Husky owners get the weirdest complaints

People often say huskies shouldn't be kept outside in the cold. Another claim is that huskies get too much exercise. 
     Just looking at the biology and behaviour of this breed shows how ridiculous this is. (Nevermind the preferences/needs of the individual dogs themselves!)
     It's intuitive, even for someone like me who's never spent time with a husky before, that these are nonsense concerns.

'You exercise your husky too much' is illogical

Owners take their huskies out for several long walks a day. 
     This would be too much exercise for most breeds; too much exercise damages bones/muscles/tendons etc. So, the thinking goes, if these walks are dangerous then this thus means huskies are exercised too much.
     Now, huskies can quickly pull a heavy sled for hours over bumpy terrain. It was what they were bred for. So several long walks a day with no pulling wouldn't be too many! If it's not enough, it can't concurrently be too much.
     Each breed has its own requirements, as does each individual dog. So just like the husky breed requires more exercise than other breeds, an individual husky with bad joints or some other mobility-related issue clearly shouldn't be walked as much as other huskies.
     But one essential thing is clear: the blanket statement that huskies get exercised too much is faulty.

'Don't leave huskies out in the cold' is illogical

In general, dogs shouldn't be kept outside, especially at night or in the cold. So the above statement has good intentions. But when looking at huskies specifically, good intentions morph into bad realities.
     Huskies were bred for the Arctic environment. An area of permanent snow, ice and below-freezing temperatures. Like any Arctic animal, huskies adapted to survive the Arctic's conditions with ease. 
     Igloos can be too warm for huskies and thus these dogs are more comfortable outside. This is the case even at night when the temperature plummits, even in blizzards/snowstorms. If it's particularly harsh, the husky just curls up in a ball, unwinding when the worst of it is over.
     Pet huskies tend to live in temperate climates with central heating. If huskies can survive in the harshness of the Arctic, staying out overnight in a snowy garden in Europe or continental America is no problem at all. If a husky finds an igloo too hot, then of course this modern housing could be uncomfortable.
     So, people complain dogs shouldn't be kept outside because it's cruel for the dog. Then they apply this thinking to huskies. Yet the thing they suggest to prevent cruelness to huskies is itself cruel for huskies.

'Huskies should be always be left in the cold' is illogical

This isn't to advocate that huskies should only be kept outside in the cold. Rather, most prefer it and should be allowed the option to stay outside if that's what it wants.
     Some huskies obviously don't like the cold. Maybe they can't keep themselves warm, such as having a light coat or being either ill/malnourished. Other huskies may have trauma related to the outside, cold or night.
     Moreover, just because a husky is adapted to surviving the cold doesn't automatically mean it can't also enjoy being warm. It simply depends on what conditions that specific dog thrives in. 
     Just because the conditions huskies usually thrive in are different from other dogs doesn't make those conditions wrong for huskies. Likewise, just like not every dog breed thrives in the same condition, so too will not every husky thrive in the same conditions.

Weird complaints are unnecessary complaints

So yes. A little bit of thinking about huskies goes a long way. Otherwise problems that don't exist get created out of nothing. Even if people want to waste their time on that, they've no need to disturb huskies and their humans!

Why asking 'When will you have kids?' is bad

This assumes that someone is able to have children and even wants children in the first place. It ignores what the possible child needs in place of what adults want.

Needs of a Child

If nothing else, a child should feel wanted. 

     Anything less than this is thoughtless and cruel. So having a child when you don't want a child means you are choosing to make an innocent kid feel unwanted. 

     Children will pick up on it. Their sense of self-worth will deteriarate and cause lifelong issues. Either they feel worthless and miserable and hide themselves away all their life. Or they inflate their ego to compensate for this lack.

     The willing choice to create a child despite all this is awful.

Bringing new life into the world is a huge responsibility. 

     You shouldn't take on any responsibility unless you think you are able to do it, if you want to do it and if you need to do it. To agree to something when you know you can't fulfil these criteria is irresponsible. 

     The more important the responsibility, the more important these criteria are. What could be more important than looking after new life? 

     Kids will always be born so no-one needs to do it, especially if they don't want to do so. Thus this criteria isn't a justification to ignore the other two.

