Ask HN: Something you’ve done your whole life that you realized is wrong?
I was helping my son learn to write and realized I’ve been holding the pencil wrong when I write. When I changed my grip to match how my son was learning, it was more comfortable. What have you learned that is different and better than something you’ve always done?
1,869 comments
Staying warm.
In the winter, I used to stay warm by turning up the thermostat. Then I discovered (via HN) the Low-Tech Magazine article, "Insulation: first the body, then the home." [0] The article argued that it's much more efficient to focus on heating yourself rather than your whole living space.
I invested in high-quality wool clothes that I wear in layers and warm slippers. Now, I keep my home about 5 degrees F cooler than I used to for the same comfort, and it's a big reduction in oil and wood consumption for home heat.
[0] https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/02/body-insulation-ther...
In the winter, I used to stay warm by turning up the thermostat. Then I discovered (via HN) the Low-Tech Magazine article, "Insulation: first the body, then the home." [0] The article argued that it's much more efficient to focus on heating yourself rather than your whole living space.
I invested in high-quality wool clothes that I wear in layers and warm slippers. Now, I keep my home about 5 degrees F cooler than I used to for the same comfort, and it's a big reduction in oil and wood consumption for home heat.
[0] https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2011/02/body-insulation-ther...
I live in the midwest and cold is normal for a chunk of the year, but one thing always worse than cold: wind. After college at some point I splurged on a North Face jacket with the wind protection bit and it was eye popping how much more tolerable being outside became. I always go for a nicer coat/jacket now -- the value brands at the department stores don't always have the right technology. Good outdoor gear is spendy, but lasts a very long time and is very effective.
So much this. I got all my Marmot & North Face stuff years ago before they became trendy suburban clothing. The little things like reinforced knees or a bit of extra material in the back so you can bend over without wind exposure makes a huge difference when it's -20F. That stuff has been in constant use for 20 years and except for the gloves that finally gave up from being dunked in water and freezing on a daily basis, is still going strong.
There is no such thing as bad weather, only bad gear ;)
Wet-bulb temperatures above 30 C/85 F are pretty bad no matter what you're (not) wearing.
This is why I highly prefer living in colder countries. You can always wear better gear or light a fire.
But what do you do when you're spread-eagle naked in the shade and still sweating like a pig? That's not a place for humans =)
But what do you do when you're spread-eagle naked in the shade and still sweating like a pig? That's not a place for humans =)
That's what people from cold places say :)
Talking about complying with things your parents said, but actually being annoyed by.
There is a saying where I live that wind is when the sheep don’t have curly hair anymore. And rain when the fish are swimming on your eye level.
In all seriousness though, it’s of course true.
There is a saying where I live that wind is when the sheep don’t have curly hair anymore. And rain when the fish are swimming on your eye level.
In all seriousness though, it’s of course true.
It's almost like the cultures that have "always" lived in cold areas (nordic people, siberians, inuit, etc) knew what to do ... layer with natural fibers - keeping the "treated" side of the clothing facing the outside world :)
[deleted]
I live in New York and didn’t own a proper winter jacket until I was in my 30s. I always wore a warm jacket that in hindsight was more appropriate for the fall. I bought a Quartz jacket and it made being outside in the winter so much more fun and tolerable.
For wind I think what matters is having a hard ish shell, knowing that can make price flexible. I have pretty old and cheap winter jacket that I ski in and it keeps me really warm.
I have a hard mountain down jacket from 25 years ago with wind protection that I wear when it is below freezing. Still works amazing.
Any fleece under a wind breaker/shell is pretty simple warmth for most conditions
I've known this one for years and years but it always surprises a few of my students (who come from warmer climates) when I mention it:
The scarf goes on the inside of the coat.
If you put the scarf on the outside, like you think you've seen in TV and movies, it's just decoration. Put it on the inside and it's an insulation layer and it blocks the cold air from blowing down your front. Absolutely game-changing. (Also, have a good coat, but that one seems more obvious to people.)
The scarf goes on the inside of the coat.
If you put the scarf on the outside, like you think you've seen in TV and movies, it's just decoration. Put it on the inside and it's an insulation layer and it blocks the cold air from blowing down your front. Absolutely game-changing. (Also, have a good coat, but that one seems more obvious to people.)
As a Canadian my tips are:
At my local college there are a lot of people from the Bahamas. They often wear hoodies and sandals with socks in the winter! It can get to -20C here and hoodies just won't cut it and sandals with socks could very quickly mean frost bite.
Yes scarfs are great since necks are a prime spot to loose heat during winter. A scarf or even a hood both together are even better. Long coats too none of these waits level ones get a coat at least past your waist preferably past your butt.
Layers are important more for temperature control. Even a hoodies and some sweaters can be warm if you have enough and one outside with wind protection.
Boots not sneakers to keep warm and the grip. So many people wear sneakers all winter now it blows me away. They're slippery, cold, and they probably cost more than winter boots these days.
At my local college there are a lot of people from the Bahamas. They often wear hoodies and sandals with socks in the winter! It can get to -20C here and hoodies just won't cut it and sandals with socks could very quickly mean frost bite.
Yes scarfs are great since necks are a prime spot to loose heat during winter. A scarf or even a hood both together are even better. Long coats too none of these waits level ones get a coat at least past your waist preferably past your butt.
Layers are important more for temperature control. Even a hoodies and some sweaters can be warm if you have enough and one outside with wind protection.
Boots not sneakers to keep warm and the grip. So many people wear sneakers all winter now it blows me away. They're slippery, cold, and they probably cost more than winter boots these days.
That makes sense, sort of like a gasket. But for biking, I wear it on the outside so I can keep it over my mouth, allowing me to retain some warmth in my breath.
As someone who routinly runs practically half marathons in sub zero (during winter) I used to be like this as well, but if you do this type of activity often at some point cold air literally stops being a problem.
I don't know what happened but it is as if this was never a problem at all. And it is not "getting used to the bad thing" I just don't feel bad at all.
Breathing through the nose only helps.
I don't know what happened but it is as if this was never a problem at all. And it is not "getting used to the bad thing" I just don't feel bad at all.
Breathing through the nose only helps.
Interesting. I think I may have acclimated somewhat, but I still find that biking hard below freezing makes me prone to respiratory infections—unless I breathe through/under a scarf.
Not for me. I have to breath only out through my nose, in cold weather, or my cilia stop moving and I need a pack of tissues. Ew.
That was me three years ago, before I started running 30 km per week regardless of weather.
After two weeks of doing that (I started around Christmas) it was not a problem anymore.
After two weeks of doing that (I started around Christmas) it was not a problem anymore.
Get a balaclava, they work very well.
I never understood putting things over one's mouth to keep warm. Doesn't it become moist and have a cooling effect?
What I have is a fleece scarf. I wrap it around my head (over my mouth in the front, back of neck in the back) and tie the rest under my chin. The part that's over my mouth is under moderate tension, but my beard pushes it away, so my breath goes up and down over my chin (not through the material). I then have the upper edge rolled to tighten it so that air can't escape upwards and fog my glasses.
It does get a bit moist after prolonged biking, but not badly, and that's not really against my skin.
The main effect is that there's a little pocket of exhaled warm air, just enough to mix with the next inhalation and help warm it a bit.
It does get a bit moist after prolonged biking, but not badly, and that's not really against my skin.
The main effect is that there's a little pocket of exhaled warm air, just enough to mix with the next inhalation and help warm it a bit.
I use a gaiter for this and it's crucial. It gets damp with breathing, haven't really figured out a good solution besides spinning the gaiter around every once in a while.
I switched from a gaiter to a scarf precisely because of the dampness.
I can tie a scarf to be just slightly looser than the gaiter, and the extra space decreases the dampness massively, while still retaining almost all of the warmth.
I can tie a scarf to be just slightly looser than the gaiter, and the extra space decreases the dampness massively, while still retaining almost all of the warmth.
I found out if I tie the scarf around my face with the knot at the back of my neck, so the scarf covers the front of my face (mouth/nose/part of ears) and the loose ends loop around and get tucked between my jacket and my chest - I've been infinitely warmer since!
Hollywood doesn't know what winter is :P
Hollywood doesn't know what winter is :P
Hollywood does it that way so you can see the actors face.
I've been tying my scarf like that for quite some time! Haven't seen anyone else use it like that, though.
Similarly: make sure either your coat or your gloves keep the wind from blowing up your sleeves. Coats without cuffs are awful unless worn with gloves that fit over the coat sleeves.
Wait, some people wear scarfs outside unironically?
Yes, especially if they've lived their whole lives in places that never really get below 40F/5C and have just learned about scarves from a) fashion and b) TV, but are now faced with a Midwestern winter for the first time as an adult. They'll buy a heavier knit scarf to keep warm and then not understand why it doesn't work very well. When I taught in western Illinois I made a point to tell my freshmen this every November or so and always always caught at least a few whose jaws dropped and had never really thought about it that way.
I don't like wearing big layers of clothing. I like being in a very light t-shirt.
I'm happy to pay the extra cost to heat the room I'm in with a space heater in the winter time.
I'm happy to pay the extra cost to heat the room I'm in with a space heater in the winter time.
it's a big reduction in oil and wood consumption for home heat
I'm happy to pay the extra cost
As an aside, we've got the externalities of climate change all wrong. Oil is a non renewable resource. We can't just give the planet a bunch of money and have it produce more oil for us to burn when we're uncomfortable. This cost is not really borne by you; it'll be borne by future generations.
I'm happy to pay the extra cost
As an aside, we've got the externalities of climate change all wrong. Oil is a non renewable resource. We can't just give the planet a bunch of money and have it produce more oil for us to burn when we're uncomfortable. This cost is not really borne by you; it'll be borne by future generations.
A large part of the population is like this. Whining at and shaming them is not going to get the result you want.
If you care about climate change, you should be advocating for completely green electricity generation, and carbon-neutral synthetic fuels. That would completely solve the fundamental problem.
Our society is fundamentally based on energy, and people like to use energy towards things that give them comfort. Taking away comfort is going to be a "nope" for most people.
If you care about climate change, you should be advocating for completely green electricity generation, and carbon-neutral synthetic fuels. That would completely solve the fundamental problem.
Our society is fundamentally based on energy, and people like to use energy towards things that give them comfort. Taking away comfort is going to be a "nope" for most people.
> A large part of the population is like this. Whining at and shaming them is not going to get the result you want.
It's unfortunate, but it does appear to have the opposite effect on some section of the populace. They just get pissed off and consume more out of spite. One thing to temper that is to massively tax (over-) consumption. Use taxes tend to be regressive, so to avoid targeting the poor, there needs to be some thought put into the tax structure.
It's unfortunate, but it does appear to have the opposite effect on some section of the populace. They just get pissed off and consume more out of spite. One thing to temper that is to massively tax (over-) consumption. Use taxes tend to be regressive, so to avoid targeting the poor, there needs to be some thought put into the tax structure.
If one reads my comment and construes it as whining and shaming, I don't think we're dealing with reasonable people. The problem is that conservative politicians like MTG make this ID pol issue, vis a vis her comments about Pete Buttigieg and EVs being emasculating. Because of these influences, they see any attempt to curb fossil fuel use as a personal attack, even if it isn't.
> The problem is that [politics]
If politics is the issue, let's not start about politics and partisanship? I don't know much about USA politics but it seems to me that this automatically turns your comment into something to ignore and dismiss for precisely half your population, as they're part of the party you're blaming as a whole (which might or might not be a fair thing to do).
If politics is the issue, let's not start about politics and partisanship? I don't know much about USA politics but it seems to me that this automatically turns your comment into something to ignore and dismiss for precisely half your population, as they're part of the party you're blaming as a whole (which might or might not be a fair thing to do).
It's not just politics, and I did specifically mention the attempt to make this about ID politics. In politics, there's discussion, there's give and take, OK. But when one uses their power from the top down to convince their constituency: using fossil fuels is a part of who you are, and they are trying to take a piece of your identity away from you, then it becomes something different.
When one decides to pass over clearly defined technical solutions that actually solve the problem, and instead decide to shame those who live differently than them, perhaps that individual isn't a bastion of reasonableness themselves.
Clean energy production is an everyone problem. I'd encourage not letting politicians pit you against other parts of the population, which is just an emotionally satisfying substitute to actually addressing fundamental problems.
Clean energy production is an everyone problem. I'd encourage not letting politicians pit you against other parts of the population, which is just an emotionally satisfying substitute to actually addressing fundamental problems.
It's not an either option though. If one can't have 100% clean energy right now, spending a lot more of non-renewable energy resources just because "I like to be in a t-shirt while it's -20C outside" doesn't sound very reasonable.
You can both work with the current reality, where energy produced by non-renewable means should be used with more thought while advocating for a better solution for the future so you can have your luxury of heating the house to 25C if you so wish and can afford to...
I agree on not letting politicians pit one against other parts of the population, I also believe that people should take responsibility and be mindful of the luxuries they want and what's the cost to the general society, not only that you can afford to do it even though it's detrimental to others.
You can both work with the current reality, where energy produced by non-renewable means should be used with more thought while advocating for a better solution for the future so you can have your luxury of heating the house to 25C if you so wish and can afford to...
I agree on not letting politicians pit one against other parts of the population, I also believe that people should take responsibility and be mindful of the luxuries they want and what's the cost to the general society, not only that you can afford to do it even though it's detrimental to others.
> It's not an either option though.
Although I agree that it isn't, in practicality most people do actually think that way, and have room in their heads for only one approach to a given problem.
And many people, for whatever reason, tend to prefer "solutions" that involve hating on some other part of the population. Politicians use this to great effect to avoid actually addressing problems.
This is the reason I so strongly advocate for focusing on fundamentals instead of the limited-return shame-based approaches.
Although I agree that it isn't, in practicality most people do actually think that way, and have room in their heads for only one approach to a given problem.
And many people, for whatever reason, tend to prefer "solutions" that involve hating on some other part of the population. Politicians use this to great effect to avoid actually addressing problems.
This is the reason I so strongly advocate for focusing on fundamentals instead of the limited-return shame-based approaches.
> massively tax (over-) consumption.
And thus create a Veblen good, or a political status good.
Big trucks are a status symbol in part because they are gas guzzlers.
And thus create a Veblen good, or a political status good.
Big trucks are a status symbol in part because they are gas guzzlers.
Making it mind blowingly expensive seems to have worked at treat in the UK. https://www.statista.com/statistics/322996/monthly-electrici...
Requires registration.
And even stronger, everyone is and should be like this. Everything takes energy and I bet almost everything in your house is technically unnecessary and for your comfort. Trying to police all uses of energy into good/bad is just a reflection of your own preferences of the things you can personally live without without too much of a quality of life drop.
If everyone gets to decide and spend to their own independent value system, can you agree that externalities should at least be priced in?
We price in externalities all the time. A lot of the time it's priced in as the cost of complying with government regulation, like food safety and labeling. Other times it's priced in the other direction, like subsidies for green energy or particular crops (corn/ethanol). We just don't necessarily price them appropriately, or in a way that some people may think is accurate, but we certainly don't ignore the concept of externalities.
Absolutely. I wasn’t making case that we are always ignoring them. But I think there are some subset of cases where we don’t price them in proportionally to consumption. One example apropos to this thread is pricing in atmospheric carbon (or the externalities of extracting/protecting those resources). Based on your reply, I’m assuming you think regulation is a suitable way pricing in externalities?
You are of course right shaming is not going to help.
> completely green electricity generation
The problem with green electricity is that there is no such thing as green electricity.
The wind turbines? Massive blocks of concrete in the ground, heavy machinery to put it in, lifespan not so great. Solar? Destabilizes the grid, takes plenty of minerals to produce, do you know what happens with solar panels after their lifespan?
The only "green" electricity is one that isn't even produced to begin with.
> completely green electricity generation
The problem with green electricity is that there is no such thing as green electricity.
The wind turbines? Massive blocks of concrete in the ground, heavy machinery to put it in, lifespan not so great. Solar? Destabilizes the grid, takes plenty of minerals to produce, do you know what happens with solar panels after their lifespan?
The only "green" electricity is one that isn't even produced to begin with.
One time build and destruction costs are also present in fossil fuel power generation.
Thing is with wind and solar, that’s the total harm done. When averaged out over the MWh they produce, you realise that in comparison to coal, oil or gas based power their CO2 impact is utterly negligible.
Is there more that can be done to reduce it further? Sure.
But saying because there is some lifecycle CO2 in their usage means they should be considered harmful is like saying cycling to work is harmful just like taking a helicopter, because rubber tyres aren’t entirely environmentally friendly. It’s honestly that absurd a comparison.
Thing is with wind and solar, that’s the total harm done. When averaged out over the MWh they produce, you realise that in comparison to coal, oil or gas based power their CO2 impact is utterly negligible.
Is there more that can be done to reduce it further? Sure.
But saying because there is some lifecycle CO2 in their usage means they should be considered harmful is like saying cycling to work is harmful just like taking a helicopter, because rubber tyres aren’t entirely environmentally friendly. It’s honestly that absurd a comparison.
I think you're strawmanning a little.
I'm in no way advocating for burning coal/oil/gas. I'm advocating for reduction.
If we were looking for an alternative, how is total (incl build/destruction) CO2 impact of wind/solar/etc compared to nuclear energy?
I'm in no way advocating for burning coal/oil/gas. I'm advocating for reduction.
If we were looking for an alternative, how is total (incl build/destruction) CO2 impact of wind/solar/etc compared to nuclear energy?
In this context, "green" means carbon-neutral, which (the lack of neutrality) is generally accepted as the dominating "bad" factor with how humanity harnesses energy today. Anything else is goalpost moving. But I'll entertain the goalpost moving nonetheless.
> The wind turbines? Massive blocks of concrete in the ground, heavy machinery to put it in, lifespan not so great. Solar? Destabilizes the grid, takes plenty of minerals to produce, do you know what happens with solar panels after their lifespan?
These are all things that can be recycled given the correct application of energy. Not profitably as a standalone enterprise of course, but energetically positive in comparison to what a given installation produces in its lifetime. Therefore the added cost can be baked into the final cost of the energy produced.
> The only "green" electricity is one that isn't even produced to begin with.
Most of us don't care for your extreme version of "green", so I'll point back to my original comment. You're not going to be able to convince people to willingly give up comfort, so focus on reducing the impacts of people deciding to live that way. "Much better" is worse than "perfect", but "much better" is still better than what we're doing today. You're not going to get "perfect" unless humanity is wiped out completely.
> The wind turbines? Massive blocks of concrete in the ground, heavy machinery to put it in, lifespan not so great. Solar? Destabilizes the grid, takes plenty of minerals to produce, do you know what happens with solar panels after their lifespan?
These are all things that can be recycled given the correct application of energy. Not profitably as a standalone enterprise of course, but energetically positive in comparison to what a given installation produces in its lifetime. Therefore the added cost can be baked into the final cost of the energy produced.
> The only "green" electricity is one that isn't even produced to begin with.
Most of us don't care for your extreme version of "green", so I'll point back to my original comment. You're not going to be able to convince people to willingly give up comfort, so focus on reducing the impacts of people deciding to live that way. "Much better" is worse than "perfect", but "much better" is still better than what we're doing today. You're not going to get "perfect" unless humanity is wiped out completely.
Sure, agreed!
[deleted]
Highly recommend this enlightening book on the subject (among others): https://www.amazon.com/How-World-Really-Works-Science/dp/059...
Or working on Fusion :-)
You know without any energy generation limitations, I once calculated that we could grow enough food to feed the world in less than 10000 skyscraper farms and return all those millions of hectares of cropland, pastures and plantations that we have terraformed over thousands of years to nature.
You know without any energy generation limitations, I once calculated that we could grow enough food to feed the world in less than 10000 skyscraper farms and return all those millions of hectares of cropland, pastures and plantations that we have terraformed over thousands of years to nature.
> We can't just give the planet a bunch of money and have it produce more oil for us to burn when we're uncomfortable
Yes, but we can try to do something about those "Green" activists who prevent the proliferation of the cleanest power on Earth: nuclear energy. Look at what did they do to Germany!
Yes, but we can try to do something about those "Green" activists who prevent the proliferation of the cleanest power on Earth: nuclear energy. Look at what did they do to Germany!
True or not, I would totally believe that the people who are so anti-nuclear they don't want any further research done into the subject are probably being funded by the fossil fuel industry.
Just a few links I gathered some time ago when discussing the related topic:
"Has Russia Been Financing Western Environmentalism?" (2022) [0]
"Putin Is Funding Green Groups to Discredit Natural Gas Fracking" (2017) [1]
"German green group branded a Russian ‘puppet’ over Nord Stream II gas pipeline" (2021) [2]
[0]: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18330/russia-funding-envi...
[1]: https://www.newsweek.com/putin-funding-green-groups-discredi...
[2]: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/german-green-group-brande...
"Has Russia Been Financing Western Environmentalism?" (2022) [0]
"Putin Is Funding Green Groups to Discredit Natural Gas Fracking" (2017) [1]
"German green group branded a Russian ‘puppet’ over Nord Stream II gas pipeline" (2021) [2]
[0]: https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/18330/russia-funding-envi...
[1]: https://www.newsweek.com/putin-funding-green-groups-discredi...
[2]: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/german-green-group-brande...
Green activists are the only reason we have any green energy at all.
Well, if it weren't for green activists, we'd probably be exclusively using nuclear power at this point, so we'd be in a much better spot for green energy
The coal and oil industries have been quietly bankrolling anti-nuclear efforts for decades under the guise of safety. It's a prime example of astroturfing.
This I highly doubt. Especially when it comes to solar, for which there are many reasons to adopt apart from environmental concerns.
> Look at what did they do to Germany!
Increased low carbon energy by more than the first twelve years of the messmer plan in spite of being betrayed by the SDR immediately and then having the conservatives cut funding further?
Increased low carbon energy by more than the first twelve years of the messmer plan in spite of being betrayed by the SDR immediately and then having the conservatives cut funding further?
No, fearmongering Germany into shutting down the whole nuclear energy industry. Just compare them to France?
France had nothing to do with shutting down Energywende for the betternpart of a decade and neither did environmentalists.
That is, of course, not true:
"The anti-nuclear movement was one of the key driving factors behind the foundation of the Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) in 1980." [0]
[0]: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
"The anti-nuclear movement was one of the key driving factors behind the foundation of the Green Party (Bündnis 90/Die Grünen) in 1980." [0]
[0]: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/history-behind-ge...
Doesn't say anything about Gazprom and their employee schroder being greens.
Looks like the goalpost has moved.
Show me the bit where the greens shut down funding for renewables.
I don't think it's consumer's duty to factor in that future cost into their behavior. This should be factored into the current price of the resource by businesses or governments.
It's not customer's duty to pay more than they are asked, either in money or in inconvenience.
It's not customer's duty to pay more than they are asked, either in money or in inconvenience.
But I tend to think of my fellow beings as citizens rather than consumers. And I do think it is a citizen's duty to be considerate of their fellow and citizens, current and future.
It's a bit like you'd say: I prefer to think about my fellow beings as mammals not consumers. They sure are but that's beside the point.
Citizen has no meaning in context of economy (except for taxation). So using it in context of economic activity mixes up two unrelated things.
Bad actors in the economy tend to exploit such mix ups to shift the burden away from them.
Read up on introduction and promotion of the concept of individual carbon footprint. Or the reality of recycling which was promoted as alternative to producers of plastic being directly responsible for introducing plastic into the environment.
Citizen has no meaning in context of economy (except for taxation). So using it in context of economic activity mixes up two unrelated things.
Bad actors in the economy tend to exploit such mix ups to shift the burden away from them.
Read up on introduction and promotion of the concept of individual carbon footprint. Or the reality of recycling which was promoted as alternative to producers of plastic being directly responsible for introducing plastic into the environment.
>As an aside, we've got the externalities of climate change all wrong. Oil is a non renewable resource. We can't just give the planet a bunch of money and have it produce more oil for us to burn when we're uncomfortable. This cost is not really borne by you; it'll be borne by future generations.
What's the point of resources if they're not consumed? If we follow your advice to its logical conclusion, then we'd have oils that are consumed by nobody, because every generation doesn't want to consume it for fear of "cost [...] borne by future generations".
What's the point of resources if they're not consumed? If we follow your advice to its logical conclusion, then we'd have oils that are consumed by nobody, because every generation doesn't want to consume it for fear of "cost [...] borne by future generations".
>What's the point of resources if they're not consumed?
Just to add some nuance, this seems to imply everyone has the same environmental psychology. There are lots of (often competing) perspectives. If you have a utilitarian environmental psychology, you may think resources are there to be consumed for human benefit. If you instead have a stewardship environmental psychology, you may feel its your duty to protect those resources from being pilfered.
Stephen Kellert has a good description of these different perspectives in "The Biological Basis for Human Values of Nature". Some of his categories include: utilitarian, naturalistic, ecologistic-scientific, aesthetic, symbolic, humanistic, moralistic, dominionistic, and negativistic. Other researchers define the human-environment interactions differently. For example, [1] defines them in terms of master, apathy, steward, partner, participant, and user. So it's not hard to see why people's thoughts differ on this issue. Like with most human value systems, it's not likely that there is a singular "right" perspective.
[1] https://www.academia.edu/download/53480185/Yoshida_et_al._20...
Just to add some nuance, this seems to imply everyone has the same environmental psychology. There are lots of (often competing) perspectives. If you have a utilitarian environmental psychology, you may think resources are there to be consumed for human benefit. If you instead have a stewardship environmental psychology, you may feel its your duty to protect those resources from being pilfered.
Stephen Kellert has a good description of these different perspectives in "The Biological Basis for Human Values of Nature". Some of his categories include: utilitarian, naturalistic, ecologistic-scientific, aesthetic, symbolic, humanistic, moralistic, dominionistic, and negativistic. Other researchers define the human-environment interactions differently. For example, [1] defines them in terms of master, apathy, steward, partner, participant, and user. So it's not hard to see why people's thoughts differ on this issue. Like with most human value systems, it's not likely that there is a singular "right" perspective.
[1] https://www.academia.edu/download/53480185/Yoshida_et_al._20...
If we follow your advice to its logical conclusion, then we'd have oils that are consumed by nobody
That's not really the logical conclusion of my advice. In actuality, there's a lot of possibilities between "I'm the one buying it, so I'm the only one dealing with the consequences" and "Not use any oil at all". But I get it, it's easier to argue against strawmen.
That's not really the logical conclusion of my advice. In actuality, there's a lot of possibilities between "I'm the one buying it, so I'm the only one dealing with the consequences" and "Not use any oil at all". But I get it, it's easier to argue against strawmen.
