This year, I began trying to walk with my son as often as possible. I load him up in the stroller, and I just start walking. In particular, after the beginning of July I tried to get out as often as I could. At some point I started recording those walks using my phone.
I didn't end up capturing all the walks that I did, and of the walks that I did end up capturing I didn't end up getting all of them because sometimes I forgot to put it down until late. However, here are the statistics.
I walked a grand total this year of 65 km, and that took 18 hours. I climbed the equivalent of 700 m on upward hills. And all of this work ended up, at least according to the app, burning 3800 calories or about 1 lb.
A long time ago I successfully lost a lot of weight, and people always ask me how I did it. The key isn't burning more fat as I've shown. That's an awful lot of work for 1 lb. The key is to eat less and to eat better. That's how people succeed at weight loss.
I didn't end up capturing all the walks that I did, and of the walks that I did end up capturing I didn't end up getting all of them because sometimes I forgot to put it down until late. However, here are the statistics.
I walked a grand total this year of 65 km, and that took 18 hours. I climbed the equivalent of 700 m on upward hills. And all of this work ended up, at least according to the app, burning 3800 calories or about 1 lb.
A long time ago I successfully lost a lot of weight, and people always ask me how I did it. The key isn't burning more fat as I've shown. That's an awful lot of work for 1 lb. The key is to eat less and to eat better. That's how people succeed at weight loss.
"damnit Dante, that isn't the solution to every one of life's problems!"
"Haha blocktype printing press go brrrrrr"
"Haha blocktype printing press go brrrrrr"
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of someone else's money" - Margaret Thatcher
https://video.fbxl.net/w/oFthi6CFmxGvSr15VAJR7W
I thought about this when it was first going on, but now I think this video encapsulates the Kevin McCarthy experience perfectly.
I thought about this when it was first going on, but now I think this video encapsulates the Kevin McCarthy experience perfectly.
That's a good point. Germany only surrendered when Berlin fell and it was totally conquered and Hitler enjoyed a saltpeter and sulphur surprise, and Japan surrendered after it was clear they'd lost totally and two of their cities just had the world's most powerful weapon used against them. If the mass bombing of urban centers demoralized the enemy then they never would have fought to the last man.
I try to fact check my posts before I make them because I'm wasting everyone's time if I'm saying things that are just factually false. In the process of checking this post, I found out that Germany fell on May 2nd and surrendered on May 7th (and again on May 8th-9th because Stalin said "Surrender harder!"). I find it interesting that the second nuke hit Japan on August 9th, but the unconditional surrender didn't fully take place until September 2nd. I guess there was actually an internal power struggle and an attempted coup against the emperor, and after the emperor made a radio broadcast explaining the decision to surrender the military tried to confiscate all copies of the broadcast.
I try to fact check my posts before I make them because I'm wasting everyone's time if I'm saying things that are just factually false. In the process of checking this post, I found out that Germany fell on May 2nd and surrendered on May 7th (and again on May 8th-9th because Stalin said "Surrender harder!"). I find it interesting that the second nuke hit Japan on August 9th, but the unconditional surrender didn't fully take place until September 2nd. I guess there was actually an internal power struggle and an attempted coup against the emperor, and after the emperor made a radio broadcast explaining the decision to surrender the military tried to confiscate all copies of the broadcast.
To be fair, she bought the properties right after the folks from the Mayflower built them.
Absolute nightmare. I'm sure they'll have to write a cheque, but there's no amount of money that can make up for taking that life...
That's a good point. Germany only surrendered when Berlin fell and it was totally conquered and Hitler enjoyed a saltpeter and sulphur surprise, and Japan surrendered after it was clear they'd lost totally and two of their cities just had the world's most powerful weapon used against them and a breaking of the declaration of neutrality by the Soviets. If the mass bombing of urban centers demoralized the enemy then they never would have fought to the last man.
