Hello. I'm new here. I've had OCD in the past as a middle school/teem with rituals. And they went away. I've always been one to unplug stuff if leaving for several days but wouldn't double check that I did. 2 years ago the toilet in my master bath had a leak and when I got home from work our upstairs mastehallway had inches of water, plus it's a 3 story townhouse and it leaked through into the dining room below and then down in the basement room. We've since repaired that but within a couple months I was having OCD type checking/compulsions and I feel understandably so. But now I'm tired of it. It's taking so much time to leave my house. I feel anxious when driving more than 30 miles away. I'll drive back to check my garage door is shut. I have to check to make sure everyday: shower is off, toilet isn't leaking, faucet is off, heater unplugged, kitchen faucet is not on, toaster unplugged, all doors locked, dryer is off and then I'll go back upstairs if it "doesn't feel right" and recheck again and maybe again.
Has anyone been able to stop doing these checks and if so how did you exposure therapy? What types of things did you do or say to stop the checking.
It's to the point where I've stared at a turned off faucet for a minute not trusting my eyes that its turned off, or will touch the faceplate an outlet to feel nothing is there. I even make sure my fridge is closed??? Which makes no sense.
Anyways, thank you for any advice!

I’ve been operating at 110% for a while now. A good while. I’ve got a husband and 3 kids, and my life is utterly relentless. I am not my own individual self anymore. I basically exist to serve everyone else. I do every damn thing. Yes there is a man that lives here that “helps” but how helpful is it when I have to constantly tell the man what needs to be done, when it needs to be done, how to do it, when the kids need something, what time their appointments are, etc. I have 2 toddlers and 1 preteen. My house is akin to a zoo on crack. There’s lights on all day, because the man that lives here doesn’t seem to know how to turn off a light, the toddlers don’t nap anymore, and they are always hungry but never seem to take more than 2 bites of food, my preteen rolls her eyes at everything, husband works nights and can somehow sleep through every thing and I wouldn’t be surprised if he slept right through a tornado. My home is no longer my sanctuary because it’s become a place of high stress. I am literally on my feet from 6am to 10pm with my only break being the job I work at. I work full time and get to spend my 2 days off doing everything my husband just disregards all week, such as the grocery shopping (his idea of grocery shopping is buying enough food ingredients for ONE meal), the cleaning (he hasn’t cleaned the bathtub in 2 months, I’ve counted), and rest of boring things like washing the car, taking out trash, and spending some time with the kids. So basically I have no days off.
I cried to myself in my room on Monday night. Here is everything I did on that day from sun up to sun down:
6am: woke up for work 7am: went outside to warm up my car and take all the bags to it (lunch bags, diaper bag, purse) 7:30am: dropped off kids to MIL house/school for the day 8am: stopped by a breakfast joint and got myself food 8:30-5pm: work 5:15pm: arrive home 5:30pm: cook dinneeat/feed kids 6:30-7pm: clean up toys/prepare for bath time 7:15-8:15pm: bath time/dressed for bed (because I have to do 2 toddlers) 8:15-8:45pm: pack their lunches, pack my lunch, pack their clothes for tomorrow. 8:50-9ish: brush toddlers teeth, brush my teeth 9:15-9:30: read bedtime stories to toddlers - husband leaves for work 10:00pm: when toddlers are finally tired enough to fall asleep
My husband’s daily schedule:
7:00am: arrive home from work 7:30-3:00pm: sleep 3:45-4pm: picks up kids (Proceeds to spend an hour at his mom’s house) 5:00pm: arrives home, possibly wash the dishes 5:30-7pm: does nothing but watch tv 7pm-9:20pm: takes a pre-work nap 9:30-9:45pm: leaves for work
Do you guys see the disparity or is it just me?? So because I walk around like a zombie all week long with a slight attitude, husband claims he has no idea why I’ve become the way I am. I’m dead inside. My legs burn at the end of the night. I’m sad for myself. I don’t feel like a wife, I feel like an unpaid maid and nanny. I don’t even get a thank you or just a hug. I’m breaking down slowly inside but I keep going because I have to, I love my kids. I’ve tried bringing ALL this up to the man who lives here but it falls each time on deaf ears. He has no empathy or understanding of my feelings. I’ve given up.
If you’ve gotten this far, I appreciate you for reading. It felt good getting this out.
TLDR: My husband is basically a roommate and I’m over it.

My mum has lots of chronic illness including adrenal insufficiency, brain tumor, carpel syndrome ehlers danlos syndrome and more. I understand that she does need assistance with things and we have done our best at our ages (18M, 16F, 14F) to help with what we can but it feels like its getting too much. She still is capable of driving and doing some usual things as the tumor is non-cancerous and is growing very slowly and her adrenal insufficiency is maintained with the right medications even though she is still bound to have bad days.
The weight on my (18M) shoulders feels too much because of how long its been like this, our father passed away when i was 14 so its all on us. Mum expects mainly me to walk over to the shops almost everytime we need something even though she is capable of driving, she always is asking for me to get stuff for her because she doesnt want to get up again after sitting down like so many times throughout the day I will have to stop whatever work im doing and come out to hand her the tv remote or put her bottle in the fridge or anything so simple when i know shes capable of it. We all have to do our own chores daily and also look after 4 dogs and 2 cats that need feeding, water and attention aswell as mum constantly getting mad at me because I need to be bringing money in yet i never have the chance to hold a job because of how dependent she is on me at home. I feel as if I don't have a life in the slightest and that it will always be this way, I dont get to do anything people my age do, I'm expected to help financially ontop of everything else I do and am burdened because of it.
She only ever yells or gets mad at me for not doing enough because she has it in her mind that i'm 18 so i should be paying my rent and food aswell as doing everything I already do for her and its constantly weighing down on my mental health. I know for sure that she is capable of more than what she is doing, I know because I've lived with her my whole life and I see what she does around the house and when she wants to get smokes she'll drive and everything, it almost feels as if she's using her illnesses as an excuse to not do what she is actually capable of. How can I ever do something with myself when theres such high dependence on me at home all the time. I mean i'm literally yelled at to go and let the dogs in and out of the house like 10 times throughout the day. The smallest things add up.
I feel like I need an out, I don't know if I can keep doing this. She makes me feel like shit everyday. I don't even have a license because I never get the chance to learn to drive.

