Stuff I just don't understand, post here yours.

[Fawkes]

What exactly kind of Dramas are you bringing? Generally when people are meeting in groups they looking for something fun to watch, and even the best dramas aren't exactly crowd-pleasers.

[Xyril]

It's also possible that you're just the odd man out in your little group, in terms of movie tastes. If movie night has been a regular thing among your group of friends, than people have probably already developed some sort of consensus on what everyone likes to watch as a group. In other words, no movies that that anyone in the group absolutely hates, and genres that fit well with the group dynamic--for example, if your group tends to be noisy or talky during movies, maybe comedies or action movies work better than movies with really deep dialogue or exposition.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

AB InBev....

I wonder what the executive decision was: "Ok, let's make an belgian abbey style triple."

So, basically it was a rather sad affair to taste four normally very distinctive ales, coming out of a facility that is specialized on Pilsener Lagers.

Well, they are for a large part a Belgian corporation and one of their components is Leffe, which has been brewing abbey beers since the 13th century. So maybe the particular beer you had was bad or simply designed for someone elses taste, but it's not entirely unprecedented for them to make Belgian abbey beers in general.

I'm a teetotaller, but that's not because of any objection to alcohol (although I didn't enjoy it much the one time I was actually drunk) but because I dislike the taste of most alcoholic drinks, and it's easier to say I'm a teetotaller than to explain for the hundredth time that no, I'd rather drink unfiltered camel urine than beer. So, for someone like me but who actually *wanted* to get drunk, having something potently alcoholic but largely tasteless would be great!

If you don't like the taste of any alcoholic drink you tried so far (and I'm assuming that's beer, wine and at least one stronger drink) you probably don't like the taste of alcohol. Vodka doesn't taste like anything... except alcohol.

If you really want to try getting drunk ones, try cocktails. I personally don't really like most of them because when I'm drinking something strong I prefer to taste my alcohol, and most cocktails cover it up (although a good bloody mary enhances it nicely, as one of the exceptions), but for you it might be great. Sweet white wine might also work. Or you could try a sweet beer, like kriek. (Even some pilsners go a bit in this direction. "Hertog Jan" strikes a brilliant balance, though probably unavailable in most of the world.) Or a fresh "summer day" beer, like weisse or witbier. I really like those myself. If it's just the bitterness you don't like rather than the burn something like schnaps or palinka, booze with fruit flavor, might work.

And remember: drink responsibly. You puke, you clean.

[factotum]

If you don't like the taste of any alcoholic drink you tried so far (and I'm assuming that's beer, wine and at least one stronger drink) you probably don't like the taste of alcohol. Vodka doesn't taste like anything... except alcohol.

I said "most" alcoholic drinks. I like advocaat and port, for instance, but I don't like them *more* than I like, say, Pepsi Max Ginger, so why would I drink them in preference when they're far more expensive? The only good reason to drink them would be to get drunk, and as I said, I really didn't enjoy the experience the one and only time I got drunk, so I've avoided it ever since.

[Florian]

Well, they are for a large part a Belgian corporation and one of their components is Leffe, which has been brewing abbey beers since the 13th century. So maybe the particular beer you had was bad or simply designed for someone elses taste, but it's not entirely unprecedented for them to make Belgian abbey beers in general.

Ah, you know that "exporting" beer is quite a thing of the past when we talk about the giants of the industry, like AB InBev? We wouldn't "import" a, say, Kilkenny or Guinness, it just gets made here and is then thrown into distribution.

Now the stuff that's flagged as "home made" and "compliant to german beer law" simply can´t copy certain styles by default. because you mentioned it, it´s practically impossible to make a decent "Kriek" because we're forbidden from using cherries, same as with the required candy sugar to do an abbey style and get to the right ABV while still having a "slim body".

I said "most" alcoholic drinks. I like advocaat and port, for instance, but I don't like them *more* than I like, say, Pepsi Max Ginger, so why would I drink them in preference when they're far more expensive? The only good reason to drink them would be to get drunk, and as I said, I really didn't enjoy the experience the one and only time I got drunk, so I've avoided it ever since.

Matter of taste and also acquired taste. Quality alcohol is mostly about the subtle flavors and striking a balance, a thing that industrial beverages fail to replicate on the necessary level. You'll also note that various types of alcohol and how they're treated will massively effect how you're "drunk".

Try something and google "rum old fashioned". Whatever recipe comes up, make sure it uses Angostura bitters, disregard the sugar cube and replace with light caramel sirup. You'll notice a vast difference between using a Don Papa, Pacto Navio, Kraken or A.H. Riise.

[Lvl 2 Expert]

Ah, you know that "exporting" beer is quite a thing of the past when we talk about the giants of the industry, like AB InBev? We wouldn't "import" a, say, Kilkenny or Guinness, it just gets made here and is then thrown into distribution.

