Very true. Only be like me if your mind has permanently fallen into a singularity of cynical acrimony -- and probably only if you're privileged enough to afford to let it do that.
Along with this, the thing that helped me the most was learning to run much slower. I would always run at an uncomfortable pace that would jack my heart rate up and have me huffing and puffing. Then I learned about "Zone 2" training which essentially boils down to running at a pace where you could comfortably have a conversation and more easily run for extended periods. This now only made it so I could run more miles per week, but it turned running from an exhausted effort to a more meditative, enjoyable one.
Things I think have helped me the most:
1. Correctly fitting shoes (I always wore shoes that were too narrow and short for my feet)
2. Wearing a heart rate monitor so that I could run at a pace that allows me to stay within the heart rate range that improves aerobic fitness while being easy enough to sustain (heart rate zone 2)
3. Increasing my cadence to the 170-180 steps per minute range, which has allowed me to improve my form/efficiency and avoid shin splints.
I found this reddit thread regarding running injury prevention and how foam-rolling and stretching may not be as beneficial as might seem interesting [0]. I also enjoy foam-rolling as it tends to alleviate soreness the day after a run/workout, but after seeing this I'm looking more into the evidence behind it.
To be fair, that mentions stretching pre-exercise.
Static stretching (pre-exercise) before exercise has been known to be either negligibly beneficial or detrimental in many cases for years.
Active stretching (pre-exercise) like doing some unweighted squats, leg circles, etc. (or what most humans would call "warming up") has been shown to be beneficial in injury prevention.
Post-exercising stretching is linked to benefits such as injury prevention, increased range of motion, etc.
Thanks for this. I'd agree that foam rolling has never been a huge win for me. It's a nice thing to add to my routine and it's super easy to do while watching TV, messing around on my phone, or having a work conference call with video off.
I think this parallels really well with the question of how much privacy people are willing to give up for the convenience of digital services. In both cases, it seems like we are increasingly willing to give up privacy and trust in the name of convenience, but I do wonder if there is a breaking point. If there is a breaking point, is it even a system that can be reversed?
> If there isn't a big event downtown, or it's a slow bar/restaurant night, you'll notice there's considerably fewer of them. If the weather is harsh, you'll notice there's considerably fewer of them.
You observe this and the conclusion you make is that, 'many of the 'homeless' people are absolutely not homeless and simply know they can make much easier money off of people coming/going from bars and restaurants.'
or maybe they are homeless and know that their best bet of survival is going to the places with the most people willing to help them out.
or maybe harsh weather means that they aren't capable of being out in the open exposed to the elements, and are instead hunkered down somewhere where they can at least get minimal shelter.
I think the point of the article is that your surface conclusions from simple observations are probably not entirely accurate, and more likely a false assumption made by someone who has never experience homelessness and can't possibly know the motives or circumstances of that population.
>You observe this and the conclusion you make is that, 'many of the 'homeless' people are absolutely not homeless and simply know they can make much easier money off of people coming/going from bars and restaurants.'
The homeless population in Indianapolis congregates around the homeless shelters, not around businesses where police will tell them to keep it moving. As such most people here never witness the real homeless, where San Francisco you have tents alongside billion dollar businesses and police walking around people asleep on the sidewalk.
My point is, this article is shaming people for 'judging homeless' and that in some cities, the visible 'homeless' are often not homeless and are in fact con artists.
"Hey how dare you judge someone" well, when the ones many people are exposed to are scammers and not legit you get conditioned to be extremely wary of any person presenting as homeless.
They aren't 'criminalizing homeless'. They're making it illegal to set up at busy intersections walking up and down cars "hey spare some change, spare some change" and from harassing people (I mean HARASSING) people downtown when they enter/leave businesses.
The common ploy downtown, since the smoking ban took effect, was to find groups of smokers "hey can I bum a cigarette" or "hey can I get a light". If you engage them, with a yes or a no, they then starting asking if you have any money or try to sell you cheap plush toys.