I’m the few in the “family” who’s graduated high school with an honors, received honors rewards from college, and got on the deans list. My academic success was done so that they can get off my tail, and I never had much individual freedom growing up.
But I loved writing, designing, editing and being creative. With my entire identity being revolves around being a student, I chose Product design (graphic/motion media are my minors) and was so elated for this. However, I barely took the time to develop a portfolio.
I took a break so that I can find a job, build a better portfolio, and earn my license after being coerced at a young age to make such an expensive choice.
They didn’t care that I’ve made tons of achievements, but somehow are making me seem like the family failure for not trying to rush and hit tons of problems for doing so. I’m not going to be the one who’ll take out tons of loans for one semester, and I’m tired of “family” members barging in my life to screw up my plans.
They assume that I don’t know what I’m doing, and are making it hard for me to even live around this point. I just want to earn my license and get a job to afford my education, but they look at me as if I’m a failure. I’m trying my best to not let their ignorance conflict me, and am deciding to refuse any offer that they’ll give me.
But it’s hard dealing with such oppression all alone

So I ordered a hyperx usb mic after my blue yeti shot the dust a little bit ago. I ordered it through amazon with insurance. I'm worried amazon sent me an already broken mic.
fixes i've tried:
-rearraning the mix on the arm -trying without the mount arm I have
- a different cord plugged into the port
-different headphones
-plugged into different usb spots on the computer
-stopping power saving methods on all the usb ports
I've narrowed it down to the noise only starts happening when I click on sound and turn it up or down via click; it will start screeching and I can't stop it until I completely unplug the mic.
video below is the noise it will start making. if there's any solutions im not knowing I'd beg for help.
My biggest concern with them having sent me a faulty mic is I need this for work, and I had to have amazon ship it to me the same day. I cannot be without a mic for days at a time (or a way to listen to audio, my towers audio jack is poop for any sound), and to get this one I had to use amazon payment plans. I'm worried to get a claim if it is faulty and get a new one ill be without a mic and a way to listen to any audio for days.
​
https://reddit.com/link/11y98xw/video/h8hkvjilf8pa1/player

So I started suffering from hallucinations recently. I can’t always tell what’s a hallucination and what’s not but I’ve been able to tell enough times that I can piece together something isn’t right, hence why I’m asking this here.
a few weeks after that a red jeep started following me everywhere. I see it multiple times a day, every time j leave the house I see it at least once. I don’t trust it, I’ve started leaving the house less and less because I don’t want to run into it. The only reason I leave at all is because it hasn’t tried anything yet. I feel like it parks nearby my house to watch it during the night. Id confirm but I don’t want to leave during the dark and actually find them and never be found again.
I keep having visions of a key. I don’t know why. I feel like if I find that key I’ll find a way to make the jeep stop. And that they don’t want that, that’s why they’re around me. I’ve started checking spots in the woods, old ruins and the like, hoping to find it. I don’t know what It goes to but I don’t know what else to do.
I vented to one of my friends the other day about all of that and he told me “sorry but that sounds crazy, pls go get therapy or something that’s not normal thinking.”
The thing is I don’t know if I can trust him fully. I also don’t trust therapists at all. They’re fucking dirty snakes preying on the mentally ill for money, drugging them up with god knows what to keep them coming back for more, telling them that it’ll help them and it’s for their own food,they disgust me.
Hence why I’m posting here. I haven’t been able to sleep almost at all for god knows how long and I feel like if anywhere can help me it’s here, I’ve known about this sub for a while so I trust it to a degree. I don’t know if I can fully trust it but it might help soothe my head a bit.
I feel stupid posting this but I don’t know what else to do. I don’t want to tell any of my in person friends or family members and im too afraid of law enforcement to call them. They could be with the jeep, I have no reason to believe they’re not.
Im just desperate for anything. Any info that will at least point me in the right direction of what’s happening. I haven’t found a key of any kind any where I’ve checked.
I hope this made sense. I feel like whenever I say anything it goes through a scramble machine first.

To keep this as short as possible, my dad has struggled with alcohol and addiction almost my whole life. Growing up I was a daddy’s girl until about nine when he left my mother. I would later find out that he had gotten into hard drugs and that was why he left. Our house was foreclosed shortly after since my mom was a stay-at-home and had me as a teen so never really worked before. We ended up on welfare, being evicted one place after another because we couldn’t stay afloat. He never paid any child support or helped.
We would visit my dad odd weekends but it was always awkward because he lived with my grandparents and half the time he’d just dump us with them and go out to do god knows what. And if he was around he was restless and antsy, and I always knew why and would spend the weekend trying to distract and keep my little brother from catching on. Eventually these visits stopped altogether in my early teens and he moved about six hours away.
Fast forward through the years, I’d hear from him once in a blue moon. Usually because he was having a moment of clarity or had just gotten out of a detox. But there’d never be any follow-up and he’d disappear for a year or two again.
I was never really angry, just sad. I felt bad for him suffering from addiction and never really blamed him persay. I made excuses that it had been so long it was awkward now to make sustained meaningful contact. Or that if proximity wasn’t an issue maybe I’d see him more.
I’m 36 now and he reinitiated contact about two years ago when his father, my grandfather passed. That was the day that I found out he had been living less than a half hour away for the previous five years. Then I got angry. I didn’t say anything but I decided then that I was finally over it. Clearly this man didn’t care to really have me (or my brother) in his life.
Since I was about fifteen, he had a gf. She was okay. Sober, super AA type which I always found confusing since he’s always been in and out of his addiction and she’s always been clean. She would reach out to me over the years here and there. Wishing me merry Christmas, happy birthday, etc. Nice lady. And my dad loooves her. She’s the only person he has left in the world at this point. All his other bridges have been burned.
And she just died suddenly.
Now he’s allll alone. Has no one. Pushing 60 with a body that’s failing him after years of abuse. My dad is not a bad person. He’s actually a really nice and hilarious guy. Just always troubled and not a very good dad. He’s in emotional turmoil and I feel so bad for him. Since we made contact two years ago we haven’t met up, but he has consistently been texting me since even when I don’t respond. It’s the most sustained contact I’ve had with him since I was a kid. He’s been clean for a few years now.
I’m conflicted. Part of me wants to let bygones be bygones and be there for him in this time of need because I know he has no one else. But the other part is scared to let this man into my life. I just don’t know what to do.
So much for keeping this short. TLDR: absent addict dad’s long time gf has passed away and he is now all alone.

I’ve been operating at 110% for a while now. A good while. I’ve got a husband and 3 kids, and my life is utterly relentless. I am not my own individual self anymore. I basically exist to serve everyone else. I do every damn thing. Yes there is a man that lives here that “helps” but how helpful is it when I have to constantly tell the man what needs to be done, when it needs to be done, how to do it, when the kids need something, what time their appointments are, etc. I have 2 toddlers and 1 preteen. My house is akin to a zoo on crack. There’s lights on all day, because the man that lives here doesn’t seem to know how to turn off a light, the toddlers don’t nap anymore, and they are always hungry but never seem to take more than 2 bites of food, my preteen rolls her eyes at everything, husband works nights and can somehow sleep through every thing and I wouldn’t be surprised if he slept right through a tornado. My home is no longer my sanctuary because it’s become a place of high stress. I am literally on my feet from 6am to 10pm with my only break being the job I work at. I work full time and get to spend my 2 days off doing everything my husband just disregards all week, such as the grocery shopping (his idea of grocery shopping is buying enough food ingredients for ONE meal), the cleaning (he hasn’t cleaned the bathtub in 2 months, I’ve counted), and rest of boring things like washing the car, taking out trash, and spending some time with the kids. So basically I have no days off.
I cried to myself in my room on Monday night. Here is everything I did on that day from sun up to sun down:
6am: woke up for work 7am: went outside to warm up my car and take all the bags to it (lunch bags, diaper bag, purse) 7:30am: dropped off kids to MIL house/school for the day 8am: stopped by a breakfast joint and got myself food 8:30-5pm: work 5:15pm: arrive home 5:30pm: cook dinneeat/feed kids 6:30-7pm: clean up toys/prepare for bath time 7:15-8:15pm: bath time/dressed for bed (because I have to do 2 toddlers) 8:15-8:45pm: pack their lunches, pack my lunch, pack their clothes for tomorrow. 8:50-9ish: brush toddlers teeth, brush my teeth 9:15-9:30: read bedtime stories to toddlers - husband leaves for work 10:00pm: when toddlers are finally tired enough to fall asleep
My husband’s daily schedule:
7:00am: arrive home from work 7:30-3:00pm: sleep 3:45-4pm: picks up kids (Proceeds to spend an hour at his mom’s house) 5:00pm: arrives home, possibly wash the dishes 5:30-7pm: does nothing but watch tv 7pm-9:20pm: takes a pre-work nap 9:30-9:45pm: leaves for work
Do you guys see the disparity or is it just me?? So because I walk around like a zombie all week long with a slight attitude, husband claims he has no idea why I’ve become the way I am. I’m dead inside. My legs burn at the end of the night. I’m sad for myself. I don’t feel like a wife, I feel like an unpaid maid and nanny. I don’t even get a thank you or just a hug. I’m breaking down slowly inside but I keep going because I have to, I love my kids. I’ve tried bringing ALL this up to the man who lives here but it falls each time on deaf ears. He has no empathy or understanding of my feelings. I’ve given up.
If you’ve gotten this far, I appreciate you for reading. It felt good getting this out.
TLDR: My husband is basically a roommate and I’m over it.

