domain:streamable.com
JarJarJedi
7m ago
If you're doing low weight exercises with bad form, it's probably not a huge deal since you'd just be training different muscle groups that you intended to, but I don't think it'll be much harm. If however you start to go heavy, and your form sucks, and you don't know it, the possibility of the injury raises significantly. So I'd say for personal trainer it's probably bad sign not to teach the proper form, but if I saw somebody who knows on their own what they are doing with a form that looks questionable to me, I'd think maybe they are just doing something I don't know about. That's like grammar - one should be taught proper grammar, but if you're e e cummings, go wild.
MaiqTheTrue
Renrijra Krin
8m ago
These things sound reasonable, though I would personally emphasize the need to get on with the business of living and building a life. The parts of CBT and DBT that seem to work are often very similar to Stoicism broadly understood. The idea of stoicism isn’t, as tge stereotype goes “not feeling” but “feeling, acknowledging the feeling, then going on to do the right thing.”
Wallowing in bad feelings just breeds more bad feelings mostly because you focus on them which just magnifies them. That insight isn’t new, it’s pretty ancient. If you focus on the rain, the water’s temperature will be the most salient thing you notice. And you’ll feel miserable. If you focus on the discomfort, the sadness, etc. you’ll be miserable. If you are uncomfortable while doing something fun, you will feel happy for the fun.
zeke5123a
12m ago
Well there is also the point that we don’t really care about covid deaths; we care about deaths. Sweden all cause death for the period looks great! Even better than the #s you posted.
JarJarJedi
19m ago
So, the calls to murder are not literal, because no murders are happening. I mean, murders are definitely happening, but not all at once, just over the years. And it's a local tradition so nothing to be done about it. In general, murdering people there is very common, so murdering white people is nothing to worry about, and people who want to leave the place where murdering is very common have no legit reason to do so. Also, nobody is trying to take their property. I mean, millions of people try to take their property, but they are poor, so that's fine, and has nothing to do with politics, they just want to take their property. And it's not expropriation without payment, because even though their property got taken from them, and they received no payment, the government "tried to encourage" them to sell, so it doesn't count. And since the government did not explicitly command the takings by official decree, they have no responsibility for it, even though multiple members of the government promised to do exactly what happened. Ah yes, and also government made a thorough investigation and declared itself innocent of all charges, which makes the case settled completely.
One needs long, thorough years of brainwashing to be able to believe shit like this. Fortunately, this is exactly what we as the taxpayers are paying the US education system to do.
OliveTapenade
30m ago
Lewis actually saw it with Tolkien, who was not a fan either. That article is pretty clickbaity, but even so, I concede that I smile at the thought of Lewis and Tolkien walking into the cinema, watching Snow White, and then complaining to each other all the way back to the pub.
JarJarJedi
34m ago
I hate European censorship laws, but when once in a while somebody really worth stomping gets caught into it, and I wish the Metropolitan Police all the success in stomping on them. It's like the police beating up a known child predator - I am against police brutality, but I am not a saint, in some cases I will (hypocritically maybe) be willing to look the other way. I like living in a country where people like Kanye can do their shit without the police intervening, but I can't do anything about UK police, so I am at least glad in maybe 1% of the cases they get it right...
RandomRanger
Just build nuclear plants!
44m ago
Good point, it was wrong to say that it's not worth caring about AI bioweapon risk. ASI ought to be so strong that it doesn't need bioweapons though, I think it can wrap us around its finger such that we serve its will without any biowarfare. Just dominating the internet would be a civilization-scale parasitism like your wasps, it would be inside our entire command-and-control structure and in a position of assured dominance.
Emptybee
58m ago
The time to worry isn't when things like this are popping up on the news. That's what a 24-hr news cycle and "if it bleeds it leads" click chasing gets you. The time to worry is when stories like this become so commonplace that the news stops covering them.
anarcho tyranny is a situation in which the government can get to anyone, but doesn't have the capacity to rule/subdue/pacify everyone. In a true tyranny the streets are safe, in a true anarchy the government can't shoot you at will. In an anarcho tyranny the government can shoot you at will but doesn't have the capacity to shoot everyone that makes the streets unsafe.
