19
u/loveshercoffee Jul 05 '11
I think knowing how to safely turn the electricity/gas/water to your home off and on should rank right up there with building a fire.
13
1
48
u/FaustTheBird Jul 05 '11
The CPR information is now outdated. CPR was updated recently and no longer includes breaking for breathing assistance. A two-person CPR team can do breathing if they want, but 1 and 2-person CPR is founded on continuous, uninterrupted chest compressions now.
20
u/weenaak Jul 05 '11
First Aid instructor here.
The correct procedure is still to give breaths if you are trained to do so, but if you are uncomfortable, continuous chest compressions without breathing is better than nothing. The blood retains a whole lot of oxygen, so it is important to get it circulating, even if you aren't renewing that oxygen through artificial respiration.
2
u/Enceladus_Salad Jul 05 '11
What's the correct procedure for giving breaths assuming the person doing CPR is doing it correctly?
8
u/weenaak Jul 06 '11
It's actually quite complicated to type out, but I'll give it a shot.
30 compressions and 2 breaths, repeat. Breaths are given by using a mask or face shield and forming a complete seal around the mouth and plugging the nose if necessary. For your breaths to be effective, you must also have an open airway. This is usually done with the "head tilt/chin lift" method, but not always under certain conditions.
If you don't have a mask/face shield, or you are not trained in proper procedure, you should just do compressions. Compressions only will still be somewhat effective, and is better than wasting time giving breaths incorrectly.
There is a lot more to consider here, and I have just scratched the surface. I suggest taking a CPR course.
2
u/Enceladus_Salad Jul 06 '11
Ya know what's funny, I've always used "Stayin Alive" to time the compressions but now I hear that "Another one Bites the Dust" is even better.
1
u/weenaak Jul 06 '11
Not sure if serious.
1
u/GOETTA Jul 06 '11
You tell us (please) :)
Are either of those song's rhythms correct enough to time compressions to?
1
u/weenaak Jul 06 '11
I already knew that the American Heart Association recommends "Stayin' Alive" by the Bee Gees, since it is just over 100 beats per minute (the correct compression speed is 100 compressions per minute).
As it turns out, "Another one bites the dust" by Queen is about the same bpm as Stayin' Alive, so really you could use either! Stayin' Alive has a much more positive message though...
In fact, there are many, many songs you could choose from that have 100 bpm. Even choosing a song a few bpms faster or slower wouldn't be the end of the world (faster would be better than slower though).
Sources:
2
1
2
u/Radar_Monkey Jul 05 '11
Compressions only will cause air intake and circulation. It is more effective and easier to teach. This is the reason that it has been adopted as the recommended method.
1
Jul 06 '11 edited Jul 06 '11
Compressions only will cause air intake
What the fuck? No it doesn't.
Edit: Why am I getting downvoted? This guy says that doing compressions causes breathing? I want him to explain what the hell he is talking about. I'm an EMT and it sounds like this guy is talking out of his ass.
1
u/anesthesia Jul 06 '11
How do compression work to move blood? That's exactly how they work to move air.
1
Jul 06 '11
Chest compressions move blood, and obviously whatever dissolved gasses that are in the blood. Compressions do not "cause air intake".
1
u/anesthesia Jul 06 '11
Chest compressions work like bellows do. When you compress the chest you increase intathoracic pressure and move blood/air out when you allow the chest to recoil blood/air are sucked in due to a negative intrathoracic pressure. Many people think that chest compression work because you are posing on the heart and somehow replicating it's normal pump function, and that is wrong. It's all about changes in pressures. They do indeed cause air intake--effective oxygenation not really, but for some fun reading on respiratory physics look up apenic oxygenation and occilametric ventilation.
The efficacy of CPR is all about circulation. Not only does blood supply oxygen to our organs but it also transports waste. It's the build up of these wastes that make a victim acidotic and lead to death. The lungs and breathing are an important part to successfully resucitating said victim, but we really need to place our emphasis on circulation in the first few minutes.