I want to use a screen protector, but I heard that using any liquid can rub off the coating and alcohol can damage it. My plan was to use the alcohol wipes that come with the protector, but not sure if it's safe.

We were having a lazy Sunday, just watching YouTube and what not, and then eventually we went on this rabbit-hole of music videos, and because they've always loved the Blue Man Group, I showed them the video to Ordinaryish People, and they fell in love with AJR. It is the best. We listen to them all the time as a family know (My mom won't stop playing Burn the House Down lmao) and it really brought us even more together.
So, long story short, I've gotten my parents addicted to the brothers and it has been one of my best experiences yet. Thank you to AJR for giving us more reasons to hangout. We plan on going to their next tour as a family. The whole lot of us. Life is good.

1. First guy got deported
2. Guy got married to someone who looks just like him and similar. His other half
3. Guy stayed single and everyone hates him
4. Guy is a loser with a loser job x2
5. Guy turned into a scary look and into online dating
6. Guy looks scary
7. One ex turned insane as I fcked up his life for cheating on me
8. One ex still looks at my shit after I yelled at him.. this ex I loved him but can’t go back because this new guy went so far with me

I think I should not go into a guys car or their house ever

Hi,
I got my 64GB Steam Deck about two weeks ago. About a week after having it I replaced the 64GB eMMC with a Sabrent Rocket 128GB nvme. Yesterday, a little more than a week after the new SSD, my Steam Deck froze in the middle of a game and crashed. Upon powering the system back up I get the "Default Boot Device Missing or Boot Failed Error". I was very careful to not apply harsh pressure or temper with anything other than the SSD when replacing, so I don't think that would be the source of the issue. When going into BIOS the Sabrent SSD doesn't show up, in the boot from file tab, and the size is shown as 0GB. I waited a day to mess with it because I was busy, and after turning it on I got an big update and the OS worked again. However, after about 15 minutes of using it the same crash happened and I'm back at the original boot device missing issue. Was wondering if anyone would know why this happened or if Sabrent Rocket SSD's are often faulty.
Also, I left my USB stick with the reimaging file at my house along with the original SSD it came with, and I'm at college so I can't get those until the weekend.

Context:
I've been looking around for about 2 years, and found this apartment I really like it for a list of reasons 2b/2b/1c.
Bank evaluated it about 930k (automated evaluation).
Based on other properties in the same block its about 960k - 990k.
Comparing it to apartment that sold last weekend in the next block over its around 1m maybe slightly over.
​
I'm about to pay 1.1m for it, plan to live in it for at least the next 10-15 years.
​
I know people over pay that bit extra if they like the property but is paying 100k - 150k over, way too much? (assumption units don't increase in value - much).
Or reasonable if I really like this property?
​
(I like it because its top floor, fantastic view, good location, close to schools and train station, as private as they come, old block with very low strata, and searching for the last 2 years maybe only 2-3 have come up in that price range in that general location).

Periodically, I need to charge a 100AH lithium battery I use with a trolling motor. I have an AC charger for it.
Currently I use 2x100W panels to charge my 200AH AGM house batteries. I run a fridge on this.
I can think of three ways to charge the trolling battery:

1. DC to DC charge. I could get a DC to DC charger and go from th house bank to the lithium. The slowest charger I can find charges at 20amps which seems a bit much for my house bank. Periodically I have loads of about 7 Amps on my house batteries and adding another 20 amps seems excessive.
2. Use an inverter. I continue to charge the house bank with solar and then plug the inverter into the house bank and charge the spare battery off the inverter. I'm concerned this will be wasteful. How much energy do I lose going through the inverter? The charger draws about 8 amps at 12V.
3. Periodically unplug the house bank and plug the solar into the lithium battery. This might be more efficient than option 2.

Cindy and I have been feiends for about 2 years now. At first we weren't so close, but the past year she and I got a lot closer and we are best friends now. We share a couple mutual friends which is how we met, but they have been treating her not so great.
They have made fun of her looks/the way she acts all because they think she has a little extra weight on her. She used to be funny and outgoing, but she's shy and quiet now. In regards to that I cut off all those friends because I didn't tolerate them making fun of her.
When they saw how close we were they tried making fun of me for liking her ans they tried getting her to stop talking to me by telling her I thought she was ugly, etc (which is definitely not true at all. She didn't believe me when I tried to change her mind and it took me a while to get her to believe me.
Then I started really falling in love with her. I started complimenting her beauty and trying to be more flirty with her. She has the most beautiful sky color eyes and she is just my type. Her response is obviously "you're only saying that to be nice and make me feel better".
We hung out this past weekend and I borrowed a friends beach house and I took her on a little getaway together. I made my move and at first she was really shy since I was her 1st, but I gave her space and she got comfortable for the time and we had sex. The whole weekend she and I spent it in bed together just laying on each other and talking or just having sex.
After the fact, she asked why I chose to do that for her and I was honest. She said she felt too 'fat and ugly' for me and that I could do better. I got kinda bothered by her talking that way and I told her that I really thought she was beautiful and that I chose her because I like her and am attracted to her.
Now she's been acting kind of shy and she still doesn't fully believe I like her. She does flirt with me now, but at the same time she asked how are we gonna deal with being friends and sleeping together and she keeps doubting herself. How can I help her fully understand I chose her Because I love the way she is and that I don't want her to change anything?
Tldr: My best friend and I had a getaway for the weekend. We spent the whole time away having sex and laying in bed together. I love her, but she thinks it's too good to be true because she is insecure in herself. How do I convince her otherwise?

Life comes in many flavours, and each day we face many questions. Some of these questions are judgements. And some of these judgements involve others in significant and meaningful ways. On the one hand, we seek to satisfy our personal needs -- self-determination -- while maintaining a sense of virtue -- compassion and justice. For many, there is too much injustice and suffering just to ignore. On the other hand, balancing the needs of us and them beckons honest appraisal of situations and people. But where and how should our finger be pointed?

