill and be civil. Others can manage it- I'm certain you can as well.

You can shove your civility politics up your ass. Being civil doesn't make it not bigoted and doesn't make you right.

See above.

Since you are too lazy to look them up yourself and do the legwork, I'll do it for you:

I'm educated enough to know the definitions and my experiences certainly give me insight to what you are copying and pasting, thank you. As you were dropping into the conversation above maybe provide some insight as to why you think all of these are completely independent of each other. They aren't but please expand.

If your definition is as broad as you imply, everything is your sexuality and therefore kids doing anything and having any options at all are sexual in nature. Your definition is useless.

I mean freud certainly thought so 🤣. Jokes aside- Let's be direct: what do you think developing an identity is? Why do we do it?

yggstyle ,

I'm going to need a source that puberty blockers have negative effects on cognitive development to accept that if. If puberty related hormones were necessary to consider someone an adult then people who are missing those hormones or puberty by mutation, disease, etc wouldn't be considered adults which is not the case.

This is two different things. It's a fairly well known fact that the maturation of the adolescent mind is during puberty... which is the result of the aforementioned chemicals. I'll further that by saying if you acknowledge someone is chemically different - is stunting that change actually a good thing? The answer isn't known. There are too few peer reviewed studies with sufficient data to provide a credible answer.

As far as considering adulthood - I'd suggest tabling that as it unwinds into some ugly side conversations all of which have validity ... but doesn't belong here. There is a reason we use age as a generic determinant... and that is tied to general brain maturity and experience.

It prevents the acute release of puberty related hormones until ... [truncated]

This is the problem. (I've made this assertion elsewhere in this thread) Those hormones are responsible for more than just sexual development. We can't actually pause our bodies. We are bypassing a part of the development phase and saying "see it started again" when in reality it was just continuing for the remaining period it was supposed to be active for. This has side effects. (which you noted- See the definitions and risks on the mayo clinic site.)

Physical implications aside... we get very chicken and egg here: So do the parents recognize the child is the wrong sex and bring them to the doctor ... or the child says I'm the wrong sex and the aforementioned happens? Obviously the latter. Based on that the child is making the decision based on minimal experience and should be given counselling and time to make that decision as they develop. Your mention of self image and suicide is not uncommon amongst teens period. Providing guidance and understanding is how that is solved... but we as Americans are very good at throwing pills at that problem... and frequently do.

yggstyle ,

On your first point... [truncated] ...I have seen no evidence of that at all, and instead there's a mountain of evidence that social transition and puberty blockers lower suicidality in trans kids and increase mental health outcomes.

Most of those tests you refer to also involve therapy / councilling in combination with the drugs and very few compare the two. Further there aren't a ton of studies that involve blind tests and placebos. I'll stress again that I am not against this therapy - I am against it so early in the adolescents development process.

We've been using puberty blockers, not just for trans kids but for precocious puberty for decades and have more than enough long term evidence of their effectiveness and safety.

Which is why it's an allowed treatment, yes. But many drugs have multiple usages and in fact multiple doses which affects the end result. Dialing back an aggressive hormonal rush is a bit different than seeking to prevent it outright: which is the goal sought in this case. There are health risks to doing this and as I have asserted elsewhere: urgency is manufactured here. An adolescent needs to feel loved and supported at that stage- not like a mistake that needs immediate care.

The question of consent and knowledge of risk is a red herring. Kids can't consent to any medical procedures or sex because we've defined consent that way. But consent from the patient is not always needed for medical procedures, especially when the patient is unable to give consent. Should coma patients still get care that has risks? They can't consent right?

This is why I made the example I did. They cannot provide consent (as it isn't informed - even if it is explained to them.) This isn't a life or death decision that needs to be made immediately. It involves the rest of that childs hopefully long life. I see no reason to rush into a decision involving drugs which may impact that. And this is, in fact, how most medical professionals should (and do) approach that.

In reality, your statements lay bare a bias, which is why you're getting downvoted. You only seem to care about risks and consent for this specific highly-politicized topic and not medical procedures broadly. Because this is not about a broad critique of consent, it's about trying to excuse your uncomfortablity with this one subject and trying to justify it in any way you can.