>But I get it, it's easier to argue against strawmen.
It's also easier to feel smug and accuse people of strawmanning when you're engaging in motte and bailey :^)
Accusations of fallacy aside, what is your actual argument then? That there's some non-zero harm inflicted on future generations when we consume fossil fuels, because they won't be able to use them anymore? That would seem like the motte argument, because it's trivially true, but what does this translate in terms of how we should behave? A cost of $0.000001 would be trivially easy to defend, but also means I can turn my thermostat to 78F guilt free.
You also argue that we've "we've got the externalities of climate change all wrong", implying that the future generations not being able to use fossil fuels is somehow worse than people being displaced by climate change today. What is your basis for that?
It's also easier to feel smug and accuse people of strawmanning when you're engaging in motte and bailey :^)
Accusations of fallacy aside, what is your actual argument then? That there's some non-zero harm inflicted on future generations when we consume fossil fuels, because they won't be able to use them anymore? That would seem like the motte argument, because it's trivially true, but what does this translate in terms of how we should behave? A cost of $0.000001 would be trivially easy to defend, but also means I can turn my thermostat to 78F guilt free.
You also argue that we've "we've got the externalities of climate change all wrong", implying that the future generations not being able to use fossil fuels is somehow worse than people being displaced by climate change today. What is your basis for that?
While our oil supply is not part infinite, it should still last many decades/centuries more, by which time we will hopefully have alternatives. Climate change is a larger risk than running out
Among our alternatives: wear warmer clothes.
We have enough uranium to last for millions of years at current consumption levels, and nuclear energy is nearly completely CO2-free. Electric heating is a thing. I don't think we need to worry about this.
(Using oil for heating is outrageous, of course; as Mendeleev have said, it is exactly the same as heating your fireplace with money bills).
(Using oil for heating is outrageous, of course; as Mendeleev have said, it is exactly the same as heating your fireplace with money bills).
Which currency is the best heat source? I think some of the newer ones might give you cancer.
> We have enough uranium to last for millions of years at current consumption levels
this is because we don't use very much nuclear power. There is currently enough known uranium reserves to provide 2 years of global energy production at current rates.
this is because we don't use very much nuclear power. There is currently enough known uranium reserves to provide 2 years of global energy production at current rates.
See "closed nuclear cycle" and breeder reactors.
That's one to two hundred years depening on if you include inferred resource, and for supplying under 3% of the energy. Meeting net zero targets with PWRs would run out in well under a decade, perhaps not even a single fuel load.
Well, PWRs are dead end, we need breeders.
So if we just do this thing that doesn't work and would be more expensive as the other thing that's too expensive and release many EBq of Kr-85, H3 and probably various other fission products we can avoid doing the thing that's currently working and is dirt cheap.
Fossil fuel heat generation is an order of magnitude cheaper per unit than electric in many geographic areas.
Or through the magic of south facing windows and proper insulation you can be nice and warm in the winter and with electric heating not even burn oil.
Yeah but I don't like future generations, my dude. I like me. And so does everyone else. So I'd rather pillage the commons because if I do otherwise the commons won't be unpillaged. It'll just be pillaged by others.
Everyone's all "we must care about the environment" but then you ask them why Germany isn't reforesting (after razing the cities they built on old forests) and why Europe is deforesting at an accelerated rate and it's all this and that.
Everyone's all "we must care about the environment" but then you ask them why Germany isn't reforesting (after razing the cities they built on old forests) and why Europe is deforesting at an accelerated rate and it's all this and that.
The commons is an interesting point. It was stable for a long time through very strong social and cultural norms. It was broken essentially by wealthy landowners taking slices of it and then using their oversized influence to change the law to support them. It suggests the root of the solution to any of this stuff is very much cultural and social.
No, we got the technology all wrong.
We could easily have abundant nuclear energy so that “home heating” would be a non-issue and trivial cost.
We could easily have abundant nuclear energy so that “home heating” would be a non-issue and trivial cost.
For about 10 years and 100 trillion dollars.
Do you need the oil more than OP and for what purposes?
I would assume the poster already knows it. Is a matter of wanting something and do it because I can.
It goes against common sense but is human nature.
It goes against common sense but is human nature.
Which is precisely why government intervention is required to address this problem. Individuals will make decisions that are short sighted, self-centered and potentially not in the best interest of the planet.
I don't fault them for it, I'm guilty of it in some situations.
I don't fault them for it, I'm guilty of it in some situations.
It's a hard balancing effort. On one hand, humans can't be counted on to be rational actors, especially in terms of long-term benefit. On the other hand, the system is so complex it may not be able to be managed well at the large government level.
No, it actually makes sense: burn all the oil now, to keep yourself warm in winter, and the future generations will be kept warm by the fact that climate change raises temperatures, so there are no winters anymore :-D
My home isn’t heated with oil. Take your shitty generalizations elsewhere.
Boo. A single day of any large company impacts the environment far more negatively than the most wasteful single human or large group of humans do in their lifetimes.
Moving the blame from corporations to the individual is how companies have avoided doing anything to combat climate change and only serves to make the individuals who do the blaming self righteous and the ones being blamed bad.
Moving the blame from corporations to the individual is how companies have avoided doing anything to combat climate change and only serves to make the individuals who do the blaming self righteous and the ones being blamed bad.
No blame is being moved. Corporations behaving irresponsibly has no bearing on whether or not individuals should behave responsibly.
In fact, the person trying to shift blame here is you: by downplaying the smaller yet still significant role of individuals in a sustainable future.
In fact, the person trying to shift blame here is you: by downplaying the smaller yet still significant role of individuals in a sustainable future.
False. Nothing I do has an impact on the planet at any scale. A company can make a change in an instant and have an immediate impact on the planet.
[deleted]
I didn't move anything.
I'm not trying to change your mind, just offer my perspective. I felt the same way. But after a couple of months of just putting up with it, I found I got used to it, and it saves some money & spends less fuel. Now I wear sweaters around the house all the time and it doesn't bother me anymore.
You're right and I've done the same. But changing human behavior is enormously difficult, especially when it relies strictly on individual decisions. Just look at how many people rationally know what to do to get healthier, yet are unable to do so. We need to stop pretending humans are computers that just need better information to make better decisions. We're emotional beings even more than we are rational ones.
I'm the same way, but wool really is an awesome fabric for clothes wrt to temp regulation.
My favorite t-shirt is now a lightweight filson 100% wool shirt that is just as comfortable by itself at 80 deg as it is under a button up shirt at 30 deg.
And doesn't get cold when wet like cotton does.
It really does fit the "life changing" topic if you've never tried it.
My favorite t-shirt is now a lightweight filson 100% wool shirt that is just as comfortable by itself at 80 deg as it is under a button up shirt at 30 deg.
And doesn't get cold when wet like cotton does.
It really does fit the "life changing" topic if you've never tried it.
I just went and bought a Filson 210G Merino wool T. Thanks! I need this.
https://www.filson.com/tops/210g-merino-wool-short-sleeve-cr...
https://www.filson.com/tops/210g-merino-wool-short-sleeve-cr...
It’s so itchy though.
Pre-Merino, wool was quite itchy. I wonder if you are thinking of "old" wool. Modern merino is some very soft stuff.
> Merino wool is able to ditch the itch thanks to its fiber's smaller diameter, or being “finer”. These fibers are more flexible and softly bend when pressed against the skin and, therefore, don't itch like other wool.
https://www.smartwool.com/discover/why-merino-wool/merino-wo...
> Merino wool is able to ditch the itch thanks to its fiber's smaller diameter, or being “finer”. These fibers are more flexible and softly bend when pressed against the skin and, therefore, don't itch like other wool.
https://www.smartwool.com/discover/why-merino-wool/merino-wo...
Could be. Wool is too cruel for my taste anyway so I abstain from it.
No could be about it. Merino wool is not itchy.
There are other wools like possum wool with similar properties that are less ambiguous in terms of ethics. Merino can be ethically sourced.
If usage of animal products is a concern, that seems hardly relevent to a question of the feel of the material. I applaud the concern, just find the "could be" to be glib and/or ignorant
There are other wools like possum wool with similar properties that are less ambiguous in terms of ethics. Merino can be ethically sourced.
If usage of animal products is a concern, that seems hardly relevent to a question of the feel of the material. I applaud the concern, just find the "could be" to be glib and/or ignorant
Merino is just as itchy to me as any other wool, I can't wear any of it touching my skin. Drives me nuts.
Yeah so I was like that, until the energy prices absolutely exploded here in UK. I realized that if we go like this we'll pay £600/month just in energy costs, and that's as much as our mortgage payment - and frankly that's insane. I turned our thermostat down, grumbled and put on a jumper and wooly trousers - that alone literally halved our bill to £300/month - still insane(considering last year we were paying £100/month even in winter with heating being on pretty much all the time), but managable.
I like eating chocolate and sleeping all day, but I also have responsibilities. One of my responsibilities is to not be wasteful. So I put on a sweater.
(But if you've got some kind of super-insulated house, then never mind.)
(But if you've got some kind of super-insulated house, then never mind.)
You can still do this efficiently, for example my house thermostat is set to 65ish and I use a tiny space heater at half power (700ish watts) to have a small but nice warm corner without breaking the bank, probably.
I like going outside. I must go outside to walk my dog, get my mail and go to church — all of which are outside. I like shopping for groceries and eating out, which means that I must move from my car to the building. Given that I am going to be outdoors, it sure as heck makes sense to dress for the season and the weather.
Plus, y’know, winter clothes are the best clothes. Tweeds, woolens, gloves, coats, scarves, hats: all these are great!
I was amazed to find out that even in this air conditioned age we spend far more heating buildings than air conditioning them (four times as much, according to the first Google hit I just found). That means that it makes a lot more sense to dress warmly in the winter than lightly in the summer.
Plus, y’know, winter clothes are the best clothes. Tweeds, woolens, gloves, coats, scarves, hats: all these are great!
I was amazed to find out that even in this air conditioned age we spend far more heating buildings than air conditioning them (four times as much, according to the first Google hit I just found). That means that it makes a lot more sense to dress warmly in the winter than lightly in the summer.
For me the game changer was flannel. I never knew it was different than plaid until this year. Turns out it’s sufficiently warm and way more comfortable than heavier layers like hoodies because of how light it is.
I sweat a lot (medical problems), and have no body fat; so keeping warm is a real challenge. I can't wear much clothing.
"radiant IR" (red glowing elements) type heaters are wonderful tools for heating the body instead of the air.
"radiant IR" (red glowing elements) type heaters are wonderful tools for heating the body instead of the air.
me too, also sometimes i can’t seem to heat up in layers. So I drink hot tea instead
That's still better than keeping the whole house at 75F all winter.
That reminds me of a Calvin and Hobbes comic. Coincidentally, this was also how I was raised:
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1986/12/30/
https://www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1986/12/30/
Electrically heated clothing is now becoming readily available, and I think it could have a big impact on home heating if people would come around to it. I'm able to keep my office much colder, but wear a heated vest. Why heat the whole room when I'm the only thing that wants to be warm in it? If the clothing was all integrated, in theory I could be kept at my ideal temperature at a nominal electricity cost.
Keeping my hands warm is a bigger problem.. especially when having to type on the computer..
I managed to get some fairly thin gloves that worked well on laptop keyboards these past few months when ive been testing outside in negative celcius tempratures & snow (I work in mobile robotics, testing outside is common enough the company has camping chairs with umberellas etc for us)
something like these https://www.primark.com/en-gb/p/thinsulate-knitted-gloves-bl.... The particular ones I have also seem to work somewhat on touchscreens which is useful for the commute home
something like these https://www.primark.com/en-gb/p/thinsulate-knitted-gloves-bl.... The particular ones I have also seem to work somewhat on touchscreens which is useful for the commute home
To people who may not live in colder climates: you can find one-size-fits-all stretchy gloves that look like this practically everywhere, but they aren't all useless like the ones you find everywhere. Thinsulate and other actually-good insulating tech can be surprisingly effective.
I have chronically cold hands (to the point that they're painful and interfere with typing), and in the last few years I've discovered that hands down the best way to warm my hands up is to warm my core up more. I have a big down puffer vest that I keep in my office and it's a lifesaver.
This works even when my hands are the only part of my body that feel cold. The body is effectively prioritizing keeping my core warm instead of the extremities, so adding insulation to the body has the trickle-down effect of warming the hands. On the other hand, trying to warm just the hands never feels like enough.
This works even when my hands are the only part of my body that feel cold. The body is effectively prioritizing keeping my core warm instead of the extremities, so adding insulation to the body has the trickle-down effect of warming the hands. On the other hand, trying to warm just the hands never feels like enough.
Absolute best thing I've found has been silk glove liners, and then cutting the tips off to make them fingerless. For some reason almost all the fingerless gloves you can buy cover half of the finger, not 3/4 of the finger.
I tried this but they get frayed at the ends, so you end up looking like a hobo digging in the trash. Ended up with some compression/arthritis gloves and they are just the right size, sewn at the ends, reach up to the last digit. But unfortunately they are made of some fabric that tries to minimize heat retention. So they only help a bit. Probably could be paired with the normal wool fingerless gloves.
Another factor is to keep the material thin between the fingers or it affects typing. Wish I could design my own (sigh).
Another factor is to keep the material thin between the fingers or it affects typing. Wish I could design my own (sigh).
Personally I find "wrist warmers" work well. I don't like fingerless gloves when typing since material between my fingers is annoying, but wrist warmers are like fingerless mits (no individual finger holes).
My desk is next to a huge window, and even with the heat on my hands get really cold. But then I got a heated desk pad / mousepad. I thought it was a gimmick, but I love this thing. In just a few minutes it warms up my hands and wrists and keeps both my keyboard and mouse at cozy temps.
Wow, I did not know these were a thing.
My main issue in the winter is my feet. (And I hate slippers.) Maybe I'll get one of these and put it under my desk.
My main issue in the winter is my feet. (And I hate slippers.) Maybe I'll get one of these and put it under my desk.
Aw man, slippers are the best part of winter! Maybe you just haven't had nice ones. In addition to the usual furry/fuzzy slippers most people think of, I like to mix it up with "house shoes" (i.e.: shoes but ones that never go outside) like EVA Birkenstocks[0]. They're extremely light and the half-inch insulation they provide from the cooler ground makes a big difference for me.
[0] https://www.birkenstock.com/us/arizona-essentials/arizona-ev...
[0] https://www.birkenstock.com/us/arizona-essentials/arizona-ev...
I used to have a small heater running under my desk but I bought these [1] recently and the heater hasn't been on since. My feet are toasty but don't get hot and sweaty.
[1] - https://www.thenorthface.com/en-us/sale-c829803/mens-thermob...
[1] - https://www.thenorthface.com/en-us/sale-c829803/mens-thermob...
I use both fingerless gloves and arm warmers to keep my hands warm.
Very thin leather gloves are an absolute game changer. I've noticed that the sensation of my hands being cold is much more related to the external feeling of cold rather than their internal temperature. Thin leather gloves maintain your dexterity, you can operate touchscreens with them, and they eliminate the bite of cold air/surfaces on your bare hands.
My wife knits and made me some fingerless gloves, I'm guessing you could find something similar on eBay or Etsy. Highly recommended
When you keep the core toasty your hands keep warm enough too. Especially if you are male.
Electrically heated clothing is a terrible idea. Comfortable for three years, then one day it just kills you. There's a reason that every power cable says things like "do not crush", but who's going to rigorously avoid putting their body weight on their shirt?
Funny, it's only after moving away from my parents and going to college that I learned that you can heat your home so that it's comfortable. No need to dread such things as entering the cold bed at night, leaving the warm bed in the morning or sitting on the cold toilet seat.
I wish floor heating was more widespread where I live.
I wish floor heating was more widespread where I live.
In floor heating with a geothermal heat pump = winning :) The upfront cost is a killer but quality of life wise afterwards oh man. Zero cold spots and unlimited hot water as a bonus side effect. Especially amazing when you live in the mountains.
Electric blanket, hot water bottle, robe, soft toilet seat, etc... 1000x more efficient.
1000x more miserable too.
Not at all, these things are downright luxurious. Wouldn't do without them, and you won't know till you try. It's not like you're required to keep the house a freezer in combo.
Just silly not to focus the heat where the need is. Do you light up the whole house to illuminate your desk?
Just silly not to focus the heat where the need is. Do you light up the whole house to illuminate your desk?
Did you miss the part where I grew up like what you are describing (except electric blankets, those didn't exist)?
I'm not guessing or imagining anything, I know it's much worse.
I focus the heat where the need is - the air around me. Otherwise, everything you touch is cold, the air you breath is cold, exposed skin gets cold. Sex only under blankets? No thanks.
To be clear, I'm not talking about freezing, everything under 18 degrees C is really cold for me, and under 23 degrees C is somewhat cold.
People talk about wearing fingerless gloves at home - yeah I did that as a kid because we were poor, never doing it again unless I go broke.
I'm not guessing or imagining anything, I know it's much worse.
I focus the heat where the need is - the air around me. Otherwise, everything you touch is cold, the air you breath is cold, exposed skin gets cold. Sex only under blankets? No thanks.
To be clear, I'm not talking about freezing, everything under 18 degrees C is really cold for me, and under 23 degrees C is somewhat cold.
People talk about wearing fingerless gloves at home - yeah I did that as a kid because we were poor, never doing it again unless I go broke.
There’s generally a recommended temperature to keep the house at, a good balance. Else move closer to the equator if you want to bop around in a bikini.
An extreme version of this: my mother in law lives in southern china where they don't get indoor heating by default (and the buildings are poorly insulated and aren't designed to be insulated, so adding it yourself isn't very feasible), so we are all bundled up the entire time we spend there in the winter, and everyone else is to, including the clerks are the department store and so on. The coldest 5C of my life :).
That's what happens when central planning makes the above observation.
That's what happens when central planning makes the above observation.
This completely fails for me. I will end up with freezing cold hands and a warm body. Put me in a 65f room and after an hour of being idle my hands will start to go numb from the cold.
Have you seen a doctor about this just to make sure you don't have circulation issues?
Alternatively, keep some fingerless gloves around - or learn to knit/crochet/sew and make some (they aren't all that complicated for something basic). For around the house, you could honestly convert some socks if you aren't worried about how they might look. I'd get some of the no-fray glue they sell at craft stores if you go this route. These are great when you are idle.
Alternatively, keep some fingerless gloves around - or learn to knit/crochet/sew and make some (they aren't all that complicated for something basic). For around the house, you could honestly convert some socks if you aren't worried about how they might look. I'd get some of the no-fray glue they sell at craft stores if you go this route. These are great when you are idle.
> Have you seen a doctor about this just to make sure you don't have circulation issues?
Yes, doctor said I have poor circulation in my extremities. Except she said that using Latin, so that was super helpful. /s
From what I've read, the body primarily measures core temp around the chest, so wearing lots of layers on the body can cause the extremities to get cold since the body goes "everything is warm enough, no need to even try and warm things up with extra blood flow!"
So paradoxically, wearing less clothes can help.
Yes, doctor said I have poor circulation in my extremities. Except she said that using Latin, so that was super helpful. /s
From what I've read, the body primarily measures core temp around the chest, so wearing lots of layers on the body can cause the extremities to get cold since the body goes "everything is warm enough, no need to even try and warm things up with extra blood flow!"
So paradoxically, wearing less clothes can help.
> Have you seen a doctor about this just to make sure you don't have circulation issues?
What can the doctor do about it?
What can the doctor do about it?
Not a doctor, but I'd think that would depend entirely on what was causing it.
Have you tried wristers? They’re basically tubes for your upper hand, wrist and lower forearm, with a little slit for your thumb. By keeping the blood at the wrist warm they keep your hands much warmer than they’d otherwise be, while letting you retain full freedom of motion for your fingers. They’re even better than fingerless gloves in that regard.
Wristers (we call them "pulse-warmers" here) are AMAZING. My Grandmother-in-law spends her days knitting hundreds of these, and now we have multiple plastic bags full of fluffy multicolured pulse-warmers that we don't know what to do with.
If anyone her wants to pay the postage from NZ, I'll happily send them around the world for no cost :)
If anyone her wants to pay the postage from NZ, I'll happily send them around the world for no cost :)
I might take you up on that offer :) How can one contact you?
Just added my email to my profile!
Got a small heater (size of a small PC speaker) for 20 bucks on Amazon, most effective purchase I’ve made in recent memory, super effective for cold fingers and doesn’t even need to be on all the time
Which one did you get? I tried getting one at work a few years ago and all it did was feel like a dragon's breath on my face, and my hands got a bit of warmth
wolf gloves / thumbhole shirts, and of you are idle you can tuck hands under a blanket or chest pockets.
Wearing gloves and holding your hands inside your pockets while reading so you can save $10/month on your electricity bill seems pretty miserable.
Another thing that can really help with this is a hot water bottle. You can put it on your lap, or under your feet and it really helps you keep warm if you are sitting for long periods of time. Helps if you put a small blanket over your lap as well. Usually lasts for a couple of hours before you need to refresh the water in the bottle.
I just received as a gift a hand-made harness for attaching a hot water bottle to one's chest or back. It is rather effective.
https://pothies.co.uk/hotwater-bottle-carrier-from-pothies/
https://pothies.co.uk/hotwater-bottle-carrier-from-pothies/
For the HN crowd: point your computer exhaust fan at your fingers or feet.
Unfortunately the M1 runs a lot cooler than older models :(. Old Intel models would almost burn your fingers!
I was playing cyberpunk this winter with a 4090 at 4k RT on and all settings maxed. My desktop took the living room from around 50F to over 72F. My A/C turned on! It was genuinely insane
That rig probably can generate around 1kW of heat, just like average space heater.
You have a very small living room if that alone can heat it up from 50F to 72F.
Especially if you've got a bulldozer!
How to? Usually sent out the back.
This just came across my desk this morning, it discusses the benefits of hot water bottles as an alternative means of keeping warm.
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2022/01/the-revenge-of-the-h...
(HN discussion from 2022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30023681)
https://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2022/01/the-revenge-of-the-h...
(HN discussion from 2022 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30023681)
Between your thighs...max blood flow and contact area.
The issue is it doesn't work for people who tend to sweat easily.
I'm one of the sweatiest people I've ever met. I've slowly gotten better at layering and how to use clothes for different situations, but I agree it's a big factor and there's some unwinnable combinations.
For instance, I've finally learned to embrace "long-john" style long underwear under my pants, but it's only possible because I'm working from home. They are amazing layers for warmth, but unlike additional shirts, hoodies, jackets, scarves, hats, long underwear can't be casually removed. You have to take off your shoes and your pants! So if (when) I was going into an office, I always made the choice to have cold legs during the commute but comfortable legs all day. Now I can wear them in the morning, take them off if the day warms up, and put them back on whenever the temp. drops again.
But overall I'll echo a few comments in here that some of the more expensive gear, even as base layers, really is better technology. And getting to know my body and my situational habits, it's been possible to figure out layering clothing that worked for me, but only because I was working in tech and felt like I had enough money to get it wrong a couple times... If I were still living on a student or even "average" budget, I would've been much shyer about trying some new $30 shirt just to see if it agreed with me.
For instance, I've finally learned to embrace "long-john" style long underwear under my pants, but it's only possible because I'm working from home. They are amazing layers for warmth, but unlike additional shirts, hoodies, jackets, scarves, hats, long underwear can't be casually removed. You have to take off your shoes and your pants! So if (when) I was going into an office, I always made the choice to have cold legs during the commute but comfortable legs all day. Now I can wear them in the morning, take them off if the day warms up, and put them back on whenever the temp. drops again.
But overall I'll echo a few comments in here that some of the more expensive gear, even as base layers, really is better technology. And getting to know my body and my situational habits, it's been possible to figure out layering clothing that worked for me, but only because I was working in tech and felt like I had enough money to get it wrong a couple times... If I were still living on a student or even "average" budget, I would've been much shyer about trying some new $30 shirt just to see if it agreed with me.
What's your long johns situation? I haven't found anything that bridges the winter gap where I'm comfy outside and not boiling/sweating inside.
sorry, late reply: REI sells a totally ok pair, i'm not even wearing silk ones. The trick for me is that in this era of remote work, I'm not required to be in places heated to the warmer end of room-temperature. And I can pretty casually take them off if/when the day warms up.
Have you tried genuine silk long johns? That's the gold standard for me.
That isn't true at all.
You simply need layers and good enough deodorant. A bit of experience helps as well - you learn how warm to keep your base layer after some time. If you sweat in non-standard places (like under breasts), spray deodorant might be your friend.
I personally deal with this because of hormones - I'm a female in my mid-40s, so I get to have hot flashes and night sweats during part of my cycle right now.
You simply need layers and good enough deodorant. A bit of experience helps as well - you learn how warm to keep your base layer after some time. If you sweat in non-standard places (like under breasts), spray deodorant might be your friend.
I personally deal with this because of hormones - I'm a female in my mid-40s, so I get to have hot flashes and night sweats during part of my cycle right now.
I have a jacket that has zippers under the armpits. :-)
That's usually true...
But for a few years I lived in a very well insulated (smallish) apartment in a moderate climate. When it would get cold, I would turn the heat on. My bill would go up by a few dollars.
Then, I changed jobs and started working in a colder building. I spent more on warm clothes than I usually spent on heat! (And I had baseboard resistive heating, and I payed extra for wind power.)
But for a few years I lived in a very well insulated (smallish) apartment in a moderate climate. When it would get cold, I would turn the heat on. My bill would go up by a few dollars.
Then, I changed jobs and started working in a colder building. I spent more on warm clothes than I usually spent on heat! (And I had baseboard resistive heating, and I payed extra for wind power.)
Yep. Took me over 20 years, but I got there eventually.
A sweater and warm socks are game changers, as is a warm winter jacket and a good scarf. Add some tea and candles and the winter isn't half bad anymore. It's much easier to get through the cold months if you don't dread being outside.
A sweater and warm socks are game changers, as is a warm winter jacket and a good scarf. Add some tea and candles and the winter isn't half bad anymore. It's much easier to get through the cold months if you don't dread being outside.
See also this article from "Mr. Electricity". [1]
[1] https://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/heating.html
[1] https://michaelbluejay.com/electricity/heating.html
You need this calculator:
https://comfort.cbe.berkeley.edu/?eyJ0YSI6MTgsInRyIjoxOCwidm...
First thing I bought from my first salary was some socks, a comfy thick hoodie and pants. Best investment of my life after going years in broke ass student dime secondhand ancient weared clothing, especially now where we try to save energy and office is not 5 degrees overheated anymore. Everyone complains about being cold and I'm just warm.