Core psychology of blame

Among the very earliest struggles in a person's life is the process of ego development. In its simplest, ego is about separating good from bad, self from other. Various theories and models strive to explain the ego, or its development, from various perspectives. For the purposes here, I will be referencing object relations theory, which is part psychoanalytic psychology and deals with very early development, starting at birth. A few things will be slightly simplified to keep the text concise.
Within this theory, the first several months involve what is termed the paranoid-schizoid position. The "schizoid" aspect refers to a cognitive-emotional process known as splitting. This is where external objects, including people, are split into opposing mental parts -- to form part objects, or the "good object" version and the "bad object" version of each meaningful external object or phenomenon. For example, when the caregiver is gratifying to the infant, that part object is the "good caretaker"; and when not so gratifying, that caretaker is the "bad caretaker". At this stage of development and understanding, these two "part objects" are not seen as from the same source. Rather, each is a separate thing appearing and disappearing as circumstances and feelings change. The key word here is separation, which we will come back to later.
The other aspect of the paranoid-schizoid position -- the "paranoid" aspect -- refers to a curious side effect of splitting everything into "good" and "bad". Because each "part object" is either all good, or all bad, and because the appearance and disappearance of these mysterious entities is more-or-less out of control, the infant begins to resent and fear the bad objects that keep happening. That is, the baby hates the bad objects but loves the good objects. This is perhaps the very first stage of moral awareness -- raw, albeit mistaken judgement; love the good; hate the bad; pure, uninhibited attraction and repulsion. As a result, or side effect, of these negative or aggressive feelings toward "the bad", the baby may fear possible persecution, invoking paranoia. Strange though that may sound, there is a bit more to it.
Splitting, as between the mentioned "good" and "bad" objects, is only half the story. The other half of splitting is between "good self" and "bad self". That is, because in the paranoid-schizoid position, objects are temporary and impermanent, so too is the self temporary and fleeting. Moreover, the self is either in comfort, or in distress, giving either "good self" or "bad self" -- depending on circumstance. Since the "good self" appears with the "good object", and likewise the "bad self" with the "bad object", the child fears the appearance of the "bad object" even more. This is because its presence entails essentially collapse of the previous self-concept, as if to enter a realm of deserved persecution for being the "bad self" -- and hence the emergence of paranoia.
On an interesting aside, this manner of judging objects and selves as good or bad based solely on whether one is currently in comfort or pain is the essence of Stage 1 in Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development. This is a theory on the progression of individuals throughout life in moral reasoning. Stage 1, termed obedience and punishment orientation, judges those in trouble or pain as inherently bad. In many cases, this view basically blames the victim. Further, this type of reasoning is essentially the basis for the "might makes right" mindset seen in some cases of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD). One thing to keep in mind is that we all start there, but not everyone stays there. In this way, having crude moral reasoning later in life is effectively a sign of delayed or regressed development, much like a disability -- ie. "morally disabled".

Completing the person

Eventually, the child will reach a point in development where objects become whole and persistent, able to have simultaneously negative and positive qualities. Objects or people may take on accounts, or balances, allowing for consideration of simple reciprocity, including guilt and reparation. Self and caregiver become distinct entities, where "good" self is no longer lost each time caregiver is absent or busy. Assuming successful progression, blame and judgement is no longer split dichotically between two extremes. Otherwise a new type of splitting is come, where objects and entities, though whole and persistent, are either idealised or devalued.
An important key trend exists between consecutive steps of ego development. This is the trend of expanding persistence and relatedness. In the part-object stage, objects appear and vanish -- some good, some bad. These raw appearances are neither persistent, nor related. In the whole-object stage, objects become persistent, although at first not really related. Because of this initial lack of relation, the secondary type of splitting -- idealisation and devaluation -- is still likely. Basically, since one person or object is fundamentally unrelated to another, including the self, there is "no harm" in seeing one as all good, and another as all bad. Without a stabilising relation, moral judgements can be whimsical yet extreme. A person or object may alternate between being embraced and discarded, depending on present feelings or arrangements. But what makes a stabilising relation?
In general, stabilising relations develop naturally through observation and reason. For example, a caregiver may through time be taken as an intrinsic part of one's need for support. Or a sibling may eventually be seen as fundamentally similar and related. But the building of these relations, or attachments, can be hindered by certain experiences or feelings. For instance, an unstable or unavailable caregiver may leave a child feeling resentment, shame, or guilt. These feelings may then get in the way of building an emotional bond. The resulting lack of security, mixed with possible shame or guilt for not being good enough, may lead to maladaptive and unstable boundaries and self-definition. Some common results are narcissism and borderline personality -- the former as an escape mechanism from feelings of inadequacy, and the latter as unstable border-lines between what is embraced, and what is rejected. These early childhood misgivings can then live on subconsciously, infiltrating the psyche and its future engagements.

Competition and judgement

While the capacity for blame and hate may emerge, as described above, from fundamental urges of attraction and repulsion -- mixed with innate capacity for making inference -- there is another powerful instinct at play. Complex social animals have a built-in game of gene-selection and mate-selection. This game relies on a simple heuristic, or objective -- form competitive hierarchies, and select those at the top. The evolutionary assumption is that competition filters out less desirable code. Without reflection, this pre-configured notion may be taken at face value, often in fact elevated -- whether spoken or kept silent -- to something of religious adherence. But is the argument sound?
In simple times, back in the tribe, individuals tended to grow up closely-knit and fairly uniformly. Regardless which parents one had, pretty much everyone had access to the same quality of food, healthcare, and education. Tools and other amenities could readily be made or obtained by any abled body, often with only modest effort. As a result, there was, compared to modern times, an extremely even playing field. Very little interfered with the above premise that those who achieved success in social hierarchy likely had something special inside. Sure, luck still played a part, but that part was not only far less significant than today, but also far more visible for those of simple tribes. In probably most cases, everybody knew when someone had encountered bad fortune, as individual stories were less hidden.
In the current age, however, personal merit is vastly more obscured and mangled by deceptive forces. The range of disparity in childhood resources and care, the long duration of schooling needed to be competitive, and the sheer price of admission into money-making pursuits, completely destroy any legitimacy the heuristic of selection by social hierarchy may previously have had. Luck may have played a part back then, but today the part played by the lottery of placement into a particular family, time, and place is riddled with inequity. On top of all that, the behaviours and exploits that set one person atop the next are lost from sight through the complex labyrinth of time, legalese, and the unfathomable size of modern society. Hence, the basis of soundness behind judging merit on personal outcome is no longer something that can be supported with any honesty. To praise or blame based on social status and wealth is to partake in folly.

Entity and arrangement defined

Entities are mental objects, and their social accounts, pertaining to people, groups, aggregates, and other moral agents. I say mental objects for two basic reasons. One, individuals and groups change through time. As the saying goes:

"A person never steps into the same river twice; for on the second occasion, one is neither the same person, nor is it the same river" (paraphrased) ~ Heraclitus of Ephesus.

Two, while we may posit that physical substance seems to exist out there, beyond the mind, we nevertheless must work within our mental model, or worldview, when considering those entities and other things of material or mental reality. Hence, entities and objects can be cognised, or considered, solely as mental objects. This phenomenon of the mental becomes even more apparent when we consider the nature of not only being, but identity, character, and personal story. None of these, from what I can tell, can rightly be said to exist outside the mind. Each has arbitrary, situation-specific, and continually shifting boundaries and connotations.
Arrangements, in contrast, are sets of objects; entities; their relative positions; their internal configurations; and their relations and interactions. Arrangements are hence the frameworks in place either materially or logically between and within entities and or objects. Common examples include law, culture, contract, education, and social hierarchy -- but also the physical placement of people and things.
Not surprisingly, the arrangements in place have substantial influence on the outcomes for individuals and society. The same person lowered into two different cultures and circumstances can be expected to have a different time. Education, ideas, values, struggles, and relationships may all be completely changed. The combinations of butterfly effect, disparity of opportunity, and idiosyncratic accident leave open the door for a wide variety of possibility.

