pebblesf Posted January 17 Posted January 17 1 hour ago, Shyheels said: Did she know you wore heels too? No, they just know me for wearing my plain ol Tony Lama cowboy boots to work
Shyheels Posted January 31 Posted January 31 I saw this in the New York Times this morning - Yves Saint Laurent is showing off men’s thigh boots (not heeled) in their latest collection. The review - written by a guy - was what I would have expected: scoffing in tone, with references to “S&M dandies” and Robert Mapplethorp and an assertion that few, if any, people would actually wear them it was hard to tell from the images, but they did look a bit clompy but not absurdly so - not like some of the really weird stuff you see in catwalks. But it was dispiriting to see such a mocking review of what could have potentially opened up the idea of men in tall boots. https://www.nytimes.com/2025/01/29/style/saint-laurent-mens-wear-boots-paris.html 1
mlroseplant Posted January 31 Posted January 31 That article was behind a paywall, but I found a short Reuters video of the fashion show. The boots appear to be very tall and very loose at the top, so that the tops of the boots flap against each other when you walk. The suits that went with them were slouchy and the models themselves were slouchy, keeping their hands in their pockets the entire time. Obviously they were told to do that, so nothing against the models themselves. Like you said, not really all that bad for a fashion show, but still just. . . WEIRD somehow. Can't quite put my finger on it. Here is the link to the Reuters video. https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW704229012025RP1/ 1
pebblesf Posted January 31 Posted January 31 13 minutes ago, mlroseplant said: That article was behind a paywall, but I found a short Reuters video of the fashion show. The boots appear to be very tall and very loose at the top, so that the tops of the boots flap against each other when you walk. The suits that went with them were slouchy and the models themselves were slouchy, keeping their hands in their pockets the entire time. Obviously they were told to do that, so nothing against the models themselves. Like you said, not really all that bad for a fashion show, but still just. . . WEIRD somehow. Can't quite put my finger on it. Here is the link to the Reuters video. https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idRW704229012025RP1/ Well, it is nice seeing boots that men might actually consider wearing for sure, but they don't fit the guys' legs real well. The guys seem to struggle a bit/look uncomfortable wearing the boots also, which is unfortunate..
Shyheels Posted January 31 Posted January 31 Yes, the boots did look sloppy and indeed poorly made. Jean Gaborit makes thigh boots for men and they are far, far nicer I agree too that the boots did not suit the outfits with which they were paired. it just strikes me as a wasted opportunity. 1
Puffer Posted February 2 Posted February 2 Those thigh boots look almost identical to (fishing) waders in all but material. Waders are 'acceptable' male wear - in the right place - so perhaps these new boots could follow in their footsteps (pun intended)? The question is - what is the right place? 1
Shyheels Posted February 2 Posted February 2 Well, the right place, wherever it is, will not be a place where one would wear the suits with which they have been paired in the catwalk 2
CrushedVamp Posted February 6 Posted February 6 On 9/7/2024 at 8:30 AM, Puffer said: I think you are right. One can admire (and simultaneously fear) the technology that makes this article possible, but deprecate the excessive length, dull style and needless repetition. Overall, it adds almost nothing to our fund of knowledge - and precious little to that of those outside our circle. To me AI only does the "fun stuff" or at least for me. I like to write and draw, picking out my word choices, structuring sentences and getting my point across, or making some picture in my mind into a nice book cover, and AI is either butchering that, or stealing from what I have written online somewhere, or God forbid, one of my many novels. I do not need a computer to regurgitate in repeated fashion what I already know, or can get information about, let AI do my dishes, clean my house, or wash my clothes; you know the drudgery of life and let me be creative. Instead, it is the other way around, doing the fun stuff in life leaving us to be more and more bored and relegated to doing miserable stuff with our time. I do think it is interesting that they claimed AI would make the blue collar worker obsolete and it is actually now the opposite. AI is taking white collar jobs while blue collar jobs are soaring in demand and pay. And nuclear power in the United States is starting up again as AI data centers are being plugged in behind-the-meter to nuclear power plants directly. 3 Mile Island is now being taken out of mothballs to fire up a AI Data Center. Who would have thought! 1
mlroseplant Posted February 6 Posted February 6 There have been attempts to water down my job, but in my personal experience, none of it has worked very well just yet. Having said that, it's only a matter of time. I don't think anybody has come up with a way to actually replace me, but there are a lot of ways that they have tried to replace my brain and skills. The big idea is to build large chunks of electrical systems off-site in a factory somewhere, using more or less unskilled cheap labor, and then we, the qualified and skilled electricians, simply plug it in and we don't have to be paid to actually build the stuff.