This is what I hate so far from Switzerland: buildings keep centralized heating at high levels. Even if I set my radiator to the lowest levels, I am still comfortable walking around in shorts and T-shirts in the middle of the winter. And obviously, everyone has to pay for this kind of heating...
I think one problem is managing moisture not to get mold at home.
So most likely you still need to keep heating on but it might not need to be super high - just enough to have convection from heater moving air at home and having some ventilation letting in a bit of outside air in and warm one getting moisture out.
So most likely you still need to keep heating on but it might not need to be super high - just enough to have convection from heater moving air at home and having some ventilation letting in a bit of outside air in and warm one getting moisture out.
Slippers have been a game changer for staying warm. We live in a concrete apartment building and the floors are always cold in the winter. Insulating my feet is by far the easiest way to stay warm without heating the entire house to a "short sleeves and shorts" comfortable temp.
Plus your houseplants will thank you... when you die and meet them in the afterlife.
I see here a number of comments about turning heating down as a way to live more "green" lifestyle. I see it as a corporate brainwashing and guilt shift getting into people's heads.
I just moved and now renting a place with electric water heater with pump moving that heated water around via radiators. It is quite large apartment with shitty, to be honest, insulation. The difference between "I put several layers of clothes on" and "I am wearing a t-shirt" is about 600 kWh per month. The same amount of energy is needed to prodice 30 kg of aluminium or run a single rack in a datacenter for just 2 days.
Never in your life your energy consumption can be compared with industrial usage. Likewise, never in you life your water consuption can reach a visible fraction of agricultural irrigation. Stop listening to coprorate PR.
I just moved and now renting a place with electric water heater with pump moving that heated water around via radiators. It is quite large apartment with shitty, to be honest, insulation. The difference between "I put several layers of clothes on" and "I am wearing a t-shirt" is about 600 kWh per month. The same amount of energy is needed to prodice 30 kg of aluminium or run a single rack in a datacenter for just 2 days.
Never in your life your energy consumption can be compared with industrial usage. Likewise, never in you life your water consuption can reach a visible fraction of agricultural irrigation. Stop listening to coprorate PR.
I understand your sentiment but your examples still sound like a lot of energy.
If every home ran a server rack for two days a month, or produced 30kg of aluminum, that would obviously add up extremely quickly.
If every home ran a server rack for two days a month, or produced 30kg of aluminum, that would obviously add up extremely quickly.
Yes, it's a lot of energy, and it shocked me first, because I never lived in a home that big before. It also costs the money most people consider worth saving. But it still fascinates me how relatively small this amount of energy compared to any type of industrial usage. Also, I need it only 2 months in a year.
I agree for most people this works, but people with circulatory disorders such as Reynauds may still find that their hands and feet and even nose are freezing. Only fix for that is warm ambient air.
I would love to do this except it's usually my hands that are coldest, and I need them out to type on keyboard majority of time. Thus I have a space heater in my office.
Add moisture to the air also as it conducts heat better and the same temperature will "feel" warmer. (especially important in some climates more than others)
Unless your air temperature is higher than your body temperature (37 deg C), won't higher humidity mean more of your heat is lost? This is why we call desert climates 'a dry heat' or 'a dry cold' in winter. Conversely, a 'damp cold' might not be that low a temperature, but you really feel it.
This was in context to someone in a house with proper heating, but still feeling cold.
I can't say I have experienced what you are describing. Proper heating means that the room temp is 18-23C, so less than 37C. I guess 23C would feel warmer in higher humidity (>50%), because it inhibits your body's ability to cool itself effectively via perspiration. But this would depend greatly on your physiology and level of activity. Is this the mechanism you are referring to? Anyway for me I like my house at 18C and 30% humidity.
My understanding is that dry cold air doesn't feel as cold either...
I learned from a swimming teacher "water transmits heat/cold 10 times faster than air", therefore a logical conclusion is that dry air is insulating more than moist air.
Heat and cold transfer in air happens, just take your shirt off, you feel the temperature change immediately. Go to a very, very cold climate with dry air, if there is no wind, it truly doesn't affect you that badly. Same with Arizona in the summer ("it's a dry heat" is a state motto, IIRC)
I learned from a swimming teacher "water transmits heat/cold 10 times faster than air", therefore a logical conclusion is that dry air is insulating more than moist air.
Heat and cold transfer in air happens, just take your shirt off, you feel the temperature change immediately. Go to a very, very cold climate with dry air, if there is no wind, it truly doesn't affect you that badly. Same with Arizona in the summer ("it's a dry heat" is a state motto, IIRC)
Sorry this is backwards isn't it? In air temperature of lets say 60*F the conduction would be away from your body into the air, wouldn't you want to reduce the conduction? I can say that we used to humidify our winter air throughout the house but it made it feel so much colder. Now we humidify our sleeping air only.
It depends, with super (I mean very, very dry air) you can have pockets of warmth just around the heat source. But add a little moisture and the whole room feels warm.
In my experience 60 is cold no matter what. But feeling cold at 70 degrees stinks.
In England or Ireland? Ya, damp all the time all winter. It just depends on the environment. (don't want anymore moisture in the air)
In my experience 60 is cold no matter what. But feeling cold at 70 degrees stinks.
In England or Ireland? Ya, damp all the time all winter. It just depends on the environment. (don't want anymore moisture in the air)
This is probably a bad advice - As it simultaneously makes cold air feel colder.
Also, I'm not sure if there is an easy way to actually increase humidity without reducing the temperature. From my experience, increasing humidity while keeping the overall temperature at the same time requires additional energy.
Also, less humid air may allow you to actually wear less cloths as it is more difficult for the air to get energy off your body.
Also, I'm not sure if there is an easy way to actually increase humidity without reducing the temperature. From my experience, increasing humidity while keeping the overall temperature at the same time requires additional energy.
Also, less humid air may allow you to actually wear less cloths as it is more difficult for the air to get energy off your body.
I think is true for places that have moist air already. But for colder climates a house with central heating the air often gets drier (even outside) than the worst deserts on earth.
So, in that environment adding moisture makes the air warmer. (with proper heating of course)
So, in that environment adding moisture makes the air warmer. (with proper heating of course)
Perfect recipe for growing mold :)
Not where many people live. In winter here the air is so dry you need to run humidifiers or your skin starts to crack.
Is this the reason for infusions in sauna?
Sauna temperatures are higher than human body's.
I didn't know that. Good tip!
Based on the comments above, I think I should have specified that this works well for very cold places that get very dry air in the winter.
Unless you live in a super dry area you are causing your house to grow substantial mould and make you live shorter by years or decades.
Congratulations...
Congratulations...
I put some heating pads in socks, gloves, and sometimes jackets, which I found to work better and much more energy efficient.
"Staying warm" being the key! Your body generates plenty of heat. The idea is to trap it.
A cashmere sweater is the best investment you'll every make.
I have a chihuahua. I'm willing to accept the slightly higher cost in winters for her being comfy.
My mom has 2 short hair chihuahuas (7-8lbs) and they wear sweaters 6 months a year. Just like the rest of us!
When my then-gf/now-wife and I first moved in together, I got really mad at her because she kept "hiding" my stuff when I left it out for more than a day. I couldn't find anything!
At some point, I yelled, "It's like you don't even want to see any of my things when I'm not using them!" Then I stopped for a second. For the first time in my life, it made sense.
The whole point of putting things away is to hide them! No one wants to look at your crap when you're not using it.
At some point, I yelled, "It's like you don't even want to see any of my things when I'm not using them!" Then I stopped for a second. For the first time in my life, it made sense.
The whole point of putting things away is to hide them! No one wants to look at your crap when you're not using it.
My wife and I have a rule, "everything needs to have a home." Because if it doesn't have a home, it becomes clutter, and after enough clutter, it finds a home... usually a sub-optimal one, like a junk drawer.
The kids (4 and 5) have adapted to this wonderfully. It really helps them. It makes cleanup a trivial task because everything is known to belong somewhere specific.
Related to this: the recognition that everything is harder in a messy home. If you have stuff everywhere, you are paying a small tax any time you want to find or do something. Even cluttering your cupboards and drawers means you're tediously sifting through too much stuff or constantly worried about knocking something over while getting something else out. It's been especially good to avoid the dance of removing items to get the items underneath, then putting them back.
Finally: the lesson that when you keep stuff, you are paying a "tax" on keeping it. Throw away stuff you don't think you'll ever need again. It's cheaper to re-buy 1 or 2 things than to keep 100 of them for years and years. That storage space could be better used.
Bonus: If everything has a home, and you run out of homes, you quickly recognize that you have too much stuff and it might be time to make trade-offs. This puts an upper bound on the amount of stuff in our home.
Note that this could all easily sound super hardcore but it's not. It's just a general guide we have. We aren't forcing our kids to throw excess toys away and we're not writing a book about it. A flexible tool to guide behaviour, not enforce it.
The kids (4 and 5) have adapted to this wonderfully. It really helps them. It makes cleanup a trivial task because everything is known to belong somewhere specific.
Related to this: the recognition that everything is harder in a messy home. If you have stuff everywhere, you are paying a small tax any time you want to find or do something. Even cluttering your cupboards and drawers means you're tediously sifting through too much stuff or constantly worried about knocking something over while getting something else out. It's been especially good to avoid the dance of removing items to get the items underneath, then putting them back.
Finally: the lesson that when you keep stuff, you are paying a "tax" on keeping it. Throw away stuff you don't think you'll ever need again. It's cheaper to re-buy 1 or 2 things than to keep 100 of them for years and years. That storage space could be better used.
Bonus: If everything has a home, and you run out of homes, you quickly recognize that you have too much stuff and it might be time to make trade-offs. This puts an upper bound on the amount of stuff in our home.
Note that this could all easily sound super hardcore but it's not. It's just a general guide we have. We aren't forcing our kids to throw excess toys away and we're not writing a book about it. A flexible tool to guide behaviour, not enforce it.
In my 20s I had a roommate and we kept having arguments with use of space. I would interpret his leaving new purchases just wherever as laziness or not caring. I'd hand it to him, and tell him to put it away, and it'd be left somewhere else randomly.
I eventually realised he bought things without thinking about where to put them, when he got home with it. So it just sort of would get abandoned wherever. There was no assigned "away" for him, and I was assuming there was. Baffling, but at least it wasn't passive-aggressive like I had thought. Some of my habits eventually wore off on him, thankfully.
A related theme is: I don't have anywhere to put this even after thinking about it -- then you probably have too much stuff!
I eventually realised he bought things without thinking about where to put them, when he got home with it. So it just sort of would get abandoned wherever. There was no assigned "away" for him, and I was assuming there was. Baffling, but at least it wasn't passive-aggressive like I had thought. Some of my habits eventually wore off on him, thankfully.
A related theme is: I don't have anywhere to put this even after thinking about it -- then you probably have too much stuff!
> A related theme is: I don't have anywhere to put this even after thinking about it -- then you probably have too much stuff!
I seldom run into the problem of not having anywhere to put something. On the other hand, I often run into the problem of being unsure of how best to categorize something so that I can decide where it should belong.
I seldom run into the problem of not having anywhere to put something. On the other hand, I often run into the problem of being unsure of how best to categorize something so that I can decide where it should belong.
I too prefer to group related items together when I'm organizing drawers or storage compartments of any kind, and if an item has no similar items to live with, it ends up orphaned on a counter or surface somewhere, ultimately risking itself ending up in a junk drawer.
But if it's an extra pair of glasses or something fragile, you don't want it getting tossed around other things like metal tools or otherwise damaging things.
Other times, I leave things out of place in the open deliberately to remind myself to do something. This could be placing a bill or usually other paper items right at the end of the dinner table to force myself to remember taking care of it. Another example is leaving a cardboard box near the front door to recycle it later. It's intended to ugly up my space to bug me and take care of it.
So, I often use my physical space as a natural to-do list of sorts. Works well!
But if it's an extra pair of glasses or something fragile, you don't want it getting tossed around other things like metal tools or otherwise damaging things.
Other times, I leave things out of place in the open deliberately to remind myself to do something. This could be placing a bill or usually other paper items right at the end of the dinner table to force myself to remember taking care of it. Another example is leaving a cardboard box near the front door to recycle it later. It's intended to ugly up my space to bug me and take care of it.
So, I often use my physical space as a natural to-do list of sorts. Works well!
"I eventually realised he bought things without thinking about where to put them"
Ok, learned something. I never think about where anything will be placed when I buy them. I basically hope that I can move stuff and it will fit. No wonder my place is always messy. I know this is basic but I never even thought about it. Live and learn... Thx!
Ok, learned something. I never think about where anything will be placed when I buy them. I basically hope that I can move stuff and it will fit. No wonder my place is always messy. I know this is basic but I never even thought about it. Live and learn... Thx!
Had the same situation. I'd forever be asking, "what's your plan for this or that item that's just lying around clearly not put away?" because that's how I approach it. There wasn't a plan, it was all spontaneous, willy nilly. We made it work, but I've found it's far less draining to simply find a roommate, now it's a significant other, who operates similarly to me.
Yeah, I hd never even heard of this idea until probably my 30s.
And it took much longer until I realized it's actually not silly.
Now I try to live this way, with limited but increasing success.
And it took much longer until I realized it's actually not silly.
Now I try to live this way, with limited but increasing success.
I've run into this. It's tough because the answer I might arrive at ("I don't have a place to store this, so I shouldn't buy it") is often not well received by people you live with as it comes across as you trying to dictate what they can and cannot buy.
>A related theme is: I don't have anywhere to put this even after thinking about it -- then you probably have too much stuff!
or not enough clear surfaces x)
or not enough clear surfaces x)
> ... you run out of homes, ... you have too much stuff ... puts an upper bound on the amount of stuff in our home.
Conversation from last weekend -
"I want those brown shoes. They're so nice and fit like they're made for me"
"You're shoes are overflowing your side, into mine and now into the corridor. I think you have too many."
"I don't have any that are like boots. I want brown ones for the city.I'll wear to my $event"
"You got yellow ones last month. They look like boots"
"They're for a hike. These are for the city. I don't like being told about my shoes."
And then there were more shoes.
Same night -
"I need to donate my old clothes"
Conversation from last weekend -
"I want those brown shoes. They're so nice and fit like they're made for me"
"You're shoes are overflowing your side, into mine and now into the corridor. I think you have too many."
"I don't have any that are like boots. I want brown ones for the city.I'll wear to my $event"
"You got yellow ones last month. They look like boots"
"They're for a hike. These are for the city. I don't like being told about my shoes."
And then there were more shoes.
Same night -
"I need to donate my old clothes"
Some women care about shoes far, far more than makes sense to their husbands / boyfriends.
My several attempts to understand this have been fruitless.
This might belong on the short list of things to work around, rather than work through.
My several attempts to understand this have been fruitless.
This might belong on the short list of things to work around, rather than work through.
I think it's one of these personality traits you accept, even if you don't understand it.
> "They're for a hike. These are for the city"
I'm a guy, and I do this, too. I have two identical pair of boots. One pair is for "clean" things, such as going to the store, the office, etc. The other pair is for "dirty" things, such as yardwork, hiking, gardening, woodworking, etc.
As my "clean" boots age and wear, I swap them out for a new pair, and the previous "clean" boots become my new "dirty" boots. It's a cycle I've been running for decades now.
The hike vs city distinction makes sense to me, regardless of gender.
I'm a guy, and I do this, too. I have two identical pair of boots. One pair is for "clean" things, such as going to the store, the office, etc. The other pair is for "dirty" things, such as yardwork, hiking, gardening, woodworking, etc.
As my "clean" boots age and wear, I swap them out for a new pair, and the previous "clean" boots become my new "dirty" boots. It's a cycle I've been running for decades now.
The hike vs city distinction makes sense to me, regardless of gender.
I think a lot of people would be a lot happier in life if they got rid of half their crap. Then in 6 months get rid of half of what is left. It is a hard battle but I keep trying to get rid of more and more stuff and it is so nice to walk into a storage shed that is more and more empty. Everything remaining is needed and there is no hunting or looking for things as everything is easily accessible.
"To invent, you need a good imagination and a pile of junk." --Thomas Edison
I have a lot of stuff, probably too much. Some of it I haven't touched in years but only a relatively small portion of it would I consider getting rid of. I tend to go through cycles of interests where I will work on some category of thing for a few months and produce a few items and then I'll exhaust my creativity in the matter and leave it to lie fallow. Later on I'll pick up the pursuit again and I happily have everything I need to hand. Nothing is worse than being in the midst of making something and realizing you haven't got the part you need, you're left with a few options: to buy it, scavenge it, or make it; all of which take time and effort away from the thing you are working on.
The minimalist life may appeal to some, I can understand the sentiment. I've spent holidays away from home in a serenely empty cabin with nothing but nature and a book. It's pleasant but it grows tiresome after a while and I yearn to be back in the shed, tinkering and building.
I have a lot of stuff, probably too much. Some of it I haven't touched in years but only a relatively small portion of it would I consider getting rid of. I tend to go through cycles of interests where I will work on some category of thing for a few months and produce a few items and then I'll exhaust my creativity in the matter and leave it to lie fallow. Later on I'll pick up the pursuit again and I happily have everything I need to hand. Nothing is worse than being in the midst of making something and realizing you haven't got the part you need, you're left with a few options: to buy it, scavenge it, or make it; all of which take time and effort away from the thing you are working on.
The minimalist life may appeal to some, I can understand the sentiment. I've spent holidays away from home in a serenely empty cabin with nothing but nature and a book. It's pleasant but it grows tiresome after a while and I yearn to be back in the shed, tinkering and building.
I'm much the same, I've been down to having my whole life fit in a backpack and currently am spread all over a three bedroom house. Too much space and, strangely, too much organization make me anxious long term.
I find my ad hoc organizational style is by far the most effective for me. It's like a LIFO data structure. The most frequently used items (phone, laptop, TV remote) are in the easiest to reach places. My beach and fishing stuff are near the door in the summer, the salt and shovel make their way there in the winter.
I think people with the rotational-evolving quality tend to organize things in time rather than space, which doesn't look right to most people who think the other way around.
I find my ad hoc organizational style is by far the most effective for me. It's like a LIFO data structure. The most frequently used items (phone, laptop, TV remote) are in the easiest to reach places. My beach and fishing stuff are near the door in the summer, the salt and shovel make their way there in the winter.
I think people with the rotational-evolving quality tend to organize things in time rather than space, which doesn't look right to most people who think the other way around.
I have one friend whose house is basically probably a candidate for one of the hoarders shows. Then my dad and brother are both basically of the nothing out of place school.
I tend to be the Goldilocks principle. I do get rid of things that I know I'll never use--especially if they're bulky. But I don't mind keeping things around that I may get back into someday. Or want for the occasional thing. And I can keep some magazines and piles of books lying around, seasonal clothing piles, travel stuff grab boxes, etc. laying around without them taking over. If people were coming over, I might spend an hour tidying up but it's a happy medium for me for the most part.
I tend to be the Goldilocks principle. I do get rid of things that I know I'll never use--especially if they're bulky. But I don't mind keeping things around that I may get back into someday. Or want for the occasional thing. And I can keep some magazines and piles of books lying around, seasonal clothing piles, travel stuff grab boxes, etc. laying around without them taking over. If people were coming over, I might spend an hour tidying up but it's a happy medium for me for the most part.
I recently read an account from someone who manages a chemistry(?) lab that's used by multiple teams of people. He'd spent years trying to come up with the perfect storage system, only to realize that the only thing that consistently works is to reduce inventory.
I've been applying that to my own life lately, and I think he's right.
I've been applying that to my own life lately, and I think he's right.
You're coming at this the wrong way, the solution is build more sheds.
We call this the OHIO system. Only Hold It Once. Don’t set things down in random spots, pick it up and it goes where it belongs.
[deleted]
I agree with this 100% but I struggle with finding homes for everything. I feel like I need more furniture with drawers or cupboards. It's creating the storage space that I struggle with.
I have a TON of small components and tools, and maybe my system could be helpful:
I keep several shelves full of stacking storage boxes in my garage. I’ve given each of these a unique number, written in permanent marker on the front face and lid of each. I chuck things mostly randomly in whatever box has some space, and then I track those newly added/removed items in a spreadsheet (more specifically, I just use a text file and treat the line numbers as the respective bin number — primitive, but works better for my workflow than something like Google Sheets).
I’ve found that trying to keep an immense inventory “organized” is too daunting (what happens if I overflow one bin — do I dedicate an entire bin to the one or two items that wouldn’t fit, leaving this bin mostly empty? Ugh!), and the only real utility with keeping things categorically collocated is to retrieve/store items efficiently anyway — by introducing a layer of indirection, I get the end result I’m looking for with a fraction of the work.
I keep several shelves full of stacking storage boxes in my garage. I’ve given each of these a unique number, written in permanent marker on the front face and lid of each. I chuck things mostly randomly in whatever box has some space, and then I track those newly added/removed items in a spreadsheet (more specifically, I just use a text file and treat the line numbers as the respective bin number — primitive, but works better for my workflow than something like Google Sheets).
I’ve found that trying to keep an immense inventory “organized” is too daunting (what happens if I overflow one bin — do I dedicate an entire bin to the one or two items that wouldn’t fit, leaving this bin mostly empty? Ugh!), and the only real utility with keeping things categorically collocated is to retrieve/store items efficiently anyway — by introducing a layer of indirection, I get the end result I’m looking for with a fraction of the work.
I want to recommend the boxes system called "Pretty useful box" to you. For years now that stuff solved the problem again and again.
https://reallyusefulproducts.co.uk/usa/
https://reallyusefulproducts.co.uk/usa/
My too, but the only thing that helped was making storage spaces for a type of thing, and when the space designated overflows, something has to be tossed.
yeah, buying organizational furniture is helpful. Those metal shelves from ikea are great, stack plastic containers on them and it’s not even too expensive to fill a closet like this
> Note that this could all easily sound super hardcore but it's not. It's just a general guide we have. We aren't forcing our kids to throw excess toys away and we're not writing a book about it. A flexible tool to guide behaviour, not enforce it.
I was having a hard time thinking about what I'm doing wrong, but I think this is close enough. I'm so inspired to steal some variant of this disclaimer especially this part: "We aren't forcing x to do y and we're not writing a book about it."
I was having a hard time thinking about what I'm doing wrong, but I think this is close enough. I'm so inspired to steal some variant of this disclaimer especially this part: "We aren't forcing x to do y and we're not writing a book about it."
I just bought a used laptop on impulse last week, and it still has no home. It's driving me nuts. It's sitting next to me right now. And because it's pre-usb-c, the charger needs a home too. I have about 30 large bins in the garage for things without homes, and that may be its fate, unfortunately.
Get a cafeteria tray and put the laptop on that. Homing items is mostly about dividing and binding space, and the tray acts to bundle any accessories or project parts, while also dividing it from the room.
I don’t know your use-case, but a laptop’s “home” at home would be your laptop bag - or - a docking-station on your desk - use your desktop PC, on a desk, while at home; while your laptop bag’s hone would be on a coathook in your mudroom or closet - or a designated (and maintained) spot by the door.
It's also going to vary greatly based on the individual. Some people have homes that look like ocean going ships, with nothing that's not permanently attached or stowed neatly away. Others have shit everywhere. Both scenarios are fine if you're comfortable with living that way.
It's good to be somewhere in the middle because then no one is angry when the process breaks down every so often. Now I know someone is going to say that the process won't break down because I AM IN CHARGE and monitoring the process. And that's exactly why it's good to be in the middle. :)
If I followed this rule I wouldn't own a thing, the perks of living in a small room.
My housemates (a couple) have this problem. Since others having moved out, they seem to have expanded to fill any available space in the house.
They take up more cupboard and bench space around the house then the additional 2 people did before.
Makes it challenging in a house to find space when you need it, if it's already filled simply because there was a free space.
They take up more cupboard and bench space around the house then the additional 2 people did before.
Makes it challenging in a house to find space when you need it, if it's already filled simply because there was a free space.
If anyone does want to read a book about it, I'm listening to "Decluttering at the speed of life" and it hits this concept pretty well. Really helped me shift my mindset.
So you don’t have a junk drawer? We have a junk drawer and it is the home for packing tape, scissors, flashlight, batteries, etc…
Packing tape in the workshop. Scissors in the knife block. Paper scissors in the craft cupboard. Other scissors in the "office" (there's a fun battle between what are craft supplies and what are office supplies). Batteries in the battery/charger cupboard in my office (hugely popular for all the kids toys). Flashlights are in the workshop (big Ryobi ones), kids rooms (small toy flashlights that look like ladybugs), and in the cars.
We DO have a "junk drawer" but it's really just a "assorted kitchen stuff" drawer. You'll find birthday candles, matches, elastics, twist ties, etc. but that's their home.
Super fun semantics talk because we love semantics: maybe your junk drawer isn't a junk drawer? Maybe you know exactly what's there and why. Homes are of all different sizes and maybe that works perfectly because you don't need things like a battery cupboard.
We DO have a "junk drawer" but it's really just a "assorted kitchen stuff" drawer. You'll find birthday candles, matches, elastics, twist ties, etc. but that's their home.
Super fun semantics talk because we love semantics: maybe your junk drawer isn't a junk drawer? Maybe you know exactly what's there and why. Homes are of all different sizes and maybe that works perfectly because you don't need things like a battery cupboard.
Packing tape goes in the adhesives drawer in the garage/shop.
I hang them on a pegboard. My adhesives are woefully inadequate to deserve a drawer... gosh I wish...
I have three adhesive draws and they certainly don't have room for tape.
What? That is the utilities draw! The junk draw is for the small white elephant statue recieved from a white elephant years ago, the plate from an old car that was totaled, and a stray n64 controller.
The draw?
I can't help but hear that in a northeastern accent like from the folks from This Old House :)
I can't help but hear that in a northeastern accent like from the folks from This Old House :)
I had several such drawers. My fiancée hipped me to the label maker. Now a drawer that has some loose thematically linked bunch of crap in it instead has exactly this list of things in it where that list is enumerated on the front of the drawer. For instance I had put safety pins, sharpies, a sewing kit, scissors and stain removal pens in a Sterilite drawer together. These were loosely thematically linked along the lines of "have to do with fabric." The drawer was maybe 1/3 full and I don't have a ton of space for more drawers. I put my many spare AA, AAA, CR2032 batteries in there because they'd really be wasting space in a drawer on their own. Suddenly the loose thematic link is severed! It's become a junk drawer!! But if you put a label on the front with everything I've written in this comment, it becomes the drawer that is home to exactly these items. You can put another item not on the list in it, you just need to add a label!
This blew my mind wide open. Absolutely game changing. The space works for us, not the other way around!!