So what i am saying is that I don't expect the US to decline to even that stage on the road to ruin.
No_one
1hr ago
But neither is prepared to do anything about it, they want to pretend it never happened lest the enormity of the disaster waft back onto them. Propaganda is all they're willing to do.
In public. We don't know whether Chinese or US have passed measures to prevent a new GOF disaster.
Tophattingson
1hr ago
Sweden's population density is comparable to the UK's population density if you treat the British Antarctic Territory as actually belonging to the UK. In an alternative timeline where the UK annexed the British Antarctic Territory in 2019, do you think this will have reduced the transition rate of COVID?
Sweden, Finland and Norway owning a bunch of tundra does not affect the population density that the average person experiences. That tundra cannot perform spooky action at a distance and affect what happens in Stockholm.
Tophattingson
1hr ago
We do not (except perhaps to specific extinct strains, which is mostly practically irrelevant). Herd immunity is a state in which spread has stopped because there are enough immune individuals that an infection chain cannot be sustained within the herd.
By this definition herd immunity is any time covid infections are declining, which means it cannot be sustained. In practice, like flu and other coronaviruses, covid will likely alternate between herd immunity and very slightly below the threshold for herd immunity in perpetuity.
Tollund_Man4
1hr ago
Tophattingson
1hr ago
It's possible that many places achieved a transient herd immunity among the smaller pool of people who were susceptible to covid . Only about half of immune naive people seem to be vulnerable at any given time. which makes the herd immunity threshold low enough that it's plausible countries in Western Europe and the US hit it during the spring 2020 wave. Note, hit it regardless of whether they locked down or not. It's in my opinion the best explanation for why countries with severe lockdowns and countries without, such as UK and Sweden, achieved essentially identical outcomes. Lockdowns did nothing, they both hit herd immunity thresholds regardless, and the timing of lockdowns coinciding with that in the UK was only Regression fallacy.
Then there's Peru, which had so many deaths in 2020, despite extreme restrictions, that it implies >100% of the population should have had covid.
Lykurg
We're all living in Amerika
1hr ago
anarcho tyranny
What do you mean by that? As I know it, anarcho tyranny is when you use punishments that only respectable people care about, which combined combined with certain doctrines about self defense or legal uncertainty forces them to endure crime that you do nothing against. That doesnt really make sense in your sentence.
Fallacy of ad hoc post hoc justification
As mentioned in the first item, the Covid hawks’ basic model of how a lockdown works assumes a simple linear relationship between how restrictive the lockdown is (and the degree of public compliance) and the rate of cases/hospitalisations/deaths. When a lockdown is implemented, followed by a spike in cases and deaths, the standard response is to blame overly permissive restrictions or poor public compliance. Conversely, if a lockdown is relaxed and there is no spike, this will be attributed to an exceptionally cautious public: an “unofficial” lockdown.
But sooner or later, these simplistic explanations for the failure of the model to describe reality begin to strain credibility, and Covid hawks are forced to introduce additional epicycles into their model. When faced with incontrovertible evidence that cases failed to spike even in the absence of exceptional voluntary compliance, Covid hawks will begrudgingly acknowledge assorted secular factors which likely contributed to the rate of transmission: “lots of people in Sweden live alone”, “Florida is close to the equator”, “there’s a seasonal component to transmission” etc.
The reason this is fallacious is not that these secular factors didn’t contribute to the spread of the virus and rates of hospitalisation and deaths - of course they did. It’s fallacious because these secular factors are only ever considered post hoc, after the limitations of lockdowns and other restrictions have been empirically exposed. Covid hawks never consider in advance of enacting or supporting a lockdown whether or not the lockdown passes a cost-benefit analysis, after taking these secular factors into account. Surely it would be trivial to find or estimate some key metrics about a particular region (the season, presence or absence of land borders, the percentage of adults who live alone, the rate of obesity etc.), estimate the expected “return” of the proposed restrictions, and input all of these variables into a formula which would indicate whether the proposed restrictions will pass a cost-benefit analysis. Many Western governments were already producing models which forecast cases and deaths conditional on the predicted rate of public compliance; what am I proposing seems like a logical extension of the foregoing.