pebblesf Posted February 6 Posted February 6 3 hours ago, CrushedVamp said: To me AI only does the "fun stuff" or at least for me. I like to write and draw, picking out my word choices, structuring sentences and getting my point across, or making some picture in my mind into a nice book cover, and AI is either butchering that, or stealing from what I have written online somewhere, or God forbid, one of my many novels. I do not need a computer to regurgitate in repeated fashion what I already know, or can get information about, let AI do my dishes, clean my house, or wash my clothes; you know the drudgery of life and let me be creative. Instead, it is the other way around, doing the fun stuff in life leaving us to be more and more bored and relegated to doing miserable stuff with our time. I do think it is interesting that they claimed AI would make the blue collar worker obsolete and it is actually now the opposite. AI is taking white collar jobs while blue collar jobs are soaring in demand and pay. And nuclear power in the United States is starting up again as AI data centers are being plugged in behind-the-meter to nuclear power plants directly. 3 Mile Island is now being taken out of mothballs to fire up a AI Data Center. Who would have thought! Admittedly "old school" and stubborn here for sure. Nonetheless, I feel that much of this AI/tech stuff is highly overrated and actually a hindrance to everyday life. How the heck does anyone drive a newer car these days... All this "stuff". Trying to learn how to operate it is quite the undertaking. The vehicle owner's manual seems to explain the stuff only about 80 percent effectively, usually leaving me with more questions than answers. And in the end, what does it accomplish compared to the more basic vehicles of years gone by. The darn heater/AC control on my newer car is so complex, and the problem for me is that I can not really operate it without looking down on the control panel, not a great idea when driving. Showing my age here, but operating the heat/AC/defrost on my old 73 Chevy could be done "by feel", you knew what you were controlling by the feel/positioning of the levers/detents/positioning of the fan control. Now tell me what features this newer car has that make it any better than the old one? "Dual zone" temp control?? Now that is a darn nuisance. Now you have two temp controls to deal with that are oftentimes competing against one another. How about controlling the radio?? Forget about it... Still reading the manual on that topic. And this new/fancy radio surely does not have better sound quality than the older car, and lousy signal strength as well. So many screens/options that really offer no big advantages, just add to confusion/frustration. I wanted to get the more basic trim level on my newer car, but gave in to the fancier trim level for two options that I do appreciate: I like the blind spot warning system in the side view mirrors, and the back up camera. And the beauty part of these features is there is nothing to control or adjust, the feature is either switched "on" or "off". Like you say, I will get more onboard with this crap when it can do the mundane stuff like emptying the trash or cleaning the cat box... For now, I think the so called "advantages" are just an illusion. 2
Cali Posted February 6 Posted February 6 I don't trust AI not to steal my work. Once you put anything into AI, that AI now owns it. So, I keep my stuff out of AI. 1
Shyheels Posted February 6 Posted February 6 I am no fan of AI either. Or the gaslighting hucksters who relentlessly promote it. As a photographer and writer I am deeply distrustful of it. I have done everything I can - or that I am aware if - to keep my work out if the clutches of these people and their robotic technologies but I don’t trust them not to steal it anyway. As for the technologies on cars etc so much is done simply because they can - not because there is a need. It’s all about the ego of the people who create these things, then telling us we need them and through the force if their market clout forcing us to buy by depriving us of alternatives. its becoming a very ugly world 1
5150PLB1 Posted February 6 Posted February 6 One thing about AI, it is notorious for creating fake facts and references to fake articles. Many judges have banned lawyers from using the work created by AI in their court rooms due to the creation of fake legal cases used to bolster an attorney's testimony and documents. 1
Cali Posted February 6 Posted February 6 The techincal term for this 'feature' of AI is 'hallucination'.
