FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
And every gimmick hungry yob
Digging gold from rock n roll
Grabs the mic to tell us
he'll die before he's sold
But I believe in this
And it's been tested by research
He who fucks nuns
Will later join the church
User ID: 195
My question is how you guys keep this kind of routine up for any extended period of time.
Suggestions:
-
You might just not like the Stronglifts format. I used 5x5 when I started, and it's very valuable for getting started, but rarely have I gone back to it over the decade since. Mostly, I find something like the Bulgarian Lite method, where I'm trying to hit a PR on something. Rarely do my lifting sessions last longer than 45 minutes. When they do, it's normally that I am enjoying them.
-
You might not like barbells. Try kettlebells instead. They're easy to store and use at home, they encourage a certain degree of "owning the weight" and focus on reps and density rather than increasing weight, they're a little more explosive and athletic and fun than the classic powerlifts.
-
There's no real reason you have to or should keep the same routine for longer than three to six months. You're likely to start to stall out after more than twelve weeks on the same routine. At that point, you should always be switching to a new routine, whether that's the same format with new lifts, the same lifts with a new format, something other than weightlifting entirely, just something new that you're stoked on. In the past year or so I've focused on the barbell clean and jerk, the moonboard, the kettlebell pentathlon, push pressing a 97lb kettlebell for 32 consecutive reps, hitting a max on the Landmine Jerk, and for the last four months on BJJ. I still mess around with the other exercises in between, but I'm only ever focused on advancing one at a time. When I start getting bored of one, I move on to the next. I'm 33 and I'm not making the olympics in anything so what does it matter if my progress is slower? I'm getting strong and having fun.
-
You might like more of a social/class format like Crossfit. Crossfit is where I started lifting, at any decent box you will get good at the big lifts, and I think most of the people talking shit on it are either fat or not nearly as strong as your average Crossfitter.
-
Home gym master race.
Because it isn't overvalued, it isn't expensive, it doesn't take up much time done right. Lifting weights and working out is massively undervalued, it's the best thing you can do for yourself. Strength is the master trait that makes everything else easier. Rock climbing, when I took it up, was easier because I was strong; BJJ is easier because I was strong when I started; team sports and living your life in general will be better and easier. The only thing it makes worse is getting dressed.
I don't think "Republicans" or "Democrats" are the right unit of analysis. The Anti-Woke are just a portion of Republicans, and the philosemitic and Woke are just portions of Democrats. The Anti-Woke see an opportunity to use the weapons developed by the Woke against them by mobilizing the normie Republicans and the Philosemitic Democrats against the Woke. There's a risk that when the Anti-Woke seek to abandon the tactic, that they'll have accustomed the normies to the idea that college kids can suffer grave consequences for making people uncomfortable.
The key is to encourage multi-sport focus rather than elite specialization. IMHO.
Exactly.
So if irreversibility is a necessary condition for classifying something as chemical castration... than it seems that chemical castration does not meet the standard.
I think the problem with this standard where puberty blockers are concerned is that nothing is reversible.
I listened to Lex Friedman's interview with Aella some time back, and part of her personal history was growing up in a very strict evangelical Christian household. She never went through a "normal" process of sexual development, learning to date and grow into herself. Instead, she ran away from home and got...this. And no amount of careful effort would have allowed her to experience the way a normal person grows up, and certainly it is impossible to do so now.
Similarly, a kid who starts puberty two or three or five years late is going to have a very different experience than a kid who follows a "natural" puberty. We already know this because the experience of hitting puberty early or late is understood as critical to and generative of people's personalities. I didn't really hit puberty until later than some kids, though earlier than others, and I've no doubt if you moved that number around a few years either way you get a vastly different FiveHour. Two years earlier and maybe I make the high school baseball team and go through high school a varsity jock; two years later and maybe I'm not really ready to blossom in college and socially become more of an outcast, certainly never meeting my wife.
When they talk about puberty blockers being reversible, what they mean (at best) is that the kid will still go through some version of puberty. But it will never be the puberty that would have been, it's impossible that it would be, and I'm fairly certain that later than one's peers is for the most part worse outside of random unlikely chance. They'd be 13 when they are 16, and 16 when they are 20. I don't know that society is going to be set up for that.
For me, the construction quality is the most important quality, which is why I chose a macbook four years ago.
