protwurst

my girlfriend and I biked around Taiwan on Cycle Route 1. It was incredible, and I'd do it again without hesitation. The food was amazing, and with the photo translate ability of Google Translate, we could easily get meals we wanted. What a cool place, especially once you get out of the more urban parts of the east coast. Of course, the owner of one of the Giant stores made fun of us for bringing gravel bikes with us ("too heavy! why not rent from us?"), but I'd encourage any cyclist who wants an adventure to consider it.

29er 5010?

@h20-50: but the points you listed were, on the whole, bad points. I don't feel like digging in to deep here on the things my female friends experience in sports and in the workplace, so let's just stay in the context of this article. In the context of this article and the decision made here, what I am telling you is that many women feel excluded from adventure sports, especially as beginners. It sounds like you are chalking that up to one of the "cons" or being a woman. But it's not some inbuilt thing that cannot be changed.To say there are pros and cons for each gender and then walking off into the sunset ignores the agency you have to make changes in the world. You can literally just paint over the sign and say "hey, sorry! We want women to feel welcome here because they belong here so we changed the sign to be less gendered." It's a single, small, positive step that is almost effortless.

@h20-50: Hi, I'm a man: Someone literally opened the door for me today. There's quite a lot of research demonstrating that more attractive (and especially taller) men are more successful and make more money than less attractive men. So it does apply. Not sure what you're getting at with "didn't have to work myself to the bone" so I'll leave it unless you care to expand. Mmm, drafts... this one varies from country to country, but it's true there's a gender difference in something so politically unpopular that it is unlikely to occur in our lifetimes. "Allowed to meet lower criteria". I've never been in the armed services, but my guess is that the smart strategy is to look at battlefield performance, not intake requirements. Note that in the US those have been dropped for both genders recently so that they can increase recruitment. Also, plenty of women have bough me drinks in bars. Dunno what to tell you, dude. Maybe you should smile more? In many ways men and women are on a much more level playing field than ever, which is dope. But talking to my female friends, sports (MTB included) is a place where they continue to feel uncomfortable and excluded by the culture. And a ton of the comments here basically brush of their experiences as unimportant. Which sucks.

Its true, I have come to appreciate a märtzen. Most American lagers just don't have anything to them, thus the stigma.

I play completive ultimate frisbee, which basically plays like adding the 100% cuts of American football with the endurance of a half of everyone else's football. Training is lots of deadlifts, squats, and rotational core exercises to stabilize during changes of direction. I've also got a broken vertebrae that makes it very easy to tweak my back. Years of playing with that injury in conjunction with advice of a sports physio has made new realize 1) proper activation before lifting or working out is critical and indispensable if you have any injuries that aren't gonna go away, 2) it's hard to let go of the ego and drop weight if something is bothering you, 4) moving lighter weight faster tends to help my body feel better and prevent catastrophic tweaks, 3) it's way worth it.

@brianpark: what the hells a cheque?

@scitrainer: I'm not sure what you're trying to get at with "no trends in hurricanes." There is a prediction that hurricanes will get more intense, not necessarily more numerous, and while that one site says they arent, a more comprehensive literature review by NOAA says there is non-definitive evidence they are. https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/ But its not like the effects of climate change are limited to hurricane intensity. How about drought conditions in the west? Also, you say that sea level rise should be "accelerating", but 1) global GHC are rising linearly (https://public.wmo.int/en/media/press-release/greenhouse-gas-levels-atmosphere-reach-new-record) and 2) why would you necessarily expect sea level rise to "accelerate" when it is impacted by lots of different factors, such as increased floatation of land as ice weight is reduced? https://royalsociety.org/topics-policy/projects/climate-change-evidence-causes/question-14/ Further, sea ice loss is also linear, which simply shows that things are continuing to get worse. http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ So again, I'm not really sure why either of those bits of data somehow magically refutes the fact that humans are warming the planet. What IS interesting is that you think there is more money to be made by scientists showing lots of data demonstrating the impact of climate change, versus energy companies misleading the public on whether climate change is real while acknowledging it and planning for it in their boardrooms. *eyeball looking sideways emoji* https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/

@tacklingdummy: Also I just saw your "Even if human-induced climate exists..." post up there. I really dont know how to break this to you, but there is lots (and I mean, like, a ridiculous amount) of evidence that humans are causing climate change. There is no good evidence that I have seen yet to indicate that the rapid change in global we are currently seeing is NOT caused by humans. I mean literally my friends PhD was on this. Another of my good friends works on this stuff at NOAA, so we've discussed it a lot over beer. Even one of my exes was doing her PhD on the impact of anthroprogenic climate change. "Even if human-induced climate exists" is the equivalent of some random dude in jeans under the pads and chest protector they rented at the base of the hill riding up and yelling at you to "lean back over the big drops."

@tacklingdummy: https://www.worldometers.info/co2-emissions/co2-emissions-by-country/ The US accounts for 15%, China for 30% (a good amount of that directly related to the production of things we in the US consume), and India is next at 7%. If we cut our emissions 50% we'd still produce as much as India, who have 2.5 billion people living there. I also dont understand what it means to say "Middle East" and "Africa" are big producers, as if all the different countries that comprise those regions somehow coordinate their carbon policies in lock step. There's also a difference between pollution and carbon emissions. You are correct that most of the US is much cleaner in terms of pollutants than all of those places. But when it comes to global warming we are mostly concerned with CO2 and methane. If you roll those two together to get an idea of who is contributing to global warming, congrats to US, we still come in second: https://www.worlddata.info/greenhouse-gas-by-country.php What I think you are getting at in a roundabout way is that it seems unfair to punish developing nations for being late to the party in terms of leveraging the cheap energy of fossil fuels for their development. Thats true, but also kind of a distraction. The climate IS changing. Humans ARE causing it. Those nations do not produce enough greenhouse gasses nor have the GDP to effect the kind of impact that the US and China can. You can point fingers all you want, but the US is one of only a few nations with both the GHC output AND wealth to effect change. So I'm not sure what your arguments really boil down to here, beyond spiderman meme finger pointing.