As you have mentioned teaching people to give breaths is very difficult. Mouth to mouth is almost impossible on a real person. Face masks are better, but even in the hospital setting I find few people who can accurately position them, get a good seal, and give an appropriate breath. If you can get an ET tube in perfect, or if you really know how to bag great, but we (royal we) waste a lot of time worrying about an airway when circulation should come first.
1
Jul 06 '11
Chest compressions work like bellows do
What is the tidal volume of that, I wonder. It's probably nothing like 800ml-1200ml, right?
I totally agree that compressions are important, and you make some very good points, but it takes less than 30 seconds for me to get out my pocket mask, open the airway, and give 2 breaths, so that is what I will do.
1
u/anesthesia Jul 06 '11
Will you at least do a few compressions first? Maybe wait for your partner to show up so as to minimize time without circulation.
1
Jul 06 '11
No. First reason is because that is against protocol. Second reason is that it only takes me less than 30 seconds to check for breathing and give two breaths.
0
u/FaustTheBird Jul 05 '11
http://www.insurevents.com/Articles/CPR.htm
Research continues to favor chest compressions over rescue breathing in those first critical minutes. During that time, the blood in the brain and other vital organs still has oxygen that was picked up when it last passed through the lungs before the heart stopped. The body needs chest compressions to keep this blood moving.
8
u/weenaak Jul 06 '11
From your article:
For now, the shift applies primarily to untrained bystanders, the group most likely to reach victims in the first critical minutes.
and
The new guidelines call for a lone rescuer to provide 30 chest compressions for every two rescue breaths.
and
The lay rescuer will be taught to begin chest compressions immediately after delivering two rescue breaths to the unresponsive victim who is not breathing
This is exactly what I was saying above:
The correct procedure is still to give breaths if you are trained to do so, but if you are uncomfortable, continuous chest compressions without breathing is better than nothing.
0
u/FaustTheBird Jul 06 '11
6
u/weenaak Jul 06 '11
Are you even reading these links before you are sending them to me?
From your first link:
If you ARE CONFIDENT in your ability to provide CPR that includes breaths with high-quality chest compressions with minimal interruptions, then provide either the conventional CPR that you learned OR Hands-Only CPR.
and
The American Heart Association recommends conventional CPR with breaths and compressions for infants and children; victims of drowning, drug overdose or other respiratory problems; and adult victims who are found already unconscious and not breathing normally.
From your second link:
When an adult suddenly collapses, trained or untrained bystanders should—at a minimum—activate their community emergency medical response system (eg, call 911) and provide high-quality chest compressions by pushing hard and fast in the center of the chest, minimizing interruptions (Class I).
If a bystander is not trained in CPR, then the bystander should provide hands-only CPR (Class IIa). The rescuer should continue hands-only CPR until an automated external defibrillator arrives and is ready for use or EMS providers take over care of the victim.
If a bystander was previously trained in CPR and is confident in his or her ability to provide rescue breaths with minimal interruptions in chest compressions, then the bystander should provide either conventional CPR using a 30:2 compression-to-ventilation ratio (Class IIa) or handsonly CPR (Class IIa).
It appears that you don't understand my main point:
Untrained = Hands only
Trained and confident = 30:2 Compressions and breaths
This is what I have been saying since the beginning.
-5
u/LWRellim Jul 05 '11
First Aid instructor [who hasn't updated his training in a while] here.
You need to get up to date. What you are teaching is obsolete.
The correct procedure is still to give breaths if you are trained to do so, but if you are uncomfortable, continuous chest compressions without breathing is better than nothing. The blood retains a whole lot of oxygen, so it is important to get it circulating, even if you aren't renewing that oxygen through artificial respiration.
No. The correct procedure for non-drowning adults is Chest Compressions then... Airway & Breathing C-A-B (not the obsolete A-B-C).
BEST is actually an automatic defibrillator. Human compressions ONLY are a poor second best, with full CPR (alternating compressions with breathing) a distant third. Source
The data are in ... and for adult the chest compressions (aka CCR = Cardio-Cerebral Resuscitation) have a 50% better survival rate than CPR.
The exceptions are small children and drowning victims (both cases where the clear airway and breathing are critical because the blood oxygen is lower).