I try to fact check my posts before I make them because I'm wasting everyone's time if I'm saying things that are just factually false. In the process of checking this post, I found out that Berlin fell on May 2nd and surrendered on May 7th (and again on May 8th because Stalin said "Surrender harder!"). I find it interesting that the second nuke hit Japan on August 9th, but the unconditional surrender didn't take place until September 2nd. I guess there was actually an internal power struggle and an attempted coup against the emperor, and after the emperor made a radio broadcast explaining the decision to surrender the military tried to confiscate all copies of the broadcast.
I try to fact check my posts before I make them because I'm wasting everyone's time if I'm saying things that are just factually false. In the process of checking this post, I found out that Berlin fell on May 2nd and surrendered on May 7th (and again on May 8th because Stalin said "Surrender harder!"). I find it interesting that the second nuke hit Japan on August 9th, but the unconditional surrender didn't take place until September 2nd. I guess there was actually an internal power struggle and an attempted coup against the emperor, and after the emperor made a radio broadcast explaining the decision to surrender the military tried to confiscate all copies of the broadcast.
I can't say much, our prime minister managed to dig up one of the few actual remaining 1945 Nazis left alive on the planet earth and gave him a standing ovation twice in parliament specifically for fighting against the allies in World War 2.
I still remember when it came out that bidens head of cyber security was a member of the GNAA. Obviously didn't get much airplay because journalists ass just corrupt pawns of an evil establishment, but it was pretty funny at the time and should have been memed more.
You gotta remember this is the guy who claims it's legal to break someone's arm and steal their motorcycle because they touch a piece of paper you're holding.
Protip: Don't break people's arms, even if they do touch your piece of paper. But if you try it you'll find out for yourself, I guess.
Protip: Don't break people's arms, even if they do touch your piece of paper. But if you try it you'll find out for yourself, I guess.
War is a strange thing. On one hand, there's rules to war, and in that respect it almost looks civilized. POW exchanges and the like.
On the other hand, war is war, and in that respect it's utterly horrible and deranged.
Attacking cities -- not just early small scale raids like Tokyo or Berlin, but later large scale attacks like the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo later on in the war which have even been compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in terms of the sheer toll on innocent life -- is just another tactic in a grand strategy, and the lives of the people in those cities are just chips on the board to be flipped or consumed as required to achieve victory.
In the case of Germany and Japan it is arguable that virtually any means may be acceptable to prevent final victory because their regimes would have made most of the worst excesses of western democracies look trivial in comparison for at least some of the conquered peoples should they have succeeded, but it's a heavy toll, and just because something is justifiable for practical reasons doesn't mean it isn't a horrible loss of innocence and doesn't mean it isn't a terrible evil.
Then there's the Soviets who in my view were just on a completely different scale. Many people today look back and go "I don't even know why we were scared of the Soviets, obviously they were never actually military competitors to the west", but the sheer callous scale of the suffering imposed by Stalin on his own people to take Berlin is unthinkable. If history ended in 1946 perhaps it would have regarded them as selfless heroes, but in retrospect it should have been obvious that something like the gulags existed. The Soviet Union lost more soldiers in World War 2 than all the axis powers in the German theatre, as well as all the allied powers in the German theatre, combined. To give an idea, the Americans lost about 450,000 soldiers through the war, the Germans lost about 5.3 million, Germany's allies in the german theatre of the war lost about 1.5 million, while the Russians lost as many as 10.7 million soldiers.
tl;dr: war sucks, bro.
On the other hand, war is war, and in that respect it's utterly horrible and deranged.
Attacking cities -- not just early small scale raids like Tokyo or Berlin, but later large scale attacks like the firebombing of Dresden or Tokyo later on in the war which have even been compared to Hiroshima and Nagasaki in terms of the sheer toll on innocent life -- is just another tactic in a grand strategy, and the lives of the people in those cities are just chips on the board to be flipped or consumed as required to achieve victory.