Puffer Posted February 7 Posted February 7 20 hours ago, pebblesf said: Admittedly "old school" and stubborn here for sure. Nonetheless, I feel that much of this AI/tech stuff is highly overrated and actually a hindrance to everyday life. How the heck does anyone drive a newer car these days... All this "stuff". Trying to learn how to operate it is quite the undertaking. ... I completely agree, although I am a little older than you - so even more of a dinosaur! In the 12 or so years that I ran my last car (a fairly basic 2003 model), I never did get to understand or master many of its features, despite having an owner's manual about 1" thick. I then bought a later (2015) and slightly more refined model of the same car (with another 1" manual), which has even more features that I cannot really understand or access. That said, some of the 'standard' features - such as warning bleeps when manoeuvring near obstacles - are very useful. If we are still allowed cars (and I'm still fit to drive one!) when I next need to change, I dread to think what bells and whistles it will have. And don't get me started on modern gadgetry such as (so-called) 'smart' phones and the like ... 🤬 1
mlroseplant Posted February 7 Posted February 7 I kind of wonder what auto restorers/hobbyists will do in 30, 40, 50 years' time. I am already irritated by my fairly old (2004) car's climate control system, which actuates little servos to change from hot to cold or from heat to defrost. What was wrong with cables to do this? Nevertheless, the system is still serviceable. In other words, I can fix it with some time, effort, and a little bit of money. I cannot imagine relying on a single touchscreen to do every function of the car. Number One, you have to physically look at the touchscreen, and Number Two, what happens when that screen fails? You don't drive the car. At all. We won't even talk about the expense or the complexity of putting it all right again. I do understand that a lot of these cameras and sensors have actual benefit. I can still easily swivel my head/body around to check my blind spots, but that is not the case with everybody, including my dad. He says he'll never buy a car that doesn't have a backup camera. At least if the camera goes out you can still drive the car without issues. 1
pebblesf Posted February 7 Posted February 7 2 hours ago, mlroseplant said: I kind of wonder what auto restorers/hobbyists will do in 30, 40, 50 years' time. I am already irritated by my fairly old (2004) car's climate control system, which actuates little servos to change from hot to cold or from heat to defrost. What was wrong with cables to do this? Nevertheless, the system is still serviceable. In other words, I can fix it with some time, effort, and a little bit of money. I cannot imagine relying on a single touchscreen to do every function of the car. Number One, you have to physically look at the touchscreen, and Number Two, what happens when that screen fails? You don't drive the car. At all. We won't even talk about the expense or the complexity of putting it all right again. I do understand that a lot of these cameras and sensors have actual benefit. I can still easily swivel my head/body around to check my blind spots, but that is not the case with everybody, including my dad. He says he'll never buy a car that doesn't have a backup camera. At least if the camera goes out you can still drive the car without issues. I agree. Working hard not to rely soley on these safety features/cameras/warnings, I consider them another layer of safety combined with my eyes/ears..
CrushedVamp Posted February 11 Posted February 11 On 2/7/2025 at 7:01 AM, mlroseplant said: I kind of wonder what auto restorers/hobbyists will do in 30, 40, 50 years' time. I am already irritated by my fairly old (2004) car's climate control system, which actuates little servos to change from hot to cold or from heat to defrost. What was wrong with cables to do this? Nevertheless, the system is still serviceable. In other words, I can fix it with some time, effort, and a little bit of money. I cannot imagine relying on a single touchscreen to do every function of the car. Number One, you have to physically look at the touchscreen, and Number Two, what happens when that screen fails? You don't drive the car. At all. We won't even talk about the expense or the complexity of putting it all right again. I do understand that a lot of these cameras and sensors have actual benefit. I can still easily swivel my head/body around to check my blind spots, but that is not the case with everybody, including my dad. He says he'll never buy a car that doesn't have a backup camera. At least if the camera goes out you can still drive the car without issues. I can't imagine there will be much interest in restoring some of the cars today... no matter the model they really all look the same. A case in point is a RAV4, Honda CRV, Nissan Rogue, etc... they look essentially the same in style. And I get it. When engineers have to design a car with so many of the same parameters like crash testing, and miles per gallon, the more specifics they have to design for, the more the makes will be all the same on a given model. But they are boring. Myself I drive a 2003 Honda CR-V with 200,000 miles. Mechanically it is sound and has no rust, which where I live is the biggest killer of vehicles. Mathematically it always makes sense to fix a car because what little you spend in repairs more than makes up for the replacement cost of the car. For every year extra you get out of it, the more money you save. But with rust that is not the case. Where I live where salt is on the road much of the year, rust is the biggest killer. There just is no saving a rusted out car. But knowing which cars last longer than others is where a person can get ahead. I struggled one year. My car needed fixing so I rented a car to drive while it was in the repair shop and it was a 2024 Toyota RAV4 with 3 miles on it, and my 2003 Honda was in the shop. It was hard to give that up and go back to what essentially amounted to a Model T, but I am quite frugal and the logical thing to do ultimately won out. 1
Shyheels Posted February 11 Posted February 11 I’ve not owned a car in nearly 30 years. I don’t miss it. Boots, bicycles, buses and trains have been my mode of transport all that time, and now I live on a boat. 1
mlroseplant Posted February 11 Posted February 11 I intend to keep my '04 Crown Vic as long as they'll let me, and as long as they keep making parts for it. 1
CrushedVamp Posted February 14 Posted February 14 On 2/11/2025 at 7:12 AM, mlroseplant said: I intend to keep my '04 Crown Vic as long as they'll let me, and as long as they keep making parts for it. I am the same way. My car only has 201,000 miles on it and the garage says they have seen the same model and year go to 450,000 miles. With no rust so far, there is hope it will last awhile. I hope so. I hate debt, have absolutely no debt and do not plan to get any either. It means I have no credit but that is fine by me! I always thought it was an insane financial system where you bust be in debt to have banks loan you money! A co-worker just bought another car yesterday. It is his second $20,000 car in two days. In the two years I have known him he has bought five cars, all with loans, and he wonders why he has NO money. Kind of sad because he should retire but can't. Terrible, terrible spending habits. Not my money or life, but so sad to see just the same.