Splitting and blaming the entity

Before talking about what to blame, or how to blame it, we might consider some phenomena which may influence one's ability to make sound judgement. As discussed previously, early development can play a big part in both the way one perceives and understands the world, and also the way one feels about, and hence reacts to, situations and challenges within the world. So let us look at some such phenomena.
Splitting, in the post-infancy sense, is the viewing of mental objects -- including and especially people -- as either idealised all good, or devalued all bad. The primary hypothesis goes something along the lines that a child who felt insufficiently loved or attended during infancy and early childhood may develop an internalised sense of unworthiness -- perhaps shame or guilt. In simple terms, the child may internalise a judgement of "not good enough". Since early, particularly pre-linguistic experiences tend to be deeply-seated and hard-conditioned, the person later in life may not only have little if any recall of such experience, but likely has little ability to reflect or challenge the resulting feelings or cognitive distortions. Basically, the only remnant clearly visible may be the feelings and intuitions themselves -- sense of shame, guilt, and never being good enough. However, as with other inescapable negative feelings, the child or later person is prone to forming habits of escape. Most notably here, the person may partake in defence mechanisms, or unconscious patterns of perception and thinking that seek to turn off or escape uncomfortable or stressful cognitions.
Projection is among the most used defence mechanisms. It involves taking an unwanted feeling or judgement, and throwing it upon someone or something else. The idea is to distance oneself from such negative connotations. In the case of internalised shame or guilt of being "not good enough" during childhood, the person is likely to begin casting this judgement upon others. Unreasonable or unattainable standards may be adopted. The world itself may be viewed as inherently broken or untenable. In the case of splitting specifically, black-or-white, all-or-none thinking may be employed to polarise objects or people -- including oneself -- into all good or all bad -- idealisation or devaluation. This type of projection sorts others into something of angels and demons. Furthermore, as in borderline personality disorder, these dichotic judgements may switch regularly depending on current affairs. The key thing to remember here is that projection is done to escape unfaceable feelings or judgements about oneself. Use of this defence mechanism may shift blame from self to another, often in a way that is difficult or impossible for the user to see.
More broadly, splitting belongs to a class of phenomena known as cognitive distortions. In addition to all-or-none thinking, cognitive distortions include overgeneralising, disqualifying the positive, jumping to conclusions, exaggeration, perfectionism, personalisation, always being right, and labelling of others. Obviously these all have significant implications for how one judges others, and indeed how one places blame. For the discussion here, let us talk about one more of these.
Personalisation is when a person takes the blame personally, regardless what external factors may be at play. This style of attribution is inherently self-deprecatory. Alternatively, blame may be placed entirely on another person or group. The distortion here is not that blame is occurring, but that the object is always a conventional moral agent, such as a human or AI. Essentially, an individual with this style of attribution may have an irrational tendency to place blame on agents, rather than circumstances. The trick is understanding why this happens.
As it turns out, the psychology behind placing blame disproportionately on people and other agents, rather than arrangements, is driven by the instinct of social hierarchy. Like brought up earlier, people have a tendency to compare and compete, judging one another into hierarchies of better and worse -- more or less worthy. The more insecure a person feels, or the more internalised shame or sense of inadequacy one has, the more the person may be compelled to cast blame on others. Put simply, insecurity activates the instinct of social hierarchy.
There are some noteworthy side effects to the habit of blaming the agent. One is scapegoating, or the projection of a group's fears and insecurities onto an external object. In scapegoating, the object chosen is often little, if at all, related to the underlying problem or dysfunction. Rather, the group seeks to unload its insecurity onto an unlucky target. This behaviour is much like that done in narcissistic personality disorder (NPD). One might say that groups too, not just people, can have NPD. One common target of scapegoating is minorities, of pretty much any type, who are often blamed for internal inadequacies of the majority regime. Another side effect of blaming the agent is kicking the dog, or chain reactions of blame shifting where each rung of the social hierarchy blames the next rung, all the way to the dog. Similar to scapegoating, kicking the dog picks a target generally unable to defend itself. This style of attribution, moreover, is contagious within organisations, hindering legitimate consideration of how the true underlying issues can best be resolved.

False object of blame

A curious distortion of interest is blindly taking the mental as fact. In the extreme, there is a phenomenon known as psychic equivalence. This is common in children, where the imagined monster under the bed is believed surely to exist. The line between mental and external is still thin. While most older individuals are beyond such explicit equivalence, we nevertheless have no other option for understanding reality than what our mind beholds. Whether for positive or negative, when we see or imagine someone, we are never seeing the real person. What we witness is our mental model, or mental object, of the other. The same goes for their view of us. When they behold us, they are really beholding someone else -- a construct of their imagination. Likewise, when we judge or blame another, we are really blaming someone else -- a monster of our own creation. Sometimes it can help to remember that in our mental, we are all mental.

Another defence mechanism

Aside from cognitive distortions, another key issue stands in the way of finding truth. In order to resolve deeply-seated emotional baggage, that baggage has to be opened. Yet doing so can be both painful and confusing. The mind has another trick up its sleeve to avoid facing the rain -- intellectualisation. Many have heard of rationalisation, or the making up of good-sounding stories to explain otherwise irrational or emotion-based actions and choices. Intellectualisation is related, but distinct. Instead of making up stories to seem more rational, intellectualisation makes up complex frameworks and red herrings to distract oneself and others from getting too close to the underlying feeling. Just like for splitting, the usual root cause is believed to be insecure attachment during infancy and early childhood. The result, especially later in life, is the excessive overreliance on logic and complex frameworks to avoid looking inside toward emotion. Reason becomes a comfortable hideout from hideous feeling. This disposition prevents proper reflection, making it hard or impossible to stop idealising and devaluing others. After all, one cannot stop spilling pain until one finds the source of that pain.