In the case of Germany and Japan it is arguable that virtually any means may be acceptable to prevent final victory because their regimes would have made most of the worst excesses of western democracies look trivial in comparison for at least some of the conquered peoples should they have succeeded, but it's a heavy toll, and just because something is justifiable for practical reasons doesn't mean it isn't a horrible loss of innocence and doesn't mean it isn't a terrible evil.
Then there's the Soviets who in my view were just on a completely different scale. Many people today look back and go "I don't even know why we were scared of the Soviets, obviously they were never actually military competitors to the west", but the sheer callous scale of the suffering imposed by Stalin on his own people to take Berlin is unthinkable. If history ended in 1946 perhaps it would have regarded them as selfless heroes, but in retrospect it should have been obvious that something like the gulags existed. The Soviet Union lost more soldiers in World War 2 than all the axis powers in the German theatre, as well as all the allied powers in the German theatre, combined. To give an idea, the Americans lost about 450,000 soldiers through the war, the Germans lost about 5.3 million, Germany's allies in the german theatre of the war lost about 1.5 million, while the Russians lost as many as 10.7 million soldiers.
tl;dr: war sucks, bro.
I seem to recall that literature indicates that the greatest predictor of how much fathers are involved with raising children is how much the mother allows the father to be involved. Essentially, it takes 2 to parent a child, and it particularly takes 2 to have an active and involved father for the child.
I suspect that the opposite doesn't happen so often -- mothers aren't usually distanced from their kids by the father, particularly in intact households.
Our biology primes us differently, so while there's no right or wrong answer men and women tend towards certain roles and those roles have a substantial impact on how they tend to interact with our offspring.
The biggest challenge is trying as a society to balance the reality that not every family is the same so you shouldn't automatically assume every story is the same one and base your rules and rulings on that (and I'd argue we absolutely have), but at the same time you shouldn't disregard fundamental truths that often apply to the world just because they're inconvenient, such as the typical relationships between kids and their mother and the same kids and their father.
I guess the key is we should try to see reality as it is and not as stereotypes or disregarding stereotypes would have us see it. Good dads ought to be treated well, good moms ought to be treated well, shitty dads ought to be treated badly, and shitty moms ought to be treated badly.
I suspect that the opposite doesn't happen so often -- mothers aren't usually distanced from their kids by the father, particularly in intact households.
Our biology primes us differently, so while there's no right or wrong answer men and women tend towards certain roles and those roles have a substantial impact on how they tend to interact with our offspring.
The biggest challenge is trying as a society to balance the reality that not every family is the same so you shouldn't automatically assume every story is the same one and base your rules and rulings on that (and I'd argue we absolutely have), but at the same time you shouldn't disregard fundamental truths that often apply to the world just because they're inconvenient, such as the typical relationships between kids and their mother and the same kids and their father.
I guess the key is we should try to see reality as it is and not as stereotypes or disregarding stereotypes would have us see it. Good dads ought to be treated well, good moms ought to be treated well, shitty dads ought to be treated badly, and shitty moms ought to be treated badly.
Whatifalthist has suggested that one of the strengths of national socialism, it's dependence on masculine values like heroism, racial tribalism, and strength, also ended up being its single catastrophic weakness because without tempering such values with other values you end up with an empire everyone else hates and will work together to tear down, and your leadership ends up filled with people who are busy stomping all over each other for the potential for glory. That's in contrast to the Soviet union which he claims had a dependence on feminine values like community, redistribution, and a sort of toxic order that led to situations like the gulags.
I'd argue that it isn't masculine or feminine values that doomed those nations, but unalloyed purity of these values. Humans will die out of we follow only a narrow subset of our values no matter how good those values are. Heroism must be tempered by compassion. Supporting the ingroup must be tempered by charity for the outgroup. Valor must be tempered with humility. Your personal victory must be tempered by the victory of those around you. That's what ultimately destroyed both countries, and anyone who thinks they can live life ignoring core human values of any kind are in for a rude awakening as most humans values have been pounded into our DNA and our culture by their necessity. People and civilizations with failings in their value systems tend to be lost to history.
