I don't get the pairing of a healthy life and liquor. I know someone that will go out of her way to exercise, eat healthy, organic everything and watch her weight but on weekends she will drink like a fish. She's not the only one by far. When did booze become a health drink? Ya, I know it's not. It's just addictive. I wish we had an alternative that doesn't do as much damage.
Not everyone optimizes for health. Plenty of people optimize for enjoyment or hedonism. That doesn't mean you can't also try to balance it out with healthy behavior to whatever extent you like. If you indulge in unhealthy habits in one way, why wouldn't you try to be healthier in other ways? Are you implying that just because someone drinks means they shouldn't bother to exercise because they'll never be "perfect" that way?
The timbre of your definition of "healthy life" sounds quite like rigid religious orthodoxy. Try "I don't get the pairing of being Catholic and having premarital sex. I know someone that goes to church every Sunday, but..."
See, in the case that she's trying to be a "good Catholic" or "healthy liver", it comes across as judgmental and priggish; in the case that she's not particularly concerned with what others think of her devotion, it comes across as dogmatic and parochial.
Anyway,"a healthy life" would be defined by many people as whatever mix of healthy activity and hedonistic enjoyment best suits the individual's well-being, including their psychological well-being. For instance, I have a friend who has cancer and is going through the torture of the damned with chemo. Yet above all, he's utterly miserable that he's not allowed to eat anything besides vegetables; the once-a-month Big Mac keeps him going and gives him something to look forward to.
I don't even like when doctors do this, but unless you're her doctor, you should refrain from casting judgment.
> I wish we had an alternative that doesn't do as much damage.
I think for a growing number of people that alternative is non-smoking forms of cannabis. I grant you it isn't a 1:1 substitution for everything alcohol, but it's a lot safer to use and still a very social experience. I suspect that at some point there will be a "synthohol" like substance, but who knows when that might come about.
>> at some point there will be a "synthohol" like substance, but who knows when that might come about
Just about when the individual is entirely castrated à la Brave New World, and everyone worships health as part of their commitment to a perfectly harmonious social organism. Luckily, this will never happen - rebellious people in some godforsaken country will always find a way to give each other hangovers, as a simple Darwinian test that involves the ability to hold liquor while saying something interesting. And that country will end up more innovative than the ones that sank their population into some opioid or another as an expedient to having a healthy body and a numbed-out mind.
I'm dealing with something similar. I used to sit with my mother to talk but almost immediately she would start talking about how unfair life had been to her and about all the people that had done her wrong. It was negative that led to negative. It was hard to take.
Eventually I got tired of it and started to negatively reinforce it. Instead of consoling her, I started to tell her how hard it was to hear what she was saying and that I didn't want to hear it anymore. I asked her to focus on the positive parts of life and gave her samples of what real tragedy was like by pointing out samples in the news that she watches every night. I know it was harsh but I don't think it was harsher that her recounting the same stuff everyday to me. The negativity has slowed not stopped but at least we can have a conversation now.
This is what I did but I can't recommend it to you since your situation can be so much different. Also, her short term memory is still functioning to a point. She mostly does her daily care and she requires very little help.
That's very interesting. Somehow, not in an unkindly sense, I can't help but feel it's a bit like "prompt engineering". Thank you for sharing your experience.
My issue is that there are only so many times you can go thru the process of learning a new language. It's monotonous. You have to learn a new way to create code without really advancing your knowledge. You can learn to create a loop in 10 different languages and still not advance your programming abilities. You just know 10 different ways to do the same thing. Not only that, your time is finite. The time you take to recreate the wheel could have been better used somewhere else. Learning a new language is like spinning your wheels rather than moving forward.
"A luxury afforded to billionaires is that they don’t have to fade away no matter how spectacularly they fail, and Adam Neumann, who both co-founded and was exiled from running WeWork, is a prime example."
This is phrased as a put down but the way I see it we should all be as lucky and fail like Neumann. I wish I were a failed billionaire like him. Instead I'm a "successful" web developer that works for someone else to make sure I can pay my bills.
First design what the website will look like and function. This part is relatively easy for non-techs. You can do an outline of the site on paper. Things like number of pages, content for each page, layout, colors, desired function. Create as much as you can on paper. You should be able to show it to someone and that person should be able to understand how the site will work from looking at the pages you put together.
Get your ideas from existing pages in the web. Don't try to create your own. Copy as much as possible from the web for your design.
Once you have done as much as possible on paper. Sign up on to one of the page builder sites such as square space or wix. Set up your design there. They also have the ability to create interactive pages so go thru the tutorial until you can create the interaction you want.
A big advantage of having a project you want to create is that you can hunt for the different tutorials on the web that will show you how to get what you need done. There are tons of tutorials on the web. Take advantage of the situation and use them.
There's going to be a steep learning curb for you but it's very doable.
Once done decide if you want to continue learning. At that point turn your site into html files and look for a place to host the site. Once you have a working html web site look into creating the interactive pages in javascript or php.
You can't be an expert overnight but if you do it a bit at a time you can achieve a lot. Make it a hobby where you learn a little bit at a time.
Thanks for the input. This seems like another interesting route. I'll probably keep this in mind while starting with a simple site. Once I get some basics in I may try this approach.
