@Ioper's banner p

Ioper


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 4 users  
joined 2022 September 05 05:03:30 UTC

				

User ID: 448

Ioper


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 4 users   joined 2022 September 05 05:03:30 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 448

It depends on what your goal is I suppose, the first years are very casual. People obviously have different opinions on these kinds of things.

I started soccer at 6 but I know that it was available for 5yos at my local club. My local basketball club offers activities from age 3.

My impression was that Neo-liberals have been very against the settlements this entire time and that they've been pro a two states solution.

Them being against this is no change of political beliefs but israel doing this is of course changing their opinion of Israel for the worse.

Team sports usually isn't a big commitment until they're like 12+. For the very young (like 5-7yo) it's usually 1 to maybe two times a week on weekdays and no games.

A plus is also that its often possible to let other parents do most/some of the work, at least if you can befriend them. You don't need all parents to drive to every game for instance. I don't know your living situation and how car dependant your area is but when the kids get a bit older its often possible for them to largely manage themselves.

Any physically demanding team sport.

Soccer, basketball and volleyball are usually the most popular among girls and I'd mildly favour basketball or volleyball since thay seem to cause less female specific injuries if they go onto elite level competition/exercise.

Maybe you don't consider this enrichment though?

Another option is joining a church choir, it's often free, not very preachy (if that is something that bothers you) and it's a decent music education.

Supporting Palestine and hating Palestinians aren't mutually exclusive positions. If I was Egypt and I hated Palestinians I would very much be pro Palestine because that means the Palestinians stay the fuck away and you have somewhere to expel palestinians in your land to.

Its also a bit funny that there seems to be some sort of inverse relationship with how much some studio spends on their soundtrack and how good it is, at least in the west, with "indies" and small studios consistently having (much) better soundtracks and sound design than AAA productions.

Intentional? Result of friendship corruption? Something else?

The one successful attack in Sweden (so far) had the terrorist run away and ultimately surrender for example.

In general I'd say as much as possible so long as you're not doing steroids. It's hard to borderline impossible to put on too much muscle without some kind of growth hormones, which has skewed people's perception of the consequences of lifting.

An exception to this could be if you're really short (and have short limbs) in which case you might start looking a bit like a dwarf, but even that is mostly a consequence of people doing steroids. If you're of average height and above you really shouldn't worry. Even thimble sized guy like PewDiePie does 2 plate bench and do you think he looks too muscular?

Tldr: Go as hard as you can and don't do steroids.

It is less than half the adjusted rate of the rich white parts of America...

I agree, it seems likely to me that most of not all of the health disparities between the US and Europe is due to that rather than meaningfully different levels of care.

That said... I've heard obstetricians specifically complain about the level of US care.

I don't know man, Sweden does that too and includes things like getting shot and cancer. If you exclude those you get an adjusted rate of <2 deaths per 100k births.

Now we live in a meritocracy and things are much more brutal. Nowadays, the rich are actually much smarter and better looking and more talented than the poor. They studied hard, got into an Ivy, and then got the big job at the bulge bracket bank. Do you suck? It's not because you were born poor, it's because you actually suck. That's a bitter pill to swallow.

Than the poor, sure. I don't see much if any distinction between the UMC and the rich in talent, work ethic or looks. If anything, the UMC are slightly "better" because there is constant selection going on while for the rich there are much higher guard rails.

I don't think the rich necessarily lack merit, it's just that they aren't more meritorious. I still think allowing winners to exist even if they aren't wholly meritous is a good idea in order to stimulate competition, entrepreneurship and risk taking; it's large transfers of intergenerational wealth and the almost complete lack of risk involved in maintaining wealth nowadays that's a bit iffy to me.

How do you see both happening? When you're in striking range with the knife you're inside the striking range of the bat.

I think you guys are thinking about this the wrong way. You're not going to incapacitate a guy with a bat in one hit if he protects himself while charging you, and after that it's going to be a grappling match over the knife. You're not going to hit him in the head with the bat.

I don't know about that, I liked showing off that I was engaged. You still don't need to get a second ring.

I'd say 4 or 3. 1 engagement ring each and the man could possibly reuse the engagement ring as the wedding ring/band. Alternatively, only the woman gets an engagement ring and both get a wedding ring. Its culture bound.

The woman's engagement ring usually have stones, often diamonds.

The wedding rings are frequently just bands but again, the woman's ring can have stones.