I see the appeal from a Trump/anti-woke perspective, all the enemies lined up behind an unpopular position they we probably can beat universities into punishing relatively easily. I'm wondering where this goes afterwards.
The question in my mind is where you situate anti-semitism discourse relative to wokeness.
One framing of this is that the Trump admin and rightists are using anti-semitism to Judo-throw the woke, using the Woke's own narratives of protecting besieged minorities to destroy the Woke, and ultimately in the process discrediting the idea of protecting minority fee-fees and removing it from the discourse. Like Treize Khushrenada, the anti-woke will use the Woke's weapons against them, and in the process the weapons will all be destroyed and we'll have peace.
Alternatively, the anti-Woke are reifying the Woke narrative by utilizing it. We're all embedded in the narrative of protecting the feelings of minority students from the political positions of their fellow students. We're valorizing the idea that students can and should be expelled, arrested, their degrees revoked, for saying something "offensive" to a minority group. Rather than the Republicans engaging in clever Judo to reverse-flip the Woke into a bad position, rather the Woke have trapped the Republicans into fighting in their paradigm: Republicans have no engaged the Woke in their own field, where the Woke have the advantage.
We'll have to see what happens.
The right-wing base doesn't generally shout their opinions from a soapbox in the same way, and therefore isn't as vulnerable to this.
Other than, you know, that one time in DC. And that one time in Charlottesville. And if they own a pickup truck, the bumper stickers and flags. Or the T Shirts. And the rallies.
I never even said they opposed it. Merely that they were frightened of it happening to them.
I might or might not oppose Stop and Frisk but I know it's not happening to me either way. If it started happening to me in my town, I might consider moving, whether or not I opposed it in principle.
Did the previous administration do that to random travelers and immigrants, or are you referring to something else?
Because, yes, if I were an immigrant, stricter enforcement at ICE would be a bigger concern for me than virtually anything else when deciding where to live.
The cheapest Macbook Air on Costco (where I got my last one) is still $650. While the OS leaves something to be desired at times, the actual physical laptop itself is far superior in construction quality to everything I looked at five years ago. To get a similar quality aluminum case and solidity of function on a windows laptop would have cost me twice as much at the time.
Given that an even-decent quality Chromebook will run you in $400 range, you are better off splurging to get a nicer item, given how many hours you'll spend using it.
At least, that was my reasoning when I bought mine.
Yes.
Everyone is lying constantly about the purposes of all immigration laws and law enforcement all the time. Debating it in public is more or less completely pointless.
These kinds of public displays of gratuitous kafka-esque cruelty are meant to scare current immigrants and potential immigrants, as they realize the power that the Federal Government has to fuck with them at will. This is leading a lot of green card holders I know who are from non-shithole countries to "jump before they push me" and consider moving home.
This kind of "enforcement" will have no impact on the job market, but it publicly displays to people that they aren't safe from stupidity and cruelty, and that they should rethink immigrating to or remaining in the USA. Deport 50 criminals and you deport 50 criminals; imprison one rando for doing the dishes and you terrify dozens into self deportation.
I presume the employees know more than me, but it also seems like most people don't actually know anything. I also have the sense that there is special malice being heaped on Dept of Ed people that the others aren't experiencing.
A lot of this is the psychological shock for government workers to find themselves unsure about their futures. Government work has long been understood as a bargain* for the employee: the employee gives up significant salary and upward mobility, and receives in turn a relatively easy job and close to complete job security. You don't make as much money, but you'll never get fired. Current government workers have built their lives around that bargain. They "knew" they were giving up other opportunities, but in exchange they were getting job security.
Now that bargain is being shaken up. Whether anyone has actually been fired or not, they know they aren't wanted, and that their firing might be only a matter of time. This is devastating if you thought you would never be fired.
*One can dispute the accuracy of this bargain, some government workers seem very well paid, but it probably turns into dueling-nit-picking about what the same workers' potential earnings in the private sector would be. Regardless, this bargain is still understood as being in force even if it has factually decayed. Most government workers will tend to compare their careers to the best of their peers in the private sector and find they made less, not to the worst, so even if a government salary is higher overall it still will be perceived as middling.
If they're light and fun, that's what Fridays are for.
If they're personal, they probably fit into the Wellness Wednesday thread broadly construed.
If they're neither fun nor personal, then such a thread would probably devolve into low-effort driveby rageposting of "thing I saw on the internet pissed me off" and "fuck my stupid outgroup" level stuff that would rapidly enshittify the forum.