Please detail how "too early for consent" somehow means "not at all". That's illogical. I support (as I have said multiple times) consentual therapy... but not that early. Consent should be given by the adolescent when they are legally and mentally capable of making such a choice. My statements and stance are very clear. If you disagree with it that's perfectly fine. You are entitled to your opinion as well... but don't go manufacturing some narrative as to what I believe or who I am.

...but you should at least recognize why the majority of major medical institutions make the recommendations they do.

I covered this above but most recommended therapy/counseling first then move onto drugs. I'm reasonably confident.

While on the topic of what professionals do: My family is littered with medical professionals ranging from people who develop drugs, work with children who need said drugs, are pediatricians and so on. It's a long list. From the development side there are a number of educators as well. K-12, special needs... you name it. I personally travel between hospitals for work and rub elbows with some fantastically bright individuals in many fields. I suspect I may know a thing about what is recommended and how testing is done - but please explain it further to me if you feel I lack perspective.

Perhaps some of your preconceived notions about me may be changing? I am advocating for the child, the adolescent, the individual - who needs the proper care... rather than being part of the wailing masses too busy virtue signaling and brigadeing to actually discuss what is right rather than what feels good.

yggstyle ,

Mostly literal. The first couple are low ball rhetorical - the reasoning is typically appearance based. Voices can change too. I understand the urge to nip that in the bud however we are talking about someone who is far too young to have any certainty on the matter. Suffice to say I know very well about this and have multiple examples but cannot expand on this further. I will say that while it is not often talked about (often because of the backlash) not all adolescents who believe they are the wrong gender end up deciding they aren't. This too is the cause for a lot of tragic stories. With that in mind is my suggestion/assertions off base? Time is a concern, and is a relevant argument... but why risk early development over a few years against a lifetime where good health is an asset?

yggstyle ,

I'm making an example. Don't be pedantic.

yggstyle , (edited )

Risks of medical intervention always should be weighed against risks of nonintervention.

Agreed. I have expressed as much when discussing adverse effects.

If there is a significant probability a child is trans, delaying puberty may be the least intrusive option. There is a chance of negative effects, like with all medical interventions, but if they are most likely trans forcing them to undergo puberty is much more likely to have long term negative effects (including suicidality).

The first statement while correct is ignoring that if they are in fact trans there is a high likelihood of hormone therapy and/or surgery regardless. The statement about the psychological aspects is oft tied to discussions like these: They rarely factor in adolescents in general are an increased risk during this time. Funnily enough councilling and familial support are typically the strongest way to combat most cases which stem from isolation and fear/confusion.

Why is this specific medical decision equivalent to kids having sex? Do you view other procedures, like deciding to have braces, the same way? What about much riskier treatments with a muddled short/long term prognosis, like some heart surgeries?

edit: I misread the above and combined it with another discussion from a prior thread. sorry!

Ultimately because the choice can effect you later in life. This is one of the reasons we apply the gravity to it that we do. There are other parallels. In the end we acknowledge that a more developed mind can weigh those pros and cons and make a (more?) informed decision. I absolutely pushed this perspective to 11 to get a response but I firmly believe it is an acceptable equivalent in terms of weight of decision.

Hmm... Mostly because sexuality is tied to who we are. Does it determine every aspect of our existence? I'm not freud 😂. No. But it is undeniably a facet in our complex understanding of self.

Braces are an interesting choice; they have health benefits as well as effect our outward appearance. Surgeries (as I think I've expressed before) don't quite fall into this category but... If you have a low risk heart condition (relatively speaking) you could dive right in and get surgery (risks) or perhaps wait and do more research on it and become better informed. If anything it would support what I am advocating. (Yes I'm aware you can flip the argument the other way.) I think it's worth acknowledging that in that scenario that the latter decision is typically the recommended one.

yggstyle ,

In response: why does your perspective bear more weight than mine? That is an impressive ivory tower you are constructing. My responses have been civil and open. All I am getting from you is angst and presumption... and frankly that's a bad look.

I'm happy to discuss things but I won't hesitate to point out you are acting like a child at present.

yggstyle ,

Devolving the discussion into whatever that bile you spit out seems to suggest you have nothing further add. Skimming over it only confirms you lack a functional capacity to understand examples and exercise some basic reasoning. Continuing, while certainly amusing, would do nothing for the conversation. Find some peace friend.

yggstyle ,

None of the known risks or side effects include cognitive impairment, you are attributing to puberty blockers changes to cognitive development without research demonstrating the causal link between limiting puberty hormones and decreased or slowed cognitive development like the known negative effects. I also wouldn't accept increased cognitive development as a positive effect under puberty blockers without justification either. Until there is sufficient justification for either position we are not justified reaching either conclusion..