This blew my mind wide open. Absolutely game changing. The space works for us, not the other way around!!
[deleted]
"everything needs to have a home."
This, absolutely.
This, absolutely.
> everything needs to have a home
Does it count if everything goes into one big box?
Or if I just declare the living room as the home for my stuff?
Does it count if everything goes into one big box?
Or if I just declare the living room as the home for my stuff?
At that point, you've successfully outsmarted yourself.
Which means you've just built the smartest thing you're capable of, and are thus incapable of debugging it.
Heh, reading this I can’t help but think of how different the perception of what your kids are feeling is vs what they’re actually feeling.
“This is great for the kids!” Maybe! Or, equally plausibly it’s annoying, but they don’t tell you.
“This is great for the kids!” Maybe! Or, equally plausibly it’s annoying, but they don’t tell you.
Yesterday we asked 4yo if he wanted this rack of plastic bins for toys in his room. He was so eager that he wanted to carry it himself. Once up there, he began dismantling his current system and excitedly placing toys into the new bins while singing to himself.
The first thing that comes to mind is how to communicate this without people thinking, "oh those poor kids, they've been brainwashed into being neat freaks." I guess the answer comes in: 5yo is not like this and that's fine. Their rooms are usually a mess because they're kids. And our house is usually a disaster because we have kids and are tired. Just because everything has a home, doesn't mean we're perfect about it... far from it. The kitchen would usually horrify you.
The kids genuinely love it because when they ask to get out the slime or do arts and crafts, and we say, "but first you have to clean up your other toys," that's a task they are 100% capable of doing themselves. It gives them agency.
The first thing that comes to mind is how to communicate this without people thinking, "oh those poor kids, they've been brainwashed into being neat freaks." I guess the answer comes in: 5yo is not like this and that's fine. Their rooms are usually a mess because they're kids. And our house is usually a disaster because we have kids and are tired. Just because everything has a home, doesn't mean we're perfect about it... far from it. The kitchen would usually horrify you.
The kids genuinely love it because when they ask to get out the slime or do arts and crafts, and we say, "but first you have to clean up your other toys," that's a task they are 100% capable of doing themselves. It gives them agency.
> The kids genuinely love it because when they ask to get out the slime or do arts and crafts, and we say, "but first you have to clean up your other toys," that's a task they are 100% capable of doing themselves. It gives them agency.
Haha, your world is going to be rocked in two decades, when your kid casually mentions something you thought they “loved” but really thought was stupid. It’s almost like you’ve forgotten your own childhood!
Haha, your world is going to be rocked in two decades, when your kid casually mentions something you thought they “loved” but really thought was stupid. It’s almost like you’ve forgotten your own childhood!
I disagree with this with some caveats. I find that specific memory as a child (parents mistaking something you hate as something you enjoyed) to actually reflect the amount of open communication and mutual listening of parent/child. My parents rarely listened to me, so I went with learned helplessness, and my consent was mistaken as enjoyment. But I know of other families where preferences were listened to and became the bedrock of having a trusting relationship with parental units.
Parents are incapable of knowing what their kids like and dislike? I'm feeling a sorrowful empathy for where this line of reasoning might come from.
It's a well known problem[0][1] with accepting parental assertions around their child's health. That's why kids are often given time alone with their doctor, to express feelings they wouldn't otherwise feel comfortable about. Additionally, it's been shown that a parent is not great at objectively evaluating their child's emotional state or place in the world. [2]
It's even got an entry in TVTropes![3]
But why would you have a "sorrowful empathy" because I have a passing knowledge about childhood and children? You can't seriously think you're going to always know what your children are thinking or that they're even being entirely straightforward with you now, can you? Surely they have their own lives by now even a little bit, some space for their own that you're not involved in and don't know about.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15473508/
[1] https://archive.nytimes.com/parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...
[2] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201407/parents-j...
[3] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoesntKnowTheirO...
It's even got an entry in TVTropes![3]
But why would you have a "sorrowful empathy" because I have a passing knowledge about childhood and children? You can't seriously think you're going to always know what your children are thinking or that they're even being entirely straightforward with you now, can you? Surely they have their own lives by now even a little bit, some space for their own that you're not involved in and don't know about.
[0] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15473508/
[1] https://archive.nytimes.com/parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009...
[2] https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201407/parents-j...
[3] https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoesntKnowTheirO...
A well known problem? An article saying "Some parents have limited knowledge concerning their children's OHRQoL.", a new york times article, a psychology today article and a tvtropes page? This is extremly light evidence. You can defend anything with a vaguely related study and a few press articles.
I don't personally believe in learning about anything from HN, only of things, so at this point if you want to know more I recommend talking to a pediatrician, as I'm not an expert and may (unintentionally) mislead, misdirect, or misinterpret.
Maybe it's not well known! Maybe it's extremely rare! Maybe I've got biases! Who knows, I certainly wouldn't. You have no idea what my qualifications are, what my expertise is, and generally there are no social consequences for me spouting nonsense, so there are not a lot of good reasons to listen to whatever my argument may be, right or wrong.
Maybe it's not well known! Maybe it's extremely rare! Maybe I've got biases! Who knows, I certainly wouldn't. You have no idea what my qualifications are, what my expertise is, and generally there are no social consequences for me spouting nonsense, so there are not a lot of good reasons to listen to whatever my argument may be, right or wrong.
-If my kids are anything to go by, no worries: If it annoys them, they'll tell you. Repeatedly.
Or worse:
Even if they really liked it and adopted it, then they would not be able to cause chaos and destruction, to embrace disorder, noise, unpredictability of things (both physical and social/abstract). This would be to their disadvantage.
Too much order, not allowing for chaos is _not_ good for kids. Ways of chaos and destruction should be welcome. Order should be welcome. Walking lightly between the two, while maintaining contact _and_ giving kids freedom is not an easy task, I think.
Even if they really liked it and adopted it, then they would not be able to cause chaos and destruction, to embrace disorder, noise, unpredictability of things (both physical and social/abstract). This would be to their disadvantage.
Too much order, not allowing for chaos is _not_ good for kids. Ways of chaos and destruction should be welcome. Order should be welcome. Walking lightly between the two, while maintaining contact _and_ giving kids freedom is not an easy task, I think.
The problem with online discussions is that people project their own perceptions onto what it all looks like. Their rooms are never clean. Having a home for everything helps, but whatever you're picturing... it's likely wrong. This house is a mess because it's lived in.
I am not trying to picture your home in any negative way or suggest anything to you in any way. I read your whole comment, incl. last paragraph. What I was trying to say was more of a general comment on how delicate (and beneficial) is to have access to different kinds of energies, allowing order and disorder, and how going too much to either side can have long lasting, far reaching consequences. That going too far, even playfully, in one direction ("in this home _everything_ has its own place") sets contexts far more reaching than one could imagine.
To add to this, I have a dedicated place for almost anything, as I code things rather spatially than visually, so I think it's great. I just think it is important to leave lots of freedom for kids. It's like difference between "I see you did not put all things away today" vs. "How are you doing in 'everything needs to have a home' department, today?"
All the best!
To add to this, I have a dedicated place for almost anything, as I code things rather spatially than visually, so I think it's great. I just think it is important to leave lots of freedom for kids. It's like difference between "I see you did not put all things away today" vs. "How are you doing in 'everything needs to have a home' department, today?"
All the best!
"We own things, but have hidden them."
https://nathanwpyle.threadless.com/designs/we-own-things/hom...
https://nathanwpyle.threadless.com/designs/we-own-things/hom...
This is so absolutely hilarious to me because this is 100% something I'd do. I had a friend come over once and then he came over again a week later and all of my kitchen cabinet doors were open and in the exact same position as they had been a week prior. He was like "dude did you not shut your cabinet doors? Wtf"
Its just not even on my radar
Its just not even on my radar
Open cabinet doors drive me crazy because they look like a concussion waiting to happen.
This is a minor point of annoyance between me and my husband, I think because of our height difference. He likes to open ALL the cabinets when putting away dishes, and sometimes leaves them open. I, with eye level much closer to the bottom edge of the doors, walk in and see all these corners waiting for me to run into them. When I put away dishes, I open a cabinet, put away everything that belongs there, close it and move along to the next one.
But I also think it's a difference in how we were raised, because he does not push his chair in after leaving a table either..........
But I also think it's a difference in how we were raised, because he does not push his chair in after leaving a table either..........
Can confirm. Have bonked my head on cabinets multiple times. The danger is primarily in bending-over-then-standing motions.
Life hack: if you keep all your bottom cabinets open, you don't have to bend over to see what's inside :^)
Life hack: if you keep all your bottom cabinets open, you don't have to bend over to see what's inside :^)
At that point, why not just take the doors off?
Open shelving is a thing. No one said your cabinets need to have doors.
Open shelving is a thing. No one said your cabinets need to have doors.
There is a spectrum everyone is on, where at one end is emotional distress at cabinets being ajar, and the other end is ignoring a smoke alarm chirping every 43 seconds for six months. Somewhere on that spectrum is, "I don't care for the doors but I don't want to be bothered to remove them."
This is so funny. That same friend of mine came over a few months prior and was like "HOLY SHIT how do you live with that noise its driving me crazy"
I'd been living here for like 5 months at that point and had completely blocked out the noise of a dead fire alarm in my basement.
I'd been living here for like 5 months at that point and had completely blocked out the noise of a dead fire alarm in my basement.
I think there's a metaphor for putting up with crappy code in there somewhere.
We had some tall cabinet doors that we were particularly prone to hitting our heads on, so we replaced them with curtains. Did the same for some closets with sliding doors when I got annoyed with only being able to access half the closet at once. The curtains hide the clutter, and IMO look nicer than the doors did.
Yah, they do have utility though, they guard the contents from a higher degree of exposure to dust and kitchen exhaust grime and any splatter that should occur in the space that goes in all directions. Easier to wipe a more or less flat planar surface than the intricate surfaces possibly pervious surfaces of the contents.
Oh, I agree. My cabinets have doors, and I keep them closed. But if you’re already leaving all your cabinets open at all times, you might as well just get the doors out of your way.
Then you have to dust more stuff!
Worse than dust, kitchens are regularly filled with clouds (however thin) of cooking oil. I had an apartment once where the landlord was apparently too cheap for cupboard doors or a proper exhaust fan, and infrequently-used dishes got nasty.
Ughh yeah, you'd end up with a gross semi-polymerized sticky film on stuff.
that takes even more planning snd effort than just closing them
if you have pets you sure do!
If opened all my bottom cabinet doors in the kitchen, I still couldn’t see everything. I’m too tall and the room isn’t that big, so the viewing angle is all wrong.
Same way the top shelf of the fridge disappears. Bad angle.
Both require bending over then standing.
Edit: There’s just enough room to back up and see it all in the cabinet. I’m sorry I lied.
Same way the top shelf of the fridge disappears. Bad angle.
Both require bending over then standing.
Edit: There’s just enough room to back up and see it all in the cabinet. I’m sorry I lied.
The number of people on this thread who leave cabinets open (and apparently come families of cabinet-door-openers) is astounding to me. Do you all leave toilet seats up too? What about the refrigerator? Car doors? Dresser drawers? Do you not push your chair in when you get up from the table? Do you at least return shopping carts?
I am not an organized person, I see a horizontal surface and I put stuff on it. But leaving doors open? I don’t think I even take my hand off the cabinet door when I open it. One hand for the door, one for the thing I’m getting.
The only door I leave open is the washing machine, so it can dry out. It gets closed the next time I’m in the laundry room though.
I am not an organized person, I see a horizontal surface and I put stuff on it. But leaving doors open? I don’t think I even take my hand off the cabinet door when I open it. One hand for the door, one for the thing I’m getting.
The only door I leave open is the washing machine, so it can dry out. It gets closed the next time I’m in the laundry room though.
One of those is not like the others. I see no issue leaving a toilet seat up.
It's just as easy for the next person to put it down as it was for me to put it up.
It's just as easy for the next person to put it down as it was for me to put it up.
It’s not for the next person. It’s to keep the stuff in the toilet, in the toilet, rather than as an aerosolized spray that gets spread about.[1][2]
I guess it doesn’t really matter if your toilet is in its own room, but at least most houses in the US have the toilet next to the sink (where your toothbrush is).
Put the seat down before you flush, because it’s more sanitary.
[1] https://microbiologysociety.org/news/society-news/does-putti...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4692156/
I guess it doesn’t really matter if your toilet is in its own room, but at least most houses in the US have the toilet next to the sink (where your toothbrush is).
Put the seat down before you flush, because it’s more sanitary.
[1] https://microbiologysociety.org/news/society-news/does-putti...
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4692156/
You're talking about the lid, not the seat. Also, some of that aerosolised spray stays airborne under the lid and is released when you open it [1].
[1] I think Mary Roach talked about this in this interview by Adam Savage, but don't remember exactly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfZ9RrxQ5NM
[1] I think Mary Roach talked about this in this interview by Adam Savage, but don't remember exactly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kfZ9RrxQ5NM
[deleted]
Toilet seats don't belong in that list l.
I have literally slept overnight with my front door open multiple times this winter.
I am probably in like the 99th percentile of aloof people
I am probably in like the 99th percentile of aloof people
I cringe when watching actors on television make an entrance but don't close the door.
And do these people not dust?
I definitely do not.
If things get grubby I'll eventually scrub every surface with a sponge.
But also, what does dusting have to do with leaving doors open?
But also, what does dusting have to do with leaving doors open?
[deleted]
I know it’s not for everyone.. this is solvable by putting your cabinets on a soft closing track installed at a slight angle to help cabinets easily close on its own. Cabinet doors also have some tweaks that can be done. I get it’s a for a habit but if anyone has a problem with remembering it’s sometimes easier to let the natural motion of the door build some muscle memory.
My better half has very few things that catch my attention in a less than positive way, one is not turning off the lights. It’s like a museum tour to learn what has been visited that day.
They have had the lights turned off for them their whole life despite being super independent otherwise. So I just used it as an excuse to install some Caseta wifi light switches and suddenly the lights were turned off before bed because it was remembered but too much work to do once in bed. But because the Apple Watch had an extension app it was easy enough to do. It doesn’t mean everything should be automated but it was one that kept a small thing into a fun and easy going solve. It made it easier to consider motorized blinds due.
My better half has very few things that catch my attention in a less than positive way, one is not turning off the lights. It’s like a museum tour to learn what has been visited that day.
They have had the lights turned off for them their whole life despite being super independent otherwise. So I just used it as an excuse to install some Caseta wifi light switches and suddenly the lights were turned off before bed because it was remembered but too much work to do once in bed. But because the Apple Watch had an extension app it was easy enough to do. It doesn’t mean everything should be automated but it was one that kept a small thing into a fun and easy going solve. It made it easier to consider motorized blinds due.
on a similar note. about a decade ago, I was sharing apartment with a good friend. It was 2 bed/1.5 bath apartment. He had a bad habit of leaving the shower-tub knob on 'shower' after he's done.
I was a late person so usually ended up showering last. My bad habit was that I didn't pay attention to the knob before starting the shower. For first week every single day I got a blast of freezing water on my face, until one day I confronted him! obviously that didn't work.
So one day I woke up early and did the same thing to him.
From that day our habits changed. I always check the shower knob before turning it on.
Huh - I never would've thought to turn the knob back to tub. Why were you being blasted in the face by cold water? Do you get in the shower before turning it on?
Perhaps this is a regional thing... living in Michigan I've always let the water warm up first (perhaps drought is a concern where you live?)
Also, most showers I've used automatically switch back to tub mode once the water shuts off. Maybe he's used to that style!
Perhaps this is a regional thing... living in Michigan I've always let the water warm up first (perhaps drought is a concern where you live?)
Also, most showers I've used automatically switch back to tub mode once the water shuts off. Maybe he's used to that style!
> most showers I've used automatically switch back to tub mode
this is nice indeed, but not universal sadly
> Do you get in the shower before turning it on?
In some large buildings I've lived in, it takes like 1 second for the water to be warm -- it's magnificent. So yeah, if you have a shower-over-tub in that kind of place it is easier to get in, have the 12 ounces of cold water go harmlessly into the tub, then switch to shower.
this is nice indeed, but not universal sadly
> Do you get in the shower before turning it on?
In some large buildings I've lived in, it takes like 1 second for the water to be warm -- it's magnificent. So yeah, if you have a shower-over-tub in that kind of place it is easier to get in, have the 12 ounces of cold water go harmlessly into the tub, then switch to shower.
we had a manual switch at that time. I was new to the new england area and I grew up in a tropical country :-) so never had a habit to check before starting the shower.
Ah so this is one of those things where neither of you were really right or wrong. If you'd grown up in New England you'd have known that the "right" behavior was to turn the shower on and warm it up before you got in. Having grown up there myself I have to say it would never occur to me to turn a shower on while standing in it and I'd assume nobody else would either because it's guaranteed to be painful, even in summer and even when it's just water coming out of the tub faucet onto your feet. My family always left ours on shower mode and never had an issue for this exact reason. Always so interesting to learn about the little things people from other places do differently!
I think back then I used to get in the shower, turn on the tub faucet, and when it was warm enough, switch. to be honest I still do that sometimes by mistake :-)
Exactly! You don't even see the mess.
It's funny you mention the cabinets. My wife and I can tell whenever my siblings have been over: they're all incorrigible cabinet goblins.
I still leave cabinets open, but it's typically because I'm using it as a reminder to return whatever I had taken from the cabinet. Of course, my Cabinet Sight still has a ways to go, so the thing doesn't get returned until I actually notice the open cabinet the next day.
It's funny you mention the cabinets. My wife and I can tell whenever my siblings have been over: they're all incorrigible cabinet goblins.
I still leave cabinets open, but it's typically because I'm using it as a reminder to return whatever I had taken from the cabinet. Of course, my Cabinet Sight still has a ways to go, so the thing doesn't get returned until I actually notice the open cabinet the next day.
I had a roommate who did this every time they went to the kitchen, like a cupboard- and cabinet-opening spectre.
I do this. Unless the organization system is super well-mapped in my brain, I don't trust that I know where things are. Opening all the cupboards makes me feel like I can actually approach the problem of finding the toolkit I need to perform a task. Hyper-organized kitchens have the toolkits pre-assembled in bins placed in cupboards. That's hard to do.
(Perhaps related: a `util` class is basically a junk drawer in a kitchen. Some kitchens are basically just giant junk drawers. Good luck finding anything, but hey putting things away is super easy - just put it wherever it fits!)
(Perhaps related: a `util` class is basically a junk drawer in a kitchen. Some kitchens are basically just giant junk drawers. Good luck finding anything, but hey putting things away is super easy - just put it wherever it fits!)
I used to take the cabinet doors off all my rentals -- less for me keeping track of what was where and more for guests so they didn't need to ask where anything was.
Yeah, this feels like the best solution if you prefer open cabinets for whatever reason. Leaving the doors on and open is just laying booby traps for the next person that wanders in.
Don't you ever bash your head into the corner of an open cabinet?
Sharpie + labels.
Open cabinets are in vogue now. Keep the doors open and you're weird. Remove them altogether and you're stylish.
I hate cabinet doors… only time I think of them one just almost punctured my skull
An illuminating experience for me was a housemate and a fairly sharp one at that who wondered if we would get visited by ghosts at night because cabinet doors were always open in the kitchen in the morning. It didn't occur to her that the extremely more likely scenario was that I would scavenge around after she went to sleep and never shut doors.
The solution is to not have any doors.
I have no idea why some people have this urge to hide all things.
When I hide things I just forget that I have half of them almost immediately. Let alone remembering where I have them.
When I hide things I just forget that I have half of them almost immediately. Let alone remembering where I have them.
YES
I can have things that get "put away" i.e. in a container/cabinet/drawer/room IF that container will be something that I open and access at least every other day. Otherwise, things that get put away out of sight are GONE until I accidentally stumble across them years later.
Limited exception: if there is a tool or device or something that is so uniquely suited for a task that when presented with a task where it would be useful I will immediately think of the tool—and thus remember that I have it—I can safely store it away, as long as the place I'll put it is the first place that I'd look for it.
I can have things that get "put away" i.e. in a container/cabinet/drawer/room IF that container will be something that I open and access at least every other day. Otherwise, things that get put away out of sight are GONE until I accidentally stumble across them years later.
Limited exception: if there is a tool or device or something that is so uniquely suited for a task that when presented with a task where it would be useful I will immediately think of the tool—and thus remember that I have it—I can safely store it away, as long as the place I'll put it is the first place that I'd look for it.
What are some examples of things which you would forget about?
Articles of clothing---chests of drawers are an issue for that, and sometimes closets, so most of my clothes are out on open shelving that I think was designed as bookshelves
Kitchen bowls/pans/etc (though one of the Exception items is a really cool apple corer-peeler-slicer thing that can be in the back of a cabinet for months but I'll never forget it during apple-baking season)
FOOD IN THE FRIDGE is the worst (food in the pantry not much better)
Flavours of liquor, if I don't have them all out in the open on the bar-buffet
Oh hey let me look in the drawers of my desk RIGHT NOW and list semi-useful stuff I forgot was there:
Whiteboard markers
Business envelopes
A backup hard drive
Most of a ream of printer paper
A pair of thin knit gloves that I've used in the past to type when the room was cold but I haven't seen or thought about in years
A small wad of foreign money from two trips ago that actually would have been useful on my last trip abroad
A supply of staples
...that's not an exhaustive list. And it'd be longer, except three of the eight drawers are empty because I try not to keep stuff in drawers, because I'll forget about them.
Kitchen bowls/pans/etc (though one of the Exception items is a really cool apple corer-peeler-slicer thing that can be in the back of a cabinet for months but I'll never forget it during apple-baking season)
FOOD IN THE FRIDGE is the worst (food in the pantry not much better)
Flavours of liquor, if I don't have them all out in the open on the bar-buffet
Oh hey let me look in the drawers of my desk RIGHT NOW and list semi-useful stuff I forgot was there:
Whiteboard markers
Business envelopes
A backup hard drive
Most of a ream of printer paper
A pair of thin knit gloves that I've used in the past to type when the room was cold but I haven't seen or thought about in years
A small wad of foreign money from two trips ago that actually would have been useful on my last trip abroad
A supply of staples
...that's not an exhaustive list. And it'd be longer, except three of the eight drawers are empty because I try not to keep stuff in drawers, because I'll forget about them.
You need to have a system; so it's not exactly "remembering" where you put things, but deducing where an items ought to be and going there to find it. It's similar to people who put all files on the desktop vs organizing files into a hierarchy of folders.
A hierarchy of folders is great for hierarchical data like
Accounts>2020>July>july_20.xlsx
For other stuff is a nightmare because it often could be in 2 places. Maybe you have a folder for <bosses_name> and one for HR...now your boss asks you for that hr thing he asked you to do 2 years ago, where is it?
I give my non-hierarchical files filenames with as much meta data as possible, and stick them all in one folder. Search does the rest.
I save my temporary files in my downloads folder. Now and again I delete stuff from a year or so ago.
Accounts>2020>July>july_20.xlsx
For other stuff is a nightmare because it often could be in 2 places. Maybe you have a folder for <bosses_name> and one for HR...now your boss asks you for that hr thing he asked you to do 2 years ago, where is it?
I give my non-hierarchical files filenames with as much meta data as possible, and stick them all in one folder. Search does the rest.
I save my temporary files in my downloads folder. Now and again I delete stuff from a year or so ago.
> For other stuff is a nightmare because it often could be in 2 places
Symlinks are an obvious solution for OSes that support them, without having to resort to tagging and/or search search
Symlinks are an obvious solution for OSes that support them, without having to resort to tagging and/or search search
There is "putting things back where they belong so you they don't clutter and you know where they are next time you need them" and "put things out of the way in a random place so that they are effectively lost".
Then there is me looking for something for half an hour or more then finally finding it exactly where it was supposed to be.
Then there is me looking for something for half an hour or more then finally finding it exactly where it was supposed to be.
> "put things out of the way in a random place so that they are effectively lost".
Ah, the 'housekeeper strategy.'
The BEST thing about the $600 a month we spend having weekly housekeeping is that it brutally forces us to put shit at least SORT OF "away" in a frenzy every Sunday night. Because if we don't, the housekeepers will stuff it into the a random drawer or cupboard, or throw it away, or otherwise stack it in a random place. So at least if WE do it, we'll have an idea where we would have put it when we're looking for it.
This isn't the wrong choice by the way -- I mean, they couldn't clean if they had to respect the random spot where they find each little item.
Ah, the 'housekeeper strategy.'
The BEST thing about the $600 a month we spend having weekly housekeeping is that it brutally forces us to put shit at least SORT OF "away" in a frenzy every Sunday night. Because if we don't, the housekeepers will stuff it into the a random drawer or cupboard, or throw it away, or otherwise stack it in a random place. So at least if WE do it, we'll have an idea where we would have put it when we're looking for it.
This isn't the wrong choice by the way -- I mean, they couldn't clean if they had to respect the random spot where they find each little item.
There is also "putting things in easy to reach locations so they're always where you expect to find them", which looks like clutter to other people.
Well there are other benefits like dust and cat protection. Having transparent cabinet doors and drawers would make sense though.
Maybe that's just a sign you have a lot of stuff you don't even need in the first place?
Well, it is "looks neat" vs "there is space that is free, why not use it for stuff that you use often?"
Some people have mental disease that makes them annoyed where the flat surfaces are covered with immediately useful and easily accessible stuff and act up. "Oh look at those flat surfaces that don't get used for anything useful 99% of the time, how neat and tidy"
Some other kind of people have different disease of just leavin shit lying around for months and never use it, where it should be put back in storage (or bin) weeks ago already. "Don't touch my stuff, if you move it I won't remember where it is!" (then promptly forgets and wastes time searching thru clutter anyway.
Sane compromise is somewhere in the middle. Don't constantly hide the favourite knife every fucking day, ain't nobody got time for that shit. But probably clean it so the next time you use it you won't waste time on that. Cutting board can stay out, you use it every day, multiple times anyway.
Some people have mental disease that makes them annoyed where the flat surfaces are covered with immediately useful and easily accessible stuff and act up. "Oh look at those flat surfaces that don't get used for anything useful 99% of the time, how neat and tidy"
Some other kind of people have different disease of just leavin shit lying around for months and never use it, where it should be put back in storage (or bin) weeks ago already. "Don't touch my stuff, if you move it I won't remember where it is!" (then promptly forgets and wastes time searching thru clutter anyway.
Sane compromise is somewhere in the middle. Don't constantly hide the favourite knife every fucking day, ain't nobody got time for that shit. But probably clean it so the next time you use it you won't waste time on that. Cutting board can stay out, you use it every day, multiple times anyway.
