Ah, the good ol' "I'm not, but actually am, but not enough that I should get a raise, but I really would like one and less work hours, but I really need to stay longer because I'm so slow at everything I do and am terrible at focusing so I should really be working harder to give you your money's worth, but you're probably not paying me as much as you should be for that work in hindsight" theoretical with yourself and your imagined boss.

Unless there's a bug. Then it is my code and I have to fix it. Immediately. No, I don't want to discuss my thought process for "why I made that decision" I want to fix it. Why are we having a chat about milk pouring technique while it is dripping off the fucking table. Prod is burning and you want to fiddle! (Meanwhile this is a minor bug that nobody has ever actually complained about but just the knowledge that it was my fault...)

Dirty litter boxes increase the chance of urinary tract infection and can speed up their death if the infection reaches their kidneys, literally one of the weakest parts of cats as they age. So no, not "ok whatever". You took responsibility for the life of something. Time to own up to the gross part of that. (Like changing a baby's diaper)

Also, paying close attention to your cat's feces and urine can warn you about internal issues like kidney stones by the shape of the pee or the appearance of the stool. (Seriously, once a day for cleanout isn't remotely enough, no wonder its so gross you don't want to touch it)

I'd say scoop it out, or at least check, every time you see it and dump it out when it gets too stinky, scrub it, dry it, and put in new litter. Even a functional electric one, which according to my brother does work, will need some kind of cleaning at some point so the responsibility is never completely escapable. Seriously though, my brother swears by the electric box he got after his own cat was constantly at the vets from UTIs due to him being the only person ever cleaning her box.

As for the anxiety? This seems like an extreme reaction for a litterbox in comparison to all the other never-ending chores we have to do on the day to day. The litterbox is comparatively easy to work, commute, balancing our bank accounts, or taxes. Are you okay?

Assuming its not hunger or bathroom related, in my experience its because the cat's bored. He enjoys the walks and has fun, and the walk probably fulfills a need to "patrol" his territory which he finds rewarding, but he can't go on the walk often enough - or long enough - for his tastes. So he figures if he yells you'll let him go patrol some more. I'd say redirect him . Play with him in the house for 10-15 minutes, then wrap it up with a kitty treat and he should go take a nap for a bit. You could also hide his food around the house come feeding time to encourage him to patrol his home instead of being focused on doing it outside.

I have no idea if any of that would work, every cat's different. I can distract mine from wanting in rooms (he refused to wear a leash and so cannot go outside so he's vocal at closed doors) just by playing with him or giving him attention usually. But its also temporary and he'll do it again. Alternatively you could do the earplug-ignore thing when he cries at the door/harness but invest additional time to engage him when he's quiet, that way you aren't encouraging the behavior if you don't want to be.

It continues to worsen the longer you try and consider the motivation for the 11 year old. Of which I can think of at least 2, if not more, but I'll spare us all.

I mean, that's arguably incredibly conservative. "The old ways" and all that.

Thank you, I think that helps parse out where I was unclear. There's specifics in the language at play. It makes me wonder how often bad actors prevention of even small distinctions being discussed has made it muddier and harder for everyone else.

I guess my question's always been that since gender is (to my incomplete understanding) a social construct and can change, and transgender people seek to change to a gender that feels more appropriate, how did you (a) know what felt right, (b) that what felt right wasn't completely appropriate for your gender and the active definition of gender needed to change, and (c) where does chemical and surgical transition factor in for a gender based thing when attempting to find for comfortable self? Because that seems like a sex (in the clinical terminology) thing as much as a gender one (which of course there's probably a connection, I guess I'm just not clear where the line really breaks.)

To be clear, I think my questions are entirely too "rationalizing a deep emotional and person thing" so I don't really expect an answer, I've just never been invited to address the question to anyone before.

Didn't the cab companies interfere with that? Or at least lobby hard against it?

On top of some of the commentary here, I'd like to add that I think there's a real chance that WoTC's put some money behind getting it heavily reviewed/boosted, and so more articles about it and wider attention. That is not to undercut its quality, just that I think its layers of support. (I'll admit there's more than a little bit of my distrust of WoTC in that. Like after all their other scandals they need a win to try and suck newbies into the game after so much messing up. And I don't even mean in the last year or something, their release quality for 5e has been abysmal for a long time.)

Additionally Larian played the early access thing very well. Not only did they listen to their ongoing players, and even netted some "tried it didn't like it" people back, it gave time for everyone who was perhaps too into the older isometric BG1&2 titles (like me) to realize the game didn't seem quite like it was for them and not pick it up. So you get clear, mostly good(if outdated) information out there for people to use in researching if they wanted to buy it, helping to avoid a lot of the knee-jerk hate that stuff like Fallout 4 and 76 got from misplaced expectations that could dull the release.

I mean the first two parts are definitely true.But then we stayed for 10+ years attempting to rebuild some form of stability, decided to finally pull out after more than a decade, and what was built broke down disappointingly in the face of the first threat. Tmu, the reasons for that are varied, although some of its definitely on us. We approached the entire region's politics wrong apparently and with a very modern western mindset of a country held together with an idea of some unified identity that doesn't seem to really hold true for the region (or any region at first probably). I believe station/position abandonment in the fracturing nation was problematically common as people rushed back to their homes/families, or just to generally flee, instead of actually being a larger regional barricade against the threat, as an example.
IIRC, there was a similar problem with even the First Continental Army and Congress early on actually. With regional interests often superseding national goals in the minds of individuals and representatives.

So far as power vacuums go, as I alluded to, they had an elected government (there's probably some debate on the accuracy of those elections while being occupied by a foreign government of course) and a standing military that was actively deployed. A not insignificant number of them tried to hold out, to not undercut their efforts, but its also true it wasn't a truly unified defense in the end. Whether or not they would have been a more effective void-filler if we'd stayed longer or left sooner are just huge what-ifs.

There also seems to be a bit of weirdness even surrounding what "conservative" means. It used to mean an intent toward preservation of certain existing institutions/trends and preexisting stability, with a distrust for new institutions that may upset existing social calm. Which often is at odds with beneficial change but isn't inherently against it, favoring instead that it be slow and precise. When I think of myself as conservative that's the concept I have.

The problem is that "conservative" now can also include a group of people for which preserving an existing state (as in condition/mode of being ) is no longer acceptable, the demand either a reverse or entirely new directions.

As an example that's a little less hot button - vouchers for private schools. That's an active novelty and a change from an existing institution, rife with potential long-term impacts on both culture and stability that could be negative, and yet some positions push for it (often without addressing those problems). That's not a conservative position. That's a progressive one (maybe not in the direction someone on the left would want obviously).

Conservative got irrevocably linked with Right due to some preexisting social constructs and the urge to preserve them, but realistically it should hold just as well that a conservative would seek to preserve left-wing establishments as much as right-wing ones, or at least advise any changes to them be slow and incremental to avoid pop-up problems. Admittedly things like technology complicate that due to the speed with which it changes and demands response.