Now the stuff that's flagged as "home made" and "compliant to german beer law" simply can´t copy certain styles by default. because you mentioned it, it´s practically impossible to make a decent "Kriek" because we're forbidden from using cherries, same as with the required candy sugar to do an abbey style and get to the right ABV while still having a "slim body".

Ah, right, I missed that this was about the reinheidsgebot.

I said "most" alcoholic drinks. I like advocaat and port, for instance, but I don't like them *more* than I like, say, Pepsi Max Ginger, so why would I drink them in preference when they're far more expensive? The only good reason to drink them would be to get drunk, and as I said, I really didn't enjoy the experience the one and only time I got drunk, so I've avoided it ever since.

Ah, right, I missed that you like the flavor but dislike the alcohol rather than like the alcohol but dislike the flavor.

[Honest Tiefling]

What exactly kind of Dramas are you bringing? Generally when people are meeting in groups they looking for something fun to watch, and even the best dramas aren't exactly crowd-pleasers.

This...I'm personally not a big fan of dramas.

Or the idea that watching a drama is a solo activity, other movies can be a group activity. If the movie has an actual plot and acting, you're going to miss the movie by talking during it. Thus the activity is ruined by interacting with others.

On the other hand, if I bring some cheesy 80's schlock, no one gives a hoot if people talk or complain about the movie during it, thus making it a social activity. The chances of being able to understand the plot is minimal even if you did try to pay it the utmost attention, and that's not the point of the viewing. Let us instead mock the acting together!

Dramas can also jump into very uncomfortable territory. Perhaps I keep seeing the wrong ones, but domestic violence, incest, mental illness, etc. seem like quite fashionable topics nowadays. But I don't necessarily want to view that with people I don't know extremely well. Yes, life has pain and suffering, but I don't need to bring MORE awkward, thank you very much.

[Florian]

@Honest Tiefling:

Depends on what you expect to get out of it. These days, I more often meet up with some folks at a pub and have some good and interesting talk about politics, instead of using some action movie as a reason to meet up. Now a good thought-provoking drama, say in the likes of Great Expectations, that's something else entirely.

[Honest Tiefling]

Depends on what you expect to get out of it. These days, I more often meet up with some folks at a pub and have some good and interesting talk about politics, instead of using some action movie as a reason to meet up. Now a good thought-provoking drama, say in the likes of Great Expectations, that's something else entirely.

The suggestion I raised wasn't meant to be brainless vs. intelligent conversation, (well, it COULD be that, but I doubt it) but more of social vs. non-interaction. If it's a really good drama, you aren't really talking to one another during it, while I imagine it's a little difficult to have a deep and meaningful political conversation without said interaction.

[Gnoman]

I've never understood why these only ever seem to have wheels on the front of them. Pretty much anyone I see using them puts their whole weight on the thing, and they'd probably move easier if the rear legs weren't dragging on the ground.

[Keltest]

I've never understood why these only ever seem to have wheels on the front of them. Pretty much anyone I see using them puts their whole weight on the thing, and they'd probably move easier if the rear legs weren't dragging on the ground.

I assume its so that they don't accidentally fall forward if somebody rests their weight on it the wrong way and faceplanting whichever poor soul is using them. Theyre supposed to help keep you upright, not make you move faster.

[Peelee]

I assume its so that they don't accidentally fall forward if somebody rests their weight on it the wrong way and faceplanting whichever poor soul is using them. Theyre supposed to help keep you upright, not make you move faster.

Especially since the people using them are very likely not concerned with speed to begin with.

[Fawkes]

You're supposed to lift it between steps, and plant it firm on the ground before moving. The front wheels make it so you don't have to lift it all the way off the ground. They do make ones with four wheels (or three wheels in a tricycle format) with handbrakes, but they're more expensive.

[Gnoman]

Most of the people I see with the things probably don't have the upper arm strength to lift them that way anymore. They use them as a "if I put all my weight on this thing, I can still move myself with my legs.

[Fawkes]

Then a wheeled walker would probably be a better product for them.

[Jay R]

A support that cannot stay firmly in place is useless. The non-wheeled legs are the actual support tool. The wheels merely allow you to move the tool to the next place you will use it.

[Knaight]

A support that cannot stay firmly in place is useless. The non-wheeled legs are the actual support tool. The wheels merely allow you to move the tool to the next place you will use it.

Exactly this. This becomes particularly obvious when looking at use cases other than walking - pulling yourself up from sitting is simply not happening with a second set of wheels.

[Fawkes]

Exactly this. This becomes particularly obvious when looking at use cases other than walking - pulling yourself up from sitting is simply not happening with a second set of wheels.

Well, not without handbrakes.

[Keltest]

Well, not without handbrakes.

If you are sufficiently weakened that you cant even lift a walker reliably, I think its time to invest in a motorized chair.

