I really don’t like this article because it reminds me of the crazy health nut parents who get disgusted by fat babies and try to make them diet for “health” and instead starve them. Babies are supposed to be fat.
Is the writer here applying guidelines for adults to babies? Babies are supposed to take in foods that are high calorie. I think Nestle is a shit company, but I am extremely suspicious of the article.
Is this a nostalgia thing? Like how people who grew up without records now get vinyl for the looks or nostalgia of a time that was better or something?
The downside of optical disks for me was how easily they got scratched, plus you have to store them somehow (a big physical library takes up actual physical space, like the wall of a room), plus you have to get up and physically move something to play it. If you’re a super-neat person, perhaps this won’t be downside (I am not, and still have rips of a CD that used to be in my car and got scratched, so the rip has a part marred by skipping).
Also, are ordinary blu-rays kept in ordinary home conditions (that is to say, not archival and not climate-controlled or pitch-black) going to hang onto their data for 20+ years? Or is continually moving it to new SSDs and thinking about raid setups a better defense against data loss for an ordinary home media user? I remember vividly having old CDs and floppies that would not run years later due to becoming corrupted by physical media decay.
Anyway, I have no answers, just want to put some thoughts out there.
…now I really want to know if they do dilate, but I’m too cowardly to google it.
I second this. I’m a very light sleeper and earplugs filter out most of the small sounds so I am not awakened by them.
Then science better get going on artificial, external wombs. A lot of people would be overjoyed to be able to have kids without the physical risk of pregnancy, and the technology seems like it’d be mandatory for true colonization efforts
I ran into something like this from a company named Botrista who was supposedly hiring remote positions. I got suspicious before they got my personal info, dug deeper and found their site ran on wix, tried to contact them by other methods to see if I could get a real person, and concluded it was all a scam to collect the typical prehire personal info like bank accounts, ss number, home address, etc.
That’s a really good point. There were individual trolls and general cruel maladjusted scum, but they hadn’t yet been courted or manipulated by political orgs and fed collective marching orders to sow discord.
As far as I’m given to understand from folks who are Russian (but got out of Russia) or Ukrainian, this fellow would more be a change from one strongman to another if he replaced Putin. Apparently his Livejournal has him saying some nasty stuff he hasn’t repudiated. (Unfortunately, I don’t speak or read Russian so I can’t examine the sources myself very well, and machine translation doesn’t bring cultural nuance or context.) (Also, as funny as it sounds to people who remember Livejournal as the first English-speaking major social media for fandom, Livejournal has been the place for years for Russian intellectuals and politicians to say their bit, so it has a different cultural context in Russia than it does elsewhere where it was mainly used for fandom drama.)
It’s been strangely fascinating watching as western media tries to hold him up as some hope, when as far as I can tell when I stop to listen to actual Ukranians or Russians with better cultural knowledge on how Russia works than most western commentators, there’s basically minimal hope he’ll be anything close to a (good) Western-style leader and if he gets into power. (it gets swept under the rug in the west that Russian culture is NOT western european culture and things that are a “given” in European and other western cultures actually are not necessarily established culturally in Russia.)
As far as I understand it, it’ll just be exchanging one dude who’s done obviously terrible things (Putin) for another who probably’s not going to be all that different, and will just do his own brand of bad things. I think perhaps people just hope he’ll be a stable asshole, as opposed to an unstable one as Putin’s become.
Or maybe they just like a scapegoat narrative–it has been fascinating to me that he voluntarily returned to Russia, and it really reminds me that people who aren’t necessarily good can still show courage, and shape narratives that way in their favor. I suspect his actions have motivations underneath that I don’t understand because I don’t understand Russian strongman culture. And I suspect other people interpret his actions through a western lens, without understanding there’s cultural nuance going on that doesn’t align with how a western viewpoint might interpret something, and that’s why western media keeps talking about him so breathlessly.
Someone I read pointed out that in the real world, people are actually largely ok with monarchies and authoritarian rulers so long as the ruler at the top keeps things stable enough for business to be conducted. Ideals like democracy fall by the wayside in light of pragmatism when a nation state is unstable–people crave stability over all, over democracy even, regardless of what method of governance brings it. They will flock to authoritarianism if it promises stability.
And in Russia, the early 90s in the aftermath of the fall of the USSR brought a great deal of instability and hardship along with its “democracy”, so there’s not necessarily a positive feeling towards it as there is in more-functional western nations where it’s been working more or less for decades, as people who lived through the 90s in Russia associate the concept with hardship, not stability. Basically, a good concept implemented like crap can poison the concept in people’s minds for the rest of their life.