The last 10 years or so have been very good for startup financing. It's been relatively easy to get funding. That's changing. Investors are going to be more selective about what they fund so you'll see lots of companies slowing their hiring. But that does not mean it will all fall apart. There are still plenty of startups that are doing good work. My advice is to keep trying and don't give up. Be flexible about what you accept and after you have a job keep an eye out for a better one. I would focus on the bigger companies that have a steady profit margin. They will be more likely to weather the coming slowdown. These things happen. You just have to make the best of it.
No, but it's troubling to know that some of these non profits will live forever. I can setup a foundation whose goal is to fund an ugly aspect of society. If I give it enough money the foundation can live forever thru wise investments of its endowment. There would be nothing to stop it from doing its work forever. The foundation can even influence political causes by funding research that support the foundation's cause. The tax except foundation can't directly lobby but it can fund research that will have a political impact.
Charitable foundations should have a finite number of years to do their work.
The original parent organization to modern Planned Parenthood had some pretty abhorrent for the modern times views, and there is evidence to suggest it still has similar aims disguised in a broader social agenda.
> I can setup a foundation whose goal is to fund an ugly aspect of society.
and why do you get to claim such an aspect is "ugly"?
If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it.
The problem isn't at this level of non-profit orgs - the problem is at the civil participation. most people don't participate (not even vote). So those who do get more say, by relative participation rates.
If society, as a whole (or majority) decides such an aspect is ugly, then they can put a law in to outlaw it.
It is good in theory, but does it work in practice though? For example, majority of the country supports $15 minimum wage, access to abortion, maternity leave etc. Doesn't mean any of this is happening. There are so many "think tanks" and non-profits whose sole job is to advocate shitty ideas of their ultra rich patrons. A small minority with huge resources can consistently do stuff that the rest of us can only dream of.
Even if civil participation is good, a well funded foundation can twist and turn the narrative to their advantage and confuse the voters.
> majority of the country supports $15 minimum wage, access to abortion, maternity leave etc. Doesn't mean any of this is happening.
That majority is not evenly distributed across the country. In areas where those people do form a majority, they do enact laws supporting those things. In areas where there is not a majority supporting those things, they don't.
Don't worry: some dumbass will end up drawing a large salary to "host galas and fundraising". Unlikely any organization can survive to operate in its primary purpose past a few generations.
What's the difference between "putting all your wealth in a foundation that will do your bidding after you die" and "donating all your wealth to the most like-minded person that will continue to do your bidding after you die"? Sure, the latter isn't 100%, but the former isn't 100% either (regulations can change in the future), and even disregarding that, are we suddenly okay with it if the chance that your bidding will be carried out is 99% rather than 100%?
> What's the difference between "putting all your wealth in a foundation that will do your bidding after you die" and "donating all your wealth to the most like-minded person that will continue to do your bidding after you die"? Sure, the latter isn't 100%, but the former isn't 100% either (regulations can change in the future), and even disregarding that, are we suddenly okay with it if the chance that your bidding will be carried out is 99% rather than 100%?
That 99% compounds though. Sure, maybe you find someone pretty like-minded. 50 years from now, are they going to be able to find someone 50 years younger than them but just as like-minded? And their replacement 50 years on? Realistically you couldn't maintain any objective that was too far out of line with the general culture.
This is millionaire BS. I've been hearing this for years yet we are still in the situation that we were 20+ years ago. Where every time a tax bill is presented we hear the never ending roar of millionaires yelling at congress not to pass any tax bill. Even the estate tax, a tax for money that a dead person will never need, gets gutted every few years.
If they are truly willing to change their ways then start lobbing congress along with their fellow millionaires and act on it rather than talk about it.
I'm one that welcomes their reasoning. I don't consider myself a social justice kind of guy but I'm not keen on the idea that a tool that is suppose to make life better for everyone has a bias towards one segment of society. This is an important issue(bug?) that needs to be resolved. Specially since there is absolutely no burning reason to release it before it's ready for general use.
> Modern human civilization, with its permanent agriculture and settlements, has developed over just the past 10,000 years or so. The period has generally been one of low temperatures and relative global (if not regional) climate stability. Compared to most of Earth’s history, today is unusually cold; we now live in what geologists call an interglacial—a period between glaciations of an ice age. But as greenhouse-gas emissions warm Earth’s climate, it's possible our planet has seen its last glaciation for a long time.
I don't think it's fair to compare it to before it was habitable by humans. Whenever someone brings up the topic of climate change, it's to discuss the changes making the world less habitable for present day living beings.
Some people need to justify a very difficult situation as normal. It helps reduce the anxiety and mental pain of the alternative. It's a defense mechanism. We see it regularly in society.
Unfortunately it makes it that much harder to fix the problem. Now we have to fix the problem and convince the deniers that it's a problem . Which is close to impossible since the more evidence they see the more they will try to normalize it.
My point is that climate change will happen regardless of our efforts, even if we get the current situation under control.
I'm not worried because earth and life will be fine despite our trashing the planet. However to claim that things are extraordinary discounts historical records, even back a few million years.
Right, but the rate at which the world is warming is a lot higher than it has been before. You are looking at point in time measurements and not comparing how we move between those measurements. If things heat up too quickly, evolution won't have a chance to keep up with the changes.
