The weight has changed much more in sizing than height is likely to since it’s easy to gain/lose weight compared to gaining or losing height; it’s why I mentioned my percentiles. The links seemed like decently recent data so you wouldn’t expect someone in my percentiles to be so strangely missized unless sizing was just flat wrong or targeted to certain body shapes in the last 10-ish years.

My basic experience and data seems to point to height determining size much less than weight now does, which for those of us not rapidly changing weights puts us in a strange spot. There are also many more different global clothes manufacturers than there used to be I’d guess and maybe the newer ones still have no idea how to size for new geographies/cultures? Just guessing.

The whole “end of free speech” issue comes not so much from the government sensor really (that’s still firmly restricted by the first amendment) but from companies themselves banning any content or accounts that might get them sued.

Really? The early major moves (so stupidly transparent and to reinforce the concern and urgency) was to go after Facebook who agreed to appoint a government representative to their board. Which is unprecedented except in state-controlled entities. Threats have been made and lawsuits filed by Trump personally or his new attack dog the “DOJ” against most major media organizations including those who produce content and/or control distribution and algorithms. Many of the orgs have paid “fines” or tributes to the government in power to remain in favor and altered their content, presentation and/or coverage. This is naked violation of freedom of speech and press.

Back to the point: if enormous and otherwise powerful companies so easily fold–in a matter of months into an administration–there is no “independence” and government censor is hardly theoretical as you would present it, but already in place, and as such puts who defines “dangerous” in an unsustainably temptingly powerful position ripe for future abuse. This is existentially concerning no matter your political stripes as it’s the end of the political experiment that was the US.

What you say sounds good, and this isn’t rhetorical, but who gets to decide what constitutes “harmful” then? Isn’t that still the same problem that could be weaponized against free speech?

Your co-workers are triangulating. It may be for a combination of various reasons:

1. They have tried and failed in the past
2. They are scared of rejection, retribution, etc. consciously or unconsciously and it’s easy to volunteer someone else
3. You are really charismatic and/or great at your job and they think you have new ideas that will work

Triangulation is used to avoid conflict. Many people come to others in life, looking to have that person take on yhrir problems through triangulation. It’s generally not effective: it disempowers the requestor/initiator by giving responsibility for resolution of the issue to someone else, who may not before likely to solve it, and can but actually make things much worse.

Encourage them to see how they can play a role in solving the problem. Do it together if you want to help but don’t be their “superman”.

Never been to a game, always wanted to go Had planned to go since the cup was announced. Decided by March or April it was not only going to be unsafe due to potential ICE raids, trump being highly visible involved potentially enticing an attack, to say nothing of the price…forget about it, wont go.