I'd argue that it isn't masculine or feminine values that doomed those nations, but unalloyed purity of these values. Humans will die out of we follow only a narrow subset of our values no matter how good those values are. Heroism must be tempered by compassion. Supporting the ingroup must be tempered by charity for the outgroup. Valor must be tempered with humility. Your personal victory must be tempered by the victory of those around you. That's what ultimately destroyed both countries, and anyone who thinks they can live life ignoring core human values of any kind are in for a rude awakening as most humans values have been pounded into our DNA and our culture by their necessity. People and civilizations with failings in their value systems tend to be lost to history.
Unpopular opinion, but put me on the deepest darkest fediverse instance and I feel safer than most big tech sites.
Without the algorithm actively building lynch mobs of any variety, I feel like the people who disagree with each other can choose to block, mute, comment, repost, or ignore but there won't be any algorithmically created mobs rolling around. Most "viral" posts you could fit the people who interact with it on an Airbus a380, rather than a small country. Without the algorithm keeping old posts visible, they're ephemeral, soon drowned out by the next interesting post.
I guess it's a two sided sword though, the reason many of the celebrities ran back to Twitter in a few days is they can't get arbitrary positive attention from an algorithm either and they need to achieve engagement like any other person. You can't even get your agent to buy follows because the number of followers doesn't affect who sees your posts.
Without the algorithm actively building lynch mobs of any variety, I feel like the people who disagree with each other can choose to block, mute, comment, repost, or ignore but there won't be any algorithmically created mobs rolling around. Most "viral" posts you could fit the people who interact with it on an Airbus a380, rather than a small country. Without the algorithm keeping old posts visible, they're ephemeral, soon drowned out by the next interesting post.
I guess it's a two sided sword though, the reason many of the celebrities ran back to Twitter in a few days is they can't get arbitrary positive attention from an algorithm either and they need to achieve engagement like any other person. You can't even get your agent to buy follows because the number of followers doesn't affect who sees your posts.
The fact that Democrats don't recognize that they've become the perpetuators of the war on terror they used to criticize is really odd.
Hell, it seems like the Dems loooove gwb now, and it's right wingers who look back and think his administration was a disaster.
Hell, it seems like the Dems loooove gwb now, and it's right wingers who look back and think his administration was a disaster.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/03/07/518986612/author-says-hitler-was-blitzed-on-cocaine-and-opiates-during-the-war
Opiates and cocaine. Sounds bad but (apparently I need to defend Hitler and prove my critics totally right) keep in mind that we took some time to really understand how bad all these drugs were. Sigmund Freud died in 1939 right before he started using and before he realized how dangerous it was and recanted he wrote a book called "on cocaine" which basically talks about how much he loved cocaine.
Also, "German supersoldier serum" was just methamphetamine, which powered the long journeys of the blitzkrieg. It wasn't until much later that it was really appreciated how dangerous drugs are.
https://time.com/5752114/nazi-military-drugs/
Opiates and cocaine. Sounds bad but (apparently I need to defend Hitler and prove my critics totally right) keep in mind that we took some time to really understand how bad all these drugs were. Sigmund Freud died in 1939 right before he started using and before he realized how dangerous it was and recanted he wrote a book called "on cocaine" which basically talks about how much he loved cocaine.
Also, "German supersoldier serum" was just methamphetamine, which powered the long journeys of the blitzkrieg. It wasn't until much later that it was really appreciated how dangerous drugs are.
https://time.com/5752114/nazi-military-drugs/
I watched a youtube video recently that suggested that Karl Marx was correct that there's class warfare going on, but it isn't between the workers and the property owners, it's between the people who go out and find their power in helping others (including the workers and the factory owners) and the people who find their power in oppressing others (largely the government)
By the time he was done explaining his thesis in the very beginning I found I couldn't disagree with the concept at all. It is true that sometimes the rich screw over the little guy, but it's also true that sometimes the rich make the workers rich too. One of the big differences ends up being whether the property owner has the backing of government to corruptly get monopoly powers they don't deserve.