ADHD weaker object permanence means that lots of people need to see their stuff to keep it in mind. “Hiding stuff” is problematic (and so is clutter).
Non-ADHD weaker clutter tolerance means that lots of people need to hide stuff to keep it from bothering them.
Clutter intolerance can have a profound impact on daily life for sufferers. Many will engage in maladaptive coping strategies such as ritualistic tidying and avoiding cluttered rooms or spaces. Whether tolerance can be improved through therapy is an area of active research. Unfortunately, clutter intolerance is thought to be neurobiological.
Clutter intolerance can have a profound impact on daily life for sufferers. Many will engage in maladaptive coping strategies such as ritualistic tidying and avoiding cluttered rooms or spaces. Whether tolerance can be improved through therapy is an area of active research. Unfortunately, clutter intolerance is thought to be neurobiological.
I had a couple friends barge into my suite and tidy everything up because they were worried about me.
“There, doesn't that feel better?”
“Yes [I will say anything that will make you go away, and then I will cower in the corner of a room that is no longer my bedroom in a suite that is no longer my home]”
“There, doesn't that feel better?”
“Yes [I will say anything that will make you go away, and then I will cower in the corner of a room that is no longer my bedroom in a suite that is no longer my home]”
This is hilarious -- though I have been shamed throughout my life for clutter as though it were a moral defect.
The problem is that someone else does it. If I put a thing away and find a spot for it I will remember. But if someone else without my hierarchy for stuff does it it will inevitably land in a place I will not even think to search in the first place.
Exactly. I'm already busy keeping the means and motivations of my completing a task in working memory, adding more cognitive load increases the chance that I get derailed and have to gather myself again.
Hiding the belongings of someone with ADHD is disabling them. Work with them, not against them.
I have this, though it most often shows up as "to-do impermanence" -- I have to keep tasks very visible or they disappear. Come to think of it, I'm a bit like the guy in Memento, I even need to remind myself of the whole history and motivation for a task every time I come to it.
Can confirm. My wife still "hides" my stuff all the time, but she's gotten better at leaving it alone, and some stuff in the bathroom I had to very explicitly spell out that it needs to be exactly where it is and it needs to always be visible. We definitely compromise a lot, but I'm glad she tries to work with me on it.
No, it's the opposite. Things placed randomly and visibly just add to the mental overhead. They easily distract.
This is the issue for me.
I totally disagree. If you use something fairly regularly then leave it out in the spot where it is used all the time.. What harm does something merely being visible do? .. Hiding it away does harm as 1. You will waste time putting it away and retrieving it every time you use it 2. there's the extra mental load of remembering where it goes 3. you may forget where it is.
This reminds me of the difference between 'tidy' and 'organised' .. They are independent properties and an area may be very tidy while being very disorganized and vice versa.. Eg. typical thing where if there is a pile of random crap on a table someone will dump it all into a drawer. The area is now more 'tidy' but also more disorganized.
Tidiness is superficial, whereas being organized has practical benefits.
This reminds me of the difference between 'tidy' and 'organised' .. They are independent properties and an area may be very tidy while being very disorganized and vice versa.. Eg. typical thing where if there is a pile of random crap on a table someone will dump it all into a drawer. The area is now more 'tidy' but also more disorganized.
Tidiness is superficial, whereas being organized has practical benefits.
> Hiding it away does harm as 1. You will waste time putting it away and retrieving it every time you use it
Trust me, I suck at tidying and have a cluttered mess, so I'm not being Marie Kondo here.
Your logic works but only so far. If you put nothing "away" all your "working surfaces" will eventually be covered with crap -- except of course it's not crap, it's your things that you intended to keep easily at hand. It'll make it so that it's a chore to find things and also a chore to have a useful space to actually DO anything. Sure, leave out a set of favorite often-used stuff, like say, bread on the counter instead of away in a pantry, your most-worn shoes on the floor by the door, whatever. But curating that set of stuff that is important enough to be "just left out" is important, and it's a REAL challenge for me!!
Trust me, I suck at tidying and have a cluttered mess, so I'm not being Marie Kondo here.
Your logic works but only so far. If you put nothing "away" all your "working surfaces" will eventually be covered with crap -- except of course it's not crap, it's your things that you intended to keep easily at hand. It'll make it so that it's a chore to find things and also a chore to have a useful space to actually DO anything. Sure, leave out a set of favorite often-used stuff, like say, bread on the counter instead of away in a pantry, your most-worn shoes on the floor by the door, whatever. But curating that set of stuff that is important enough to be "just left out" is important, and it's a REAL challenge for me!!
>The whole point of putting things away is to hide them! No one wants to look at your crap when you're not using it.
Well, there is another reason. When your room has a consistent default state, it's easier to look around the room and notice anything that is unusual. It makes the room into a sort of sensor. When it is always changing states — things here one day, there another — any changes can be missed. Subconsciously, we usually feel calmer when we know what's going on around us, which is facilitated by an orderly living/working environment.
Well, there is another reason. When your room has a consistent default state, it's easier to look around the room and notice anything that is unusual. It makes the room into a sort of sensor. When it is always changing states — things here one day, there another — any changes can be missed. Subconsciously, we usually feel calmer when we know what's going on around us, which is facilitated by an orderly living/working environment.
This is so wise. My house is hopelessly cluttered. When I need to find, say, my wallet before I leave, it can be a frustrating episode if I haven't put it in its canonical home.
Yet compare that to if I'm staying in a hotel. I just look around on the 5 surfaces -- nightstand, dresser, desk, bathroom counter, bingo, of course it was in one of those places and it sticks out obviously. 10 seconds max.
Devil's in the details of course, and I haven't yet been able to declutter, but I intuitively know you're right.
Yet compare that to if I'm staying in a hotel. I just look around on the 5 surfaces -- nightstand, dresser, desk, bathroom counter, bingo, of course it was in one of those places and it sticks out obviously. 10 seconds max.
Devil's in the details of course, and I haven't yet been able to declutter, but I intuitively know you're right.
One way this was said by one lady in a tv show was to not use your home as storage. By home she meant hallways, on top of furniture and so on. It makes your home look more like a storage unit and less like a house.
It helped me to start putting things away in drawers and so on, but also to think about how often I use them, or if I still need them.
The tv show was about "proffesional organizers".
It helped me to start putting things away in drawers and so on, but also to think about how often I use them, or if I still need them.
The tv show was about "proffesional organizers".
> on top of furniture and so on
Pfff, fancy posh TV lady with her ACTUAL DEDICATED STORAGE SPACE in SPACIOUS HOME.
Pfff, fancy posh TV lady with her ACTUAL DEDICATED STORAGE SPACE in SPACIOUS HOME.
Living is what you do between kitchen, bed, desk and bath and front door. The rest is literally the storage unit.
IIRC there were some studies on where people in the US spend their waking hours at home and, at the time, for most people, it was overwhelmingly the bathroom and the kitchen/dining-area. The dining area especially was where everyone did their bills and homework and such, and where mail got left when it came in from the mailbox. I think a bad misreading of those results was why builders wasted kitchen space on built-in desks for a bunch of years, before everyone realized how dumb that was and knocked it off.
(this wasn't factoring in WFH, of course—I think most of the important original work was done in like the 70s)
(this wasn't factoring in WFH, of course—I think most of the important original work was done in like the 70s)
« Life at Home in the 21st Century » is a good read on the subject
You know you’re in a long term relationship when your better half starts throwing away your stuff without asking.
Oh, man.
Our home has a two-stage "recycle bin" policy, though: some of my stuff "gets moved" to a random box in the cellar; if I don't ask for it for a few months, it gets "donated". You know.
Our home has a two-stage "recycle bin" policy, though: some of my stuff "gets moved" to a random box in the cellar; if I don't ask for it for a few months, it gets "donated". You know.
Haha. We do that with our kids’ old toys - rarely comes into play, but saves much heartache when it does.
There’s a similar trick for papers covering your desk; without looking, shove them all in a Manila folder, date, and seal. If you haven’t felt compelled to open it in three months, throw it away without opening.
Admittedly the utility depends on how much you/your office likes paper. Or if you go to an office.
There’s a similar trick for papers covering your desk; without looking, shove them all in a Manila folder, date, and seal. If you haven’t felt compelled to open it in three months, throw it away without opening.
Admittedly the utility depends on how much you/your office likes paper. Or if you go to an office.
> without looking, shove them all in a Manila folder, date, and seal. If you haven’t felt compelled to open it in three months, throw it away without opening.
This needs to be ~1 year, to make sure there's nothing important for taxes in the pile.
This needs to be ~1 year, to make sure there's nothing important for taxes in the pile.
This was specific to work-in-the-office desks, which I never bring my personal papers to. But yes, don’t try this with your home office!
> There’s a similar trick for papers covering your desk; without looking, shove them all in a Manila folder, date, and seal. If you haven’t felt compelled to open it in three months, throw it away without opening.
My family moved into our house when I was 3. Around age 9 we were going to finish the basement and a stack of boxes from the move came into discussion. When I proposed the idea, it was not really considered by my parents.
I've proposed it again to my wife after a move or two, and again she didn't take me up on it.
Maybe someday I'll get to give the method a shot.
My family moved into our house when I was 3. Around age 9 we were going to finish the basement and a stack of boxes from the move came into discussion. When I proposed the idea, it was not really considered by my parents.
I've proposed it again to my wife after a move or two, and again she didn't take me up on it.
Maybe someday I'll get to give the method a shot.
I thought about that
Just put random crap in a box with a date in it. You can take it out if it is useful but you can't put new stuff in. Once the date is up, toss/sell it.
Basically expiration date for stuff.
Just put random crap in a box with a date in it. You can take it out if it is useful but you can't put new stuff in. Once the date is up, toss/sell it.
Basically expiration date for stuff.
but I might need this cable in 10 years!! fast forward 5 years, I needed a VGA cable and it was nowhere to be found
I'm also a cable hoarder - lots of electronic related hobbies and you never know what you might need. My solution was buying a big pack of velcro cable ties and clear storage bins. One evening I sat down and cable wrapped every single one, then sorted into bins by the type of cable - power, audio/video, USB, networking, etc. Slap a label onto the front of each bin.
The bins sit neatly on a shelf and I know exactly where to find any type of cable I need. The cable wraps prevent them from turning into giant tangled messes.
The bins sit neatly on a shelf and I know exactly where to find any type of cable I need. The cable wraps prevent them from turning into giant tangled messes.
I used to hoard cables, but then I figured out 90% of them were really bad quality.
I actually tested all my microUSB cables and found out majority of them had trouble delivering over 1A of power through them -> bin.
For the rarer ones I kept one of each (usb-a->usb-b, mini-usb etc), the ones that were the best quality.
I actually tested all my microUSB cables and found out majority of them had trouble delivering over 1A of power through them -> bin.
For the rarer ones I kept one of each (usb-a->usb-b, mini-usb etc), the ones that were the best quality.
This is going to sound really dumb, but how exactly do you wrap your cables using velcro/zip ties? I tried the intuitive "roll it in a 5-6in circle, then maybe fold, squish, and then secure by a tie in the middle", but i am not sure if there is a better way. That one feels somewhat messy.
I like the velcro cables ties that stay attached to the cable, like [1]. Wrap the cable in a loop, then secure the loop with the velcro. Larger cables get two ties on opposing sides. Do not squish the cable because it will get all kinked; just keep it in a loop, and stack all your wrapped cables as a cylinder.
The diameter of the circle depends on the cable length and thickness. 2m USB cable should be 10cm, 3m power cord should be 20cm, and 10m Ethernet cable should be 30cm.
[1] https://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/8-x-1-2-Black-and-Gray-Cable-Ti...
The diameter of the circle depends on the cable length and thickness. 2m USB cable should be 10cm, 3m power cord should be 20cm, and 10m Ethernet cable should be 30cm.
[1] https://www.walmart.ca/en/ip/8-x-1-2-Black-and-Gray-Cable-Ti...
>velcro cable ties
Not zip ties.
I'm not the person you're asking.
Not zip ties.
I'm not the person you're asking.
I find it helps to think of this scenario as paying Amazon/eBay $4 to store it for you for several years.
but then I would be giving Amazon money, when my drawer can do it for free.
It's not really free of you can't find shit anywhere because of the many cables in the drawer, you meet to move it around if wou redecorate or move and you need increased home space to store all the stuff.
I like having tools in my home, don't get me wrong, but storage being free is an illusion. I still think the cost to be worth it.
I like having tools in my home, don't get me wrong, but storage being free is an illusion. I still think the cost to be worth it.
Ok I get it, but it's not a quantitative cost.
I'd say it's not unquantifiable. The higher rent (or mortgage) you need to pay, the time loss for organisation and retrieval. It's small for one item, but it adds up and it's a recurring not a one time cost that you _could_ attach a number to.
I can’t throw away a cable and get a lower mortgage.
Its not free though, is it?
You're spending mental power indexing all the things you have. I assume you pay for your dwelling, dollars-per-sqft is a thing to consider.
Doing the Amazon route (which is exactly what I do) means I know I have every cables I could ever need within 24 hours. And I don't have to remember where I last put it, and I don't have to deal with knotted cables, and I don't have to wonder when a thing doesn't work, is it the cable?
You're spending mental power indexing all the things you have. I assume you pay for your dwelling, dollars-per-sqft is a thing to consider.
Doing the Amazon route (which is exactly what I do) means I know I have every cables I could ever need within 24 hours. And I don't have to remember where I last put it, and I don't have to deal with knotted cables, and I don't have to wonder when a thing doesn't work, is it the cable?
> and I don't have to wonder when a thing doesn't work, is it the cable?
I'd say Amazon is not necessarily a guarantee of that.
Instant access to useful items is valuable. Think of it like... caching for tools. I like having items I need within reach. I'd love a bag like Hermione's in Harry Potter.
Waiting 24h is a lot if you're in flow and you want that thing _now_ dammit!
I'd say Amazon is not necessarily a guarantee of that.
Instant access to useful items is valuable. Think of it like... caching for tools. I like having items I need within reach. I'd love a bag like Hermione's in Harry Potter.
Waiting 24h is a lot if you're in flow and you want that thing _now_ dammit!
Your comment only ensures me I'm doing the right thing keeping them. I don't want to pay amazon, make their drivers pee in water bottles, and produce more plastic waste from packaging and transport for thing I already own.
Except it's 10$ and shipped in three days - unless you pay 16$ and get it tomorrow, which is unfortunately not when you need that monitor to work.
Even then, it's most likely even more expensive, because if it's just an off-the-shelf HDMI cable, you'd probably have one around. Look for the cheapest SCSI cable, if you don't think so.
I don't want to say 'store everything', but just backordering stuff is much more expensive in my experience.
Even then, it's most likely even more expensive, because if it's just an off-the-shelf HDMI cable, you'd probably have one around. Look for the cheapest SCSI cable, if you don't think so.
I don't want to say 'store everything', but just backordering stuff is much more expensive in my experience.
That's fine for cables that never go out of style, like vga and rj45. Am I going to be able to find usb-A to mini-B in 5 minutes in 20 years? Probably. Am I going to be able to find a camera usb-ish to rca video cable in 20 years? Probably not or not cheap.
Video game output cables are already hard to find for cheap.
Video game output cables are already hard to find for cheap.
The number of times I've needed that one extremely specific cable and years later realize it has been "tidied up" (e.g. gotten rid of) is actually kind of bothersome to me. Like sure, it's just "junk" for years at a time, until it's not. And sometimes I really did wind up needing it (or wanting?) it again! Sigh...
That's a good way to make me strongly reconsider being in that relationship.
It wouldn't be acceptable to me in any length of relationship. Different strokes for different folks.
What?
Never.
I never would do that and my wife never did this.
Never.
I never would do that and my wife never did this.
I will caveat this with something I learned from “How to Keep House While Drowning” - an incredible book for overwhelmed parents, neurodivergent people, and those going through depression:
Make your home work for you, don’t work for your home.
If that means the best way for you to live your life is to leave things out so you can find them more easily, then do that. Chances are though that having a “home” for everything (mentioned in other comments) is going to work better for you. It’s a process of learning and iteration.
Make your home work for you, don’t work for your home.
If that means the best way for you to live your life is to leave things out so you can find them more easily, then do that. Chances are though that having a “home” for everything (mentioned in other comments) is going to work better for you. It’s a process of learning and iteration.
Tho, I do not mind seeing partners stuff and like to have mine own in sight. It makes me more active - seeing that stuff make me want to interact with it. When I put books and crafting things somewhere I do not see, that project effectively died.
Absolutely, that's basic human psychology. If you want to practice guitar, put the guitar on a stand near your desk/couch where you can see it. Hiding it away just for the sake of 'tidiness' defeats the point.
I literally bought a lockbox for this reason, because she would things to a different place every time.
She freaked out when I told her, but it came with two keys and I gave her one so she doesn't think I'm hiding anything from her.
She freaked out when I told her, but it came with two keys and I gave her one so she doesn't think I'm hiding anything from her.
"Out of sight, out of mind."
Ideally I'd have ceiling-to-floor shelves EVERYWHERE.
GTD says your mind is not so much storing to-do's as for processing them. Likewise, the contents of spaces. Memorizing contents is unnecessary mind clutter.
Ideally I'd have ceiling-to-floor shelves EVERYWHERE.
GTD says your mind is not so much storing to-do's as for processing them. Likewise, the contents of spaces. Memorizing contents is unnecessary mind clutter.
This is true, and as a balance ..except when their and what they like to look at (which might be nothing) is still out.
If you’re in the bottom drawers, less closet space, back of the fridge, at the bottom of the pile, the the more awkward storage space, fewer drawers, appliances that like to be seen but not used, or more of your stuff is in storage it might not entirely be you.
At the same time it’s valuable to learn to build shared storage solutions jointly to let both (and little ones) put the items most used, important or at hand is a critical skill to develop together, early on.
Otherwise deferral or indifference can be quite tough when one of you might have a change of heart.
There are many thinna that happen in life where you will literally not remember to do.something (medication, etc) if it’s not sitting out on the counter.
If you’re in the bottom drawers, less closet space, back of the fridge, at the bottom of the pile, the the more awkward storage space, fewer drawers, appliances that like to be seen but not used, or more of your stuff is in storage it might not entirely be you.
At the same time it’s valuable to learn to build shared storage solutions jointly to let both (and little ones) put the items most used, important or at hand is a critical skill to develop together, early on.
Otherwise deferral or indifference can be quite tough when one of you might have a change of heart.
There are many thinna that happen in life where you will literally not remember to do.something (medication, etc) if it’s not sitting out on the counter.
I don't think it's about not wanting to look at things - my wife once moved something from me from the bathroom above the sink to a shelf, and I got pissed I couldn't find it. She said it was too much stuff there. I then went there and counted 17 things that belonged to her, and 2 that belonged to me, 1 of which was apparently too much.
In my experience women do this a lot. I don't know if it's some kind of an evolutionary thing. On the one hand that it was something women traditionally did and can't let go, on the other that it is/was a way to make themselves more important. You become very important when somebody needs you all the time to tell them where things are.
In my experience women do this a lot. I don't know if it's some kind of an evolutionary thing. On the one hand that it was something women traditionally did and can't let go, on the other that it is/was a way to make themselves more important. You become very important when somebody needs you all the time to tell them where things are.
Maybe your anecdotes don’t define the evolutionary history of women?
Maybe, I really don't know.
I have this experience too. But I think it is more general: people are more critical of others then themselves.
Everything having a home is good, but I like to still be able to "see" things when they are put away. For example, throwing things into a drawer where other things can obscure other things is bad, because I will forget the things that are on the bottom. I make sure all my socks are visible in my sock drawer by using an organizer that allows my rolled up socks to be stored vertically and I can't put other stuff on top of them.
Cabinets without doors, and shelves without doors are critical too. I'm not sure why but if I do not have regular visible sight of things, they may as well not exist and I will quickly forget that they are there, leading to all kinds of chaos.
Cabinets without doors, and shelves without doors are critical too. I'm not sure why but if I do not have regular visible sight of things, they may as well not exist and I will quickly forget that they are there, leading to all kinds of chaos.
There is a book I read recently called Goodbye, Things. It's like a more interesting version of The Life-Changing Magic of Tidying Up, as it talks more about the feeling of being a minimalist than TLCMTU does, which is more practical.
It talks about needing less space in general and being more free, simply by having fewer things, since things beget things; the more things you have, the more organizational containers you need, in turn creating yet more things and yet more space to store them in. Since then, I've tried to actively limit the amount of things and space they take up, since I hate clutter, but I hate organization as well.
It talks about needing less space in general and being more free, simply by having fewer things, since things beget things; the more things you have, the more organizational containers you need, in turn creating yet more things and yet more space to store them in. Since then, I've tried to actively limit the amount of things and space they take up, since I hate clutter, but I hate organization as well.
A good book which addresses the perception that "possessions are a projection of my true self" but it lost me when the author describes limiting himself to a single towel to both dry himself out of the shower and to dry dishes...
That's why I steer away from open shelves, everything gets chucked into their respective drawer to keep things tidy. Getting partner be onboard with drawer organization probably deadend if they're not into it, but most things need a convenient place to hide.
Also I firmly believe really nice drawer hardware, like soft close and good runners can encourage this behaviour by making operation enjoyable. Grew up with very satisfyingly click put to open drawers, in retrospect not as functional as direct pulling, but man that click conditioned me to want to tidy.
Also I firmly believe really nice drawer hardware, like soft close and good runners can encourage this behaviour by making operation enjoyable. Grew up with very satisfyingly click put to open drawers, in retrospect not as functional as direct pulling, but man that click conditioned me to want to tidy.
There are common areas and then there are zones where people park stuff. I've tried to get my SO to put stuff I leave in public areas in one of my zones, rather than putting it somewhere I will never find it.
It's also a battle because of the clutter, 10% of it is mine, and I never move their stuff.
The problem comes in when there's something that could reasonably be trash (usually a box that I might need to return something) gets tossed. :(
EDIT: change "private zones" to "public zones"
It's also a battle because of the clutter, 10% of it is mine, and I never move their stuff.
The problem comes in when there's something that could reasonably be trash (usually a box that I might need to return something) gets tossed. :(
EDIT: change "private zones" to "public zones"
Think of it as hiding it from household dust.
Yes, anything that's out gets grimy and dusty eventually.
And if you're in the tropics, everything in gets grimy and moldy quickly!
Oof. Flashbacks to living 75ish meters off a gravel road as a kid.
Or in New York City, where the combination of vehicle exhaust particulates, poor airflow in many apartments, and old masonry dust causes every surface to look like a haunted house within a month if you aren't on top of things.
And to think we breathe that. Not fun. We have natural defenses (hair and mucus membranes, but they presumably only tackle a percentage).
I’m a stickler for this as well, but at the same time it is easy to have the status quo and get used to not putting things away.
I had a similar epiphany. I realized that I would leave things out in random piles as a reminder system. And more piles of things that I knew I SHOULD deal with, but didn't know HOW to deal with.
I realized also that this is a TERRIBLE reminder system. I started putting everything in OneNote and my calendar via the Getting Things Done Methodology, and I'm honestly upset that no one ever taught me such a system a long time ago. I've been told a million times to "use a planner", "write things down", "use a calendar", "use a notebook" etc. etc., but no one ever told me HOW to use those things. Getting Things Done is awesome because it told me almost exactly how to use that stuff, and the effect has been life-changing for me. My spaces have never been cleaner, and I've never been more effective in my life.
I realized also that this is a TERRIBLE reminder system. I started putting everything in OneNote and my calendar via the Getting Things Done Methodology, and I'm honestly upset that no one ever taught me such a system a long time ago. I've been told a million times to "use a planner", "write things down", "use a calendar", "use a notebook" etc. etc., but no one ever told me HOW to use those things. Getting Things Done is awesome because it told me almost exactly how to use that stuff, and the effect has been life-changing for me. My spaces have never been cleaner, and I've never been more effective in my life.
> The whole point of putting things away is to hide them!
I think that it is rather to have them all in one place, and that they do not take the place of other things or are in your way.
The fact that they are hidden is because they are behind a door, probably to avoid that catching dust.
I think that it is rather to have them all in one place, and that they do not take the place of other things or are in your way.
The fact that they are hidden is because they are behind a door, probably to avoid that catching dust.
Shortly after moving in with my gf into a tiny space, I realized that beyond, but including your realization, sometimes they just like to move stuff around occasionally. I think my father's lack of realizing and accepting this is what's led him to ruin any living situation he's ever had, because he just can't give up a little control and share autonomy over a combined space.
I notice this in reverse as well, it's probably best when moving in with someone to get a new place and set expectations early.
I notice this in reverse as well, it's probably best when moving in with someone to get a new place and set expectations early.
It is nice to put away things - keeps down the mental clutter and keeps the area looking nice - but I have to say I viscerally disagree with the practice of moving other people's things without permission and without telling them the new location. It is bad communication and absolutely guaranteed to start a fight. Keeping each other up to date and setting common expectations on where things should "live" is important.
Oh this is me, I very much want anything that I don't need to see right now to be out of the way, which is why I hate the modern world, even UI interfaces and constant notification etc, everything that is not relevent right now, I want to hand for the times when i do want it, but also out of the way when i am doing something else.
I'm trying to convince my wife that this is the way to go, but she keeps yelling at me for hiding her stuff in the bathroom (I even bought drawer organizers!). I've taken a break from doing it, but it took me personally 40 years to figure it out, and she is a gen younger, so we have time.
My theory of how cupboard doors were invented is people had shelves but didn't want to see all their crap displayed in the open. Hiding equals neatness.
What was that HN article recently of Las Vegas and windows on buildings more of something causes distress and less is more soothing to a point.
What was that HN article recently of Las Vegas and windows on buildings more of something causes distress and less is more soothing to a point.
it sounds funny, but I gotta tell you, the opposite is never true.
You can't hide their makeup that they are not using, the 10 bottles of shampoo with different colors and allegedly different properties, the 7 bottles of hair conditioner etc etc
So everyday I wake up to something like this, but worse
https://i0.wp.com/blog.cliomakeup.com/wp-content/uploads/201...
Lucky us we have two bathrooms, so we can keep one tidy, right?
WRONG!
The second bathroom is for the exclusive use of our 2 cats.
Could I have a say about it?
Of course not.
Is it logical?
Absolutely not.
People don't want to see other people's crap, but are more than happy to live surrounded by their own.
If there's a paradise, many people deserve it just for going through all of this, every day.
You can't hide their makeup that they are not using, the 10 bottles of shampoo with different colors and allegedly different properties, the 7 bottles of hair conditioner etc etc
So everyday I wake up to something like this, but worse
https://i0.wp.com/blog.cliomakeup.com/wp-content/uploads/201...