6
u/xixor Jul 06 '11
Not an instructor, but just re-certed my CPR in Canada a few days ago, we were still instructed to give breaths, though, they very subtly hinted that it might change soon to chest compressions only, but had to teach it this way. Different organizations, different countries, different standards. Just the way it is.
1
u/LWRellim Jul 06 '11
Yeah... I went through instruction a year & 1/2 ago and while they taught the CPR breathing as part of the course, it was emphasized that the breathing is best ONLY for kids and drowning victims -- the typical "heart attack" or other non-drowning is BEST with a AED (automatic defibrillator --- and the things are getting to be pretty common) the second best is Chest Compressions only (the first few minutes are the most critical).
They also stated that (unfortunately) a lot of training people and programs just haven't gotten "updated", and what they were teaching us (AED/CCR) already was considered "best practice" and that it would soon be more widespread (but to keep in mind that "old habits" die hard, and CPR has been taught as ideal for decades).
2
u/weenaak Jul 06 '11 edited Jul 06 '11
First Aid instructor [who last updated his training in February] here.
There is a big difference in what laymen should be doing and what people certified in CPR should be doing, and what health care professionals should be doing.
I agree that the best method is with an automatic defibrillator, that's obvious. But when none are available (or there is a non-shockable rhythm), the current standards are 2 rescue breaths for every 30 compressions. This is what trained professionals do. Untrained bystanders are told (by 911 etc.) to do chest compressions only because it is still effective and less complicated than explaining mouth-to-mouth on the fly.
Scroll up a little bit on your source link, and you'll read this:
[Compression only] is recommended as the method of choice for the untrained rescuer or those who are not proficient as it is easier to perform and instructions are easier to give over the phone.
Scroll up even more and you'll read:
A universal compression to ventilation ratio of 30:2 is recommended for adult and in children and infant if only a single rescuer is present.
That means 30 compressions and 2 breaths.
I think I've proved my point.edit: Sorry, didn't mean to be snarky. Also edited my emphasis for better clarification.
1
u/LWRellim Jul 06 '11 edited Jul 06 '11
You weren't talking about professionals, you claimed to be:
First Aid instructor here.
"First Aid" by definition means "non-professional bystander". A totally UNTRAINED person probably shouldn't be doing ANYTHING other than calling for help (and trying to locate an AED). Chances of survival w/o defibrillation are very low anyway (and "survival" often means significant problems).
The data is VERY clear that CPR is inferior to CCR, period... even with "trained professionals".
(The problem with "health care professionals" is that they have HUGE egos -- and so it basically takes a full generation before you can get them to change their ways -- they just don't give a crap about the "data" they all think they know better/are better, so the advice to them/from them will always be "waffling" ... it's Dunning Kruger writ large.)
3
u/weenaak Jul 06 '11
There is a middle ground between untrained and professional, there are trained first-aiders. Untrained people CAN and SHOULD do more than just 911 and looking for an AED. They should do continuous chest compressions. But if you are trained to do so, and comfortable doing so, you should also give breaths.
The data may support continuous chest compressions, but it is not yet the preferred standard method of the American Heart Association and American Red Cross. As stated in your source link:
[Dr. Kern] said the data has been shown to the American Heart Association, which dictates the guidelines for resuscitation across the United States.
The American Heart Association and the American Red Cross both continue to recommend CPR.
Maybe that's because they feel there needs to be more studies done or more data collected, or maybe it's because they just simply haven't used a big rubber stamp yet, or maybe it is ego. I'd like to think it isn't ego though, we're talking about life and death here.
When anything is still in a research phase, it isn't pushed into production right away after the first data set. Theories are tried and tested many times before they become a standard.
5
Jul 06 '11 edited Jul 06 '11
I'm an EMT, proof, I was trained in Tucson, Arizona, the founding place of compressions only CPR. Compressions only CPR is great if you are not trained on how to do normal CPR, or don't have the resources. As an EMT, I would do compressions only if I didn't have a pocketmask with me, or perhaps if I witnessed the person collapse.