Relation to free will

The notion of free will comes in many definitions. These can get technical. But one fairly common theme is what they seek to support -- often some type of personal, or entity-centric, responsibility or blame. Regardless whether logically sound, the pursuit is in many cases a rationalisation of the instinctual and emotional urges of social hierarchy and ego defence. Essentially, many debates about free will are really struggles, or disagreements, on the nature of blame, and to where it should aim. In general, the belief in free will -- regardless the definition chosen -- is argued in support of some type of entity attribution. Likewise, the disbelief in free will is usually argued in support of system attribution, or blaming the way society or culture is structured. A person may choose a definition specifically to assert the desired end -- a psychological phenomenon called motivated reasoning. This text will avoid choosing a definition, as the underlying principles of behaviour are more important.
A less known paradox exists within the bounds of psychological agency. As is regularly discussed in certain circles of spirituality, there exists a spectrum of self-boundary between immediate, local, relative and timeless, non-local, absolute. This mental state of contraction or expansion depends in part on the grasping or release of fear and attachment. For those unfamiliar, the felt sense of personal agency -- sometimes called doership -- and one's associated beliefs about personal causation, are prone to change, or shift, depending on the present level of anxiety -- especially social and existential anxiety. There are two key aspects related to the sense of being in control.
The first aspect of interest is that of causal scope, or how far we trace the causes and influences behind any given event or decision. For example, as I type this, among the most immediate, or smallest causal scopes, is that of my finger pressing a key. Moving toward greater scope, we may consider that the arm is moving the finger. Further, of course, one might say the body is doing the typing. But the scope need not end there. We can trace back through the causal chains, finding all manner of influence. After all, why do I care about this? What social factors and life experiences influenced this cause? The more immediate the causal scope, the longer and more encumbered the causal chains. Hence, even though when afraid we may focus on the more immediate, hence feeling more in direct control, the more our felt boundaries of self and causality contract, the more short-sighted, distracted, and materially-bound we are. The paradox is in the inverted pyramid of influence atop our actions.
The second aspect relates to impulse and desire versus self-control and composure. Human desire may be divided broadly into basic animal instinct and social image. In Freudian terms, these would be id and ego. The former is often viewed as impulsive or animalistic; the latter as controlled and composed. A meaningful portion of pro-free will arguments seems to equate or compare the composure and planning of socially-conscious actions and choices as representative of the essence of "free will". That is, more "controlled" or deliberate actions were exercising greater free will than their more impulsive or animalistic counterparts. But is this assessment sensible?
On the one hand, being more socially aware likely helps to prevent being manipulated or impeded by others. Most would probably agree thus far. But on the other hand, the more we care about fitting in, or otherwise playing the game of social hierarchy, the more we submit ourselves to social norms and other hive behaviours. Essentially, the more we care about image, the more we let society control us. Despite this emotional tether, those with the biggest egos often proclaim the greatest sense of self-determination. Certainly one could argue that being on top of the hierarchy usually entails greater access to social amenities, some of which offering greater freedom. But there may be some right reservations here. Firstly, the enhanced freedom of high status often comes with enhanced fitment and scrutiny into the externally-defined social mould. This is not always the case, as for example with dictators. But secondly, the vast majority of those playing the ego game are neither in positions of status and power, nor emotionally secure enough to go their own way toward personal happiness. Perhaps most prominently, for most social animals, the hive provides only minimal amenity, and maximal loss of autonomy. Yet the internalised ego and self-concept obscure this reality by making cultural, emotional artifacts of socialisation -- especially during childhood -- appear as self-chosen. The person is thus a product of upbringing, but because these aspects of conditioning are so deep and unconscious, their effects are simply taken for granted as part of who one is. Hence, a second paradox exists in that what may appear as evidence for free will -- ego and composure -- is in fact the very thing enacting the long-seated will of the hive.
On a different note of the free will debate, there seems to be a phenomenon somewhat like "free will of the gaps", where any unknown of psychology or physics is received wholeheartedly as evidence for freedom. While no doubt one may never really know, particularly when stuck in the subjective mind-box, one might consider the effect of splitting, or black-and-white thinking. This habit may, without enough reflection, colour one's assessment of personal agency as either wholly existing, or wholly absent. This is not to say undue burden and other explicit interference is unregarded, but more that even the mere existence of randomness or unpredictability may be taken as sufficient reason to ward off the behavioural influences and effects known by modern psychology. Remember that splitting is driven by egoic insecurity, and that ego has vested interest in building the narrative which best places oneself in the social hierarchy of the mind. Impulsive or controlled, what we choose is there to satisfy instinct, whether animalistic, or socially-focused.

Blaming the arrangement

On the other side of inferred causation -- after instinct -- we have experience, conditioning, and circumstance. Experience and conditioning are carry-overs from past arrangement while circumstance reflects the present arrangement. For simplicity, I will place all three simply under arrangement. To borrow from earlier:

Arrangements ... are sets of objects; entities; their relative positions; their internal configurations; and their relations and interactions. Arrangements are hence the frameworks in place either materially or logically between and within entities and or objects. Common examples include law, culture, contract, education, and social hierarchy -- but also the physical placement of people and things.

With this definition in mind, what then does it mean to blame the arrangement, and what benefit does so doing provide?
First, let us consider the standard Western approach. When we blame the entity, we are accomplishing three fundamental ends:

1. declaring a point of causal significance;
2. downgrading social status;
3. offloading correction;

On the first point, blaming the entity cuts off past influences, including deficiencies and inequalities in access to essential resources like health, respect, education, and experience. One might wonder why respect is included here. But remember the types of issue that arise from internalised shame, guilt, and feelings of inadequacy. These live on subconsciously, causing non-obvious impairments in judgement and performance. Plus they harm health and performance through elevated stress hormones.
On the second point, blaming the entity lowers its public appraisal, thus cutting off access to the types of resources just mentioned.
On the third point, blaming the entity places the burden of correction squarely on the already broken component. For simple matters like enforcing social norms or decency, this type of blame is probably effective in most cases. But when we start looking at bigger matters, like health, education, intelligence, self-restraint, and general performance, the idea of forcing the suboptimal party to fix itself starts to break down. All these matters are heavily influenced by external circumstance through time. So telling the person to fix the resulting dysfunction is like telling them to rewrite their past environment, including their upbringing. Moreover, those from broken pasts are much more often the least supplied -- in both resource and knowhow -- to make things better.
And this brings us to blaming the arrangement. If instead of burdening and downgrading the unfortunate entity, we recognise the conditions of success and failure, we can apply legitimate effort toward enacting a better future. Obviously society as a whole is far better equipped to improve not only the outcome of tomorrow, but the conditions of today. Some of us, by chance, receive the winning hand. This may be in genetics, family configuration, area of schooling, or maybe just missing detrimental accidents and injuries. What sense does it make to hoard the helpings of fate, thus preventing the wealth of shared development and growth? In a world literally brimming with technological advancement, is it really better for the majority to live polarised as minority winners and majority losers?