Wanting Children

Society, parents, siblings, friends, foworkers... everyone expects everyone else to want kids. 

     But some people just don't want children. Anyone 'abnormal' enough to be on Team No Kids often has to justify this decision as if that personal decision is everyone's business. 

     Then once an explanation's been forced out, people will say something like, "You'll think differently one day." Saying something like that shows they haven't bothered to listen to the answer they've forced someone to say!

     Yes, many people don't want the child yet fall in love once it's in their arms. But just because this happens to many doesn't mean it will happen to all. So saying 'you may not want it now but when you have it you will', it's a big risk. That's a childs life you're gambling with.

Having a child despite not wanting one risks the parent feeling resentment towards it. 

     This results in indifference and negligence through to cruelty and abuse. That's not a good environment for the child (or the adult, but obviously the child's wellbeing is more important). 

     Hence no-one should plan for a child unless they truly want one for themselves, not because others want them to have one.

Is it selfish not to have children?

Others say it's selfish to not have kids. 

     But all justifications for this view involve how it makes someone else feel. They're forcing you to do something you don't want for their own benefit. Surely that's what's selfish? 

     One such explanation for its supposed-selfishness is that your parents want grandkids. How is your parents wanting grandkids more important than you not wanting kids? You're the one that has to live with and raise the child so your wants are definitely more important.

     

Another explanation as to why it's 'selfish' is that you need kids so that there's someone to look after you in your old age. 

     But if you have kids, it doesn't guarantee that they will look after you; then their creation is essentially meaningless which is horrible. If your kids don't look after you, paid carers do it instead; giving someone the opportunity to have a career isn't selfish. 

     This I say to those that make this argument. "So, you want to have kids in order to force those kids to look after you? You are creating your own personal workforce that you guilt-trip into taking on a specialised caring role whilst they're working and most likely raising their own children? That's what sounds selfish."

     If this is reason someone has kids, it's a selfish reason to have kids. It's not an explanation of why it's selfish not to have kids.

Fertility Issues

Imagine that the couple has fertility issues (either one or both members). 

     Every time they're asked for kids, they're reminded of these issues. This can make them feel sad and worthless, pointless and broken. 

     People often feel resentment towards an infertile partner, sometimes even regretting dating them. This happens even if both are infertile! 

     None of these emotions are ideal. This is the main reason why no-one should ask a couple when/if they're having kids. It's a recipe for heartbreak.

Yes, telling people stops these questions.

     But then people will mention IVF, adoption, fostering etc. As if the couple doesn't already know this! Sure, it comes from a place of love and reassurance. 

     But you're allowed to grieve one thing before finding a solution to it. You're allowed to be sad about something even when you know there are viable alternatives. For someone's first response to be about other possubilities dismisses the hurt and sense of failure infertile people experience. 

     Though some think these options don't make 'real' kids, that they aren't truly yours. Parents go through so much effort to get them so having these kids dismissed, to be made to seem lesser, is heartbreaking. Especially when that's their only path to parenthood. No wonder people can be put off this route. 

Also, fertility is a health matter: medical information is legally confidential. If people keep asking about kids, it can make you feel obligated to share. 

     Plus you anticipate the emotions others will feel: pity, disappointment, bereavement, anger. It's not nice to receive these, so the anticipation can lead to anxiety and dread. 

     But then what if they feel none of this, like it doesn't even matter? That would probably hurt most of all.

Final Thoughts

If people want babies, they will talk about babies. A lot. So it's really easy to know if it's a safe topic. 

     But so much can go wrong along the way that it should only be approached with care, not expectations. At the end of the day, it's no-one's business so no-one should feel entitled enough to bring it up about anyone but themselves. 

     That's why asking 'When will you have kids?' is bad.This assumes that someone is able to have children and even wants children in the first place. It ignores what the possible child needs in place of what adults want.

Spyro Reignited Trilogy

 Watching my brother play 'Spyro 2: Gateway to Glimmer' was a staple of my childhood. 
     Enamoured, I later bought the third then first games for myself. Naturally, the release of the 'Reignited Trilogy' excited me.
     This isn't a critique of the games themselves. Rather, it's of their adaptation from the original versions into the new ones. I shall look at visuals, music and gameplay. (The story was unaltered so that won't be critiqued.)

