> Wrong answer. The ice cream and chocolate store was in competition with every other store in the mall. Time or money spent at the GAP can't be time or money spent here.
I would have argued that this is also the wrong answer, as without the GAP to bring people to the mall, nobody would be trafficking their little ice cream store at all. Did a mall vendor really not understand the reason they had opened up shop in a mall?
Maybe the ice cream was just that good, and GAP was lucky to be able to sell their polo shirts to ice cream enthusiasts who'd otherwise have bought them at Old Navy.
It all dates back to the Andrew Messaging System at CMU, developed in the 1980's. Originally the format was "<username>+<keyword>+<args>@example.net" where the mail server would interpret the keyword and arguments to route the message in whatever unique way that keyword would dictate (e.g. bob+dist+~/mailinglist@example.net would read the file mailinglist in Bob's home directory and deliver the email to addresses listed in it). If the keyword was not recognized, it would just deliver normally. So bob@example.net and bob+alias@example.net were equivalent, and could be used to filter after the fact if desired.
I was at my desk here at work (yes, believe it or not, I still work at the same place I did 25 years ago) and as soon as it happened, all the major newspaper websites got overwhelmed and became unreachable. I ended up getting news from the Times of India's website because it was keeping up with the story but wasn't getting hit as hard as the others.
Same, Drudge Report was one of the only sites that actually loaded consistently for me that morning. I think BBC may have held up a bit better than US news sites too. I remember the first stories trickling in thought it was like a Cessna or something else small that hit, and by the time TV was live and on the scene, the time delta between what you saw on TV versus what was reported online was comically large. Funny how these days it's really not much different, news sites tend to lag social media by a larger amount than I'd expect for 2026, and it's still publishing the same level of speculation and kind of vague, glossed over details (compared to just watching videos of the event semi-realtime)
Same! I remember a co-worker getting a call from a relative about it so I went to cnn.com. ...only to see it time out. Same with usatoday.com and abcnews.com. At that point I knew that something was happening.
I then happened to remember that abcnews.com.au existed and figured Australia's websites weren't getting hit quite as hard as ours, and I was right. It was front page news there.
We all left the office (which was in Center City Philadelphia) a few minutes later.
I find there is something indescribably fascinating with mechanical timepieces. I'm more of a clock guy than a watch guy, though I've had plenty of watches apart, and the two disciplines merge in many places. I've learned so many new mechanical skills in my now six year journey to be able to repair these things, and to learn to repair them is to learn to make them, as you need to know how to fabricate every single piece in order to be able to repair any movement, thus why clock and watch repairers are called clockmakers and watchmakers.
I'm in a similar boat and I find it really hard to talk watches with folks who are experienced in the way of the Rolex AD.
I really enjoy cheaper vintage watches that call back to when everyone had one of them on their wrist.
Something about a semi-autonomous machine ticking away on your wrist, whether you're looking at it or not, using no electricity, is just intrinsically satisfying to me.
I got into watch servicing pre-covid, but never got into actual fabrication of parts. I mention pre-covid because it really got popular when everyone was stuck inside and there was a sudden loss of cheap ebay parts watches to pick from.
Rolex ADs are just a para-social gatekeeper for Veblen goods, but there's a huge resurgence in the entry level Swiss Automatic space with some fantastic value propositions in the likes of the enormously popular Tissot PRX 80 line (hello Rolex Land-dweller), or the more recent output from smaller marques like Christoper Ward who are producing COSC certified swiss-made watches for about 4x markup whilst Omega and the rest are jacking up prices quarter on quarter.
There is a particular irony about Rolex, as historically they made good quality tool watches, aimed at divers, pilots, scientists etc. These were affordable, akin to a photographer buying a good quality affordable camera. It's bizarre to see these workaday watches with prices jacked up astronomically and sold as luxury goods.
It's also sad to see Omega beginning to play this game, though at the moment they are the only company using the brilliant coaxial escarpment which any watch geek has to appreciate.
Whilst you mention decent entry level Swiss watches, don't forget the humble Seiko 5. Models are available for less than £100, use a wonderfully basic entirely in-house movement and (if you are vain enough to care about these things) will get a nod from any self-respecting watch geek.
Yeah, it's always interesting when I run into watch guys --- my father's 27-jewel Seiko is too large for my wrist, and the date wheel is broken (and I can't find anyone willing to fix it w/o a donor watch), so I wear quite modest watches such as a Timex Indiglo, or a Seiko Solar --- folks are understanding and sympathetic and almost always have stories about repairs, or watches which they are hoping to have the chance to buy.
I've never owned a mechanical watch(did just recently buy an Orient solar watch after I lost my fitbit while traveling and after a couple weeks, realised the only feature I actually missed was having the time on my wrist), but I like watching the channel Wristwatch Revival on youtube. That guy will often repair old watches that most watchmakers won't touch, sent in by viewers, and make content out of it. And he especially loves taking on watches thathave sentimental value for the owner.
He also recently started a watch repair shop specifically catering to cases most watchmakers won't accept, might be worth checking out.
Tempting, but "Services start at $1,750" --- I could buy multiple replacements for that, or make a downpayment on the Seiko Grandmaster or GPS which I want...
That said, I'll keep it in mind and maybe if I come across a windfall will apply thusly....
