@Walterodim's banner p


Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 12:47:06 UTC


User ID: 551


Only equals speak the truth, that’s my thought on’t

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 12:47:06 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 551

I have a much lower opinion of academic lawyers than guys that pal around with Peter Thiel for a living.

A lot of never Trumpers (like Vance) are coming to the conclusion that Trump is actually not all that bad. We saw what a first term looked like. It was pretty middle of the road, with some modest successes in foreign policy and taxation.

This is exactly why I have zero trouble believing that Vance is a genuine convert. I share quite a few demographic attributes with Vance. In 2016, I did not vote for Trump, I condemned him as a personally immoral man and worried in text messages about his potentially destabilizing impact on the country. By early 2020, I still thought he was a personally immoral man, but a decent enough President. After Kavanaugh, Covid lockdowns, Floyd riots, and so many more things big and small, I was dead-set against the Democrat Party and voted for Trump, the first time I had ever voted Republican. After what I consider four years of awful governance and an attempted assassination, I'm ready to don a red hat. Maybe Vance is just seeing where the wind blows, but it's not hard at all for me to think that a white guy in his late 30s from the Midwest thinks the things Vance articulates.

If he were still around, Nixon would be salty.

Do most Americans not regard the Japanese as a worthy enemy? Maybe I listen to too much Dan Carlin or something, but my memory of Imperial Japan includes extreme bravery and substantial competence.

There's nothing inherently stupid about going for a headshot. It's obviously a high risk, high reward strategy relative to center mass, but there is no guarantee of a death with a center mass shot and the medical care a President would receive. We don't know the caliber of rifle being fired, but if speculation that it was a small caliber is accurate then going for a body shot would risk failing to even defeat light body armor.

The reason I would tend to think the competence level wasn't particularly high is the apparent choice of weapon. As near as I can tell, he didn't have any sort of optics. While that distance is absolutely a makeable shot with an AR platform rifle with iron sights, it's a hell of a lot more assured with a simple hunting rifle and good glass.

JD Vance is buddies with Don Jr, is quite possibly the VP nominee, and has the requisite style and experience. I would have bet on him if this had been successful.

My inclination to be polite to the people spreading histrionic conspiracies about how he's a "threat to democracy" has fallen to zero with this incident. I don't think I have it in me to say much more than, "fucking stop it, you're going to cause a literal civil war with your antics".

Well, yeah, and it's correct. Someone that's pretty obviously just bitching on Twitter might have an attitude that I don't like, but I don't take it as a serious threat to my white male health. That someone doesn't actually have the ability to act on the thing they're saying is actually a pretty good defense of it not being a meaningful threat.

Would anyone else like to scream bloody murder?

Sure. I do think it's an outrage and it's much more outrageous to egg that on when you're the sitting President and your DoJ is currently in the process of trying to lock him up. I thought Candidate Trump doing it was unseemly, but I also thought it was mostly a joke, that many people (including myself) do kind of think that Hillary Clinton is criminally sketchy but assumed that no one would ever actually go after her. That proved to be correct, so no harm, no foul. For whatever reason, the response to Trump overstepping norms has been to just completely blow through them and annihilate any pretense that the DoJ is something other than regime apparatchiks targeting enemies.

If you want to see a wild ass tale of the problems of being too thin and doing too much cardio, Jonas Abrahamsen is currently in the polka dot jersey at the Tour de France and has a crazy story:

Abrahamsen went from being a 132-pound climber to a 172-pound climber and sprinter. He told StickyBottle.com that in his weight gain journey, his peak power went from 900 watts to a whopping 1,500 watts. And as he gained weight, he told reporters that his body went through a “delayed puberty” where he actually grew a few centimeters and packed on muscle (and finally needed to shave).

Abrahamsen admitted that in his early career, he was focused on staying as light as possible, as many cyclists tend to do. This led to him severely under-fueling, until the nutritionist with Uno-X helped him learn to listen to his body’s hunger cues.

You really do need balance in all things. Bike hard, eat well, enjoy life.

Notably, weights were rising that entire time even with lead and cigarettes. The thing is, that was a good thing for the first half of the 20th century because quite a few people were undernourished and underweight.

This is also why I find the simplest theory the best - food got cheap, people got rich, and the people that aren't rich get a bunch of money from the government to buy food. You don't need a complicated story, just a super-rich country that doesn't require much physical labor combined with the human inclination to eat a lot in times of plenty.

The two fit together quite neatly though. Exercise (both aerobic training and resistance training) modulate appetite and result in the body handling insulin spikes appropriately by replenishing muscular glycogen rather than fat. People that pick a sport and compete become much more acutely aware of their nutrition both as a necessity of fueling their activities, but also in shaping their bodies. The calories burned from an endurance sport are themselves quite helpful in providing a buffer to get away with some genuine splurge days. You're just a lot more likely to successfully stay lean and healthy if you participate in a sport than if you try to accomplish it through self-control around food where your only motivation and frame of reference is weight.

Yeah, it's going to be harder on bike than running. At a typical Z2 running effort, I'll be running a 7:45 pace (assuming cool weather, heart rate drifts fast in the heat), which is pushing close to 800 calories/hour. I don't ride much, but looking back at my last decent Zwift ride, it was apparently 823 calories in 100 minutes.

Of course that's not feasible for people that are out of shape, but the point is that neither getting fit nor maintaining aerobic fitness is actually a no pain, no gain situation. Personally, I enjoy the painful workouts the most, but that's very much an acquired taste. I think one of the huge mistakes that people make is thinking they need to be suffering to build fitness. If I were advising someone just getting started, one of the first things I would be doing is explaining the basics of how zones work, getting them a watch with heart rate on it, and having them keep their HR down. They'll avoid injuries, they won't be miserable from moment to moment, they'll still see pretty rapid fitness improvements, and they're set up to succeed rather than dread the next time they have to get on the bike.