Lucky us we have two bathrooms, so we can keep one tidy, right?
WRONG!
The second bathroom is for the exclusive use of our 2 cats.
Could I have a say about it?
Of course not.
Is it logical?
Absolutely not.
People don't want to see other people's crap, but are more than happy to live surrounded by their own.
If there's a paradise, many people deserve it just for going through all of this, every day.
For me at least the bigger point of putting things away is actually to find them quicker later.
Our place has a ton of different storage locations... we solved it with a spreadsheet.
This seems like the solution is worse than the problem!
When you need a WMS for your place it may be an indicator that you have too much stuff.
Or just hobby with many required SKUs. I dabble in electronics and that is in hundreds different parts.
Can relate, I also dabble but a few of these[1] sort of organizer sets plus handful of full sized drawers are enough to hold just about everything I've got. With labelled drawers and sets split by semantic type I'm not sure there's anything I could need a spreadsheet for. Unless you've got a truly absurd amount of parts there heh.
[1] https://images.thdstatic.com/productImages/a34bd723-d555-429...
[1] https://images.thdstatic.com/productImages/a34bd723-d555-429...
Also, never shout at your wife.
100% agree. If it makes you feel better, I didn't actually yell or raise my voice.
I chose the word "yelled" because it was the simplest way to imply the frustration/betrayal/hurt I was feeling at the time. In retrospect, I could have said, "cried out," and captured the emotion/action more accurately without sacrificing brevity. But that phrase didn't occur to me at the time.
Words are hard.
I chose the word "yelled" because it was the simplest way to imply the frustration/betrayal/hurt I was feeling at the time. In retrospect, I could have said, "cried out," and captured the emotion/action more accurately without sacrificing brevity. But that phrase didn't occur to me at the time.
Words are hard.
I disagree. I like to have all my possessions in clear view; that way, when I need them, I don't need to search for them.
yah there's a saying surrounding that I believe, cluttered space, cluttered mind. I think there's something to it, keeping a bunch of stuff in sleep mode in some back corner mental stack of your mind that gets subliminally refreshed each time you visually glance over strewn clutter.
For some, this is a feature. I need to keep my stuff out so everything gets at least a couple brain cycles every day. I work in a generalist shop though with many concurrent (and very different) projects so it's not for everyone. Never liked spreadsheets/ticketing systems for this. I keep separate files for each project but need to physically see the objects for it to work for my mind.
Part of the motivation is the minor discomfort of seeing so many projects open and set aside. For me the solution is to complete projects, not categorize and hide everything.
Part of the motivation is the minor discomfort of seeing so many projects open and set aside. For me the solution is to complete projects, not categorize and hide everything.
definitely, there's something about using physical space as long term mental storage in effect. It's best when the zones are not mixed, projects out at the garage table vs the dining room table. When the zones overlap that's when trouble and collisions occur. The pandemic made me realize why having a dedicated home office space is a prized thing.
I still have this now. She's always hiding my shit from me. Deliberately to piss me off. /s
Every item should have an agreed-upon place where it goes. Then if it is not out/can't find it, it's in its place. So if you both agree on that, then putting things away is NBD, and no one is hiding anything.
The phrase in my household, “put it where you expect it to be”
This works great except when you don’t agree on where you expect it to be.
We have an ongoing battle about where whisks live: with the blender and beaters, or with the cooking spoons and ladle.
Our rule is “whoever empties the dishwasher gets to put things where they think they belong”.
We have an ongoing battle about where whisks live: with the blender and beaters, or with the cooking spoons and ladle.
Our rule is “whoever empties the dishwasher gets to put things where they think they belong”.
This presents a chicken-and-egg problem. I expect all my shit to be randomly strewn about because that's where I've always put it.
Not my whole life but stuff I’ve discovered:
Realizing that sitting for 8 to 12 hours per day coding is catastrophic for my health.
Understanding the incredibly high and hidden cost of conflict and anger. Films romanticize fighting the good fight. Avoiding a fight (legal, arguments, etc) until you absolutely can’t is worth a lot.
Creativity and intellectual progress happen in a quiet relaxed and happy environment.
Leadership starts with humility.
Big companies signal unassailable leads and competence but tend to be wildly dysfunctional which makes them vulnerable.
Yoga fixes lifelong back pain that drugs, swimming obsessively, chiropractors and workouts could not fix.
Confronting death isn’t that scary, even for an atheist.
We don’t deserve dogs.
Everyone is the main character in their story, including you.
You can be good at just about anything you love doing but can’t be good at many things.
You can’t buy time but managing your time obsessively has its own cost.
Early mornings are a very special time because no one else is up and it is the quietest and most productive part of the day.
Realizing that sitting for 8 to 12 hours per day coding is catastrophic for my health.
Understanding the incredibly high and hidden cost of conflict and anger. Films romanticize fighting the good fight. Avoiding a fight (legal, arguments, etc) until you absolutely can’t is worth a lot.
Creativity and intellectual progress happen in a quiet relaxed and happy environment.
Leadership starts with humility.
Big companies signal unassailable leads and competence but tend to be wildly dysfunctional which makes them vulnerable.
Yoga fixes lifelong back pain that drugs, swimming obsessively, chiropractors and workouts could not fix.
Confronting death isn’t that scary, even for an atheist.
We don’t deserve dogs.
Everyone is the main character in their story, including you.
You can be good at just about anything you love doing but can’t be good at many things.
You can’t buy time but managing your time obsessively has its own cost.
Early mornings are a very special time because no one else is up and it is the quietest and most productive part of the day.
> Early mornings are a very special time because no one else is up and it is the quietest and most productive part of the day.
For the exact same reason, so also are very late nights (~1 to 5am).
For the exact same reason, so also are very late nights (~1 to 5am).
> We don’t deserve dogs.
I used to look at dogs and think that if any other sentient species came by, the things we'd done to an apex predator would be sufficient to mark our species for quarantine at best, but I was playing with a friend's dog the other day and it occurred to me that we've aggressively selected for the happiest, most loyal, friendliest critters we can find - that's what we want, that's what we want to be around*. The world's complicated and our actions in it don't always reflect us at our best, but there's something redemptive about our choice in companions.
(*Yes, some dogs are bred to be dicks, and some people are dicks, but most dogs are good dogs, and most people are, too.)
I used to look at dogs and think that if any other sentient species came by, the things we'd done to an apex predator would be sufficient to mark our species for quarantine at best, but I was playing with a friend's dog the other day and it occurred to me that we've aggressively selected for the happiest, most loyal, friendliest critters we can find - that's what we want, that's what we want to be around*. The world's complicated and our actions in it don't always reflect us at our best, but there's something redemptive about our choice in companions.
(*Yes, some dogs are bred to be dicks, and some people are dicks, but most dogs are good dogs, and most people are, too.)
There are too many dogs.
In some countries, dog owners don’t give a shit and let their dogs poop everywhere (France for example).
Many dog owners can’t handle their dogs.
Dogs are scary for some people, especially children. Most dog owners don’t understand this and say "it’s a good dog, he doesn’t do anything" instead of doing the only sane thing: "you’re scared? I take the dog away".
It only takes one dick owner with a dick dog to instill fear in people (children) with significant and long-lasting consequences for their lives.
So yeah, some dogs are cute and whatnot, but unless you have a remote ranch or a huge property, and dogs can be dogs there, we actually need less dogs.
In some countries, dog owners don’t give a shit and let their dogs poop everywhere (France for example).
Many dog owners can’t handle their dogs.
Dogs are scary for some people, especially children. Most dog owners don’t understand this and say "it’s a good dog, he doesn’t do anything" instead of doing the only sane thing: "you’re scared? I take the dog away".
It only takes one dick owner with a dick dog to instill fear in people (children) with significant and long-lasting consequences for their lives.
So yeah, some dogs are cute and whatnot, but unless you have a remote ranch or a huge property, and dogs can be dogs there, we actually need less dogs.
“Dogs are cute and whatnot”…
I suspect from your comment you have not had a good dog in your life before. I’m sorry for you for that.
Dogs, when raised well and taken care of, have incredible emotional intelligence and can communicate extremely well with humans. This combination can make them real friends and companions, not just cute animals. When people say, “man’s best friend” they really mean it.
I suspect from your comment you have not had a good dog in your life before. I’m sorry for you for that.
Dogs, when raised well and taken care of, have incredible emotional intelligence and can communicate extremely well with humans. This combination can make them real friends and companions, not just cute animals. When people say, “man’s best friend” they really mean it.
Or, perhaps, OP has had good dogs in his life and recognizes the negative externalities many dog owners push onto the rest of us.
I'm still annoyed at whoever let their dog crap in my yard and didn't clean it up. I stepped in it while doing yard work, didn't discover it until the next day, then spent two hours and multiple runs through the washer cleaning the darned shoes to a usable state.
Clean up after your dog.
I'm still annoyed at whoever let their dog crap in my yard and didn't clean it up. I stepped in it while doing yard work, didn't discover it until the next day, then spent two hours and multiple runs through the washer cleaning the darned shoes to a usable state.
Clean up after your dog.
Let's not pretend people being jerks is a unique phenomenon to dog owners
Did I do that somewhere?
> dog owners don’t give a shit and let their dogs poop everywhere (France for example).
This is an understatement. I’ve never seen sidewalks made out of dog poop instead of asphalt until France. It’s endemic, it’s everywhere, and people feel entitled to leave their dog poop where it dropped. You really have to see it to believe it.
This is an understatement. I’ve never seen sidewalks made out of dog poop instead of asphalt until France. It’s endemic, it’s everywhere, and people feel entitled to leave their dog poop where it dropped. You really have to see it to believe it.
Thailand, homeless dogs run around in packs in the streets. The Buddhist culture isn't going to put them down, but with folks actively feeding leftover food to the strays, there's a bit of a problem in almost every city--especially if rabies starts floating around. They'll get into hierarchical scuffles at night leading to a some very short but very loud howling. That said, unlike those with an owner, most would rather avoid you than bark and get needlessly aggressive for you just walking on a public sidewalk.
> In some countries, dog owners don’t give a shit and let their dogs poop everywhere (France for example).
I grew up in the American rust belt, and when taking family walks around the neighborhood, my parents were eternally yelling at me to not step in that broken glass, or that dog poop.
I grew up in the American rust belt, and when taking family walks around the neighborhood, my parents were eternally yelling at me to not step in that broken glass, or that dog poop.
was this meant as a response to me or just a discourse on dogs?
> Understanding the incredibly high and hidden cost of conflict and anger. Films romanticize fighting the good fight. Avoiding a fight (legal, arguments, etc) until you absolutely can’t is worth a lot.
This is known to be great project management advice _and_ terrible relationship advice.
For interpersonal relationships, signaling misalignment early, directly, openly, with a sympathetic and reconciling demeanor, has been the best choice for me. Can't find sources anymore, sorry.
For projects, I won't expend more effort than what I have to.
Where does the project work stop and the interpersonal work starts, that's a vague art that demands a bit of intuition.
This is known to be great project management advice _and_ terrible relationship advice.
For interpersonal relationships, signaling misalignment early, directly, openly, with a sympathetic and reconciling demeanor, has been the best choice for me. Can't find sources anymore, sorry.
For projects, I won't expend more effort than what I have to.
Where does the project work stop and the interpersonal work starts, that's a vague art that demands a bit of intuition.
> Understanding the incredibly high and hidden cost of conflict and anger. Films romanticize fighting the good fight. Avoiding a fight (legal, arguments, etc) until you absolutely can’t is worth a lot.
That resonates strongly with me. It's better to just take the loss because entering a conflict because of it will cost more, even if you win, in almost all cases.
That resonates strongly with me. It's better to just take the loss because entering a conflict because of it will cost more, even if you win, in almost all cases.
Another way it's been said: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek
Bad idea. It's better to turn your ass to your adversary and move away from the conflict.
I’ve found that it’s okay to sit for 8+ hours most days so long as I’m getting out of my seat every hour and going for a short walk or two every day. Yoga, even a 15 minute session once a week, helps a lot, as you say. Using a vertical mouse, large text and staring out the window frequently are the other healthy habits I stick to while working.
I agree with most of these. This one needs to be careful though
> Yoga fixes lifelong back pain that drugs, swimming obsessively, chiropractors and workouts could not fix.
I'm healing a back problem that Yoga would definitely just make it worse
> Yoga fixes lifelong back pain that drugs, swimming obsessively, chiropractors and workouts could not fix.
I'm healing a back problem that Yoga would definitely just make it worse
I haven't tried yoga yet because I luckily realized other items before I needed yoga :) Agreed fully
Great list - thank you.
Not using an electric toothbrush. First time I used one it felt like I'd had a proper dental cleaning. An extremely half-assed effort with that kind of brush beats a thorough one with a manual brush. I thought they were a gimmick, but no, they're amazing.
On a similar dental hygiene note, I was told I should brush before having breakfast, coffee etc. It always stood to reason to me that it makes more sense to just eat my first meal and drink, then brush, to keep a cleaner state of my teeth for longer but supposedly according to a few dentists I spoke with, the protection you get from the first brush is more significant than removing those first food particles.
Chances are you already have a lot bacteria in your mouth and once you eat your breakfast (which for many is sugary) they immediately eat and consume this and produce acid. So, brush before breakfast, supposedly.
Chances are you already have a lot bacteria in your mouth and once you eat your breakfast (which for many is sugary) they immediately eat and consume this and produce acid. So, brush before breakfast, supposedly.
This can go wrong in either direction. If you brush your teeth and have milk shortly after, the fluoride binds to the calcium in milk and goes to your belly instead of staying with your teeth protecting them. On the other hand if you have orange juice or similar (acidic) and then brush your teeth, say bye to your tooth enamel.
Don't brush before or after breakfast. Got it! Thanks!
If you follow all health advice, you realize the proper response is to just die: it’s too complicated.
> to just die
But before brushing or after brushing??!!
But before brushing or after brushing??!!
I've only been brushing my teeth before bed for like 6 years at this point, and flossing once a week or so. I don't know if it's the fluoride alcohol mouth wash I use or just dumb luck, but I haven't gotten any cavities
So I think that given this rigorous scientific data, you can safely avoid brushing for the most part
So I think that given this rigorous scientific data, you can safely avoid brushing for the most part
It's complicated. There's definitely a genetic component to having hard teeth.
A lot of it is diet too. Not eating or drinking sugary things gives you much more room for error. Of course you still need to brush and floss, but in my experience sugar + rigorous cleaning can still leave you with cavities whereas no sugar + lax cleaning you're probably fine. No sugar + rigorous cleaning and you might never need a dentist again. It took me way too long to understand this.
fwiw, I have pretty bad teeth (~10K for crowns etc a few years ago).
And I switched to only brushing with an electric toothbrush before bed, and don't really floss and think I've only had one small cavity since then and the hygienist said my teeth looked quite good in general.
Worth noting that I have a good diet and rarely eat sugar beyond yogurt.
And I switched to only brushing with an electric toothbrush before bed, and don't really floss and think I've only had one small cavity since then and the hygienist said my teeth looked quite good in general.
Worth noting that I have a good diet and rarely eat sugar beyond yogurt.
No need to worry, we are all in the process of dying, so the correct answer is just to ignore everything that isn't either: something that strikes you as incredibly obvious (don't drink poison), recognized in its field of experts (high cholesterol is bad for you), established knowledge, or not too inconvenient.
> recognized in its field of experts (high cholesterol is bad for you)
Public service announcement: this one is controversial. IMHO it's wrong, based on bad science and agendas, and harmful because it deters people from nutritious foods. I recommend everyone do their own reading to form their own opinion.
It's sad how political food and nutrition is because it causes misinformation and malnutrition.
Public service announcement: this one is controversial. IMHO it's wrong, based on bad science and agendas, and harmful because it deters people from nutritious foods. I recommend everyone do their own reading to form their own opinion.
It's sad how political food and nutrition is because it causes misinformation and malnutrition.
My rudimentary understanding: chronic high blood sugar causes irritation of blood vessels; irritated blood vessels attempt to protect themselves by producing a protective layer (excretion?); cholesterol sticks much more readily to this‚ causing creation of plaques. So, cholesterol is "fine" if you avoid high blood sugar.
Are you a medical doctor or otherwise considered an expert in the field of internal medicine?
Steroidogenesis starts with cholesterol. The body increases its cholesterol production in the hopes of getting more steroids.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/St...
Medicine’s misunderstanding of cholesterol is one of those mistakes which became very profitable for the pharmaceutical industry.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/St...
Medicine’s misunderstanding of cholesterol is one of those mistakes which became very profitable for the pharmaceutical industry.
Razors pain you;
Rivers are damp;
Acids stain you;
And drugs cause cramp.
Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Guns aren’t lawful; Nooses give; Gas smells awful; You might as well live.
Did you know that after brushing with toothpaste you're supposed to just...let the foam hang around in your mouth without rinsing it out for 30 minutes? I didn't until recently, and now that I do, I'm still not gonna walk around with toothpaste foam in my mouth.
Yeah, I learned about this a while ago and now I don't rinse my mouth after brushing. Which is weird initially but you get used to it.
I _do_ spit out excess toothpaste, which I understand still leaves enough toothpaste in your mouth for it to do it's thing.
I _do_ spit out excess toothpaste, which I understand still leaves enough toothpaste in your mouth for it to do it's thing.
How much foam do you end up with? I usually don't rinse out the toothpaste after, but I don't end up with a foaming mouth after. I use about a pea size amount (as recommended on the packaging) and it's not super sudsy when I'm finished. Wipe my face and done.
Not too much but it just feels disgusting to me to keep all of the food bits still suspended in the foam in my mouth.
I'm confused - what food bits? Do you have detectable food bits left over after brushing or is it an impression that there must be food still left over?
At least for me, I rinse out my mouth before I brush, so I don't expect to have detectable gunk left over. I also use a tongue scraper after, so I'm usually feeling pretty clean when I'm done.
At least for me, I rinse out my mouth before I brush, so I don't expect to have detectable gunk left over. I also use a tongue scraper after, so I'm usually feeling pretty clean when I'm done.
Well both, stuff between the teeth that the brush doesn't get (I guess that's why you'd floss after brushing, but also with foam in your mouth?), and also just food microparticles that would go away when rinsing after brushing generally.
I suppose it helps to floss before brushing (as recommended) but for me personally the stray particle isn't something I've worried about. In my mind, the added benefit of retaining the fluoride longer outweighs the downsides of microparticles of food.
> I suppose it helps to floss before brushing (as recommended)
Wellp, that's something I've never heard before. Even at the dentist, when she does a cleaning, flossing comes last.
Wellp, that's something I've never heard before. Even at the dentist, when she does a cleaning, flossing comes last.
Honestly, the timing of flossing is the least important thing about it, considering most people are averse to even doing it. The payoff with flossing before brushing is that any gunk that gets brought out and left over after rinsing gets scrubbed away during brushing.
https://www.healthline.com/health/dental-and-oral-health/flo...
https://www.healthline.com/health/dental-and-oral-health/flo...
If you have food microparticles that would go away, then rinse them out, then wash your teeth again and keep that foam in.
I floss first, rinse, then brush. No more food bits left after I spit out the extra foam.
There's a particular prescription strength toothpaste I use when I get sensitive teeth. I keep it specifically for post-dinner brushing and it's easier to do this at that time.
I just use a flouride-based mouthwash after and call it a day. I await someone telling me how that's a bad idea and now i'm going to die.
Why is there no winning in this situation?! I have never realised something as simple as brushing teeth can be so nuanced lol
It's not nuanced.
The evidence is just lacking, people are just using judgement to advise on something that we can't detect one way or another with research.
When it comes to dental care it's not even clear, based on research (Cochrane review in 2019) it flossing makes any difference let alone a clinically useful difference.
The current advice is just based on reasoning that either you brush first or wait a hour after eating due to the abrasive action of brushing.
The evidence is just lacking, people are just using judgement to advise on something that we can't detect one way or another with research.
When it comes to dental care it's not even clear, based on research (Cochrane review in 2019) it flossing makes any difference let alone a clinically useful difference.
The current advice is just based on reasoning that either you brush first or wait a hour after eating due to the abrasive action of brushing.
It's not clear because it IS nuanced, and it doesn't have the same effect on everyone equally. Two people using the exact same dental routine can have vastly different results from it.
I'll take the Cochrane opinion that evidence is lacking due to low quality small sample short follow up studies in those with poor dental hygiene.
Over the random internet randos views.
But thanks none the less!
Over the random internet randos views.
But thanks none the less!
I’m glad ifnflossing helps fights cavity but the main reason I do it is because it’s so gross not to. When you don’t floss you basically accept to keep bits of rotten food between your teeth for days. If you’re unconvinced, don’t floss for a week and then do, see what comes out. And don’t smell it. I warned you.
People's teeth (and brushing technique/effectiveness) are way too varied to make such a general statement. I flossed for the first time at some point in my 20s, did religiously for a year or so thereafter, and still do occasionally - but at no point was it like 'how on Earth have I not been doing this' or loads of gunk coming out, nevermind rotten and smelly. Maybe you have just the 'right' tooth gap that it's both too tight for your brushing but not so tight that stuff doesn't get stuck.
(And for whatever it's worth, all dental check-ups since some point in my early teens at the latest have just been a quick look around and yep all good - I'm not saying this from a position (touching wood I don't eat my hat next time of course) of terrible dental health.)
(And for whatever it's worth, all dental check-ups since some point in my early teens at the latest have just been a quick look around and yep all good - I'm not saying this from a position (touching wood I don't eat my hat next time of course) of terrible dental health.)
A checkup shouldn't be too quick, there are things they should be checking and looking out for:
https://youtu.be/sDe50j0MFBU?t=95 (Dental Office RED FLAGS)
> People's teeth (and brushing technique/effectiveness) are way too varied
You're absolutely correct, because I don't floss that often, but every time I do a whole meal comes out, so I'm incredibly envious of your naturally clean teeth XD
You're absolutely correct, because I don't floss that often, but every time I do a whole meal comes out, so I'm incredibly envious of your naturally clean teeth XD
Saliva does help in preventing bacteria build up. [1]
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1961328/
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1961328/
[deleted]
Yeah they really hooked the public with that.
Same with hair, and bacteria on surfaces.
Completely hookwinked Jo public.
Same with hair, and bacteria on surfaces.
Completely hookwinked Jo public.
Regarding flossing, at least in my case, it helps with my gum disease. If I don't floss for a while my gums start to bleed. Although, I use a water floss instead of a regular rope floss
Yeah, flossing is a good idea if you don't want to get gum disease. Also a good idea to learn to floss correctly, not just a quick "in and out". (also good idea so you don't get cavities on the edges of your teeth.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WviE5aa5Ha0 (how to floss)
IMO teeth are the worst part of the human body. Hard to take care of, will inevitably fail, not replaceable, massively painful for even minor injuries. Evolution really screwed the pooch on teeth.
Our diet is nothing like what our teeth evolved for. For example for most people, cutting down the amount of sugars (down to levels similar to our prehistoric ancestors) they consume can go a long way in protecting dental health (and general health for that matter)
Teeth are the canary in the coal mine. "The canary is the worst part of the coal mine, it can hardly handle anything!"
Somewhere evolution is saying “well I gave you four perfectly decent extra molars that you insist on ripping out, if you kept those your teeth would be mostly fine for however long your are supposed to live. Mid 50’s?”
Teeth are amazing. One of the areas where human crystal formation happens. Our modern diets are horrible for teeth.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t4RgBZlKlJI
Evolution expects us to grind away about a millimeter of our teeth while we are young by eating rougher things to make way for wisdom teeth, for example.
For healthy teeth, you should be very hydrated. If your mouth isn’t watering, you might not be hydrated enough.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=t4RgBZlKlJI
Evolution expects us to grind away about a millimeter of our teeth while we are young by eating rougher things to make way for wisdom teeth, for example.
For healthy teeth, you should be very hydrated. If your mouth isn’t watering, you might not be hydrated enough.
Haven't watched the video, but:
> One of the areas where human crystal formation happens
Especially one of the areas where you want crystals to form. Unlike in your urinary and bladders. ;)
> One of the areas where human crystal formation happens
Especially one of the areas where you want crystals to form. Unlike in your urinary and bladders. ;)
Well, teeth perform perhaps the most difficult task of the entire body. Take entirely external substances of all kinds of textures and densities and contaminants, crush all that to tiny particles, try not to get worn down too far in the process...
People in the past had better teeth than us, it's the sugar these days that cause so many dental problems. If you ate like those in the past, you similarly will have good teeth.
Spines seem to be similar in that regard. Huge "fuckup" (bound to fail badly) in many ways, but freed hands.
Feels like engineering: It's all trade-offs.
Feels like engineering: It's all trade-offs.
[deleted]
Sharks really got the good teeth genes.
Would be fun too have re-growing teeth, probably not so fun to swallow them in those sizes so frequently.
> I have never realised something as simple as brushing teeth can be so nuanced lol
I feel like replacing "brushing teeth" with literally anything and your sentence is also correct and a good way to think. Especially the things we think are easy. There's a reason it took us thousands of years to do certain things.
I feel like replacing "brushing teeth" with literally anything and your sentence is also correct and a good way to think. Especially the things we think are easy. There's a reason it took us thousands of years to do certain things.
I guess a diet without those foods is the best solution
Didn’t people not brush at all in the past but still had perfect teeth?
Didn’t people not brush at all in the past but still had perfect teeth?
Genes, climate, and types of local foods play a role too, but widespread adoption of agriculture made diets rich in carbs and starchy foods possible, which isn't great for dental health, and the somewhat recent trend (last 200~ years) of highly processed foods that are softer and easier to chew means there's less mechanisms to deal with tooth overcrowding. This has been observed in children from hunter gatherer societies, raised on modern diets, having worse dental hygiene than their parents.
> Teeth-cleaning twigs have long been used throughout human history.[2] As long ago as 3000 B.C., the ancient Egyptians constructed crude toothbrushes from twigs and leaves to clean their teeth. Similarly, other cultures such as the Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Indians also cleaned their teeth with twigs. Some would fray one end of the twig so that it could penetrate between the teeth more effectively.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth_brushing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tooth_brushing
I'm pretty sure prehistoric people did have primitive tooth care, didn't eat junk food and high-sugar diets, and still had nasty teeth.
They had two sets of teeth and they were perfect for the average life expectancy of around 35.
How about mouthwash first thing in the morning to nuke the bacteria without coating your mouth in fluoride?
Dentists I've been to have said not to use mouthwash - it kills good bacteria too.