Good Visuals

Visuals were updated, making use of modern technologies.
     The images are far more crisp. There are less pointy pixles, meaning shapes are smoother* and hence more natural. (*Except for, obviously, horns and selected architecture etc.)
     Also, colours are much brighter. Considering Spyro takes place in fantastical worlds, this updated vibrancy adds and accentuates the magic. 
     These games were beautiful in their original state, but now? Stunning.

Elora Visuals

One thing I disliked was the design of Elora (the faun leader from 'Spyro: Gateway to Glimmer'.)
     All characters/enemies have updated looks. As this remasterimg was done by the Crash Bandicoot team, it is unsurprising that they now look Crash-esque.
     But Elora's design went too far. She looks like she's in the Crash roster, not the Spyro one. Not only that but her new design simply didn't fit in with the Spyro worlds. Her design was utterly out of place.
     There have been plenty of Spyro-Crash crossover games. Spyro portals to other worlds; Crash travels to other dimension. So maybe the Reignited Trilogy takes place in a more Crash-like universe? Different multiverse versions of Spyro are established canon (think the Legend of Spyro or Skylanders). What's another?
     Thus Elora looking so Crash-like isn't unfeasible in explanation. Yet if this is the explanation, one would expect all the characters to have Crash over Spyro visuals. Which they don't.
     Plus this altered look really interfered with nostalgia, and that decision was unfeasible. Also, her new design didn't fit with the surroundings and environment of the Spyro worlds: that, too, was unfeasible.

Music

Each world has its own music for its unique identity, yet the sound effects are the same in all for consistency. How the Reignited team handled updating this was essential to their success.
     Sound effects, such as Spyro collecting gems and Sparx eating butterflies, were an definitive part of the games' magic. The Reignited Trilogy kept this magic. Perfect choice.
     These new games had the option to play the original music in the levels and home worlds. This meant the players could have as authentic an experience as they wanted.
     However, the automatic option was for new music. All these new pieces suited their levels so well, capturing their personal atmospheres with ease. 
     Some people didn't even realise they were new pieces of music because they were so complementary! For the Reignited team to have managed this is truly impressive.
     Without a doubt, the Reignited team did an amazing job.

Gameplay

How a game plays, how if feels in your hands, is an essential part of the experience. Gaming is an interactive medium, ultimately.
     The gameplay seemed to be a like-for-like copy of the original games. This was appreciated: the game already looked different (the sharper visuals), so for it to also feel different would've ruined the continuity. 
     However, I will note that the chases/supercharging felt easier than before, whereas flying/bosses felt harder. But why would thet change these controls though not others? These features weren't bad so an update was unnecessary.
     Perhaps I'm the one that's changed. My brain have matured since my childhood days of playing the original Spyro. This is relevant because different age groups are better at certain tasks/thought processing etc. Combine this with being out of practice gaming and various health concerns, it's a certainty that my abilities and capabilities have changed since back then.
     Whatever the case on why this limited selection of controls felt different, the fact remains that the rest were identical to the original game. Thus the Reignited Trilogy still felt like Spyro and the nostalgia factor was in full force.

Conclusion

It's clear my view is largely positive.
     With visuals, music and gameplay, a game employs all the senses it possibly can (sight, hearing, touch). It is what determines the game's experience. 
     In altering these things, the Reignited team could have removed what made the Spyro experience unique. They could have removed what made Spyro Spyro. Despite these difficultiea, the team preserved the identity and the sense of nostalgia. 
     For the team to have managed this is remarkable. (Definitely worth coming out of gaming retirement; definitely worth the only game critique I shall ever do.)

Komodo Dragons don't Hunt with Bacteria

Komodo dragons are largest extant monitor lizard species, living on Komodo and other nearby islands in Indonesia.
     Many people think these creatures hunt with bacteria-laced teeth. They bite their prey then follow it, waiting for it to die from bacterial infection. 
     However, this is simply not the case. (Even when it looks like it, there is a more plausible explanation.)
     Three sections include: bacteria and its origin; bacteria and the immune system; and bacteria and water buffalo.