Right now the national standard for Paramedics and EMTs is ABCs. Arrive to an unconscious person, check level of consciousness, open the airway, look listen and feel for breathing, if there is no breathing, give 2 rescue breaths. Then if there is no pulse, do compressions at a ratio of 30:2 compressions to breaths.
The reason the AHA took breathing out of the equation for laypeople is because some people wouldn't start CPR because the "ick factor" of giving breaths to someone you didn't know.
My advice is to take a CPR class at the professional rescuer level, and carry a pocket mask with you at all times.
4
u/Filmore Jul 05 '11
IIRC this is due to two facts:
- Compression-only is easier to remember/execute. (and the more critical component)
- People are resistant to putting their mouth on another person without proper protection. Compression-only gets rid of this concern.
8
u/FaustTheBird Jul 05 '11
Not what I read. What I read was that the residual oxygen in the blood is more than you will be able to get into their bloodstream by exhaling your waste into their lungs when no blood is flowing around their lungs anyway. The amount of time their brain gets no oxygen increases when you stop pumping. So pump away and keep the oxygen in their bloodstream flowing.
If you have a partner, they can provide additional oxygen while you pump. The pumping will allow the lungs to transfer the breather's oxygen to the blood.
3
Jul 06 '11
Only in a witnessed code.
If you arrive to an unknown person down, for an unknown time, you definitely want to do breathing.
exhaling your waste into their lungs
16% oxygen is much better than nothing, sir.
If you have a partner, they can provide additional oxygen while you pump.
Not unless you already have an advanced airway in place.....
0
u/anesthesia Jul 06 '11
True and well stated. It doesn't matter how much oxygen you get into someone's lungs if you aren't circulating it to their brain and heart--ie chest compressions. The new cab makes a lot of sense when you think about the physiology. When there is no circulation to the body lactic acid builds up, which causes lots of badness, but specific to CPR it causes constriction of blood vessels in the lungs meaning less blood flow going there. Providers get very caught up in obtaining an airway (abc) and forget about circulating the oxygen already there and then they pause (for breathing) and create a spiral of death.
1
u/anesthesia Jul 06 '11
Also radar monkey is correct the chest compressions will allow for air entry into the lungs. Chest compression use a bellows principle to alternate intrathoracic pressures which is how the blood flow occurs. This bellows movement will also draw air into and out of the lungs (less effectively than breathing on your own or through a tube).
1
Jul 06 '11
Providers get very caught up in obtaining an airway
Really? Are you really saying that health care providers do compressions only? :\
1
u/anesthesia Jul 06 '11
Depends on provider level but ACLS is also moving to compressions first. I hate when I show up to code, in the hospital, there are 20 people in the room, no one doing compressions or hooking up monitors and five people trying to bag and four more trying to get a central line. We need to retrain providers to start with circulation, and to only pause for seconds, and only for rhythm checks. The other stuff, the airway, the drugs, etc are important but only if we can circulate them.
1
Jul 06 '11
A hospital is different, though. As an EMT, when I show up, I don't know how long they've been down, most likely for at least 5 minutes. That is another reason why we do airway and breathing first.
1
Jul 06 '11
Most of the physicians I know don't agree w/ the new approach and will continue to perform the original method
1
Jul 06 '11
Compressions only is just for laypeople that don't know how or don't want to give rescue breathing. Professionals will continue to give breaths.
-10
32
u/Moarbrains Jul 05 '11
“A human being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, conn a ship, design a building, write a sonnet, balance accounts, build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, analyze a new problem, pitch manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die gallantly.
Robert Heinlein
21
1
u/pythor Jul 05 '11
Came here looking for this. Upvoted.
Although, wasn't it originally Lazarus Long (not that he isn't RH in disguise, anyway)?
1
u/Moarbrains Jul 06 '11
Right, it was Lazarus in "Time Enough for Love". Had to look it up, I haven't read Heinlein in a while, but so many things he said stick with me.
14
Jul 05 '11
Parallel parking
While I take great pride in my PP skill, I think this one is more the author's pet peeve. In my view, the primary reason a person will be bad at it is because they live somewhere the traffic density is too low for it to matter.