So I suspect if Putin is ever ousted, whoever replaces him (whether this guy or another) will be there because people think he can bring stability, not because the successor will actually be a good leader (from a western perspective).
But it’s all operating on a lower level of the “hierarchy of needs” than most people in western countries understand–more concern with base survival, less with being able to flower and thrive. So things might stabilize, but it might still be very bad for people, especially minorities, in Russia, and bad for smaller states if this guy gets into power but also turns his eye to conquering or dominating them in order to garner support.
Anyway. I find it interesting this guy hasn’t yet been executed. Instead they (supposedly) shuffle him off elsewhere. If you were Putin, why not kill him? Must be things going on behind the scenes that we don’t see, or understand, things concerning enough that Putin thinks executing him will be more trouble than it solves.
If Navalny ever comes to power, I don’t have any particular hope he’ll be a “good” leader.
But he has an interesting story, to be sure, and you can’t say he hasn’t been through quite a bit of hardship.
Thumbs up for the World Tree.
I was going to reply, stopped to look at this guy’s comment history. I’m not seeing a lot of worth in it, it’s mostly one-liners about this or that, no real engagement. Some seem mildly divisive simply for division’s sake.
They took that X away from me a few days later. I’ve switched to Freetube and it’s been pretty smooth.
I’ve been using it on Linux and it’s pretty nifty.
All the money spent coordinating that visit could be better spent fighting the war in Ukraine.
…you do realize that the ONLY reason the money coming in to Ukraine at the pace it is is because he said exactly the right things on the world stage at the right time in such a charismatic way that people believed in him enough that fundraising basically started flowing in?
His diplomatic/networking/fundraising acumen is WHY the money is flowing in, ya doofus.
Why the hell wouldn’t he be furiously trying to arrange in-person meetings where he can use his personal social skills to forge diplomatic ties?
Yeah, cultivating a growth mindset is really, really important. And it really is cultivating…you’ll have a hundred reasons why you “can’t” knocking on your door, and you’ll have to be persistent to slay each one.
But once a “growth mindset” is habit, it gets easier.
In the tech sector you can run into caste-ism (is that the correct word?), where Indians who are “lower” caste can be looked over when applying to jobs if the one going through resumes or making hiring decisions is Indian themselves and a “higher” or at least “different” caste, and can identify at a glance what caste the applicant is by their surname.
It’s apparently popping up enough that it’s on the radar as a discrimination problem in California, which has a big tech sector and I suppose a large enough population in some areas of Indian immigrants for this to start being a problem.
It surprised me at first that anyone was concerned about it–but then I realized…yeah, you kinda want to nip that one in the bud. Given all the existing classism/racism in the US, we hardly need a new one to throw into the mix. And it’s really dumb/disappointing to me that someone might come here from India hoping to start a new life and obviously have to deal with racism already because that never won’t NOT be a thing–only to ALSO run face first into caste-ism from fellow immigrants who drag that crap over with them. What a crappy catch-22, you know? So it seems to me that it’s good that some folk have awareness that it’s a thing to watch out for.
Maybe if you take LSD while watching it, the multi-fingered, multi-limbed speech will start to make some sort of divine sense…
So what I’m hearing is that computer code will eventually drift closer to DNA where “noncoding” sequences actually perform regulatory functions but in a way that’s super-arcane, and all you know is if you get rid of the noncoding bits the proteins change expression for some bizarre reason…
So, I’m uncertain if the parent’s behavior (screaming and throwing things w/ the mom) has been like this all the time and OP is finally getting fed up with it, or if it’s really a sudden change.
I’d definitely first consider the advice from others in this thread to check environmental toxins or health stuff with the parents, esp. if the behavior of mom is a sudden change–but if that checks out ok, or if the mom screaming and throwing things has been present OP’s life, it’s not a bad thing to consider this advice above.
How you handle parents who were good (or decent enough) parents when they decline is different from how you handle abusive parents. And this advice here is solid for if OP’s parents are abusive.
I imagine the people downvoting it are people who grew up with stable parents who maybe did descend into (normal) decline and thus are thinking of their own experiences and can’t imagine what it’s like to have genuinely bad parents one’s entire life, or the harsh boundaries one has to set to win yourself free of them.
But OP does need to take context into account (including stuff they might not have put in their story) and evaluate if the screaming/throwing things is actually new, or if it’s always been that way and they’re finally getting fed up enough to want to break free.
I stepped away and thought of more things–so a response to my own reply, heh.