Bacteria and its Origin

Where do people think this bacteria comes from?
     Some think Komodo dragons develop the dangerous bacteria by letting meat rot in their mouths. But dragons wipe their mouths on the ground after eating. Plus nobody sees meat in dragon mouths post-eating. Dragons can't develop bacteria from rotting mouth-meat if there is no meat left to rot in the mouth.
     Others think dragons are born housing dangerous bacteria in their mouths. But researchers have swabbed the mouths of dragons, from the newly-hatched to adults. No dangerous bacteria was found. This rules out this explanation for the theory.
     As dragons don't have dangerous bacteria in their mouths, they obviously can't hunt with bacteria.

Bacteria and the Immune System

Komodo dragons have really good immune systems (ImSy). 
     The ImSy destroys bacteria: the better the ImSy, the more bacteria gets destroyed. So, as dragons have a good ImSy, bacteria in their bodies would definitely be destroyed. Including in the mouth. 
     Even if dragons did let meat rot in their mouths, the ImSy would attack it until it was gone. And clearly they can't hunt with bacteria if their own body body is destroying said bacteria.

Bacteria and Water Buffalo

Sometimes, a water buffalo is bitten by a Komodo dragon and later dies of bacterial infection. But this is easily explained.
     When water buffalo are in danger, they flee to water. (For example, being bitten then followed by a Komodo dragon.) But on Komodo Island, water pools are small, stagnant and hot. 
     This means the animal dung are neither broken down nor taken away. No clean water comes in and no dirty water can flow out. So there's no opportunity for the pool to be cleaned of dung and hence bacteria.
     Heat evaporates the water, leaving the remaining dung-water more concentrated (less water, same dung levels). Plus the heat encourages the dung-sourced bacteria to multiply. 
     Basically, the water is full of bacteria. Open wounds are prone to bacterial infection. Water buffalo bitten by dragons go into this water. Of course they'll catch then die from bacterial infection!
     Hence to say the bacteria is sourced from the mouths of the dragons simply doesn't make sense.

Conclusion

Evidentally, dragons don't hunt with mouth bacteria. 
     In the scientific community, at least, this is an accepted fact. Yet the false knowledge remains abundant amongst the public. 
     But that doesn't mean Komodo dragon conflict and drama among scientists is gone. Now they argue over whether dragons use venom to hunt (or if they even have venom in the first place). 
     I'll leave them to it.

UK vs USA: Purse, Wallet, Handbag

Terminology

In the UK, purses hold the money, cards and IDs of women. Wallets achieve this function for men. Woman have handbags to carry their purse and other belongings (gloves, tissues, make-up, phone, keys etc).

In the USA, handbags are called purses and purses are called wallets. And women carry these wallets inside their purses. 

Clearly the definitions between these different English variants don't allign.

Handbags

This isn't the whole story, however.

     In American fashion, 'handbag' is used alongside 'purse'. They aren't separate things (like they are in the UK). 

     Instead, they're differentiated by size. In their minds, 'handbag' is a good-sized, useful bag whereas a 'purse' is smaller and designed for fashion rather than utility. 

     So basically, this kind of American purse isn't a British purse and is barely a British handbag.

Wallets

In Britian, wallets and purses have completely different designs from each other. Wallets are flat, folded, and fit in a pocket. Purses, meanwhile, are thick, bulky and certainly do not fit in women's pockets.

Some wallets are designed to carry things like passports and police warrant cards. 

     Like a regular wallet, these are flat and foldable, fit inside a pocket and contain identification. They fulfil all wallet criteria except for money. 

     (As with anything, something doesn't have to fulfil all criteria to be counted as part of something. Think languages, ethnicities, mental health disorders etc.)

This modern meaning for wallet is from the 1800s. 

     'Wallet' in the 14th century meant 'bag' or 'knapsack'. Shakespeare used it to mean 'backpack' in the 16th century. 

     So, handbags are historically more analogous to wallets than to purses. So if the name either of these money-holders was to be used for a handbag, the expectation certainly shouldn't be 'purse'! 

Purse

The word 'purse' comes from Old English 'purs', descending ultimately from the Ancient Greek 'byrsa'. This 'byrsa', translating as '(animal) hide, leather', was designed to hold coins. 

Modern day British purses still carry money/coins (whether cards and/or cash). So the UK purpose for the purse matches the Ancient Greek/Latin purpose for the purse. The American version does not.

