Heavy lifting is the only thing that’s stuck for the way my brain works. I used a program called 5x5:

• only 5 different lifts to learn, each full body so there’s no fiddly minmaxing
• more or less timeboxed. 5 sets of 5 reps 3 times with about a minute between each rep and set. To improve, you add more weight, not spend more time
• consistent, once you get the routine down, and you know roughly how long it’ll take, you can just let your body take over, coast on muscle memory and motor neurons, zone back in in an hour when you’re done
• numeric satisfaction as your weights increase in fixed increments.
• immediate gratification because functional strength is neat and comes on surprisingly fast

Downside: So hungry, all the time.

It’s been a few years since I’ve been active. I used to live in an apartment directly above a gym. Now I live in the boonies and need to convert my carport into a garage before I can buy a weight set.

I call this my “rule of three” - I wait until I’ve seen “something” three times before deciding on an abstraction. Two isn’t enough to get an idea of all the potential angles, and if you don’t touch it a third time, it’s probably not important enough to warrant the effort and risk of a refactor

/me waves from that place

It’s absolutely a thing. It was a game changer for me when I gave up fighting it and just accepted that “whelp, my brain’s just gonna brain today.” If you can, just try to give yourself what you need and slow down. It is what it is.

I also find something satisfying about doing a big methodical cleanup after I feel better from a slump, your milage may vary.

I kind of lose the comparison to the same psychological manhole you get from pure numbers. I wonder if the effect would have been improved by starting with some arbitrarily sized pile of rice for bezos money and then trying to divide it downwards (to where you’re scraping the side of a single grain with an exacto for some dust, or looking through a microscope)

Kind of like a “and then there’s you” effect

Yes!

some specific instance should have its own “charter” that it uses to make those decisions with, sure whatever

This one, yes.

I’d happily take a sliding scale subscription that comes with zero personal benefits, if it means keeping a cool and valuable instance up and running.

Oh hey, like taxes.

It is actually exciting to see and participate in how things develop.

Same, to go from years of lurking on Reddit to feeling compelled to post here is an indication to me that something cool and different is trying to happen.

Good question, something for folks writing the charter (whoever they might be) to take into consideration, and hash out.

Off the top of my head, there are types of for-profit orgs, like B Corps, that could be included. There are non-profit orgs, like religious institutions, that could be excluded.

(Edit: point is that it’s something for more and better minds to sort out, and adjust over time)

I’m very anti one charter - my intention here is to propose the idea of charters as a way for communities to sort of balance each other out, solve each other’s problems and avoid reinventing each other’s wheels.

Well-thought-out policies will be copied and forked by other new instances, and that will create consensus communities of instances that are at least on the same page when it comes to how a site is supposed to work.

Yeah, pretty much this, but with some mechanism - literally at an icon level - to indicate to users (lemmings, lemurs, lemurians?), who aren’t necessarily keyed into inter-instance politics, and just want to see their memes, that “this instance follows the No-Nazis charter, which I like, and the rest of the charter members agree. Cool.”

True, I specifically called out the Lemmyverse, versus the Fediverse, however. In this moment, the Lemmyverse feels like a crucible of “now what?” where there’s room for something like this.

To clarify, in my head, I couldn’t, nor wouldn’t imagine all Lemmy instances to adopt a single charter, but to have the concept floating around in the space - take it or leave it.

[disclaimer: I don’t know how to talk about this stuff without sounding like a Pollyanna, but I’m actually a “hope for the best prepare for the worst” sort of cynic]

You could have one charter developed by a group of instances that are committed to being inclusive, diverse spaces.

1. The charter org would need to have a good reputation of member instances following the spirit (or letter, if that’s their thing) of whatever (laws, guides, mission statement, whatever)
2. Adopting the charter, a staying a member instance indicates to people looking for safe, inclusive, diverse spaces that “hey, let’s give this one a shot”
3. If a member acts in bad faith, the charter org can do what they will to uphold their reputation. If the charter org itself has shenanigans, they lose that reputation (and members)

I’m thinking about this like a Syndicalist/Confederalist - administrative organizations (interest groups) form as necessary, and dissolve when their function has run its course.