Arguments

One might argue that blame and praise are natural and effective tools for motivation and modification of behaviour. Natural though they may be, these tools are premised on the limited knowledge and resources of tribal past. Like using a hammer to insert a screw, messy tools ought to be reserved for desperate times only. Modern medicine, psychology, and sociology offer a new toolbox, today readily available, for resolving problems with minimal collateral damage. True, not everyone has fair access to these modern amenities, and that is exactly why we need to stop blaming the victim. The technology is here. We simply need to open the gates.
Another common argument is that absent of pointing fingers, people would lose motivation, or stop caring. There may be some truth here. If we remove the whip from their backs, the slaves may begin to relax. But is that really a bad thing? Per-capita material output is already worlds higher due to automation and tooling. But artificial scarcity is brought in to "keep up the morale". This scarcity is largely in the form of wealth and income inequality, which ensure the true producers of wealth -- the workers -- are kept chasing their imagined carrot. The effect, in practice, is burnout and learned helplessness. The secondary effect is thus decreased performance, which is then "solved" with ever greater artificial scarcity, perpetuating the cycle of lies and suffering. Instead of entertaining a system of slavery with extra steps, why not more equally distribute the tools and technology of efficiency and success?
A darker argument that occasionally gets said out loud is that excessive competition and suffering help to weed out the less desirable traits. Often, it is proclaimed, nature wanted it that way. Ignoring the obvious lack of compassion, is this argument sound? The simple answer is no. The longer answer is not even a little. There are two main reasons. Firstly, the dirty game of filtering by social hierarchy was not only sloppy for its original environment of small tribes, but is completely unfit for modern, complex, abstract society. As explained previously, the legitimacy of individual merit is no longer known by fellow tribespeople. Wealth generation and extraction are too far removed and abstracted for proper outside judgement. And complex systems of power and propaganda further prevent equitable distribution of the fruits of labour. Secondly, the amount of time needed for such mechanisms of trait filtering to make an appreciable difference are substantially longer than the time from now before technology will allow superior selection of traits. There will be no need to compete in the sloppy ways of the past; nor any need to compete at all. The problem of selection is soon resolved. AI is entering the exponential phase. Petty and primitive worry about traits is irrelevant, for multiple reasons. If anything, those unable to understand this are unfit to be making policy decisions.
An argument which comes up enough to mention is that without blaming the entity, criminals would have free reign, able to do whatever they wanted without repercussions. This argument is missing something quite substantial about what is entailed by blaming the arrangement. Simply, if a certain person is believed to lack the self-control for certain situations or positions, that person will be kept away from those circumstances. A common example is driver's licensing, where one must earn the privilege by proving competence. And similarly to that, if someone is blatantly acting out and causing trouble, obviously they would be put somewhere safer. The key is rearranging circumstances as needed for best outcome while maintaining reasonable maximum personal autonomy -- without unnecessary harm, restraint, or loss of dignity. Yes, this is more involved in terms of resources and labour, but that is what technology is for. Naturally people prefer to have more privilege, and that alone is motivation enough to care.
And before someone accuses this approach of being or supporting a social credit system, we must make clear the difference. In social credit systems, blame is placed on the individual ! Sure, the factors used may involve family and acquaintance, but the burden of correction still goes to the person or small group. This is completely different from what is being proposed here.
A final argument relates to expense. On the surface -- especially from within the perspective of a system based on artificial scarcity and excessive wealth inequality -- the idea of having surplus means available for long-term planning may seem unfathomable. People's reluctance in this regard can be understood. But as mentioned above, we are presently, for presumably the first time in our recorded history, entering the age of exponential growth toward advanced artificial intelligence. Things are moving fast already, and both hardware and software are showing no slowing. If computational capacity continues to double regularly like it has for a long time now, we are probably looking at readily accessible post-human intelligence within five to ten years. Short of disaster or tyrannical interference, existing worries about labour and intellect shortage should soon evaporate. Yes, this time things are different. There is no known precedent.

Summary

Our natural instinct may tell us to blame the person. And Western culture may polarise this tendency to the extreme. But with a little understanding of why we feel the need to downsize others, we may be able to mend the splitting within us. Society may be designed around a game of hierarchy, but one need not partake. By knowing the factors that promote or inhibit wellbeing, and by using the knowledge and tools of modern, we can cast off the shallow assumptions behind us, to build something worth keeping. The first step is looking inside, to see the feeling that fears connection. Then we may look outside, to see that most are facing similar struggle. Situations are what make or break the person. If one should blame, blame the arrangement. The past may not be one for changing, but greater compassion today can find greater love tomorrow.

TLDR: CT says our sex isn't a problem. I'm not sure LLF was transparent in individual session. Looking for feedback because I'm going crazy over here. Need a reality check either way.

LLF 41 and I (HLM/LL4U? 42) have seen our AASECT couples therapist about 4 or 5 times now. Only 1 or 2 sessions post-intake. We did one in-take session together and then each had an individual in-take session. We haven't talked in detail about what came up in our individual in-takes yet; I plan to bring it up this weekend.
LLF was sick this week so I went for a solo session. CT (and others here in HLC) has stated previously that we do not have a sex problem, we have a relationship problem.
In solo session I said "ok, I 1,000% agree we have a relationship problem. But I'm concerned we're going to do all this work and even be in a much better 'relationship place' in say a year from now and still be looking at an underlying sexual problem." In not so many words: is it possible it's both?
CT says "no, the sexual problems are a symptom. If that were to happen, then we'd so 'ok, you're both in a better place and there's still a sexual gap. Let's look at ways to address that.' But we're not there yet. We have to do this other work first."
I don't know. It felt pretty deflating. Because I absolutely agree we need to do the relationship work and I also know LLF has sex issues that were present long before she met me. So how the actual fuck are those now transformed into relationship issues? Does it make sense why I'm confused, or am I just way off base here?
The CT's response put me in a funk. I know LLF doesn't think there's much of a sexual problem, and so I want to bring the list below into the discussion at our next session. Taken in totality, I look at this list below and think "isn't the majority of this due to some sort of sexual aversion on LLF's part? If not, how is all of this pinned on the relationship?"
I'm on mobile so excuse the crap formatting.
I have a spouse who:
Did not want me to look at her body on our wedding night
Was hot and heavy with the petting and making out when we were dating but that did not translate to hot and heavy sex once we were married (we were products of purity culture and indoctrinated to wait until marriage. Total bullshit.)
In first few years of marriage, consistently rebuffed my advances. To the point I stopped trying. Often we would be on the couch watching TV. When discussing this recently, she said "sex is important but TV is also important."
In our first several years of marriage told me that many sexual positions I wanted to try were demeaning (e.g. doggy style)
Tells me she does not have sexual fantasies
Tells me she's satisfied with everything that's happening in the bedroom and rarely if ever has suggestions for new things to do in the bedroom
Until the last two years had only masturbated once or twice
Does not think about sex until it's been about two weeks since last time
Would consistently say "let's have sex tonight (or tomorrow or whenever)" and then completely forget about it
Would say "please don't make eye contact with me when I'm performing fellatio"
Views sex as a checklist or functional activity (her words)
When we scheduled sex dates on the calendar, would not allow for make up opportunities if a date was missed because "it's not Tuesday." And forget about having sex two days in a row.
Has no desire to cuddle after sex
Does not enjoy receiving oral sex
Did not buy a vibrator until I suggested it
Says she is game for just about anything but does not have suggestions for what that might entail.
Does not understand why it is frustrating for me to platonically watch a show with sex scene if it's been a while since we had sex
Will go weeks without talking about sex and then upon finding out I don't want sex b/c I just masturbated will tell me "save some of that for me next time."
Instinctively pulls away from my hand whenever I reach for her body during foreplay, especially breasts, vulva, or butt. This happens regardless of who initiates.
Takes all of the above into consideration (or perhaps doesn't?) and says "I'm sex positive!"
HLC, please give me guidance. Slap me upside the head if that's what I need. Because I'm losing my mind over here.