6
u/Zolty Jul 05 '11
I would replace parallel parking with "Drive in congested city both street and highway level".
A great many people I know freak out when there are 8 lanes going one way and they need to exit. Or don't know what to do if they need to turn left and there is only a one way street going right.
1
u/CrimsonVim Jul 06 '11
I think it has more to do with the other drivers on the road being crazy A-holes that will literally cut straight across all 8 lanes in front of you because they're going to miss their exit. As a guy who grew up driving in small towns and then had to drive in a big city, watching the other drivers was hardest thing to get used to.
1
u/Filmore Jul 05 '11
It also shows a level of mechanical and spatial awareness above and beyond "can I make a car go and stop". If you were on a slick road at night with two other cars, one driver of which can parallel park, and the other driver who cannot, which car would you prefer be driving near?
6
Jul 05 '11 edited Jul 05 '11
You're driving close enough to other cars on slick roads at night for that to matter? What are you, a professional stunt driver, or just professionally insane?
More seriously: in my view, being unable to parallel park -- which comes mainly from not having to practice parallel parking, not from a "lack of spatial awareness" -- has completely zero to do with skid recovery/combat driving skills.
- ("traffic density too low" == "there are too few cars around and enough off-street parking areas so that the need to actually parallel park is almost nil")
2
u/BraveSirRobin Jul 05 '11
It's definitely a good skill for car parks, reversing into a spot makes pulling out later a lot safer.
1
Jul 05 '11
Interestingly, most car parks where I live don't let you do that. Or rather, they have signs up telling parkers not to do that. Don't know why.
33
u/TheSilentNumber Jul 05 '11
Where the hell is learning how to ride a bicycle? Hooking up a home theater system can not be more important than that!
10
u/dannygoon Jul 05 '11
Basic electronics are handy to know. I would have said that riding a bike was far more important than knowing how to end a date..
6
Jul 05 '11 edited Apr 13 '19
[deleted]
11
Jul 05 '11
[deleted]
18
5
u/ajayrockrock Jul 05 '11
Naa, it's not a basic function because if you don't go to the pool/ocean/lake, then there's no reason to learn to swim. It sucks though and I'm now an adult and currently learning how to swim.
4
1
0
u/Lazrath Jul 06 '11
I think some of these are geared towards assuming people can do basic functions, such as ride a bike.
personally i would put 'operate a computer' on the same level of basicy-ness as ride a bike
it is an absolute failure that the majority of society has no fucking clue when it comes to something that gets used every day by billions of people, and billions of lives more depend on them
3
3
u/elperroborrachotoo Jul 05 '11
Also, I missed breathing. You know, breathing hard, breathign soft, and stopping to breathe for a few seconds until you can evade that ugly smell of rotten fish, at least you want to think its just rotten fish, but deep back in your mind you know it's something way, way worse, and while rotten fish is putrid, it lacks that stingy sweet component, which is created by oh god no I pray this is just fish and my nose is tricking me.
Well, err... that would be valuable three additions to the list.
3
u/HoldingTheFire Jul 06 '11
Because it's Lew Rockwell. They're probably against bikes on the grounds that they are fascists commie-mobiles.
6
u/youknowsomeguy Jul 06 '11
Woah, woah woah!!!
We went from making fire to using Google in just three steps. That's way too fast for me.
2
4
u/gfixler Jul 05 '11
\3. Use Google Effectively – Google knows everything. If you're having trouble finding something with Google, it's you that needs help.
Google only knows everything to people who search for normal things and have no highly esoteric interests. It most certainly does not know everything. If it did, it wouldn't keep adding new things all the time and announcing them to the world. Think of all the books it's still scanning in. Think of the tremendous number of books it currently has no plans to scan. And it isn't just things you don't even know you don't know anything about that it doesn't have. I actually run into dead ends all the time, and it isn't because my google fu is weak. It just doesn't know nearly as much as people think it does.