> On the other hand if you have orange juice or similar (acidic) and then brush your teeth, say bye to your tooth enamel.
How long would you recommend to wait? Or perhaps a good rinsing of teeth before brushing would be enough?
How long would you recommend to wait? Or perhaps a good rinsing of teeth before brushing would be enough?
Acid loosens the enamel, so careful with anything like good rinsing or brushing right after consuming acidic items. Just drink some water (optional light rinse) and wait around 30 minutes to brush.
* Disclaimer: I am not a dentist, you should find a good one and talk to them for real advice.
* Disclaimer: I am not a dentist, you should find a good one and talk to them for real advice.
I try to brush before eating and drinking, but on the rare occasions I end up brushing afterwards, I wait the better part of an hour so that the acids are well enough diluted to cause trouble.
Yep. Thats why they recommended to wait about 30mins after brushing before you eat. Also at least 30 mins after brushing before eating. Ideally don't graze eat throughout the day.
Highly recommend checking out the TeethTalk YouTube, she's a Dental Hygienist and covers allot of dental topics, and it's free. idk where your from, but dentists here are crazy expensive.
https://www.youtube.com/@TeethTalk
I always drink coffee, which is acidic (I think) with milk, for breakfast, so I guess I should just give up on teeth?
It's easy to get toothpaste without fluoride
but what's the point? toothpaste is mostly a fluoride delivery mechanism.
You want the fluoride to remineralize your enamel.
I think it's both the bacteria thing – getting rid of them before they can start metablizing your food into stuff to harm your enamel – and the idea that directly following food intake, your mouth pH level will be out of homeostasis and enamel may be easier to erode at "non-native" pHs and one shouldn't brush directly after. I'm not sure where I got that from though.
Yup, both removing them first and then layering a bit of protection (fluoride).
If I brush before eating the food tastes bad
This is due to the foaming agents used in most toothpastes. The biggest culprit is sodium lauryl (ether) sulphate (SLES/ SLS). These foaming agents are surfactants and they bind to certain taste receptors in your mouth, thus altering your taste perception. You can avoid this entirely by switching your toothpaste to something that uses no foaming agents or those of the non-surfactant type.
Some people are also allergic to them. I was getting canker sores in my mouth for years without understand why.
Then my cousin discovered he’s allergic to SLS. I quit toothpaste with SLS and I never get them anymore. It’s rare but you never know who else struggles with it and doesn’t know.
Then my cousin discovered he’s allergic to SLS. I quit toothpaste with SLS and I never get them anymore. It’s rare but you never know who else struggles with it and doesn’t know.
Do you know any US toothpaste without sulphates that is not a scam like 99% of the brands, that typically charge 300% more for ADs like (whitening bla bla..)
Same, I naturally avoid anything acidic after brushing, things like orange juice just taste horrible after brushing.
I've heard that brushing right after eating is really bad for your teeth because just after you eat, the bacteria in your mouth start producing acid that, for lack of a better word, loosens the surface enamel in your teeth, and brushing in that state discards that enamel instead of letting it resettle after the acid washes away.
The solubility of enamel is insanely low so the effect should be minor at most, but still.
The solubility of enamel is insanely low so the effect should be minor at most, but still.
Funny, all my dentists always urged me to do morning brush after breakfast. It seemed to correlate to "brush after each meal" thing.
Mine says half an hour before or after, which I like because it makes sense. He also suggests after lunch, and of course in the evening, which obviously comes after breakfast - so it's kind of annoying (you know, to the kind of person spending time on HN) to leave it at 'brush before breakfast not after' or vice versa...
Since apparently you can get two conflicting “educated” opinions, chances are it doesn’t matter anyway.
Yes.
Best talk on teeth hygiene and anatomy (in that order) I’ve heard - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/patricia-corby-d-d-s-i...
Seems to me like one should just not eat a sugary breakfast?
Acidity is more the issue aiui, I don't really eat breakfast typically but my dentist's example was coffee (to which I don't add sugar) - drink water after coffee, and don't brush for half an hour after.
Yeah if you feel like making your breakfast taste like garbage as the toothpaste blocks sweetness receptors.
You can get toothpaste without sodium lauryl sulfate.
TIL, that would be interesting to try then. I hope they're not overly expensive?
Trader Joe's peppermint anticavity toothpaste. Was a bit odd at first as it has baking soda in it, but after a tube or two I think regular toothpaste is really the odd tasting one now. Cheapish.
I think it's often like 2-3x the price of cheaper brands, but that doesn't really add up to much ongoing cost.
IIRC the reason for this is that antibodies are actually in your saliva, which moves around your mouth much less while you're sleeping. Thus, bacteria have a more favorable environment at night.
I couldn't imagine consuming anything before brushing my teeth, but this is coming from a retainer wearer so I think that might have something to do with it.
The bacteria is one thing, but acidic foods are another. Brushing after citrus will destroy your teeth over time. Not sure about coffee.
brush before and have a good wash after as well
This, but for water jet flossing. Why did I muck around for decades with strings in my mouth? A water jet is a lot less effort and much much more efficient/effective.
P.S. If you never tried these gizmos, get a portable, battery powered one, so you can use it over the bathtub (or in the bathtub). They tend to soak everything around you.
P.S. If you never tried these gizmos, get a portable, battery powered one, so you can use it over the bathtub (or in the bathtub). They tend to soak everything around you.
I never got used to water flossing, how do you know where to aim it while it's in your mouth? Are you literally dragging the tip across your gum line? I always had trouble getting the proper angle (perpendicular to teeth) and then when it comes to the front teeth it's impossible to do behind them because the tips don't have enough of an angle to them and you're also shooting water everywhere.
Get one with a separate tank and controls on the actual handle part, much easier to manoeuver and can turn toggle it on/off quickly while switching areas of your mouth.
I saw these, but they felt a bit scammy, what model are you using ?
Not who you were asking, but I use a Waterpik WP-100 and I'm very happy with it.
According to my dentist they are less effective than normal flossing, but I hate flossing and was never able to do it on a regular basis, whereas I use the Waterpik once a day.
I worked my way up to a fairly high pressure and it regularly removes stuff that I missed with my electric toothbrush. It also leaves you with a very fresh and clean mouth feel.
I also wasn't very sure about them when I first looked into it, but it's really not a snake-oil product. It's also not the holy grail of dental health, just a reasonable alternative to flossing.
I worked my way up to a fairly high pressure and it regularly removes stuff that I missed with my electric toothbrush. It also leaves you with a very fresh and clean mouth feel.
I also wasn't very sure about them when I first looked into it, but it's really not a snake-oil product. It's also not the holy grail of dental health, just a reasonable alternative to flossing.
How do you clean these out? It's gotten backed up due to water deposits and no longer gives the nice pressure feeling.
I haven't had that problem, but I'd say flush it thoroughly with white vinegar and possibly replace the tip.
Depending on how quickly you lose pressure you might also consider using it with filtered water
Depending on how quickly you lose pressure you might also consider using it with filtered water
I have a Waterpik cordless and it has been very good - the industrial design is meh but it does the job. It's nice to have a simple handheld unit. I have some gaps between teeth that can trap food and cause gum disease.
It's used in combination with brushing, of course - water-pik then brush.
It's a WF-02 ... it's the kind with 3 AA cells that I have rechargeables in (this is better for my bathroom setup).
It's used in combination with brushing, of course - water-pik then brush.
It's a WF-02 ... it's the kind with 3 AA cells that I have rechargeables in (this is better for my bathroom setup).
I have the cheapest Waterpik and it's still amazing how much the water jet helps with dislodging various food bits trapped between teeth.
A bit late on the reply, but mine is a Sonicare Power Flosser.
I use Panasonic EW-1211W. Much better than brushing.
Not just electric, but a SonicCare style brush. It's like leaving the dentist every time I brush.
This. It's not really an electric toothbrush but you get far cleaner than one. My dentist is insistent.
I've had the same base model for 10+ years going strong.
I've had the same base model for 10+ years going strong.
It’s hard to trust dentists on this when they’re all in the pocket of either Oral B or Sonicare and will recommend whichever one pays them.
Ditto “vet” food for pets, they’re very biased.
Ditto “vet” food for pets, they’re very biased.
fwiw my dentist doesn't shill any products and still highly recommends an electric brush, even the worst ones are better than you can do yourself. She also said a water flosser is great for gum health but to still use floss at least a few times a week because they can struggle with large bits getting stuck where the teeth make contact.
There is no conclusive evidence that flossing is helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_floss#Evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_floss#Evidence
Maybe. A roll of floss is 3$ and 5 minutes a day. A filling at the dentist is 300–500$ and lasts 5–10 years before needing to be replaced + the pain. I’d rather floss just in case, it’s a cheap insurance policy at best and it does nothing at worst.
Five minutes a day is an appreciable portion of my waking life. Granted that's only like .5% of the rest of my life, but do I really want to spend one of my 200 activity tokens on flossing? (That said, I do floss sometimes, but 5-minute-a-day activities quickly add up, is my main point)
You probably spend more time looking at YT ads, scrolling on Facetagram, or sitting on the toilet.
Anyway, not telling you how to live. For me it’s well worth the 0.5% of the rest of my life but you do you. Maybe you have better teeth than me and won’t need to spend hours at the dentist over your lifetime to buy their second country house or pay for their divorce, or maybe you don’t get bits of rotten food between your teeth.
I’ve decided the trade off is worth it for me, but you really don’t have to reach the same conclusion about yourself :)
Anyway, not telling you how to live. For me it’s well worth the 0.5% of the rest of my life but you do you. Maybe you have better teeth than me and won’t need to spend hours at the dentist over your lifetime to buy their second country house or pay for their divorce, or maybe you don’t get bits of rotten food between your teeth.
I’ve decided the trade off is worth it for me, but you really don’t have to reach the same conclusion about yourself :)
It may well be worth it! (even for me; as I said, I do floss occasionally) I just have a sort of immune reaction against "It's only <x> a day!" type things, where it's easy to miss how much that adds up to. I'm definitely not advocating for regimenting your life to the extent where you're tracking every five minutes, just... small costs add up.
Hey, if you are spending more than 5 minutes daily on YT ads I'd recommend using uBlock Origin. That time can even be used to floss! :)
This feels like the old joke about wearing an Oreo around your neck, to which the punchline is, "do you see any elephants?"
On the flip side, don't brush your gums too much with an electric toothbrush.
I destroyed my gums when my parents got me an electric toothbrush when I was 13 - and AFAIK - there's still not really any way to repair it.
Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong! Would make my day to be wrong.
I destroyed my gums when my parents got me an electric toothbrush when I was 13 - and AFAIK - there's still not really any way to repair it.
Please, someone correct me if I'm wrong! Would make my day to be wrong.
I used to brush and avoid touching my gums.. then I had a dentist insist I should also be brushing across my gum lines to keep them healthy. So, not sure if you went crazy with the electric, or if maybe it was something else? Also, not sure if you called 5 dentists if you'd get 1, or more than 1 opinion on this. But I am told I have healthy gyms and I do brush over the line between tooth and gum.
My guess would be too much pressure and too much focus on the gums. Get all the way to the gums but don't brush directly on them, just angle the tip to barely touch the gums.
I don't know if this will work, depending if they're scarred or open, gelatine might work, add to warm water until dissolved, then keep in mouth for a while then swallow - I used to have reflux, gelatine helped a lot - it's also good for joint-pain (if u still have jelly in the joints that can be replenished)
I'm sorry this doesn't sound plausible - any links you could share? How does gelatine repair gums, or travel from your stomach to your joints without being broken down somewhere along the way?
Here's one thing I learned over the decades: if you have a problem you can't fix, it is worth just trying people's random ideas even if they sound kooky IF they are cheap and harmless.
Usually kooky ideas do nothing, but every now and then one works for no explicable reason.
I always thought I was a scientist by needing to understand a magnetism before trying, but actually real science is often just trying a bunch of random solutions, finding what works, and only then trying to work out mechanism!
Testing and keeping an open mind is a worthwhile mindset, even if you only get the occasional win.
Usually kooky ideas do nothing, but every now and then one works for no explicable reason.
I always thought I was a scientist by needing to understand a magnetism before trying, but actually real science is often just trying a bunch of random solutions, finding what works, and only then trying to work out mechanism!
Testing and keeping an open mind is a worthwhile mindset, even if you only get the occasional win.
One thing I've learned over the decades is that my time is finite and precious to me and I don't want to waste it on weird tricks that have no basis in reality, so I don't think there's any harm in asking.
To each their own!
To each their own!
Absolutely agree - time is irreplaceable precious. But a healthy body that allows you to enjoy your time is also irreplaceably precious. Everything is a balancing act between areas of global and local ignorance: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/YABJKJ3v97k9sbxwg/what-money...
You said you have a serious ongoing problem, and aszantu‘s suggestion sounds unrelated, but the cost of trying is low, and nurturing the attitude that you may be able to fix things is worthwhile. You seem to have diagnosed the cause as one thing, but perhaps there are other causes too.
I had a problem with bleeding gums (nothing like yours), and Google results suggested lots of different diagnoses and solutions. I tried a few different ideas that were low cost (time, effort, $, risk) and one worked for me. YMMV. Good luck.
PS: “understand a magnetism” — damn you autocorrect — understand a mechanism.
You said you have a serious ongoing problem, and aszantu‘s suggestion sounds unrelated, but the cost of trying is low, and nurturing the attitude that you may be able to fix things is worthwhile. You seem to have diagnosed the cause as one thing, but perhaps there are other causes too.
I had a problem with bleeding gums (nothing like yours), and Google results suggested lots of different diagnoses and solutions. I tried a few different ideas that were low cost (time, effort, $, risk) and one worked for me. YMMV. Good luck.
PS: “understand a magnetism” — damn you autocorrect — understand a mechanism.
Just a small note of correction that you have me confused with another poster; I fortunately don't have a serious gum problem.
Ooops, sorry. Cheers.
Yeah, this! Also, if you still use manual brush (don't), use soft bristle and be gental. Harder is not better when it comes to tooth brushing. Don't do what you typically see in movies.
As for your gums, they don't grow back I believe, but you can get surgery of sorts by using other parts of your mouth and stick them in your gums. See; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF6EgSM5TlA
As for your gums, they don't grow back I believe, but you can get surgery of sorts by using other parts of your mouth and stick them in your gums. See; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tF6EgSM5TlA
Same here. Nothing to do as stopping the hard brushing stopped recession progress and gum graft is a heavy, expensive procedure that definitely leaves marks on the gums. It also makes me queasy knowing you’re basically getting gums grafted from a donor who died. Mine are recessed enough that it can get painful brushing after eating too acidic foods but not enough to justify the procedure. For acidic foods, I rinse my mouth with baking soda dissolved in water right after eating and it helps a lot. Dentists can also apply fluoride to the exposed parts but it tastes horrible while they do it, and only lasts a few weeks before it’s gone.
If you can get it, try use some Biomin F toothpaste for a good few weeks. I've got exposed parts of lower teeth too due to over brushing. This toothpaste goes a looong way to reducing sensitivity to near zero levels.
If it's gum recession, you could try talking to a periodontist about a gum graft.
Pretty sure they can do a gum graft by taking piece of the roof of your mouth
Yup! Also the Phillips ones are just based on vibration (as opposed to some rotation in oral-b) which is also much better for your teeth and gums.
Many people (including myself) have found their "sonicare" toothbrush break within 6 months. I got mine replaced under warranty, and it broke again after 1 year.
Why does a 3 year old video for repairing Sonicare toothbrush have 425K reviews on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3PBPU2jXbo, with 2.8K upvotes and 192 downvotes. It breaks because a screw goes loose inside the toothbrush.
I recommend you avoid Phillips electric toothbrush completely. I used a oral-B electric toothbrush for at least 8 years with no issues. And Phillips breaks in 6 months.
Why does a 3 year old video for repairing Sonicare toothbrush have 425K reviews on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o3PBPU2jXbo, with 2.8K upvotes and 192 downvotes. It breaks because a screw goes loose inside the toothbrush.
I recommend you avoid Phillips electric toothbrush completely. I used a oral-B electric toothbrush for at least 8 years with no issues. And Phillips breaks in 6 months.
I have three different Sonicare toothbrushes in my house, ranging from 2 years old to probably pushing 5 years old. They've all been flawless - even the one my kiddo uses and abuses.
Pure anecdata. My own says that my Sonicare has been bulletproof and has survived years of use and international travel.
Same here. We have four and all have worked excellently for years.
I’ve used the same Sonicare toothbrush for 20 years. It somehow still holds a nearly month-long charge. It’s sad to hear their quality has gone downhill
Gentle reminder to anyone reading this to replace the bristle head regularly…!
I’ve wondered the same. The reason is that they aren’t waterproof and water leaks onto the circuit board.
I recommend buying the cheapest option and getting a warranty with them. I wish Philips could just figure out how to waterproof them properly instead of creating so much waste.
I recommend buying the cheapest option and getting a warranty with them. I wish Philips could just figure out how to waterproof them properly instead of creating so much waste.
We replaced their sonicare toothbrush twice already. First one somehow ended up getting water inside and stopped working, second one I think had bent the toothbrush mount too much and it also would disconnect - could've been user error because it was unintentionally pushed harder than it was required. IMO they still have decent price and durability otherwise, compared to everything else so far, and no stupid gimmicks such as an app, lol.
Mine broke after 2 years, but I think that’s because I dropped it, pointy-side down, onto tile, without a brush head on it.
My soniccare is more than 8 years old and is working fine.
YMMV, because I just replaced my 6-ish year old Sonicare because the motor seemed like it was dying out.
I say 6-ish, but it's got to be longer than that, because it was three addresses and a job ago.
I say 6-ish, but it's got to be longer than that, because it was three addresses and a job ago.
Huh, my dentist told me not to get the oral-b because the rotation is bad for your teeth. They mentioned sonic as the preferred because the motion matches the grain of your teeth.
Or the Oral-B equivalent, the Pulsonic. I found it to be a great upgrade from my old electric toothrush(and it seems a lot more higenic too, because there are no spaces between the bristles in the head to allow movement, since the entire head is vibrating).
I'm about to order one for myself. Which model are you using? I'm thinking of getting 5100.
One word of advice: The more expensive ones are better. You dont need to spend 200$, but the 80$ one is much better than a 30$ one.
got a diamondclean and it took out some plaque that I couldn't get rid off for a long time.
Used Chinese knock off for a long time, a Soocas. Recently thought about upgrading from $30 Chinese to $80 Chinese (OClean), the latter failed after 2 months. YMMMV ofc, but after that, and reading on HN about Chinese stealing IP from Europe, we thought about getting a Phillips (which my dentist recommended). It was a Black Friday deal, and knowing the differene between 5100 or 5XXX and one of the top brushes, Diamondclean, was like 1/4th of a dentist visit - we got the latter. And both me and wife think it's awesome. + you get a travel etui. The app sucks just like the Soocas and OClean app, but the vibration every 30s is enough "smartness" for me.
Funny that the cheap Chinese sonic brush (Soocas) is still working well and I'm thinking about getting a shoe cleaning brush set for it.
Phillips toothbrush doesn't last as long on one charge as the Chinese brushes do.
Used Chinese knock off for a long time, a Soocas. Recently thought about upgrading from $30 Chinese to $80 Chinese (OClean), the latter failed after 2 months. YMMMV ofc, but after that, and reading on HN about Chinese stealing IP from Europe, we thought about getting a Phillips (which my dentist recommended). It was a Black Friday deal, and knowing the differene between 5100 or 5XXX and one of the top brushes, Diamondclean, was like 1/4th of a dentist visit - we got the latter. And both me and wife think it's awesome. + you get a travel etui. The app sucks just like the Soocas and OClean app, but the vibration every 30s is enough "smartness" for me.
Funny that the cheap Chinese sonic brush (Soocas) is still working well and I'm thinking about getting a shoe cleaning brush set for it.
Phillips toothbrush doesn't last as long on one charge as the Chinese brushes do.
My dentist told me I should only use a sonic toothbrush Sonicare or similar because they actually clean while rotational electronic toothbrushes almost literally sweep the crap to under your gums (so they clean the teeth but harm gum gealth).
Mine told me the rotational ones are better. And I think there's some empirical evidence there because when they polish your teeth, they use a rotational tool.
I recently learned, that you can use crushed eggshells to replenish calcium in teeth, just add them to the toothe paste. (I use a canine supplement)
If you're teeth-grinder at night, a few tiny pieces of eggshells help keep the grinding at bay, because you can grind on a piece of eggshell without danger and then relax again.
If you're teeth-grinder at night, a few tiny pieces of eggshells help keep the grinding at bay, because you can grind on a piece of eggshell without danger and then relax again.
Are you saying this method is to sleep with eggshells in your mouth?
Jesse, what the hell are you talking about?
This. I discovered electric toothbrush in my mid 30s, I have good teeth and brushed already with regular toobrush pretty good, but to be really thorough I had to be always tired after brushing, now with electric toothbrush I can achieve same result with less energy, less tired.
Btw. I went through bunch of cheap noname toothbrushes to realize there is reason you pay for Philips and Oral-B brands, all cheap toothbrushes will fail within few weeks/months due to humidity or other failures, didn't have such experience with those two famous brands, wife and me use Oral-B Pulsonic Slim for years (extremely slim and light, but less powerful), for son who had problem with teeth I bought a bit better (heavier but more powerful) Philips HX6511 (still quite cheap, next time I'd buy this also for myself). Daughter has still cheap Xiaomi, waiting when it will finally break (from 4 I bought 3 broken), then will probably go for same Philips.
Btw. be aware most of the electric toothbrushes still use old NiCd batteries with memory effect, so to achieve maximum battery life/longetivity you should NOT leave tootbrush in charger, but charge it only when it runs out of battery, if you keep it in charger stand it is significantly decreasing battery life with each charging to the point it is useless already by the end of warranty.
Btw. I went through bunch of cheap noname toothbrushes to realize there is reason you pay for Philips and Oral-B brands, all cheap toothbrushes will fail within few weeks/months due to humidity or other failures, didn't have such experience with those two famous brands, wife and me use Oral-B Pulsonic Slim for years (extremely slim and light, but less powerful), for son who had problem with teeth I bought a bit better (heavier but more powerful) Philips HX6511 (still quite cheap, next time I'd buy this also for myself). Daughter has still cheap Xiaomi, waiting when it will finally break (from 4 I bought 3 broken), then will probably go for same Philips.
Btw. be aware most of the electric toothbrushes still use old NiCd batteries with memory effect, so to achieve maximum battery life/longetivity you should NOT leave tootbrush in charger, but charge it only when it runs out of battery, if you keep it in charger stand it is significantly decreasing battery life with each charging to the point it is useless already by the end of warranty.
100%, and just a quick note that the quality of the brush makes a surprising difference. I was always skimping and buying $5-$10 electric toothbrushes when I tried in the past and was underwhelmed.
I finally tried a name brand brush from Costco when my wife insisted and it blew my mind. Actually excited to go to the dentist to see what they say this time when I’m not full of plaque for once
I finally tried a name brand brush from Costco when my wife insisted and it blew my mind. Actually excited to go to the dentist to see what they say this time when I’m not full of plaque for once
I had the exact opposite experience. I bought a Sonicare Diamondwhatever and was incredibly disappointed. After two or three months of using that I had visible stains on my teeth that had never been there before. So now I'm back to manual brushing and I've had no significant problems.
THIS! I used to get like 5 cavaites a year, costing me between $300-$900 a year with insurance (US). Then i spent like $120 on an electric toothbrush, nothing ever since, and my gums are so much healthier according to my dentist. I learned this at age 29. Wish i used them years earlier!
I've tried both water jets and electric toothbrushes and they do nothing for me. In particular the tiny circular brush just didn't feel as good as the full-sized bristles on a normal brush. I didn't feel as clean afterwards.
Not using a water flosser as well. It always looked to me like some novelty shopping channel thing. Then I got one and OMG this thing cleans so well, way better than normal flossing (which I was usually to lazy to do anyway).
Can confirm, I couldn't get over how clean my teeth felt the first time I used an electric toothbrush in adulthood. The vibrating rattled my skull at first though, that took a few sessions to get used to haha.
Some 15+ years ago (Don't quite remember the year, probably 2005) I bought myself an electric brush.
My gf at the time mocked me for wasting money on "such an useless thing".
A few months later she went together with her sister to their annual dentist checkup. The dentist praised her sister for how clean her teeth were, while he told my gf hers were "OK". What was it that her sister was doing differently? She was using an electric toothbrush.
I'm pretty certain you can guess what was the very first thing my then gf did coming out of the dentist.
A few months later she went together with her sister to their annual dentist checkup. The dentist praised her sister for how clean her teeth were, while he told my gf hers were "OK". What was it that her sister was doing differently? She was using an electric toothbrush.
I'm pretty certain you can guess what was the very first thing my then gf did coming out of the dentist.
I switched back from an electric toothbrush to a regular one. My biggest issue withthe electric tooth brushes, distractions. You have 2 mins, 30 seconds for each quadrant. If while I brush someone talks to me e.g. what do you want for breakfast, or you see something that distracts you e.g s spec of dust on the mirror that you quickly clean up. I end up feeling like I didnt do a good job on one of the quadrants. Yes you can start over and do more but I generally dont. So I wanted to get rid of the artificial 2 min time limit. :)
Somebody asks you what you want for breakfast?
Clearly youve figured something out and I've been doing something wrong my whole life.
Clearly youve figured something out and I've been doing something wrong my whole life.
This reasoning is completely foreign to me.
You’re ditching it because sometimes you lose track of the time (and don’t want to push the button again) for something that doesn’t have a timer at all?
You’re ditching it because sometimes you lose track of the time (and don’t want to push the button again) for something that doesn’t have a timer at all?
I generally take my time and am very thorough in brushing my teeth. It just works for me. Had my first and only cavity in my mid 30s. I floss everyday. To me it seemed like needlessly complicating something simple.
Must say, I just checked back HN and am surprised by this comment all grayed out. It is a real experience and life choice that's working for me. Not sure what to make of it. Guess just don't bother disagreeing online :)
Must say, I just checked back HN and am surprised by this comment all grayed out. It is a real experience and life choice that's working for me. Not sure what to make of it. Guess just don't bother disagreeing online :)
I have a basic Oral-B electric tooth brush and you can actually "pause" it. I gag easily so I sometimes need to turn it off, and when I restart it it remembers where it was. So sometimes I restart it, continue what I was doing and it buzzes after 5-10 seconds because I was almost finished.
If a basic model does it, I'd guess they all do it!
Also don't forget you can ignore the vibrations, just continue after the 2 minutes and count in your head if you need it.