Are there HVAC design reasons to vent a ground floor directly to the basement?
We rent a small single family home with the Ruud furnace in the basement.
There is a heat register that covers a hole in the floor directly to the basement. (The vent is not hooked up to any ducting)
The heat register for is ill-fitting and in an important walkway. I'd like to remove the register and fill in the vent hole with a small supported plank.
Presuming I can fill in the hole safely, are there any ventilation considerations in doing this?
I've tried to understand why the hole is there at all.
It could be the hole is left over from a ducting design. If so, the heat register is only there because someone did not want to do the finishing work after moving this particular heat supply.
Part of why I think this could be the case is the vent in question has a duct passing directly beneath it, taking heat about 5 feet toward the wall.
It passes so close to the open hole that it looks like the heat previously was piped here but was moved to this (perhaps better?) other location out of the walkway.
Then, rather than close the hole and put proper flooring in, the heat register was left there. (I've found many examples of incomplete or very cheaply performed maintenance so this would not surprise me in the slightest.)
This is conjecture, I do not know much about home ventilation design.
My biggest concern is that it might contribute to higher radon levels in the basement. The idea would be that this opening can create negative air pressure on the basement due to the ground floor return grill.
I can't identify reasons not to close this hole, so I'm hopeful for feedback here.
Some additional details:
The main area, which includes the front door entry, living room, dining room and kitchen in an open plan also includes:

• Two forced air heat vents
• This vent / hole to the basement
• A single return grill near front door

I am not aware of a specific fresh air supply to the home, except perhaps backflow from the kitchen stove ventilation.
The basement is not heated unless a vent installed on the furnace itself is opened.

Anyone welcome!
Hey im Jonathan! I would love to meet new people from wherever to game, make jokes? Text, anything! Let me tell you more about me!
About me: I’m from Texas
I am LGBTQ 🏳️‍🌈 Friendly
Lover of memes
I love to watch sci fi/ fantasy movies the most. Favorite would be LOTR : The Two Towers. sci fi would be tron legacy.
I enjoy gaming a lot and would love to play with people. I play a lot of multiplayer games. I love stardew and halo the most, but i play zelda, mario, doom and a whole lot of other games so just ask me what else i play.
On my free time i like to write about fantasy short stories and Or about my days.
I like to go on walks of hikes depending on the weather.
I like to explore more of nature by heading into a nearby forest.
Music: i like daft punk and metallica.
Reading: i like to read young adult fantasy and non fiction books. Percy Jackson and The Mortal Instruments especially. And ACOTAR Too
I enjoy Studio Ghibli, Anime, and Marvel and Dc Movies
I have a couple of dogs if you want to see them, just ask me :)
Currently plan to work on my masters this fall!
Thats mostly everything from me but if you’re interested to learn more just ask!

Information taken from https://tattle.life/wiki/lucy_letby_case_2/
Accused method of injury: air embolus
GA at birth 30 weeks, from what I can tell
Unit is noted to be busy with other twins and CPAPing babies
They attempted to place UVC x 2, with malposition (it doesn't mention what, but usually it means that it is in the liver or splenic vein) They left the 2nd UVC attempt in place, but they did not mention that it was pulled to low-lying.

• As background, you can place a UVC as normal or low-lying. Normal position is with the tip of the catheter above the diaphragm and is the preferred position for UVC. Low lying UVCs can be used in emergency situations, or if no other access can be obtained. Their correct position is just barely inserted into the umbilical cord, just until you get blood back, and then you need to get xrays to ensure it has not entered the liver. Any UVC in the liver needs to be immediately removed. It is never acceptable to ever infuse into the liver. (tldr: it needs to be above or below the liver, but never in the liver)

With the unsuccessful UVC, they placed a "long line" aka PICC.

• This is an IV that is inserted in the skin like normal, but instead of a short plastic piece that remains in the body, it's a long piece and is fed through the veins to sit outside the heart

It appears that maybe the baby was without fluids for ~4 hours, because of issues with the lines.

• There's a line of questioning about the fact that the child was urinating was "proof" that they didn't need fluids, but that's not true, as babies are born with extra water on board and need to pee that off, but they still need to be given fluids in the meanwhile - I'm not sure it is significant at all, but just to note the logic in the discussion was off

His clinical notes, written in retrospect at 9.30pm, record for 5pm: "UVC in situ on my arrival on NICU at 5pm. No definitive access at this point, so I've left in situ with plan to remove if long line sited or pull back to low position is long line not successful."

This is from the doctor who placed the lines, so he intentionally left a line, in the liver.

• This is not acceptable practice. If you need to leave the line for emergency access, you pull it back to low-lying immediately, you do not leave it in the liver, because there is a risk it could be used accidentally. If you administer fluids into the liver it can cause damage to the liver itself or cause bleeding/clots or other issues. I will emphasize again, it's never ok to leave a UVC in the liver. Pull it to low lying or remove it entirely, do not leave it in a dangerous position.

The PICC was pulled afteduring the "collapse"

He said: "That was my immediate thought. In hindsight...there was no possible link [between its insertion and the collapse]."

• Pulling the PICC was probably the right call. It is not true that there is no possible link, there's lots of possible links, but we don't have anything definitive.

From the descriptions, it sounds like baby desaturated first, then had bradycardia

• This is the normal way it happens in a NICU. Sats drop, then the HR. Almost all codes in NICU are respiratory based

They did chest compressions and epinephrine during the code. They don't mention how they administered the epi, since they had pulled the PICC and the UVC was in an incorrect position

• One suspicious thing is that the baby continued to decompensate after intubation. Often, that is a sign that the intubation was not done correctly and the breathing tube is in the esophagus, not the trachea.

They say the PICC was deep and needed pulled back

• This is significant because if a PICC is too deep and enters the heart, it can "tickle" the SA node, which is what controls heart rhythm. I have quite literally induced arrhythmias before accidentally by PICC/UVC. If you start getting a weird rhythm, you just immediately pull the line back. And if you have inserted a line and there's a weird rhythm and it's deep, it could absolutely be that. It would not show any "damage" or anything else on post mortems.

From the autopsy:

He comments "unusual findings" in gas and air found in the baby boy, including "a line of gas just in front of the spine".

They have not mentioned whether the PICC was in an upper extremity or lower. This could be important. A line of gas by the spine would be concerning for air in the line, though the first assumption would be that it was from insertion of the line.
This air was only seen post mortem though, which is more suspicious, just because a lot of stuff is done post mortem and the body starts to produce gas fairly quickly. Xrays from immediately after the code started showed no signs of air in unusual places.

• IMO, if there was an air embolism, it would have shown up then, not just post mortem.

Dr. Evans concluded that it was an embolism mainly because he couldn't find another clear cause of death

• BTW, this is not how emboli are diagnosed. Lots of NICU babies who die don't have "clear" causes of death beyond prematurity.

I can't say why Baby A died, IMO - I do not think it is a slam dunk that it was an intentional death. I see lots of different opportunities for little things to have gone wrong/contributed to the massive collapse.
I will also say, that while they are saying that LL was actively injecting air into the baby, there were other people nearby, which seems unusual to me, especially considering this is supposed to be her first "attack". Several of the cases make it pretty ballsy that she was basically attempting to murder babies while other people were watching.
As I have said before, I feel like they have tried to find anything they could conceivably try and pin on her, in order to make the insulin charges stick, because they do not have enough evidence for those, because of medical mismanagement by the doctors.
Of course, anyone is free to agree/disagree with my interpretation of events. :)
Overall, I don't think either side did a great job. Myer's is trying to open doubt wherever he can, but I feel like he doesn't have enough medical knowledge/guidance and is doing it too scattershot and not as logically as he could.
I have a lot of reservations about Dr. Evans, who is incredibly confident of his ideas and continually states there's no other possible explanations, even when there are. Plus he's not a neonatal expert. Just because he set up NICUs in the 70s and 80s does not mean he's a neo expert. He apparently solicited the police to look into these deaths, so I just have a lot of reservations about his "independent" status.
If you think I've missed something important, or have a disagreement, please bring it up!