As for learning where to draw the line…you need to take a pragmatic approach to your own past responses to things. Stop and look at them with clear eyes, pretend you are a scientist analyzing data both good and bad, and don’t cherry-pick your data, look at both sides of what happened…how many of your recent responses go overboard with “fight” in a way that doesn’t give a clear benefit or align with your ethics? (And how many likewise do “fawn”?)
Like, fighting just to fight drives people away so that’s not a benefit as you lose community and support, and fighting with (say) a customer service person you’ll never see again for $2.00 turns you into a Karen and wastes time so that’s not a benefit.
But haggling on the purchase of a house or a car might actually be a financial benefit (so long as you don’t turn it on the underlings and place it where it belongs and don’t go overboard with being mean just to be mean).
So look at your recent responses. How many fight for “bad” reasons that are small or petty or waste your own time, how many fight for “good” reasons?
Likewise, how many of your reactions people-please in ways that help you keep friends you actually want to keep, and how many start to be detrimental to you because people are starting to abuse your new habit of people-pleasing?
To learn where the line in your life is for either response, you need to look at what YOU’VE recently done, and figure out if that’s the person you want to be, if the benefits/detriments make sense.
For example (example pulled out of my ass), if you go out with friends and pay for stuff for everyone SOMETIMES, that is one thing. If you NEVER do it because you’re angry they’re taking advantage of you…well, if you never do it, how could you be paying for everything “all the time”? How could that even be possible? Sure, the anger is there, but is it based in reality? Might be you’re just angry to be angry–and it’s good to look at that. Fact-check emotions against reality to re-calibrate and see what’s going on.
But by the same measure, if you over-correct because you feel bad about being an asshole in the past and you desperately don’t want to be that person…you might be paying for everything all the time…which actually IS unfair to you, and if you examine a situation and find you’ve over-corrected and this is happening, an appropriate balance might be to scale it back. But you want to CHECK and look at your pattern across time to see if that’s going on.
(Patterns across time tell you more than isolating one event out of context.)
You’ll probably find instances where you FEEL one way and want to fight/fawn/(freeze/flee), but to continue to grow you probably need to stop and look at your recent patterns and fact-check your emotions against what really happened.
For me, since learning to “fight” was a part of my journey away from “flee/freeze”, I tend to reserve “fighting” for situations where either A) I’ll get genuinely financially fucked if I don’t (not just a dollar here or there, but something that’ll affect food/rent/real-life survival stuff), or B) I’m interacting with a community and there’s toxic folks coming in. Sometimes a community with toxic people simply need someone to stand up and call it out to counter the bystander effect, then people will rally behind you.
Also, a note: When you draw a boundary, even if it’s a very rational and reasonable one, it is not uncommon for SOMEONE to get upset by it. This is not the same as everyone getting mad at you because you’re constantly an asshole. Again, the proof is in the pattern…if no matter what you do people seem constantly angry at you, that’s probably you. But if that reaction to you has stopped, but a few people get upset if you actively set a boundary on something–that’s human nature. There are OTHER people out there who definitely want to take advantage of everyone around them, and that’s sometimes you, so if you set any sort of boundary at all no matter how rational that’ll still be “too much” for them.
That’s not necessarily a sign that you’ve “back slid”, it’s just that 20-30% of people are shitty people no matter what.
Because it’s very difficult to get things you need to live solely through barter. Many trades are very niche, and an economy that uses money allows those trades to continue being viable parts of society.
Like, think of plumbing. If everything goes well, you don’t need a plumber. But when you do…you really need it. Now imagine being the plumber who wants some bread and eggs but the farmer has no problems currently that needs the plumber’s skills. Plumber can’t eat, leaves profession, there’s now no plumber when the pipes do break.
Obviously, the next thought here might be, “Well, why doesn’t the plumber say if they get eggs and bread now, they’ll come and fix your toilet later if needed?” But that sort of re-invents credit, right? “I’ll trade 3 future plumbing problems for 3 boxes of eggs now.” If you have that, why not money?
So basically, money is very useful. It can be traded for many things you otherwise wouldn’t be able to get if you were only able to offer as barter a specific item that might be rejected by the other person you want to barter with. Money is a “universal” trade good, and it’s also easy to store (you don’t have to have lots of physical room to store your Universal Trade Good).
The BEHAVIOR of people surrounding this very useful thing can absolutely be suspect, depending on the person (greedy sociopaths hoarding wealth)–but that’s a human thing, not because money is innately a bad thing. It’s a social problem, not a technology problem. You could totally have a greedy hoarder storing up a non-money trade item too…see people and toilet paper/sanitizer during Covid.