Looking at class struggle through such a lens seems to me to shift the perspective to one that makes a lot more sense. A small business owner who is barely making it isn't trying to screw over their employees (even though they might), they're struggling too. On the other hand, people with either direct institutional power or who have been granted institutional power in one form or another by the bureaucratic class often aren't struggling economically because the game is rigged in their favor.
Looking at things from this perspective also explains what happens in regimes that adopt marxism. In having an ideological blindspot about the dangers of people who don't have direct wealth but do have bureaucratic power, it allows those people to run amok because at least they aren't the ideologically selected scapegoat. In that sense, marxism shares properties with national socialism, which pointed at one race of people to pin all the troubles of the world on and in the process let a bunch of really nasty people get bureaucratic power.
If there are 3 ways to get something done that are hard and 1 way that is easy, everyone will use the easy way even if it's the wrong way to do it or if it's only meant for fringe situations. Therefore you will want to make sure you're propery administering your systems to eliminate shortcuts and workarounds that will disregard all the work you put into regulating what are supposed to be the main ways to get things done. On the other hand, it also means you want to make sure those main pathways to getting things done are reasonably streamlined so people aren't incentivized to taking shortcuts.
By the time he was done explaining his thesis in the very beginning I found I couldn't disagree with the concept at all. It is true that sometimes the rich screw over the little guy, but it's also true that sometimes the rich make the workers rich too. One of the big differences ends up being whether the property owner has the backing of government to corruptly get monopoly powers they don't deserve.
Looking at class struggle through such a lens seems to me to shift the perspective to one that makes a lot more sense. A small business owner who is barely making it isn't trying to screw over their employees (even though they might), they're struggling too. On the other hand, people with either direct institutional power or who have been granted institutional power in one form or another by the bureaucratic class often aren't struggling economically because the game is rigged in their favor.
Looking at things from this perspective also explains what happens in regimes that adopt marxism. In having an ideological blindspot about the dangers of people who don't have direct wealth but do have bureaucratic power, it allows those people to run amok because at least they aren't the ideologically selected scapegoat. In that sense, marxism shares properties with national socialism, which pointed at one race of people to pin all the troubles of the world on and in the process let a bunch of really nasty people get bureaucratic power.
If there are 3 ways to get something done that are hard and 1 way that is easy, everyone will use the easy way even if it's the wrong way to do it or if it's only meant for fringe situations. Therefore you will want to make sure you're propery administering your systems to eliminate shortcuts and workarounds that will disregard all the work you put into regulating what are supposed to be the main ways to get things done. On the other hand, it also means you want to make sure those main pathways to getting things done are reasonably streamlined so people aren't incentivized to taking shortcuts.
2 things:
1. Hitler was also famous for some of the heavy drugs he took at the behest of his doctor, which many people believe were one of the reasons for some of his catastrophically poor decisions throughout the war. That's hilarious.
2. "Don't smoke mein freuden, zat stuff vill kill you!" uh.... smoke up buddy I think you don't have anything to worry about.
1. Hitler was also famous for some of the heavy drugs he took at the behest of his doctor, which many people believe were one of the reasons for some of his catastrophically poor decisions throughout the war. That's hilarious.
2. "Don't smoke mein freuden, zat stuff vill kill you!" uh.... smoke up buddy I think you don't have anything to worry about.
As a father, being cognizant that Marcus Aurelius raised a son who wasn't his equal is something I can't ignore. No matter how bright the fire, if you don't properly tend it, it'll eventually turn to embers, then ashes.