MeepsTheBard

Treat the rest as a dedicated, specifically-timed “thing to do” instead of just “time I need to kill until I pick this weight up again.”

Timers are helpful, as people mentioned, but stretching, evaluating how that last set went/ how next set needs to go, changing weights, and walking around to catch your breath are great ways to stay mostly on track.

And if you check Twitter after switching songs or something? That’s fine. Working out slowly > not working out, so unless you’re annoying other gymgoers with 20-min squat-rack scroll sessions , I wouldn’t sweat a mental lapse.

EDIT: Ope, I think I misread your comment to mean “between sets” and not just “going to the gym,” my b.

It HAS to be a habit. Go to the gym because it’s novel and you want to try it out, then try your damnedest to make it a routine. Make it feel weird to not work out. If you fall off the wagon, try again.

If neurotypicals fail to be consistent (see every New Year’s resolution), you can give yourself enough grace to stumble, too.

The IPO announcement w/ shares being offered to Reddit users. Also, the deal with AI training off of user data without consent. Hard to keep track these days lol.

“look at all the benefits you get from being in a fascist state that doesn’t have laws respecting rights to a fair trial and sufficient burden of proof!”

Like there’s a reason we only see the taliban + authoritarian regimes do this, lmao.

This is the exact reasoning that Israel is using to justify their genocide in Gaza.

It’s like people get 90% of the way towards “genocide is bad” and then add the asterisk “unless we do it.”

You sound really sure about your understanding of statistics and probability, and I don’t think anything I can say can impact that. I’m going to defer to the experts, but you do you I guess.

The thing about long-term predictions (at least ones that get publicity) is that usually the goal is to change them, so few have been “proven”. No one is printing stories about how an isolated set of rocks is going to be decayed by X% due to weather, because no one cares.

Except birth rates aren’t physics that will progress if left alone, they’re dominated by cultural choices that are impacted by economics and governmental policy.

Exactly. Those are the factors that are being considered when making these predictions. If economic factors and policies are making it harder to have kids, then birth rates drop, which is what we’re seeing now. What else is going to have as much of an effect?

These predictions don’t exist to take bets on. They’re not scrying into the future. They’re just binoculars that point to where we’re going.

No, they just need to be kept in that context. We trusted science on chlorofluorocarbons impacting the ozone layer, and chose to fix it rather than let it keep going. Was the projection “wrong” because CFCs were regulated, or did we just interact with it in a practical way?

The same applies here. There’s a population issue that (as you mentioned in another comment) without other factors, will come into effect. China can fix it, or let things play out and see if the “unknowns” can fix it for them.

You’re correct, and I agree. It does shift dems to the right slightly. But again, it’s hyperbole to say dems are now “radical” on the border, which is what I was responding to.

So now the dems endorse the radical rights position on the border. You don’t see how that’s an issue?

Equating “letting the opposition party fuck themselves as they try to pass a bill THEY don’t even want” to actively endorsing extreme policy is hyperbole.

At a very surface level you’re correct, but using that to state that the entire democratic party has abandoned their morals is absurd.

That’s what the [sic] is for. It’s showing “here’s what the person literally said, to make sure we’re not misquoting them.”

It’s standard practice, as “stepping up and taking charge” would mean substituting someone else’s words for your own, which is a slippery slope. “Oh he said X, but meant Y, so I’ll write that instead” can very easily be abused by people actively looking to misrepresent other’s words.

Source: BA Journalism, who had to use [sic] when quoting non-native English speakers (was part of an immigration story). Whenever possible, I’d try to clarify/ correct mid-interview: “oh, you said A, but I think you might’ve meant B. Is that correct?” That way, you know for a fact it’s still their words.

“That’s your problem” is a terrible way to get people to support policy. These are real, valid concerns that many people simply can’t deal with without other systems in place that currently don’t exist.

This type of “fuck any gradual change, revolution now” is just armchair anarchy pushed by kids who don’t face financial pressure.