Shyheels Posted February 14 Posted February 14 Debt free here too - and no car or any plans for one! 1
CrushedVamp Posted February 15 Posted February 15 17 hours ago, Shyheels said: Debt free here too - and no car or any plans for one! I hate cars as they are just a cost. With other stuff, like houses, equipment, tractors or in some cases trucks, you can make money on them, but with personal vehicles they just cost you dearly. More often than not, it's the cars in the driveway that cost most American's their secure financial life. But how could it not? The average cost of a car loan now is $40,000 borrowed.
Shyheels Posted February 15 Posted February 15 And most of the time cars are simply unnecessary - at least over here. We have far more extensive public transport than you do in America. I can get a train to nearly anywhere here in Britain or in the continent. We could do with our trains being a lot nicer, more reliable and cheaper, but we do have them
Cali Posted February 15 Posted February 15 (edited) Just pay cash for your cars. Because of the mountains and earthquake faults (no tunnels), a train ride would take 2.5 hours while the car ride is 25 minutes. Edited February 15 by Cali
Shyheels Posted February 15 Posted February 15 The kind of car that would be cheap enough to buy with cash, for most people, will be the kind of car that requires constant shovel fulls of cash to keep it going.
mlroseplant Posted February 15 Posted February 15 It goes without saying that where I live, a car is not an option. There is no public transportation here, I swear to God. There are city buses in Des Moines, but you have to get there first. Most of my work is outside the bus routes anyway. It used to be you could take the train up to Des Moines, but that was at least 60 years ago. I can remember exploring the abandoned depot as a kid before they finally tore it down. So it's a car for me. Yeah, my $5,000 car does need some love every once in a while, but luckily I have both the skills and facilities to accomplish most anything that does not require a hoist. Insurance is laughably cheap!
Shyheels Posted February 15 Posted February 15 Our public transport still leaves much to be desired - Europe leaves us for dead - but you really can get just about anywhere by bus or train. Living on a boat, and without a car, I have to rely on it. It can be slow and inconvenient but it’s doable for most things. Obviously there are commuters who must have a car because the distance and complexity of the public transport options make getting to work on time and home at a reasonable hour almost impossible. But for most other purposes - shopping, etc - a car really isn’t necessary
CrushedVamp Posted February 16 Posted February 16 On 2/15/2025 at 12:51 AM, Shyheels said: The kind of car that would be cheap enough to buy with cash, for most people, will be the kind of car that requires constant shovel fulls of cash to keep it going. I hear that a lot and it just is not true, at least over here. Mechanically speaking, it always makes sense to fix a car up because the cost of repair is so cheap compared to making monthly payments. I always pay cash for my cars anyway, but in doing the math on my current car it is easy to see why I am doing so well with it. I paid $7000 for it and repairs have cost me $4800 over the 4 years I have owned it. That means the car has cost me $11,800. If I was making payments on a new car, just the payments alone would have been $24,000. In 4 years I have saved $12,200 and my car is still in excellent mechanical shape meaning I have more years left of lief on it. I could put in a new engine or transmission, extend the life of the car by several more years, and still be WAY AHEAD of what a new car would cost. But that is mechanically speaking. What kills cars where I live is rust. But here is where paying cash for older cars really pays off. My car costs me $58 dollars per week in repairs which I also put in $35 a week in gas. So for roughly putting in $100 per week, I net a paycheck of $1800 per week. That is a return on investment of 1700%!! Where the heck could I ever get that kind of return on any other investment. My stock investments average 11% most year and I am lucky to get that, and my real estate nets me 12% per year on average, so as much as people bemoan and wish they could retire, the truth is having a car and going to work will net a person the most possible money for the least outlay in cash. Without question, with those kinds of returns on investment a new car pencils out too, but like most things in life, it is not what you make that matters but how much you spend. Keep the costs down on a 1700% ROI investment and you will reap incredible savings. The price to pay for that is driving around with an old car instead of one that is all shiny and new and has all kinds of new electronic gizmos. 1
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now