But aggressive Covid hawks are reluctant to acknowledge secular factors which impact upon the rate of Covid transmission, and not just because these other factors complicate their simple, easy to grasp model of the world. Whether or not to enact a lockdown is supposed to be an easy and straightforward question: when you enact a lockdown, cases and deaths go down; when you don’t, they go up. Once you have acknowledged the fact that factors other than the lockdown itself might affect the rate of Covid transmission and serious illness, you’re only a step away from recognising that these other factors might dwarf or even negate the benefits of the lockdown itself. This in turn implies the uncomfortable possibility that locking down might sometimes be a bad thing on net: that you might throw thousands of people out of work or disrupt cancer screenings for weeks at a time for no reason, breaking a dozen eggs with no omelette to show for it.
To avoid confronting this discomfiting conclusion, lockdown proponents are incentivised to downplay the impact of secular factors, or deny them altogether. You will still, to this day*, encounter Australians and New Zealanders who will proudly declare that it was their lockdown measures (and their lockdown measures alone) which got Covid under control within their borders; and who will become very defensive when you suggest that their success with managing Covid might have something to do with the fact that both nations are geographically isolated islands without land borders.
"Lots of people in Sweden live alone" was an ad hoc justification I saw a lot during Covid to explain how the country were able to maintain a low rate of Covid transmission without ever officially locking down. And indeed, this is true. For reference, Sweden's Covid case count and death count per capita currently stands at 269,511 and 2,682, respectively.
After Sweden, the country with second-highest percentage of people living alone is Lithuania, which locked down and nonetheless saw 525,154 Covid cases, and 3,718 Covid deaths per capita. So much for that as a causal explanation.
The picture's not much better when looking at population density. Directly above Sweden is Latvia, which locked down and whose Covid case and death counts per capita were roughly the same as Lithuania. Next is Estonia (which admittedly did have a slightly lower Covid death count per capita than Sweden), Lithuania, then Montenegro (472,238; 4,532), Belarus (dramatically lower than Sweden on both metrics), Bulgaria (195,753 cases per capita; 5,661 deaths per capita - literally second-highest in the world after Peru).
This is not to argue that lockdowns exacerbate Covid metrics: it's merely to argue, as @The_Nybbler did above, that a simplistic model of "impose lockdowns in any given country -> Covid cases go down -> Covid deaths go down" is extremely lacking in predictive power, and the effect of lockdowns will likely be completely dwarfed or negated by local factors (percentage of population who are obese, average population age etc.). In other words: if you were to show you a list of anonymised countries' Covid cases per capita, Covid deaths per capita and case fatality rates and told you that some of them had locked down and some hadn't: I think you'd find it extremely difficult to identify which was which.
As soon as you say "lockdowns do work in general, but happened not to work in location X because of [ad hoc factor]", consider how easy it was for me to disprove the "Sweden didn't need to lock down because of population density/people living alone" ad hoc hypothesis.
*I published this article over a year ago, but this statement is literally true: earlier today I got into an argument with a guy who argued that of course lockdowns work - look at Australia and New Zealand! His argument, as I understand it, was that lockdowns work when used in concert with strict border controls, but don't work otherwise. Which struck me as an extremely roundabout way of saying "strict border controls are an effective way of stopping the spread of Covid; lockdowns unnecessary".
JarJarJedi
2hr ago
the Federal Government can't actually force Columbia to do anything
It can force it to comply with Federal law. All of it. Including all those juicy parts about hostile workplace, discrimination, etc. which the ancestors of the current wokes worked so hard to institute. None of it is predicated on getting any federal funding. And then there's federally funded education loans. Check out how many students use those - is Columbia ready to develop its own loan system (and ensure Feds can't dismantle it for violating one of approximately 10 million banking regulations in existence)? And those juicy kuffye-wearing foreign students - guess who controls their visas? Federal Government is a monster - the Left worked for many decades, since the forefather of all, FDR - to ensure it can force anybody to do anything they want. So I have no sympathy for them if that monster turns on them now - but they would underestimate its power at their own peril. Their only hope is friendly federal judges would allow them to stretch things out, and Trump only has 4 years...