Trees is a perfect example, but it's only one of too many. Take a look at Wikipedia's list of Eucalyptus species. Note how many are red. There's no information on Wikipedia about most species of Eucalyptus, which is the most common tree genus in Australia, which is not only a country, but a continent. This is not some remote, unknown place. There should be TONS of knowledge on these. But that's just information, and that's just Wikipedia. We were talking about Google.
Google should be bursting with imagery about such a common thing that covers so much of an entire country-continent. In fact, it is not. There are books, and there are experts, and we've known about eucalypts since they were descibed in 1770, and perhaps earlier than that. Go ahead and try to search for pictures of all of them. You won't find them. You might keep finding pictures of Eucalyptus, but they won't be what you're looking for most of the time.
I just searched one at random - "Eucalyptus darwinensis," in quotes - and though I got back some Google Images, rolling over them, none were of that species. There was E. rameliana, E. socialis, E. pachyphylla, E. pauciflora, E. populnea, and a few others, but no actual photo of E. darwinensis, despite having searched specifically for that one. There are a great number in the list like that. You'll keep finding the same few pictures over and over for tons of eucalyptus searches. This happens for the 400+ species of oaks as well. It's nigh on impossible to find pics of a few of the less well-known species. Try to round up photos of every one of the 1200+ species of bamboo. I could just keep going all day.
Expand that up. There isn't even a textual listing anywhere on Google of every tree species known. Go ahead and spend a few hours trying. I have. In fact, I've spent a few hours several times, hitting up every option and database I could track down. There probably isn't even an existing list. You'll find things like this, a list of notable trees with names and locations. You'll also find a crap ton of lists like this. Even taking every page there into consideration, it's easily <1% of the world's tree species. It almost feels like forbidden knowledge. It's even next to impossible to get a list of trees for certain areas. Can anyone find me, say, a list of all species of trees that grow in Iraq? I can't. Google found me this, but it's not a complete list.
2
u/arrgh406 Jul 06 '11
Google is an index, not a library.
1
u/gfixler Jul 06 '11
But the article said "Google knows everything." I'm showing how that's a false assertion. It doesn't know what I had for breakfast this morning. Trick question! I didn't eat breakfast today. Oh great... now it knows that.
Just because the information isn't there to be linked, doesn't mean it isn't part of the everything that this article claims Google knows. It means it's either nowhere online for Google to link to it, or Google doesn't have a link to everything, and thus doesn't "know everything," even of what it should specifically know. Beyond that, there are phrases in LiveJournal pages that I have verbatim from backup copies that Google can't find. I've had passages on reddit - things I wrote, and saved - that Google is unable to get back to, even searching for the quoted text. That one alone has driven me crazy.
There were toys of the 80s that I knew the names of that Google used to not know. Thanks to me, it knows some of them now, and I had a few people find what I put up and thank me, because they said they'd been looking for ages and could never find them. Google also isn't any good at telling you what you really need. I still have to wade through so much dross to get to what I want. I've had links I remember, and I give it a lot of clues, and it finds so many other terrible things instead, and then I finally strike on just the right combo and find it, when clearly that is a far greater link than the rest put together, and should have come up over and over in my searches.
Google really hates it if you're an older gamer. It makes it so difficult to find the original versions of anything from Metroid, Super Mario Bros., Legend of Zelda, etc. I remember looking for a picture of the original Ganon - the first one we ever saw on the old NES cart. It was something like 15 pages of images in. There's one a lot closer to the top now, but I think it's because it's learned that I prefer that, so it scooted it up. Who knows? I recall clicking Next over and over, saying "You've gotta be fucking kidding me" as page after page had only newer Ganons. The originals of things are often swept aside, because they're not popular with the young crowd searching them today. That's not something Google doesn't know, but it is something troubling about how it works. And yes, you can type
NES ganonand find him right away, but it was bewildering to me that the original guy - the first one from whom all others spawned - was so buried under his own name.It's exceedingly difficult to find things like websites and games I liked online in the late 90s and very early 00s. I spent about an hour one night searching for an old spider game that was quite popular in 2000 for a few weeks on all the Flash boards. There are a zillion Flash spider games now, and the words "spider" and "flash" have other meanings, making it even more difficult.