Murse/Man-Purse

In America, men can have purses, called a 'man-purse' or a 'murse'. 

     In design, murses are indestinguishable from already-existing satchels or messenger bags. 

     Satchels carry books. Messenger bags carry post ('mail' in America) and, more recently, clothing. Both are worn like a purse, rather than on the back like other bags.

     Murses are used to carry everything a purse, satchel and messenger bag carries. 

Why call It a 'murse'?

     A murse has the purpose of purses, satchels and messenger bags, but can look like the latter two. But both designs have purse-purpose added to them. So the addition of purse-purpose is the commonality between them.

     There's no handy way to modify 'satchel' or 'messenger bag' to mean also the other, plus purse. But mixing purse with 'man' indicates all three. Not perfect, but it works.

     Can Americans resist calling any kind of bag a purse? They already did it with handbags. Why not with satchels and messenger bags, too?

     Besides, male and female money-holders (wallets) also have utterly differently designs. Maybe this unisex mindset extended to bags for personal items (purses), too.

Man-Bag

In the UK, men don't have a murse but they do have a man-bag. 

     They're small and are designed like bumbags ('fanny pack' in America'). They are worn like a murse. They carry everything a handbag would. 

     However, their size means they can't carry what a satchel or messenger bag does. So if any kind of male bag were to have a purse-like name, one wpuld expect it to be a man-bag. 

Final Thoughts

It boils down to a simple UK-US distinction.

     In the UK, terminology for this is based upon design, hence tending to male/female-specific words.

     In the USA, terminology for this is based on purpose, hence tending to unisex words.

All this is about the names of objects used to transport money securely. 

     Money-holders (wallets/purse) carry money. Money-carriers (handbags/purses) carry money-holders. When these objects were renamed, the new terms were an already-related term.

     The female money-holder was given the name of the male money-holder (purse to wallet), becoming unisex.

     The money-carrier was given the name of female money-holder (handbag to purse).

     The male money-holder was given an altered name of the female money-holder (satchel/messenger bag to man-purse), also becoming unisex.

Are polar bears the largest land predators?

Polar bears are the largest extant predator that is adapted for land. That's indisputable. But labelling them as 'land predators' strikes me as an odd choice.

Marine-based Animals as Food

To be land predators, polar bears would have to hunt on land.
     Polar bears are creatures of water.
Polar bears hunt on sea ice. Ice, being water, cannot be classified as 'land'. 
     Ice is where they spend most of their time. Why they developed their camoflage. Why they can swim for days on end. Everything that makes a polar bear a polar bear is directly related to cold seas.
     All the species that polar bears rely upon for food (such as seals, walrus and whales) are marine creatures. Marine, as in not terrestrial, as in not land.

Yes, polar bears do scavenge washed-up animals on the shore. 
     But these are its usual marine prey of seals, walrus and whales. They might be eaten on land, but they were delivered unto land via the sea. 
     Plus, as this is scavanging, not predation, this behaviour can't be used to show polar bears are land predators.

Terrestrial-based Animals as Food

Yes, polar bears can eat land-based food. 
     If polar bears are on shore for long enough, fasting becomes difficult, so they will look for food on land. But this food lacks the high-energy blubber necessary to keep polar bear bodies working. 
     Also, polar bears typically scavenge food whilst on land rather than hunting it. As seen previously with eating washed-up marine life, scavanging doesn't count as predation.  
     Hence even these periods of land-based eating can't really be called 'land predation'.

Nature documentaries often tout that polar bears are the only animal that will purposefully hunt humans. 
     Yet this is documented out on the ice so it's not land predation. Even if polar bears did hunt humans on land, humans lack the blubber polar bears need to survive, so such a landbased diet would kill the polar bear. 
     Humans could only ever supplement the current marine diet of polar bears. One can't reclassify their overarchingnhunting stategy based on such a minor behaviour. To be land predators, land-based prey would have to be enough to sustain them (which it is not).
     Hence this doesn't make a compelling argument for polar bears being land predators.

Final Thoughts?

Polar bears are water-based hunters that hunt water-based prey. Thus choosing to describe polar bears as 'land predators' is completely off.