This is a fair point and I will admit I did not have any research in mind when I brought it up... however I believe it's fair to say that of the research that has been done very little focuses on this specific application and it's long term effects.

I am concerned there is and will be increased public resistance to what the medical consensus supports because of the political scapegoating trans people are under, and wonder if we were talking about transhumanism in general instead focused specifically on transgenderism would the resistance be the same.

I loathe politcs involving sexuality period. It's one more way to splinter a community. We absolutely agree here.

The discussions you've mentioned would likely start with a child experiencing distress reported to an adult or their parents noticing their distress and working with a medical doctor to identify the causes and treatment plans to consider. In the cases where the distress is related to a lasting pattern of gender dysphoria or gender nonconformity that is one of the criteria for prescribing puberty blockers.

While this is the case care should be given to how that information is interpreted. Toys, clothing choices, even colors can simply be a very neutral and innocent interest and may (from the child's perspective) simply be something they enjoy. We as adults can overly assign meaning and weight to these choices which may impact the child's perspective. Psychology in general can bandwagon quite a bit in this regard. I will say it has improved quite a bit but we're all human. I digress. To your point I still believe that counseling is and should be the first step and medication should be (if used) used sparingly and ideally after some time has passed. I still firmly dislike the "it's just a pause button" mentality people have. It's far more complex than that- it needs to be respected as a weighty decision.

yggstyle ,

Making a generic statement to further a conversation is commonplace. It was not to be taken literally. If you are planning on analyzing my figures of speech for fallacies, by all means, be my guest: but it only reinforces my observation from earlier.

yggstyle ,

I have to admit I didn't think that jab would regress you any further. Color me impressed. Most people would stop before behaving that embarrassingly. That got an audible laugh out of me.

yggstyle ,

More generic hand waving and resorting to mudslinging. If I were actually here to troll rather than have a discussion I wouldn't be engaging with others in earnest.

I'm acquainted with your type and identified it early on. You simply mimic the masses rhetoric and have nothing of substance to bring to the table. When pressed you only can get angry and use that to mask this shortcoming. Honestly though, most people can identify this behavior... children do it frequently. Most grow out of it.

I provided you a rope to come back and have civil discourse - you opted to hang yourself with it. Predictable, but a shame.

yggstyle , (edited )

Yeah, I saw that. Apparently rule 3... despite most of the interactions being civil. I petitioned its return as I think it adds context and is worth the discussion:

I made a spoiler text analog to a statement that we should allow underaged (implied age which we have been discussing) adolescents to have complete sexual freedom. Some people clearly stopped reading and took that to some impressive extremes. I had prefaced and followed the statement with an indication that we wouldn't allow such a thing (and rightly so.) The statement's intent was to illustrate that we cannot expect someone so young to make informed decisions about certain things.

I believe in a follow-up statement I expanded saying it was equally incorrect for someone else to make that decision for the child/adolescent. It's too important.

I selected it for its fairly universal acceptance and (as I've mentioned) some similar gravity in allowing them to make those decisions so early.

yggstyle ,

As a direct answer to your statement (your question warranted a separate thread):

I agree on case by case. Some will be clear cut but kids are malleable and uncertain. They have very little worldly experience to draw on and need to be protected... universally. My reaction to posts and positions such as this one is visceral. Too many people will bandwagon the ideal and 'virtue' of it and in doing so propose overly simplified ideas that aren't a real (or complete) solution. It's social media - I expect the response I got to a degree but it is pleasant when it yields a good discussion. It may benefit someone later to be able to observe those views and see that it is possible to discuss differences in opinions without a firefight.

yggstyle ,

16+ is the age of consent depending on where you live. My stance is focused on prior to that age. I have indicated as much in other responses. People are saying it should be started to counteract puberty which for many starts as early as 12. Within that scope in mind... I imagine my stance is a bit more logical.