Angel Numbers. Essentially a superstitious belief that the appearance of certain numbers provides meaning.
We're surrounded by numbers, from car mileage to receipts to credit cards. My wife and I have long had a joking superstition that single-digit order numbers on Wawa receipts are important and mean something will happen (for those of you less fortunate, Wawa order numbers go from 000-999, and Wawas are open 24-7 so they reset at random). She did get her first real job the same day we got the 001 receipt for the first time.
Looking for random patterns is fun.
Rhyming (or other forms of meter like alliterative verse) has obvious benefits for memory, so in the sense that it sticks in my mind more quickly that kind of language is going to be more useful for getting across an idea in a sticky way.
I think we're going to get into a discussion here over what constitutes grasping or conveying meaning.
Consider the Clarihew
George the Third Ought never to have occurred. One can only wonder At so grotesque a blunder.
Would the sentence
George III was a pretty bad king.
get across the same meaning more quickly?
Probably yes, in the sense that you'll get what is being said in less time and can move on. But more people will remember the Clarihew, a week or two from now there's a good chance that a good percentage of them will be able to repeat it back to you even if they only read it once. I myself looked that poem up just now, after reading a reference to it in a children's book (I want to say one of the Indian in the Cupboard series) twenty-five years ago. So in that sense the couplet "George the Third, Ought never to have occurred" gets the reader to grasp the meaning and retain it much more quickly than the same message in prose. People will hear George III mentioned, connect it to "ought never to have occurred," and recall that he was a bad king. It would take reading much more prose to get a similar average retention rate.
This has long been the purpose of poetic meter, from marketing jingles to heuristics to nursery rhymes to epic poems.
@FiveHourMarathon, care to explain how you convinced King Charles that all he had to do was just ask Trump to join the British Commonwealth?
我们有办法
This reminds me more of a PJ O'Rourke column from the early 1980s where he proposed that Reagan was a bad president, but would make a great King.
It's interesting to consider a Commonwealth that includes the USA, because the USA would naturally begin to dominate it. From the Commonwealth Games to economic deals, the club goes from being primarily "Former British Possessions" to primarily "America and Friends." This could be the Atlanticist vision of Brexit. Or it might be scuttled by Trump's mercurial nature.
I'm against annexation, but I think we should have an open door policy to apply for voluntary association and incorporation. We should be open to becoming the United States of the world. No first world nation needs more sovereignty than Alabama has.
I suspect over thousands of messages with someone who you are hanging out with in person, such subtleties would become apparent in text.
It's perfectly possible to get along with someone via text and not in person, but it would be odd to get along via text, meet up and not get along, then go back to the exact same text dynamic.
What's your current take on the ongoing Ukraine diplomatic drama? Are the Trump Talks likely to lead to the Trump Treaty? Or are they just ongoing comedy and flailing? What does a durable peace treaty look like these days?
Because being in the US illegally is in most cases a status offense, there's no exclusionary rule. Agents will claim in arrest reports that everyone "immediately volunteered that they had no papers and were in the country illegally." There's not much point fighting that story, because it doesn't get you anywhere.
So they accuse you of being here illegally you come back and say you're a citizen. At some point you'll need some evidence.
"Our Super Yenta, with a measured IQ of over 9000, has studied over 200,000 successful relationships and over 300,000 unsuccessful relationships, in order to determine what subtle factors in communication can indicate relationship compatibility. Super Yenta has no ulterior motives: she doesn't want to hook you up with her niece, she's a computer without feelings that rates relationships only on objective criteria discerned from training data."
I'm not entirely sure if it's true or not either over time. There were lots of very destructive wars of succession throughout the middle ages that featured virtually no political disagreement between the factions. Arguably in WWI, the combatant governments were all closer to each other in politics in August 1914 than they were to any of their successor state governments 20 years later, and certainly it impacted the populace.
But at one end you have some platonic ideal, which would be something like an ideologically-identical VP killing the POTUS and assuming the presidency. As long as the violence is limited to the POTUS, it would have no impact on me, and shouldn't end a golden age.
Perhaps. But it certainly indicates that you shouldn't build your country or bet your life on US promises.
Which is what we're asking people to do when we support their opposition movement abroad.
- Prev
- Next
Exactly.
None of this actually increased the rights I had in college, instead it narrows them further.
More options
Context Copy link