Rov_Scam
2hr ago
If the name had developed organically in the media or whatever and pedantic doctors had insisted calling it by a name that no one was using, I could see the argument. But OP was saying that this name that nobody was using should have been the preferred nomenclature. And while it would hardly be the worst name, given the severity of the disease, it could have led to some bad outcomes caused by people thinking that it could be prevented by a flu shot, or treated with existing antiviral medication.
Rov_Scam
2hr ago
I think it might be an age thing. I've had friends complain about this but it almost always involved women in their 20s. I haven't dated anyone under the age of 30 on it and, while I have had cancellations, they always rescheduled and the date went off. In fact, there was only one that was truly last minute, and she rescheduled immediately. One thing I will say is that I have done the slow walk thing if it's a girl farther down on my list; i.e., if I'm talking to two girls and I'm more into one than the other, I'll wait until I have a date set up with #1 before scheduling with #2 to ensure maximum schedule flexibility, and it may involve my delaying a response, but it isn't the kind of thing that I'm too worried about. And even if they are always cancelling, these aren't people you'd even be talking to if you were just relying on meeting people in the wild, so there's that.
JarJarJedi
2hr ago
The protestors were objectively correct about basically everything they said
Yes, but no. The protestors (not each of them personally, but in general the movement) was part of the reason why US lost this war. And if US didn't lose the war, Vietnam could be what South Korea is now. Which is better than what it is now. So is the lost war "worth it"? Probably not, that's why it's called a lost one. But if you approach every war with the premise that you may lose and therefore you can't fight, then you lose all the wars in advance. And one of the reasons that Vietnam is now quasi-capitalist is because the US did not lose some other wars, including winning the main one - the Cold War. Did Vietnam war make the world better? No, it did not, because the good guys lost. If they didn't, it would. That happened in other places where the good guys didn't lose.
compared to a counterfactual in which the United States simply let North Vietnam reunite with the South without outside interference
In that counterfactual the US stops fighting the Cold War, USSR still exists now, owns major parts of the world, and half of the US is thinking when we stop being so stupid and join the societal model that is clearly winning, namely socialism. I don't think it's a good future to be in. Yes, losing a war sucks. But losing all wars in advance would suck much more.
ActuallyATleilaxuGhola
Axolotl Tank Class of '24
2hr ago
Okay, fair enough.
JarJarJedi
2hr ago
EU wouldn't be much of a problem. If they are in Harvard inventing cool shit, the profits from it sponsor the wokes in Harvard. The cool shit probably would make my life better, but the wokes would make it worse. If they move to EU and keep inventing the cool shit, I'd likely benefit from it no less - maybe I'd pay a bit more because tariffs or get it a little later, but on the bottom line it wouldn't make me substantially worse, as I don't get direct profit from Harvard owning cool shit and indirect profits are nearly the same. On the other hand, all the wokeness will be then concentrated in EU, and it hardly can be worse there already, so to be honest, I don't see much downside. Of course, it would be cool if I could get the benefits without the wokeness at all, but I'm not sure how to achieve that option.
Who said anything about sympathy?
Nonetheless, they can resist. Just not as the thing they are now.
There's a Unitarian Church down the road from me in a beautiful old building, and a mile away a Lutheran church in a crappy 1960s building. The beautiful building used to be the Lutheran church, until the minister wanted to convert it to a Unitarian church. The Lutheran church has the unofficial motto: "We kept the faith, they kept the furniture."
Columbia University, the concept, can't be forced to do anything, except maybe close its doors.
I want people, even the ones I disagree with, to stand up for what they believe in.
More options
Context Copy link