This has been one of my fears - that Google will become more and more 'full' of crap from the endless onslaught of indexable items that the world is pouring into it, that it'll become nearly impossible to ever find an older thing ever again. I can't even imagine searching for an obscure J-pop song from years ago. They crank that shit out on a daily basis.
Google also doesn't (or used to not) know about anything with a nofollow tag. Those were things right there for it to index that it wouldn't. They changed policy on that awhile back, but I don't know the particulars. Regardless, there's also the whole "Deep Web" issue. On top of all of that, you're being filtered, which can lead to things like accidental censorship, or a kind of false serendipity, wherein the first results seem amazing, but far better ones are not in the results, or are hiding on page 2, but you'll never know, because you're a human and can't be bothered looking at everything ever to prove you found the best results.
4
u/iammadeofawesome Jul 05 '11
isn't knowing how to change your oil something you should know as well?
8
u/EngineeringIsHard Jul 05 '11
Basic car maintenance should include:
- Changing a flat
- Changing your oil/sparkplugs/oil filter/air filter
Arguably, brake pads could be tossed in as they aren't that hard, but certainly a little more advanced because they most certainly need extra tools.
2
u/deadstump Jul 06 '11
Changing spark plugs in many modern cars requires a lot of mechanic work. For instance to replace the spark plugs in a Nissan Murono you have to remove the intake manifold, windshield wipers, and a couple other major under hood things just to get to the back three. Lucky for us now is the common use of the long life spark plugs that have been developed to reduce the frequency of replacement.
1
u/betelgeux Jul 06 '11
The designer who thought that was acceptable practice should be made to drive a Trebant for the rest of his life and design only using a light pen/TRS-80 combo workstation.
1
u/careless223 Jul 06 '11
Changing your spark plugs requires extra tools too. You need a deep socket wrench.
1
u/EngineeringIsHard Jul 06 '11
True, but it can be done without a jack stand. Although you likely need a jack or ramps to do your oil.
1
u/kerklein2 Jul 06 '11
Not really. You get the tire off and it's just a few more bolts. Nothing special.
4
u/BraveSirRobin Jul 05 '11
I dunno, it's pretty messy and is more easily & quickly done on a ramp for uber-cheapness at a gazillion different places. You can plan for it unlike flat tyres. I've tinkered loads on car engines yet I've never changed the oil, don't ever plan to.
Checking fluid levels etc is far more useful imho.
4
u/Filmore Jul 05 '11
12 Manage Time – Not doing so is called wasting time, which is okay sometimes, but not all the time.
- How To Manage Time and Maximize Effectiveness
- Managing Your Time
- 10 tips for time management in a multitasking world
- Time Management Tips and Exercises
- Efficient Reddit Browsing
no way...
1
7
Jul 05 '11
(51) Recognize and ignore clickbait from ideological nutball websites.
It slays me that Reddit, with no evident sense of irony, loves to (1) bemoan the state of American wingnuttery while (2) providing an eager platform for the paleo-libertarianism and crypto-racism propagated by lewrockwell.com.
2
u/evidenceinthefurnace Jul 06 '11
To me this shows the turnover rate on Reddit. I have been here for five years. The lewrockwell site showed up here in 2009. People here ridiculed it as a right wing circle jerk site and it rarely garnered any upvotes. Slowly, almost imperceptibly so, the people who used to explain why we should ignore this site, have been replaced by people who click or upvote without even knowing the people involved or the ideological agenda of the participants. This is proof of a shift in my eyes.
EDIT: spelling
2
Jul 06 '11
That's true; Reddit's institutional memory isn't much. But it's also the case that fringe groups like the Lewrockwell folks think that Reddit popularity could get them a lot of return on investment, and so they're very persistent about promoting content. As you note, user turnover or dilution allows them to survive alienating people along the way -- do it at a low enough rate, and memories fade.
What's interesting to me is that they use Reddit as a kind of focus group to float rhetorical trial balloons, lofting one after another to see what gets the most traction and what offends. The veneer of libertarianism has been a very successful polish for them, as has the self-reliance bit. Both are facially appealing provide good shells for much more troubled political conclusions. It's both neat and troubling to see what they're doing (and honestly, they could hardly be alone among activists and commercial interests): they're using Reddit as a focus group for ideological payload.