For a Seiko, I'll also recommend https://www.theseikologist.com/. As his name suggests, he specializes in Seikos and has a large stock of vintage Seiko parts which are hard to source. Though, it's still not cheap. I have a broken Seiko chronograph from the 70s and he quoted $500 to just do the watch equivalent of a tune up. He can't give a better estimate without opening it up, which is understandable.
If it isn't a hardship, I do recommend fixing your dad's watch. Sentimental pieces are always special.
Wear whatever makes you happy without apology. Rolex, Timex, Apple Watch. Whatever. I find a large inverse relation between people who care about the cost of the watch you wear and people who are actually interested in the mechanical function of a watch.
One of the draws of mechanical watches compared to digital is that they, in theory, can always be repaired and will last a lifetime. In reality, not so much since the cost to do maintenance or repair is astronomical compared to buying a new watch, and one that does not have any surprise costs.
I had an automatic that was my "one and done" watch - a cheap Citizen diver - I wore it 24/7 until it started losing minutes per day. While looking into who or where I could fix it, I bought a G-Shock out of curiosity and never wore a mechanical watch again.
You should have said "to buying a new cheap watch".
The average cost of maintenance and worn-out parts' replacement for a self-winding Omega (worth 7k+) was about $800 in 2020, done once every 10 years.
This reads so much like an urban legend, that I had to poke around a bit. It appears that it was a piece of fiction written by a Williston Fisk for Harper's Weekly in 1898, and has been given various backstories as time went on.
I'm reminded of when my son, who was six at the time, came into the house and announced that he and the neighbor's boy, nine, were building a bomb, and that he needed to get some stuff from the pantry. When I investigated what exactly was going on, they were putting "hot" things like black pepper and Tabasco into a plastic bowl and were going to "set it off" with a match.
Thankfully, that complete failure seems to have been the end of either of their mad scientist careers, as they are now twenty and twenty-three, and both well-adjusted, peaceful members of the community.
When I was 5 or so, I was convinced that if I dropped a bowl of hot water into a bucket of cold water, I'd get big explosion. That experiment yielding lukewarm water ended my mad scientist career.
When I was 7 or 8 a friend and I crimped the heads off strike-anywhere match sticks, wrapped them in foil, and struck them with hammers and rocks. They were quite loud, one even set off a sound-activated toy inside the house.
I make no claims as to how well adjusted I am, but I've at least survived 40-odd years of life since then.
When I was 12, I made a "smoke bomb" by placing a fire cracker in the bottom of a tube and topping it up with powdered clay. It shoot out a 4 m tall plume of dust, which was cool and all, but I thought it would look a lot more impressive with a black plume.
So I painstakingly ground down some charcoal to fine dust and redid the same experiment. That gave a much more impressive boom, but no dust plume, which puzzled me until I learned about dust explosions.
Age eleven and had access to a chemistry set that a relative gifted. It had sulfur, but the saltpeter, and charcoal came from elsewhere. The 1960s encyclopedia had the instructions.
This is actually a fun one, and kinda has some parallels to building a nuclear weapon.
I tried this as a grownup because I finally managed to get my hands on saltpeter (could only dream of it when kid). Followed the instructions, mixed everything in correct ratios, lit it with great care and fanfare and... hiss fizzle. I was so disappointed! I think it came down to purity of ingredients and not enough surface area.
Point is, there are certain details of the process required to make it truly work, that are not readily known; in a similar way with nuclear energy, the theory is pretty well known but some nitty gritty details like the implosion or detonator design are not.
As a kid I found saltpeter at an old-fashioned pharmacy and made gunpowder, and it also barely fizzled. I think you have to grind the ingredients much finer than a kid has patience for.
To a point. Plenty of people from previous generations with missing digits and hands thanks to play with commonly available fireworks of the area (Australia based, so no idea how common that remains in the US).
My own experiments from my youth also one time resulted in some shrapnel punching through a 5 inch thick concrete tile very close to someone’s head (thought we were safe behind said tiles).
Get involved with the kids blowing stuff up so the danger is within reasonable bounds.
Thank God they didn't tell a chatbot about their little experiment. Their lives could have been ruined right there if the chatbot operator snitched on them and ordered a SWAT raid on your house.
When I was younger in rural Appalachia, my local drug store still sold "chemicals" and I purchased salt peter and sulfur and proceeded to attempt to make smoke bombs. Didn't have a double boiler, so attempted to make it in the microwave. Needless to say, it didn't go too well.
I blame my dad though, he found the recipe online and printed it off at work to bring to me.
I ended up with an interest, since I was a toddler my parents tell me, that I cannot stay local for- wild cats. Unfortunately, I have to travel the entire globe to be able to see them in their natural habitats. But no matter where I go, there are always local birders, and locally to me there are tons of different birds. The only wild cats here are bobcats, which are very cool, but I've seen and photographed them a lot already. I wish I was interested in the birds.
> a gazelle doesn’t look up at the lion that killed it by outrunning it and the snapping its neck
I know this is tangential to your point, but lions don't really hunt that way. They ambush, as they could never outrun a gazelle, and then they don't snap its neck unless unintentionally. They tend to just start eating it while it is still alive. It's quite brutal to watch.
reply