[Fawkes]

If you are sufficiently weakened that you cant even lift a walker reliably, I think its time to invest in a motorized chair.

I don't disagree, but those are expensive, and depending on your ailment, insurance may not cover.

[Knaight]

Well, not without handbrakes.

At this point you're talking about squeezing the handbrakes while pulling yourself up with the walker, with a tight enough squeeze to keep the brakes good enough. A lot of people who use walkers aren't going to be able to do that, a lot more are likely to forget at least some of the time.

[Jay R]

If you are sufficiently weakened that you cant even lift a walker reliably, I think its time to invest in a motorized chair.

Wheels exist so you won't have to lift things. I can't lift my wheelbarrow reliably, at least when I'm using it and it's full. That's why I have a wheelbarrow in the first place.

Similarly, a wheel walker is for people who choose to walk and can't do so effectively without help.

[Keltest]

Wheels exist so you won't have to lift things. I can't lift my wheelbarrow reliably, at least when I'm using it and it's full. That's why I have a wheelbarrow in the first place.

Similarly, a wheel walker is for people who choose to walk and can't do so effectively without help.

A wheelbarrow has non-wheel legs so you can do things like have it rest on the ground and not roll away. A walker is designed primarily to support somebody who cannot stand and walk steadily on their own. A wheel walker defeats the purpose of a walker, because it isn't providing stability and strength. And as Knaight mentioned, the level of strength needed to utilize the breaks is often beyond the people who would couldn't lift their walker in the first place.

[Velaryon]

I've never understood why these only ever seem to have wheels on the front of them. Pretty much anyone I see using them puts their whole weight on the thing, and they'd probably move easier if the rear legs weren't dragging on the ground.

Four-wheeled walkers do exist. They are more expensive than the standard kind you showed, but not by as much as they once were. I see a lot of rollators (that's a term the nurses and physical therapists apparently use for the 4-wheeled walkers) in the ~$50 range, but you can sometimes find them cheaper if they're on sale or something, or at higher prices for fancier ones.

My mom has used these for most of my life, so I've got more experience with them than the average younger person. You are right that they push more easily than the 2-wheeled counterparts. That's why my mom prefers them to the standard walker. However, for older folks who can't move quickly or who are particularly at risk of falling and hurting themselves, the greater stability of having two legs without wheels is more important than the slightly faster speed they might be able to move. It all comes down to the particular needs of the individual.

[Peelee]

A wheelbarrow has non-wheel legs so you can do things like have it rest on the ground and not roll away. A walker is designed primarily to support somebody who cannot stand and walk steadily on their own. A wheel walker defeats the purpose of a walker, because it isn't providing stability and strength.

If the wheels are only on the front, they when weight is rested on it, it would not move and be stable, not when it is being moved, it would move slightly easier without needing to be picked up as much.

At least, that's how it seems it should work. Wouldn't it? Am I wrong?

[ve4grm]

If the wheels are only on the front, they when weight is rested on it, it would not move and be stable, not when it is being moved, it would move slightly easier without needing to be picked up as much.

At least, that's how it seems it should work. Wouldn't it? Am I wrong?

He meant a 4-wheeled walker.

In any case, the physics behind a 2-wheeled walker are such that, ideally, you never have to pick it up. If you push it forward, the leverage you have should lift the back legs off the ground and let it roll forward without resistance, becoming stable again once you stop pushing. Upward force isn't necessary.

Regardless, I think the two forms have different use cases.

2-wheeled walkers are for people who can stand still, but have trouble moving. They can stand, push it, then use the walker as a support while they move.

4-wheeled walkers are more for those who can keep their balance while moving, but need assistance keeping themselves up. By resting on it all the time, they never have to put their full weight on their legs. But while rolling forward, they can maintain balance.

[Vinyadan]

Wheels exist so you won't have to lift things.

The Middle Ages disagree!

Spoiler

Show

It's a threadwheel crane.

[Lord Joeltion]

The Middle Ages disagree!

Spoiler

Show

It's a threadwheel crane.

But... the wheel is there so it can do most of the work instead of you. So, Medieval Times^TM kinda agrees.

Also, yeah, the walker wheels are there to support the weight of the thing itself, so the patient doesn't need to lift it themselves. That's the reason they are on the front and not on the back, where the force to move it is generally applied. Otherwise, the weight would fall/rest towards your body.

[Vinyadan]

Oh, in that sense, yea. I thought it was a contrast between horizontal movement (like in a wheelbarrow) and vertical movement (actually lifting things upwards). I must have read something like "Wheels exist for when you don't have to lift things."

[Luz]

Oh, in that sense, yea. I thought it was a contrast between horizontal movement (like in a wheelbarrow) and vertical movement (actually lifting things upwards). I must have read something like "Wheels exist for when you don't have to lift things."

Why would you read it like that?