Traveling: I sometimes have multiple trips lined up, so I put all relevant items for each trip in a seperate plastic folder. Items that are not free yet get replaced by a small piece of paper like "train discount card". That makes sure I do not forget travel specific items.

In general I use a packing list that I regularly update before and after each trip. I also unpack after the trip and check back on the checklist to see if I packed something needed that is not on the list yet. Afterwards I evaluate the items and write that in a seperate column to see over multiple trips if an item is never used (which might indicate I do not need it) or regularly needed but not brought or understocked.

Then I have a box with all the items I mostly use only while travelling. That makes packing these much easier. If my travelrate goes up someday I probably get doubles of most items.

My list also includes actions to before the trip (charge batteries, cut nails) and process goals like having packed a day early and stress free.

The results so far are a much more relaxed time while packing. I am faster and rarely forget anything. I still want to look through the data collected on my last 20+ trips and reorder everything, maybe put in a formular for quantities, or group items that only belong to specific types of trips (long, short, camping, summer, winter).

I found that for me travelling even a crudely done checklist is better than none.

That some people steadily complain about some activity they regularly voluntarily participate at is an existing phenomenon, but not something specific to spectator sports.

Also, even if the very act of watching the match is unpleasant, it may be offset by subsequent pleasant discussions about the game, to which having seen it is a natural prerequisite. And even if the discussions weren't pleasant, they may be an easy way to strengthen tribal membership.

What exactly is stupid here?

1. Sports is fun to watch for the same reason watching any other form of skilled competition can be fun.

2. Identifying with a far removed team is a way to join a tribe, and get all the fun results thereof. It doesn't matter that much that you're identifying with a bunch of players who are hired by an organization that is nominally affiliated with a location far away from you. People subscribe to really tenuous group membership all the time: they feel affiliated with faraway centers of government, ideologies that have no geographic location, etc. What does matter is being able to find people, preferably nearby and in person, you can signal your group affiliation to.

Why do people watch far removed teams playing sports?

I think I was one of the ones who "failed" to send in a sample. I was told I'd be contacted at some point. I was not (as far as I can tell) contacted at some point. Maybe this happened with other people?

(Unless you are Summer Glau, of course.)

Words can not express how awesome it would be if Summer Glau was a LW regular.

Do you have a specific example of a pro-cryonics lie? Because as far as I can tell, Mike is arguing for incompetence and not dishonesty or ideological bias as the culprit.

I hope you appreciate the irony of bringing up Darwin's articles on the quality of cryopreservation in the context of someone demanding articles on quality by someone not associated with cryonics institutes.

Well, that doesn't seem too difficult -

(one that doesn't originate with a cryonics institute)

Oh.

So, who exactly do you expect to be doing this analysis? The most competent candidates are the cryobiologists, and they are ideologically committed to cryonics not working* and have in the past demonstrated their dishonesty**.

* Literally; I understand the bylaw banning any cryonicists from the main cryobiology association is still in effect. ** eg. by claiming on TV cryonics couldn't work because of the 'exploding lysosomes post-death' theory, even after experiments had disproven the theory.

I'm too drunk to comment.

Apparently not.