It's an issue for moderately attractive (composite) men as well.

Believe it or not but men get tired of meeting new women as well. Not in the sense that they're uninterested in the sex but all the other shit. Then it turns into a grind of going through tons of people and the sinking realisation that your market value might not be as high as you would like, despite managing to score regularly.

People say that men are more ready to date down than women but that is a truth with modifications. For example, I strongly doubt that any of my friends would seriously date a woman without at least a bachelor in a decent field, or they'd have to be spectacularly attractive and even then I'm not so sure.

I don't hear this complaint from other people; typically they complain about getting no matches or not hearing back after the first date.

Another one I've heard is the matches are of a poor quality in the sense that people don't like the people they're meeting up with even if they look good/decent which leads to cycling through a massive amount of people, which is exhausting and dispiriting.

I've not heard of your complaint as a recurring issue. I wonder if is a Chicago thing or a you thing.

I resent being called out specifically in this manner /s

We don't get many Indian doctors here, it's mostly middle eastern ones and some from eastern Europe. It's usually the middle eastern ones that are the problem, with the Persians being a big exception.

The funny thing is that immigrants with specialisations are easily as good as the natives, and often better, while their GP co-ethnics are mindbogglingly incompetent.

I think a reason a perception of lazy and uninterested doctors you have to fight with in order to get (the correct) treatment sometimes persist is because the first point of contact for many are GPs and GPs often are the bottom of the barrel of doctors and the most jaded and working under unreasonable time constraints since they act as gate keepers to the rest of the medical system.

Once you actually meet a specialist its like another world. People are (generally) interested, competent and trying to help.

Competent and sympathetic GPs of course do exist but many (most in my impression honestly) really are quite bad, people who either couldn't hack it elsewhere, incompetent immigrants of dubious credentials and people who've just checked out. If anyone's on the AI chopping block it's these guys.

If thats who you're mostly interacting with then what is your impression going to be?

An issue here is that what people are exposed to mostly actually is "fake" (or mild) because it's mostly those people who have the energy and resources to advocate for themselves (or promote in the case of grifters). This goes for a ton of things, like autism. How much are you exposed to the mildly autistic nerdy guys and how much to the non-verbal people who need to be supervised and/or restrained 24/7 to prevent them from eating their own shit and stabbing themselves with sharp objects? (Actual example from my time working as a home carer).

How many people eating gluten free have celiacs and how many are just pretentious assholes?

How much is one exposed to the whiny Redditor/TikTok long covider and how much to the person who is about as functional as someone in the last week of their life with terminal cancer? I don't think anyone whose seen the latter in real life can believe it's fake or even psychiatric but people don't see that, how could they realistically?

I feel like this misses the case where the "real" and psychosomatic overlap.

There are some conditions that are "real" but rare and their "popularity" far outstrips the rate of the sufferers of the "real"/"physical" condition. Here we have things like various exotic mental disorders/syndromes, pain conditions, digestive disorders, allergies, fatigue conditions (most recently long COVID), auto immune disorders and transexualism.

Also, people who have the conditions likely have some of the conditions that causes psychosomatic symptoms similar to the condition, often because the condition itself causes or encourages behaviour leading to depression, anxiety, inactivity and or isolation.

How does a doctor tell whats going on? How does the social security system? How does the general public? How does the person themself?

As soon as something like this goes mainstream it inevitably gets dragged down in partisan politics.

As far as I'm aware there isn't some national legal requirement but many schools have it has a requirement and for the rest the expectations is so strong that there might as well be a literal requirement.

That said, you could always join something like a self study club if you don't want to interact with others.

Older guys in my youth organisations, primarily sports, were important to me in addition to my father. They informed and helped my social development quite a bit in ways that other fully adult men couldn't. They were just 2-6 years older than me but when you're like 14, even 2 years is a lot.

That said, I really agree about role models. I never understood having famous people as role models at all and it felt completely astro turfed. Perhaps things are different now with all the online parasocial relationships, I don't know.

You are only ever going to get uncool loser types volunteering

While I think the entire effort is doomed to accomplish nothing I don't think that the above is necessarily true either. When I look back on who accepted these kinds of things when I went to school (at that time it was anti-bullying), the organisers were savvy enough to not ask the losers. They didn't get anyone cool to do it of course but they managed to scrounge up some well meaning and naive normal guys. This of course did help at all, but I don't think it made things worse either.