I am all for solving the homeless problem, I was profoundly impacted after going to San Francisco and seeing people literally sleeping on sidewalks. It's a huge problem and unfortunate HOWEVER people absolutely abuse the charity of others this is why cities like Indianapolis have passed laws about panhandling.
My whole damn point in this thread is the author is accusing people of 'judging homeless', my point is MANY people have never experienced proper homelessness, they've experienced con artists and addicts that BELLIGERENTLY attempt to extract money out of people. When your experience is primarily with those types, you get jaded reeeeeeallllll quick.
This article reads like
'I was homeless once and that makes me better than you, listen up while I judge you because some people judge homeless people'.
June 24th 2018, at 33 years of age, is the first time I have ever seen someone sleeping on a sidewalk or the street. In San Francisco. The first time I've ever seen someone living in a tent or improvised tarp and cardboard tent, was on June 24th 2018 at 33 years of age in San Francisco.
While I have seen actual homeless people here in Indy, it was never in a tent/tarp/lean to on a sidewalk or street, never someone's camp in an alley, it was seeing people milling about outside of a homeless shelter when they are made to leave until night and never once while in that area was I ever hit up for money. I have however been hit up, and driven by people with signs, countless times in other areas by people that looked absolutely nothing like the men outside of the Wheeler mission or the individuals I saw in San Francisco. Unless they pan handlers just abruptly became homeless, the simple state of their shoes and the cleanliness of their clothes and person screamed they were running a con unlike the legitimate homeless people I have encountered.
I actually find Amazon to be pretty amazing at discovery, but it's dependent on the "Customers who bought this item also bought" section under a book I know I like or am interested in.
I don't go to Amazon books just to start browsing aimlessly, but if I am yearning for a book in the same vein as another book I liked, I'll just search that book and look through the books suggested below. It does keep my discovery narrow, but that consequently keeps my reading wish list small and wieldy.
You left out the next paragraph which is may be one of the reasons it's not used:
> On rare occasions the native S. mutans strain escapes into the blood, potentially causing dangerous heart infections. It is unclear how likely BCS3-L1 is to do the same.
That would be a really weird reason. The natural bacteria has the exact same problem. The engineered one is uncertain to have the problem. Why would you opt for the one that definitely carries the risk and ALSO causes expensive tooth decay?
Because the engineered caries might behave differently and unexpectedly. Regular caries has a pretty hard time getting into the bloodstream and won't infect other regions. Can the immune recognize the new strain? Can the new strain infect other regions of the body? Does it permeate into the bloodstream more often? There are more questions to be answered, experimentally.
That's a crazy thought. It's also a crazy thought to extrapolate that process all the way to how current first world countries operate. You can kind of start to bridge the gap between the two and see that our society is just an extreme manifestation of that whole scenario you described. We know that in fact there was a direct set of events that got us here, but it's also easy to separate the way humans lived and how we live now, as if they are detached but you can see a lot of those early behaviors still operating in our industrialized society.
For sure, this is a prime example of Goodhart's law in action. Before Amazon came along, I rarely depended on reading reviews before buying a product. Yes, there were definitely sites where reviews helped persuade a purchase, for example Newegg.com, but at that time it wasn't required that I scour a list of reviews before buying a product, it was more of a scavenger hunt around the internet for personal reviews/blogs, or just not at all. Then Amazon came along, and it transformed the way I buy products.
But now, you're right. It has gotten so difficult to trust any review and I often find myself ping-ponging around competing products trying to intuit what reviews are the least fake. Good reviews have simply become a target that don't necessarily signal a good product.
You're super hopeful if you think people don't idolize Patrick Bateman, but they do. People don't see the story, they see a young, good-looking Christian Bale with a powerful suit on walking the streets of NYC with headphones on. People want that image, and the message is lost or separated entirely.