There was a time when it was almost trendy to have a child who was gay. It was a disgusting period and it highlighted how people would project their ideals and ideas onto their kids. I had a friend I cared for deeply struggle with some fallout related to that. There is a reason I stress informed consent opposed to what I'd describe as guided consent: It's their decision and they should make it when they have been given sufficient time and counseling to be certain. This isn't a binary discussion - there's a lot of nuance.

yggstyle ,

It's a distasteful and disingenuous tone but I'll break it down:

Elsewhere in this thread, you assert that hormones produced during puberty are essential to the cognitive development of these children you seem to care so much about.

You are combining two statements I made and inferring something incorrectly from it.

First in reference to the hormones and puberty: it's known that these hormones don't exclusively develop our sexual attributes. They do, certainly, but that's not all they do. Many of the drawbacks of taking inhibitors are result of inhibiting this (other) development in our bodies. I believe I referenced the mayo clinics site as an example.

Cognitive development is important. Absolutely. I firmly believe that prior to the age of consent we shouldn't be in a hurry to medicate away this "problem." The adolescent should be supported and given access to counseling so they, given sufficient time and information, can make an informed decision.

But now we should make those same children wait nearly a decade – delaying this vital development – until they're legally adults?

That is roughly what I'm implying- but your math is off unless we are starting this discussion around the age of 6 to 8. Let's dial down the dramatics here.

I'm omitting your catch 22 as it is circular nonsense.

Out of curiosity, what medical treatments do you consider allowable for minors? ... [truncated] ...

This is more or less all the same. In short most of the things you have listed can be tested for and quantified. And yes while we can use drugs for treatment - very frequently we employ counseling and other less drastic methods before resorting to drugs. A state of being or sense of self is difficult to test for or quantity. There has been some headway on it but it's in it's infancy... so yes my stance on exercising a more methodical and cautious approach remains a reasonable decision.

yggstyle ,

let's not be pedantic to try to weasel out a point. Let me clarify: people [in this thread] have stated it is a method to prevent the results of puberty... which unless I am mistaken can start quite early (12 and earlier.) My statements echoed how ridiculous that is... so thank you for the concern but my facts were straight.

yggstyle ,

It really is a shame a lot of that got deleted as we all were referencing off it. The reason given didn't fit as the discussions, while heated, were mostly civil.

I forget my exact choice of words (which is frustrating) but in essence I said that a pause doesn't exist. It is a chemical process being blocked. It doesn't run it back for the missed time after the blockers go away- it simply runs its remaining time out. I recall acknowledging that while yes blockers have been in use for some time the dosage and effect desired were different: think reducing a flow rather than outright turning it off. The result and long term effects are different and there are far fewer studies on the latter. I made an off the cuff comment about not wanting to use children as test subjects I believe.

All of that more or less to explain my position that outright blocking so early can have lasting effects that may threaten the health of the person later in life. This is why I think the use of pause and the downplaying of potential side effects is in poor taste or disingenuous.

yggstyle ,

As others have expressed- were already there. Understand though that the reason this hasn't caught on mainstream is the entire purpose of what you are asking is simple: it runs counter to the standards of commercial capitalism. We are talking about efficiency, self hosting, doing more with less, and cutting strings.

That said- understand that what you are undertaking is not dissimilar from building infrastructure in a company. You are building and expanding to meet your needs. Your needs are unique so there isn't a 'turn key' solution that will fit perfectly... so you need to try things and see what works.

As far as things you are talking about specifically: you are going to ultimately be dipping your toes into the virtualization world... so xcp-ng and proxmox are good choices. If you can get your hands on older copies and uh... source a key or two: esxi is also very beginner friendly but won't be able to upgrade thanks to their new pricing model. You seem like you are aware of the YouTube sphere so let me recommend 2GuysTech and the series on different hypervisors.

Once you decide on a hypervisor it's as 'simple' as building a PC to meet your needs. If you have one already I'd start there to get a feel for how much you can pull out of it to determine how much you may need. You can probably split up a single GPU or just pass it through (cost vs performance.). LLMs are power / resource hungry so that may require it's own GPU.

If power is cheap by you you can look into older server hardware but honestly this can be a messy space to dabble in (noise, heat, power costs.)

From there play with services that fit your needs.

It's very doable and there are some easier paths to take... certainly- but again the thing about homelabs is it's very custom. This is why the community (in general) is willing to help. We all have had to forge the same path.

yggstyle , (edited )

None of the presented solutions cover the aspect of being in a different place than the rack, the same network is fine, but at a minimum a different room.

