u/Interesting-South542

When you sit down to eat with both a knife and a fork, do you use the American style hand switching method or the European no-switching method? (or some other variation?)

I actually grew up the US, but in an Asian family. I usually do the European way just because that seems the easiest.

To clarify for anyone who has no idea what I'm talking about:

European style means: you hold the fork in one hand, knife in the other. cut a piece, eat, and repeat. This is the simpler and more "obvious" method.

American style means: Hold the fork in one hand and knife in the other. cut a few pieces. Switch the fork to the other hand, put the knife down, and eat those pieces. Then switch hands again, cut, and so on.

Sorry if it's a stupid question. I guess it's the sort of thing that's totally obvious to anyone who's actually been there, but my internet research is producing conflicting information. Basically, how much ungroomed terrain is more or less what North Americans would call "inbounds"?

Is it worth going if I plan to follow the rules and stick to what's (mostly) safe? I know that the more traditional Japanese resorts have only groomed terrain, but what is it like in Niseko?

Sorry if it's a stupid question. I guess it's the sort of thing that's totally obvious to anyone who's actually been there, but my internet research is producing conflicting information. Basically, how much ungroomed terrain is more or less what North Americans would call "inbounds"?

Is it worth going if I plan to follow the rules and stick to what's (mostly) safe? I know that the more traditional Japanese resorts have only groomed terrain, but what is it like in Niseko?

So, my understanding is that a PAO, being major surgery, is only recommended for those who have symptoms. At the same time, PAO works best when there is no arthritis. But isn't pain caused by arthritis? So there's my confusion: is there always a "window" where pain shows up but arthritis isn't too severe for hip preservation? reading posts on this sub, it seems that a lot of people have severe pain from dysplasia, yet no arthritis. Is it possible for the opposite situation to be true: to not have much pain but be diagnosed too late for PAO, and have to wait for THR?

Similarly, if one is diagnosed without much pain, but with early arthritis visible, does it still make sense to put off PAO due to lack of symptoms, or does it make sense to get PAO as soon as possible before the damage gets worse?

In my case (28M), the dysplasia was diagnosed incidentally—I fell on my side and had a "hip pointer" injury that seemed to be healing slower than expected, so I went to the GP who ordered an X-ray. The X-ray showed dysplasia with LCEA angles of around 20 degrees on both sides. Was referred to an orthopedist who ordered a more extensive set of x-rays. said that there was some early signs of damage to the hip joint, and that I should start with physical therapy but might need surgery to reposition the hip socket (he didn't mention PAO by name but I assume that was what he was referring to). Currently I don't really have any of the classic dysplasia symptoms, though I do have some soreness and tightness around the hips (would not really describe it as "pain"); not sure if I am just imagining it, if it's really early dysplasia symptoms, or if it's something unrelated.

Assuming they keep in place the rule in its current form, how would it even work? Obviously being physically present in the US is not the same as being a US citizen, so any kind of geographical restriction will not work.

Will there be some sort of super strict account verification process? But then what if a US citizen lets their non-citizen friend use their account? Would that be a crime?

This is something I've wondered about. Icelandic couples who immigrated to another country, or Icelanders who married a foreign spouse: what surname did you give your children? Did you continue the Icelandic system? Or did the child take the name of the non-Icelandic parent (in mixed couple cases)?

Or perhaps did you "fossilize" the surname at your generation, i.e. the kid becomes grandfather's name + son? Like how most -son surnames in other European countries originated.

Interested to hear any anecdotal examples.

(I guess for mixed Icelandic-foreign couples, the question mainly applies to the case where the man is Icelandic, since most of the world uses patrilineal surnames, so if an Icelandic woman marries a foreign husband, the "logical" thing would be for the child to take the dad's surname.)

just to clarify, I am not Icelandic or connected to Iceland in any way; was only curious

I'm asking this question in good faith and I hope that I don't come across as rude.

The topic of animal testing comes up pretty often in subreddits or forums like this, and vegans like to point out that drug testing on animals is not really useful, or that most drug trials which pass animal testing fail in human testing, etc. Now, I find such arguments to be problematic, but let's set that aside, because I agree that such ideas have some merit to them.

Instead I want to focus on a more fundamental point: The use of model organisms is absolutely foundational to research in biology and medicine. (Yes, "model organisms" does include bacteria, yeast, and plants, but by far the most useful model organisms are animals.) A huge amount of what we know about biology is due to testing on animal model organisms. (If you do not believe me, talk to anyone with a PhD in molecular biology or biotech or medical sciences.) The role of model organisms in biology is about as essential as that of telescopes in astronomy.

And since advances in medicine rely on an understanding of basic biology, essentially all of modern medicine owes its existence to testing on animals. Sure, some aspects more than others, but ultimately because of how interconnected scientific research is, it is impossible to separate out any aspect of modern medicine that is not dependent on animal testing.

My point is then, you, as a human living in the 21st century, when you enjoy the benefits of modern medicine, you are, even if indirectly, reaping the benefits of work that involved testing on animals. Every vaccine, drug, surgical operation, etc., exists in its current form at least partly due to research that used animals.

So, as a vegan, one really has 2 options: (1) use modern medicine like anyone else, and accept that no modern lifestyle is 100% vegan, or (2) refuse modern medicine. Literally no vaccines etc.

I can honestly respect both approaches. If you take approach (1), I respect the pragmatism. If you take approach (2), well, I strongly disagree with such an idea, but I would respect the standing for one's principles.