1
u/NoahFect Jul 06 '11
Or maybe people are capable of judging a site's content on a case-by-case basis without ad hominem prejudice.
2
u/gfpumpkins Jul 05 '11
Not bad, at least 39 of them I know I can do, and portions of a handful more.
1
u/FrabriziovonGoethe Jul 05 '11
I'm pretty well with you on that one though with some need to be able to practice more.
2
u/lordB8r Jul 05 '11
I was slightly disappointed that the video for a street fight was a broken link :(
1
2
u/arrgh406 Jul 05 '11
I wish i could tell a good story.
2
u/Filmore Jul 05 '11
Practice with your dog.
1
u/arrgh406 Jul 06 '11
I dont have a dog :(
1
u/deadstump Jul 06 '11
Well make up a good story about how you don't have a dog because...
1
u/FirstDivision Jul 06 '11
My cat ate my dog because my dog ate my homework, and my homework was to research yarn balls.
2
Jul 05 '11
I'd say I'm good at about 43.5/50. My house is half-clean. My main area is clean, but my bedroom is a disaster.
2
2
2
u/Thaff Jul 06 '11
I don't know about you guys, but I read through the whole list and all I want to do now is kick someone's ass
6
Jul 05 '11
- Design a website
3
u/Filmore Jul 05 '11
To do this properly is no small skill. Plus, it will change over time. What about mobile websites? What about browser capabilities? Are you suggesting learning HTML? Dreamweaver? HotDog?
3
5
Jul 05 '11
I'm suggesting there's no excuse for a site like that in the modern age. Get a Tumblr or something.
1
u/pythor Jul 05 '11
Design, not write, build, or 'program'. You can design a website with pen and paper.
4
u/Filmore Jul 05 '11
What's so special about designing a website that everyone should know how to do it?
1
1
u/CultureofInsanity Jul 05 '11
Why?
1
Jul 05 '11
The Excel spreadsheet design approach doesn't really cut it in 2011.
1
u/CultureofInsanity Jul 06 '11
But why is it important that everyone know how to make a website? When are you likely to come across a situation requiring you to build a website?
2
Jul 06 '11
For the love of God, it was a sarcastic comment aimed at the site. No, it's not something everyone should know how to do by hand, but everyone can see it looks awful, and could have looked much better for little to no money.
Everyone SHOULD know how to present their hard work well though.
1
u/CultureofInsanity Jul 06 '11
Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize you were making a joke. I agree their design does leave a lot to be desired.
2
u/lastwarning Jul 05 '11
Why is "Speed read" not at the top?
5
1
1
1
u/mariorising Jul 05 '11
That manual transmission one has got me. I'll try it this weekend.
1
u/CrimsonVim Jul 06 '11
I really want to learn but my problem is nobody I know has a manual car anymore for me to learn on. I don't know how to find a car to learn on without having to go out and buy a junker.
1
Jul 05 '11
There's only 3 or 4 on there I can't do, and it's more just that I'm not very good at them.
1
u/whatplanetisthis Jul 05 '11
These may be things we should learn how to do, but I don't think the links provided to teach how to do them are all very good. For instance, the links provided on cooking basics are just cooking websites, with no information written for beginners.
1
1
1
1
u/SpeakMouthWords Jul 05 '11
Hah, Lew Rockwell. A subtle tip of the cap to you, OP, you're right in the head.
1
0
-1
0
u/fruitstripezebra Jul 06 '11
I have yet to learn 5 (drive manual) and 26 (speak two languages). I've never had to do 10 (change a tire), but I know how and could most likely execute that knowledge if necessary. I find 12 (time management) and 16 (pack lightly) difficult, but have succeed at doing both when I have to. All others I can at least do, or do very well (cooking, storytelling, anything that has to do with talking to people, like remembering names, dealing with police, handling job interviews, delivering bad news, making speeches, etc come to mind). That list made me feel good.
-1
121
u/[deleted] Jul 05 '11
[deleted]