If someone can show me a multi seat gaming server that has native remote performance (as in you drag windows around in 144 fps, not the standard artifacty high latency behavior of vnc) I'll eat a shoe.

Thin clients absolutely can do this already. There are a variety of ways to transmit low latency video around a home from HDBaseT solutions to multicast / network driven ones. Nevermind basic solutions like sunshine /moonlight... Nvidia variants etc.

I have a single racked PC for feeding my home which has 3 'desk' endpoints and two tvs... all of which are fed from the same location and can be dynamically matrixed (albeit the choke point is usb2 to each location because I'm cheap.). Latency is maybe 1.5-3 frames from live. Other solutions are normally around 5-8 which while higher are sufficiently snappy and won't effect competitive play (professional level notwithstanding.)

A lot of latency comes down to tuning your solution and research. The vnc method you refer to is the lowest common denominator running on ancient technology and codecs simply because it is a widely supported standard.

Edit: As far as 144 goes- I don't have any displays that run that but I have two running at 120 with no issue.

yggstyle ,

The two workstation nooks (spaces) have the capability to have a second monitor but I've since retired them in favor of ultrawide monitors which I find are a better experience in general. My current working solution is a split between two technologies: one thin client (second monitors) and one network distribution solution using multicast (primary displays and USB). Both run on copper 1 gig but the multicast traffic requires a switch that doesn't suck and vlan usage. On average a single port can reach 70-85% usage sustained. I believe my longest run is 150' ish.

Cost per node is roughly 300- so comparable to what you are experiencing. If I went stupid cheap I could probably cut that to maybe 150-250 depending on my luck with eBay and patience.

In terms of capabilities you could argue that this could be done without distribution using a nuc solution... but you'd have to split resources to reach node you'd need a full feature set at.

My central server is a threadripper build with 2 gpus for direct passthrough to 'gaming' vms and a split gpu handling the rest of the needs of the other systems. Thanks to the matrix capabilities any given seat can be any system... or in some cases 2 seats can be a single rig (2 room gaming off the same display). There is a cost savings to be found in splitting resources from a more expensive build out to cheaper nodes... but ymmv depending on active seats and specific needs. I believe as a general rule it should be less costly and more efficient (power/heat) than individual solutions.

yggstyle ,

Absolutely 👍. I'll just add that there are a lot of alternate routes to get the result you want so research and experiment but ideally set a deadline which can help with decision paralysis. Later changes are a problem for future you 😁.

yggstyle ,

Not soon enough. I'd love to throw a biblical flood joke in there just to spite the book burners and bible thumpers.

yggstyle ,

Gravy seals will make an appearance and then wobble on home after they are done with the cosplay event. Standard procedure for those losers. Lots of chest beating and posturing so long as they think there won't be retaliation.

Does the form factor between 3.5" and 2.5" matter in a NAS server? ( slrpnk.net )

Been finding some good deals on 2.5 disks lately, but have never bought one before. Have a couple of 3.5 disks on the other hand in my Unraid server. Wondering how much it matters wether I get a 2.5 or not? What form factor do you prefer/usually go for?

yggstyle ,

Man my 6000 was immortal. Outlived 2 desktop drives and survived a car roll while in use. I was convinced they had made some blood pact with Nokia lol.

yggstyle ,

In general laptop drives were a gamble so it's not shocking. I'm curious if I got a later batch or something or just got lucky.

yggstyle ,

Maybe we were talking about different units then - this is the one I had:

https://www.ifixit.com/Guide/Archos+Jukebox+Recorder+20+Hard+Drive++Replacement/103263

Standard 2.5" laptop drive 👍

What song should I play for my bathroom neighbors?

The work bathroom is currently a warzone, on their phone speakers people like to play music, play games at full blast, and one guy likes to chill to ambient rainforest. What song can I play to passive aggressively make it known that I don't want to listen to their tik tok feeds while I work out my demons?

yggstyle ,

This is the song that never ends.....

yggstyle ,

Apocalypse now - extended edition. Move the sub in the bathroom. Turn it all the way up. War is hell.

yggstyle ,

Yoooo be cool man. They only made 9.61 billion last year. They gotta keep those margins up.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • random
  • test
  • worldmews
  • mews
  • All magazines
    •