I suppose you can run those hypotheticals with any traits, but if you're thinking about whether a given trait is an indicator of morality, you pretty much have to consider it in a vacuum unless there's a clear interplay between the two. To my knowledge, fit men are not particularly prone to cheating on their wives. All else equal, men that cheat on their wives are immoral compared to men who are faithful. I'm sure that the cheaters, on average, have more opportunities and stronger sex drives - I don't care, the faithful men are still better men.

In real life, I'm unsurprisingly much less likely to have cause to be strident about the matter, it's not like I'm running up on random fat people to lecture them about their moral inferiority. As your hypotheticals illustrate, many of them will be wonderful people when considered across the totality of their person rather than just through the one lens. But yeah, at the end of the day, I think fitness is an important part of character and tends to build other important parts of character.

I do not assert moral superiority and I do not think people who muster the will to exercise and lose weight are morally superior to those who don't. That's all projection on your part.

I'll bite the bullet and be the strawman here - yes, all else equal, people that are fit and maintain their weight are morally superior to those that don't. You can explain to me the complex biological underpinnings of why some people have a harder time doing that and I will still think they are morally inferior to people that do it. I grasp that compulsive liars and addicts may lack the same full capacity for agency as others, but I still think they're morally inferior to people that are honest and temperate. Ultimately, I judge someone's moral positioning by their actions and the traits exemplified by sloth and gluttony are poor ones.

Does this come off as smug, self-satisfied, and self-serving? I'm sure it does, but I'm not inclined to pretend people that ruin their bodies through a lack of agency aren't demonstrating a condemnable moral failing.

Trump and Elon Musk are extremely goal-driven people (I am choosing them because they are household names). Why are they both fat?

Poor impulse control and desire for immediate results. Of course, this has served both men well in a number of ways, but neither is known for their inclination towards gradual, incremental efforts that only yield results when done consistently for long periods of time.

Oh, I'm well aware of that. The point I'm addressing is the claim that exercise "cannot be easy, because the way it works is by being hard", which is just not even close to true. Aerobic fitness is developed primarily from easy efforts, not pain tolerance.

Fat people probably want to exercise even more than those who do exercise.

All else aside, this is just not true. If you go to a running club or a Crossfit gym, you will meet people that absolutely love exercising. Whatever the obese individual says about how much he'd like to exercise, he obviously doesn't want to do it more than the people that actual make time to do it.

This isn't true at all and is one of the mistakes people make that damages their long-term fitness improvements. Zone 2 aerobic exercise is definitionally easy. I can burn 700 calories/hour running at a pace that feels almost artificially easy and having a conversation. People that focus more on cycling tend to go even easier. If most of your aerobic activity feels hard, you're either out of shape or doing it wrong.

Getting started on exercise is difficult, maintaining it isn't.

Continuing my theme of thinking American election processes remain sketchy, the House just passed the SAVE act, ostensibly to prevent non-citizen voting. We all know how the battlelines are going to be drawn on that with the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth about how all of the totally legitimate citizens wouldn't actually be able to show that they're citizens and would be unfairly disenfranchised, and honestly, I suppose that's right to some extent. What's way more annoying is the drumbeat of people that say this is already illegal and doesn't happen. In a piqued fit of curiosity, I thought I'd take a look at what exactly California's process is for making sure only citizens are able to vote. Here's their registration application. It includes something a bit odd, checkboxes to simply indicate that you don't have a driver's license or social security number.

Well, if you check those boxes, there isn't really going to be sufficient unique identifiers to be crosschecked with a database to verify citizenship. Surely that disclaimer means you'd need to bring proof when you vote though, right? Well, here's what they say you need:

However, if you are voting for the first time after registering to vote by mail and did not provide your driver license number, California identification number or the last four digits of your social security number on your registration form, you may be asked to show a form of identification when you go to the polls. In this case, be sure to bring identification with you to your polling place or include a copy of it with your vote-by-mail ballot. A copy of a recent utility bill, the sample ballot booklet you received from your county elections office or another document sent to you by a government agency are examples of acceptable forms of identification [emphasis mine]. Other acceptable forms of identification include your passport, driver license, official state identification card, or student identification card showing your name and photograph.

Really? You can register with nothing that would identify you as a citizen, then show up to vote and identify yourself with the mailer you got when you signed up to vote. I have no idea how this process would stop a non-citizen from voting even in theory. Am I missing something? This seems like you can just straightforwardly vote in California as a non-citizen and the only thing that would stop you is a fit of conscience about checking the box that says you're a citizen. Are other states doing better at actually verifying the citizenship of voters? I would guess that some are and some aren't, but the claim that verifying citizenship would prevent quite a few people from voting kind of suggests that there isn't currently much of a process to do so.

You might be underestimating how much federal land there is.

The balancing act strikes me as similar to arguments about the death penalty. OK, I understand the concerns with killing an innocent man because we set the threshold too low, but can we at least execute the guy that literally live streamed himself murdering people in a grocery store because of their race? Likewise, I understand the concern with institutionalizing people that shouldn't be, but can we pick up the raving lunatic from the park that's raving in the park literally every day? Threshold concerns and slippery slopes are valid, but it's pretty clear which side of the line we're on at the moment, so let's think directionally for a bit.

Kinda seems the other way around, doesn't it? Maybe I missed something!

Look, I'm on the Herman Cain side of Covid seriousness, but I can't deny a good joke, and "Sir, the virus killed you. You died from it." is just a good line.

The punch line here would be if Alice personally crashed her plane a few months after arguing with people about air safety on Twitter. Regardless of the statistical safety of air travel, that would be funny. I believe the term is ironic humor.