If a basic model does it, I'd guess they all do it!
Also don't forget you can ignore the vibrations, just continue after the 2 minutes and count in your head if you need it.
This setting you refer to can be disabled on most every Philips electric toothbrush that has it.
[deleted]
I had the exact same experience. I always thought that the electric toothbrush was something for lazy ppl, then only recently - spotting one of the best electric brushes heavily discounted - I bought it. I felt I never had my teeth so clean. A game changer.
Try using a water flosser after regular floss. You will be genuinely surprised how much crap comes out. Since I started that routine, my hygienist has become extra friendly and chatty and say she loves working on my teeth.
> Not using an electric toothbrush. First time I used one it felt like I'd had a proper dental cleaning.
Same here. It's completely changed my life. For mini-me, the built-in timer helps them be sure to brush enough.
Same here. It's completely changed my life. For mini-me, the built-in timer helps them be sure to brush enough.
For ADHD brain, the timer built into the toothbrush makes all the difference. Sometimes that 30 second interval feels like five seconds, and sometimes I could swear it's been five minutes and I start wondering if it's broken. Nope, that's just ADHD time blindness. I almost certainly never brushed for anywhere close to long enough prior to my electric toothbrush.
Mini-me also has ADHD and the electric toothbrush has made trips to the dentist far more enjoyable.
I wish there was a way to change the timer because I find it ridiculously short, I'm usually barely halfway through when the entire cycle is finished.
My electric vibrates the timer.. I just brush each quarter of my mouth for each timer period. The vibration is annoying, but it's a routine that works for me.
Literally discovered this only a month ago :( I wish I've done it sooner.
BBC has a good article titled "90% OF THE PEOPLE ARE NOT BRUSHING PROPERLY" and they are right. Well worth googling.
I wanted to be sold on an electric toothbrush, but I've only used one off and on.
How did you get into the habit?
How did you get into the habit?
> an electric toothbrush, but I've only used one off and on
There’s a good little joke in here.
FWIW, I’ve gone back and forth on electric toothbrushes and settled on non-electric. I’ve found that a medium-firmness bristle and a rigorous and thorough brushing is what leaves me feeling cleanest. Plus it’s simple, easy to replace, and easier to properly dispose of.
Then again, maybe a super high end electric would change my mind.
There’s a good little joke in here.
FWIW, I’ve gone back and forth on electric toothbrushes and settled on non-electric. I’ve found that a medium-firmness bristle and a rigorous and thorough brushing is what leaves me feeling cleanest. Plus it’s simple, easy to replace, and easier to properly dispose of.
Then again, maybe a super high end electric would change my mind.
I was not impressed either, but I used a fairly cheap one. The people raving about them seem to have spent quite a lot on a high-end toothbrush. Manual brushing always feels good to me though.
Maybe it's like a lot of things - expensive coffee beans, 144 Hz monitors, dvorak keyboards - the "it's lifechanging!" people are vocal, but 99.9% of people don't care about it at all.
Maybe it's like a lot of things - expensive coffee beans, 144 Hz monitors, dvorak keyboards - the "it's lifechanging!" people are vocal, but 99.9% of people don't care about it at all.
I go to two different hygienists and they both recommended the fancy Sonicare.
Specifically, the one you connect to your phone coaches you on the right amount of pressure and time to use throughout your mouth.
Specifically, the one you connect to your phone coaches you on the right amount of pressure and time to use throughout your mouth.
Because they get money from Sonicare for selling them. They might really be better but how can you trust dentists on this when they’re all bought by either Oral B or Sonicare :(
1. Buy an electric toothbrush
2. Throw away all of your old toothbrushes
I just discovered this recently as well. I agree it was better than I thought.
Disagreed; bought and used multiple electric toothbrushes and quickly stopped. I felt I always did a better job myself; turns out I instinctually brushed for 2 minutes minimum and ensured I didn’t just do the circular motion (as the dentist pointed out the second and last time I went to one in my life). Also, I never flossed, I have an anecdotal theory that if you never floss you never open the gaps in your teeth so it’s actually better. Touch wood haven’t had to do anything to my teeth even though my dietary habits are some of the worst anyone around me has seen
Some people just don’t get cavities very easily. You are extrapolating from that.
Floss. For the love of God, floss. People carry around chronic gum infections in between teeth. Ask me how I know.
Floss. For the love of God, floss. People carry around chronic gum infections in between teeth. Ask me how I know.
Except the evidence on flossing isn’t strongly in its favor: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/tossing-flossing-2016081...
Of course anecdotal evidence, but I solved the recurring inflammation issues I had by having a routine that includes flossing an interdental brushes.
At a certain point you know where your "problem areas" are and where food tend to get stuck.
At a certain point you know where your "problem areas" are and where food tend to get stuck.
Same thing here, I think this is really common and the “lack of evidence” as the article tries to frame it is just because it’s so obvious.
There is also a lack of peer reviewed studies showing that you can drown in water but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
There is also a lack of peer reviewed studies showing that you can drown in water but that doesn’t mean it isn’t true.
What evidence do you have to support flossing being effective in people who have never flossed in their life (such population exists?) who also brush well..
How do you know?
I don't know wvy you are downvoted.
So have I. And several dentists have actually recommended manual brushing to me as well.
On the other hand, water flossing has been a boon against dental plaque and bad breath. I used to never floss.
Disgusting mistake... A lot of food particles get stuck in the teeth interstitial spaces, macerating in there overnight or even several days... Yuck. :x
So have I. And several dentists have actually recommended manual brushing to me as well.
On the other hand, water flossing has been a boon against dental plaque and bad breath. I used to never floss.
Disgusting mistake... A lot of food particles get stuck in the teeth interstitial spaces, macerating in there overnight or even several days... Yuck. :x
Pasta and sauce are not meant to be separate. Once you cook the pasta, drain it, and immediately toss with the sauce. This is part of the reason it was meant to be al dente, to absorb and deliver the flavor of the sauce better. Unlike rice, it's fine to "soak" pasta in the sauce; it expands when freshly cooked but not when cool.
Also most sauce recipes are probably overcomplicated. Most need less than 5 ingredients. You probably don't need all that onion and garlic, but one of them. Definitely not two tablespoons of dried oregano.
The way you cut onions and garlic changes the flavor a lot too. Finely minced garlic, from a food processor or garlic press can be overpowering yet not deliver the flavor. One trick is to crush the garlic and let the oil it's in carry the flavor. Half an onion can work really well in a sauce you cooking for half an hour.
Also most sauce recipes are probably overcomplicated. Most need less than 5 ingredients. You probably don't need all that onion and garlic, but one of them. Definitely not two tablespoons of dried oregano.
The way you cut onions and garlic changes the flavor a lot too. Finely minced garlic, from a food processor or garlic press can be overpowering yet not deliver the flavor. One trick is to crush the garlic and let the oil it's in carry the flavor. Half an onion can work really well in a sauce you cooking for half an hour.
Two related tips while on the subject:
1) Salt your pasta water! Pasta is meant to be cooked in salty water that, according and excellently-put by Samin Nosrat (Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat) - "is reminiscent of the sea".
2) Save and use a splash of ("dirty") pasta water - aka the water the pasta was just cooked in - when you're tossing the pasta with the sauce. The water is filled with delightful liquified starch from the pasta, and it helps the sauce coat the pasta more thoroughly.
1) Salt your pasta water! Pasta is meant to be cooked in salty water that, according and excellently-put by Samin Nosrat (Salt, Fat, Acid, Heat) - "is reminiscent of the sea".
2) Save and use a splash of ("dirty") pasta water - aka the water the pasta was just cooked in - when you're tossing the pasta with the sauce. The water is filled with delightful liquified starch from the pasta, and it helps the sauce coat the pasta more thoroughly.
> "is reminiscent of the sea"
Had lots of funny moments in my life relating to salting pasta water. Almost all the people I know put like two pinches of salt into the water. Which causes them to look at me like I'm a psycho when I pour salt in for almost a full second, straight out of the container.
I can +1 both of your tips, I follow them both since I learned to cook and they're a (small but effective) game-changer.
Had lots of funny moments in my life relating to salting pasta water. Almost all the people I know put like two pinches of salt into the water. Which causes them to look at me like I'm a psycho when I pour salt in for almost a full second, straight out of the container.
I can +1 both of your tips, I follow them both since I learned to cook and they're a (small but effective) game-changer.
I agree it's kind of absurd to "salt" your pasta water with a pinch of salt (you're doing nothing!), but for me it's a lot more efficient to let the sauce to have the saltiness than to waste handfuls of salt going into water that I'm going to dump out.
INB4, "save your pasta water." I don't have a big kitchen or freezer, a pot full of water is a giant waste of space for me.
INB4, "save your pasta water." I don't have a big kitchen or freezer, a pot full of water is a giant waste of space for me.
Most people just dip a coffee mug in the pasta just before they drain it to keep some water back. I don't think I've ever heard of anyone freezing pasta water.
As for "salty water vs. salty sauce", the better way from a culinary perspective is both. Over salting one thing to compensate for another thing often leads to uneven flavor; if everything is salted roughly appropriately it all kinda comes together without any extra effort. I suggest trying it, hell maybe even do an A/B test. It's subtle, but salt penetrating the pasta during cooking makes it taste that much better.
As for "salty water vs. salty sauce", the better way from a culinary perspective is both. Over salting one thing to compensate for another thing often leads to uneven flavor; if everything is salted roughly appropriately it all kinda comes together without any extra effort. I suggest trying it, hell maybe even do an A/B test. It's subtle, but salt penetrating the pasta during cooking makes it taste that much better.
The thing about saving pasta water is about not throwing it all away when draining the pasta - just keeping a little back to toss in with the pasta and the sauce. It's not saving it for later.
- Lots of salt in the sauce means you'll have very salty sauce with undersalted pasta. It might work out fine if the sauce coats really well, but will still be slightly different.
- Ingredients cook differently when salted. Not sure about pasta specifically: I _think_ I can taste a difference between pasta cooked in salted water and pasta salted after being cooked, but I'm not certain.
- Definitely don't keep pasta water around, it's just for the sauce you're currently making
- Ingredients cook differently when salted. Not sure about pasta specifically: I _think_ I can taste a difference between pasta cooked in salted water and pasta salted after being cooked, but I'm not certain.
- Definitely don't keep pasta water around, it's just for the sauce you're currently making
This is missing the forest for the trees. The point is not to make restaurant quality pasta and sauce, it's to not have to buy salt from the store every week. It's wasteful for little benefit.
I can't ever say I've felt like cooking pasta without salt is "under salted." Is it as savory and delicious as what I'd buy at a restaurant? No - but having done it like that in the past I just think the benefits are marginal for how much you waste.
I can't ever say I've felt like cooking pasta without salt is "under salted." Is it as savory and delicious as what I'd buy at a restaurant? No - but having done it like that in the past I just think the benefits are marginal for how much you waste.
I wouldn't say it's "forest for the trees", but I see the point that it's a choice of trade-offs.
I make pasta _very_ often, I love it and want it to be as good as it possibly can, so I'm very happy optimising for taste. FWIW I use a tablespoon of salt per portion, and get a 1.3kg pack of salt every few months: hardly a huge waste!
I make pasta _very_ often, I love it and want it to be as good as it possibly can, so I'm very happy optimising for taste. FWIW I use a tablespoon of salt per portion, and get a 1.3kg pack of salt every few months: hardly a huge waste!
Boil the water to evaporation and recover the salt!
disclaimer: it might be /slightly/ energy inefficient.
But salt your water, salting the sauce is just not the same.
disclaimer: it might be /slightly/ energy inefficient.
But salt your water, salting the sauce is just not the same.
The reason to salt the water is not to add saltiness to the pasta but to raise the water’s boiling point.
it's really not, it doesn't change the boiling point any sort of meaningfully.
About as salty as the sea is also my rule of thumb (of course how salty is the sea you are familiar with varies :) )
Unless you really love salt, you want much less salinity in pasta than the sea (1-2% for pasta, 3.5% in the sea). Kenji Alt-Lopez says that you want your pasta water "as salty as you remember the sea is", not as salty as the sea actually is because it's way too much!
Maybe it is not exactly as salty as the sea :)
If you’ve ever been at sea and tried to use seawater to cook pasta, you’ll realize that it’s too much salt. 1:1 seawater to fresh water turns out perfect (and saves your fresh water).
Some more pasta water insights:
- A good ratio of salt/water is one tablespoon per litre (or gallon). Reduce if the sauce is going to be very salty already (eg carbonara). We're talking kosher salt here (specifically Diamon Crystal), if using table salt it's probably going to be half of that: salt density varies a lot depending on the type.
- Cook your pasta is _as little_ water as possible. For some reason there's some myth that you want to cook pasta in a large volume of water: that's BS. What makes pasta water "liquid gold" is the starch that comes from the pasta, you want that as concentrated as possible.
- A good ratio of salt/water is one tablespoon per litre (or gallon). Reduce if the sauce is going to be very salty already (eg carbonara). We're talking kosher salt here (specifically Diamon Crystal), if using table salt it's probably going to be half of that: salt density varies a lot depending on the type.
- Cook your pasta is _as little_ water as possible. For some reason there's some myth that you want to cook pasta in a large volume of water: that's BS. What makes pasta water "liquid gold" is the starch that comes from the pasta, you want that as concentrated as possible.
A good ratio of salt/water is one tablespoon per litre (or gallon)
A gallon is 3.5-4 litres. This doesn't seem right.
Cook your pasta is _as little_ water as possible.
This advice is worthless without some baseline like g of pasta to l water or how much water to cover your pasta with. You should cook your pasta in a large volume of water so the water will still be hot when you add the pasta and the pasta will be cooked as quickly as possible. Too little water and you risk the pasta sticking to itself as well. All this in mind, properly cooked pasta with diluted pasta water is a better outcome than starchy pasta water with pasta that has an odd texture. Maybe that last bit is personal preference, but when eating pasta, the first thing I notice is the texture of the pasta, not the starchiness of the pasta water. Hell, maybe we're thinking about the same amount of water, and you've just seen people try to cook with comically large amounts, I dunno.
A gallon is 3.5-4 litres. This doesn't seem right.
Cook your pasta is _as little_ water as possible.
This advice is worthless without some baseline like g of pasta to l water or how much water to cover your pasta with. You should cook your pasta in a large volume of water so the water will still be hot when you add the pasta and the pasta will be cooked as quickly as possible. Too little water and you risk the pasta sticking to itself as well. All this in mind, properly cooked pasta with diluted pasta water is a better outcome than starchy pasta water with pasta that has an odd texture. Maybe that last bit is personal preference, but when eating pasta, the first thing I notice is the texture of the pasta, not the starchiness of the pasta water. Hell, maybe we're thinking about the same amount of water, and you've just seen people try to cook with comically large amounts, I dunno.
I usually cook for two, 200g of pasta into 1 liter of water. And a teaspoon of salt.
Oh god please don't to 1 TB of salt per gallon you need way more. I would do 4TB because although it's more than 1% salt it's easy to remember and close enough. As long as you stay less than 2% you're probably good for average salt tolerance.
I think he meant ‘quart’ rather than ‘gallon’ because the first reference is for ‘litre’
Sorry yes! As cossatot points out in the sibling comment, I meant quart. Not used to american metrics.
+1 to the as little water as possible tip, that's worked well for me. The emulsifying properties transmit flavors really well, I like to infuse a tiny bit of oil to stir in.
What does salting your pasta water do, other than aligning with how it was "meant to be"? I've never noticed a difference, but also didn't salt it that extensively, and this was years ago.
It makes the pasta salty. It's not just pasta - almost any dish will be better if you salt/season as you go instead of adding it on top at the end
Also the water will boil at a higher temperature. I wonder if this affects the texture of the pasta. I suppose it will cook somewhat faster.
In college I got into an argument about this, believing this was the primary reason to salt the water. I was wrong -- at best it raises the boiling temp by 2F which is negligible.
Yeah, I used to think that too, but later I suspected it was actually as you say.
Without salt, the pasta tastes plain. You can't really make up for it by salting the sauce more, the pasta carries it better.
And in dishes with less salt, you'd normally salt the pasta and not the sauce.
And in dishes with less salt, you'd normally salt the pasta and not the sauce.
Ah OK, so the same reason I use salt elsewhere - I thought it might affect the cooking process somehow.
Any idea why the pasta carries it better? I usually add it to the sauce, the idea being both that I need to use less salt (healthier), and that it interacts with the herbs I added to the sauce.
Any idea why the pasta carries it better? I usually add it to the sauce, the idea being both that I need to use less salt (healthier), and that it interacts with the herbs I added to the sauce.
You need to salt it enough that the pasta itself becomes salty. So the sauce you use doesn't have to have much salt, a pinch or two, and the pasta carries the saltiness instead.
In addition to flavoring, it helps the pasta not stick together when you're boiling it. Add a small amount of olive oil as extra help for that
> Add a small amount of olive oil as extra help for that
It really doesn't. Oil doesn't mix with water. The only thing it does is oiling your pasta when you drain the water, which prevents the sauce from sticking correctly.
Pasta naturally don't stick together if you use a pot large enough, with enough water. And even then it doesn't stick, I honestly don't know how people make their pasta stick.
It really doesn't. Oil doesn't mix with water. The only thing it does is oiling your pasta when you drain the water, which prevents the sauce from sticking correctly.
Pasta naturally don't stick together if you use a pot large enough, with enough water. And even then it doesn't stick, I honestly don't know how people make their pasta stick.
Cheap pans. Thin-walled that doesn't distribute heat evenly. So hot spots burn the pasta to the walls.
Secondly, not stirring at all. Boiling will do some circulation, but you have to keep some amount of stirring to prevent a small sticking turn into a burned to the pan problem.
Secondly, not stirring at all. Boiling will do some circulation, but you have to keep some amount of stirring to prevent a small sticking turn into a burned to the pan problem.
> with enough water.
that's another secret to making pasta: abundant water, not just barely covering it.
that's another secret to making pasta: abundant water, not just barely covering it.
Not sure who said it, but I've had the advice "enough salt to scare your guests" in my head for years. Adding the salt after the water boils is also very, very satisfying.
Pasta water should be "as salty as tears."
1a) Salt your water when it reaches boiling temperature, then put pasta in it.
I really thought I hated spaghetti growing up. My parents would boil the noodles and then pour room temp sauce from a jar at the table individually. It was inedible.
I was visiting a friend and had it all cooked together in the pan for the first time and it was eye opening.
I was visiting a friend and had it all cooked together in the pan for the first time and it was eye opening.
This reminds me...
My parents were on the lower end of rural middle-class so on the rare occasion we went to a restaurant, steak was avoided as the most expensive thing on the menu, and as kids, we didn't have the option of steak anyway. Our meats while growing up were mainly fish, chicken, pork, and hamburger. When I was a teen, my mom got a deal on a big box of steaks somehow and cooked them on the grill every other night for dinner. She made it sound like we were living like royalty but no matter what kind of sauces or seasonings I slathered on, they were always dry and tasteless. I voluntarily skipped a lot of dinners that summer and thought I just hated steak.
In my mid-20s, I befriended a Brazilian. He invited my spouse and I over for a barbecue. When we got there, I found out the only thing going on the grill was steak, a.k.a. Brazilian Beef. Basically thick chunks of steak "marinated" in rock salt then cooked over open coals to sear the outside, but never long enough to get the inside more than medium-rare. I probably mentioned not caring for steak but he assured me I was going to like it. And wow, he was right. So tasty, so juicy. Decades later, I still make it every chance I get.
My wife and I sometimes talk about how our parents basically ruined whole categories of food for us until we got out into the world and experienced (or learned for ourselves) how things were _supposed_ to be cooked.
My parents were on the lower end of rural middle-class so on the rare occasion we went to a restaurant, steak was avoided as the most expensive thing on the menu, and as kids, we didn't have the option of steak anyway. Our meats while growing up were mainly fish, chicken, pork, and hamburger. When I was a teen, my mom got a deal on a big box of steaks somehow and cooked them on the grill every other night for dinner. She made it sound like we were living like royalty but no matter what kind of sauces or seasonings I slathered on, they were always dry and tasteless. I voluntarily skipped a lot of dinners that summer and thought I just hated steak.
In my mid-20s, I befriended a Brazilian. He invited my spouse and I over for a barbecue. When we got there, I found out the only thing going on the grill was steak, a.k.a. Brazilian Beef. Basically thick chunks of steak "marinated" in rock salt then cooked over open coals to sear the outside, but never long enough to get the inside more than medium-rare. I probably mentioned not caring for steak but he assured me I was going to like it. And wow, he was right. So tasty, so juicy. Decades later, I still make it every chance I get.
My wife and I sometimes talk about how our parents basically ruined whole categories of food for us until we got out into the world and experienced (or learned for ourselves) how things were _supposed_ to be cooked.
Growing up I went through the same thing and eventually talked to my mom about it and we came to the conclusion that it all went back to her parents who lived the Great Depression. When you grow up on Bread and Butter pickle sandwiches and then have industrialized food thrown at you post WWII you don't question it, but it has impacts on subsequent generations.
Funny enough the other day I had a liverwurst sandwich, something my Grandmother would have easily recognized, except I bought it from a local whole animal butcher. What was once one of the cheapest forms of meat is now rare gourmet sandwich.
Funny enough the other day I had a liverwurst sandwich, something my Grandmother would have easily recognized, except I bought it from a local whole animal butcher. What was once one of the cheapest forms of meat is now rare gourmet sandwich.
I've picked up on habits in my parents that resemble Great Depression era practices and their relationship with food is the most noticeable. Even my Dad who liked to cook as a hobby had very poor attention to detail when it came to quality. My mother basically made horribly seasoned slop and thought it was perfectly edible. My grandfather was extremely concerned with my mother having a full belly, probably at the cost of quality (a rational worldview when you've experienced starvation firsthand).
At this point, when I meet people my age who describe themselves as "picky eaters" my internal response is "Your parents were probably just bad cooks." At least the experience taught me to take responsibility for what I put into my body.
At this point, when I meet people my age who describe themselves as "picky eaters" my internal response is "Your parents were probably just bad cooks." At least the experience taught me to take responsibility for what I put into my body.
Super tasters are a thing.
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=super+tasters&ia=web
https://duckduckgo.com/?t=ffab&q=super+tasters&ia=web
Reminds me of the Simpsons episode where Homer burns his tongue so bad he becomes a super taster. And the only food he can eat is Bart's cafeteria food because it's so bland haha.
Interestingly, the wikipedia page for super tasters mentions that "some studies also show that increased sensitivity to bitter tastes may be a cause of selective eating." Interesting potential feedback loop.
Interestingly, the wikipedia page for super tasters mentions that "some studies also show that increased sensitivity to bitter tastes may be a cause of selective eating." Interesting potential feedback loop.
Room temp sauce on cooked pasta?! Just gagged reading this.
Can be the right thing to do—if it's not a red sauce. Pesto, oil-"sauces", that kind of thing.
That probably wouldn't be described as "inedible" then.
It was red sauce. Anything other than red sauce is too fancy for my parents.
My wife and I always heat the pesto a little in the pan - is that not the right thing to do?
My wife and I always heat the pesto a little in the pan - is that not the right thing to do?
Pesto burns really easily and its flavors after cooking are generally regarded as worse than when it's uncooked. Heating it a little probably doesn't hurt, but it's intended to be kind of a fresh sauce, so, little or no cooking. Doesn't come through as well with the jar stuff vs. home-made, but still.
I got through college on this, it actually wasn't that bad. I added little sauce (Most expensive part of the dish! I didn't buy cheap sauce.) and folded it into the boiling hot noodles immediately after draining. Brought the whole dish almost immediately to serving temperature, so I could eat right away instead of waiting for it to cool.
You should really check out /r/shittyfoodporn if you want to see just how much you can take.
clammy mouth noises
One of the things I did my whole life was never criticize my mother's cooking. (She was a much better cook than me, especially her pasta sauce.)
BUT: Once I started cooking I started coaching her back. Specifically, I taught her to defrost her burgers before grilling.
BUT: Once I started cooking I started coaching her back. Specifically, I taught her to defrost her burgers before grilling.
That's the spaghetti where the starches have curled back up and make it so the noodles and sauce are like oil and water. Ahh childhood.
Can anyone recommend good books on PTSD for relief from reading about OPs childhood?
To mix or not to mix? That is the question. Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer, the soaking of pasta in outrageous marinara, or to take arms against a sea of sauce.
I remember Anthony Bourdain asking his Sicilian family this question, and the table erupted in hot debate. I'm not sure you are "wrong".
I remember Anthony Bourdain asking his Sicilian family this question, and the table erupted in hot debate. I'm not sure you are "wrong".
Mixing and finishing the pasta in the sauce results in better tasting food. I don't care if some angry Sicilian claims that's not "authentic" or some garbage. They don't own the concept of pasta in tomato sauce anymore.
They never did. Tomatoes are 100% American. They do not grow natively in Italy or anywhere else in Europe.
I always found this to be extremely amusing, so much of our cultural food touchstones are less old than we think. Tempura for example, is originally Portuguese. Salmon was not used for sushi until pretty recently (needs to be flash frozen to be safe for this one). Japanese curry? From Britain! By way if India.
From India by way of Britain, right?
Yes sorry. That is the better way to say it.
EUers mostly eat Tomatoes grown within a few hundred miles of EU borders. Not from America.
Morocco is the leading supplier to the EU, accounting for 70% of the EU's total imports, followed by Turkey.
Morocco is the leading supplier to the EU, accounting for 70% of the EU's total imports, followed by Turkey.
He meant historically, tomatoes are native to South America before being brought everywhere else. So ie a Sicilian getting angry about not doing some red sauce pasta dish due to feeling this is their heritage original dish and they have patent on the proper procedure... it depends how far back in time you look.
Same ie potatoes in eastern Europe, a base in many many 'traditional' dishes. Yes if we look maybe 10 generations back, not so much for say 30 generations
Same ie potatoes in eastern Europe, a base in many many 'traditional' dishes. Yes if we look maybe 10 generations back, not so much for say 30 generations
Exactly. Use of red sauce in Italian cuisine is what, if it were invented today, we would call "Ibero-Italian fusion cuisine"; and the Spanish and Portuguese red sauces were developed after their early exploration of the Americas.
So much of creativity is the result of mixing diverse elements in unique ways. And it's especially rich to rant about "purity" or cultural "ownership" regarding something that is fundamentally the result of such a fusion.
EDIT: Speaking of which, if you haven't tried pasta or pizza with a Portuguese pepper-tomato sauce, you're missing out.
So much of creativity is the result of mixing diverse elements in unique ways. And it's especially rich to rant about "purity" or cultural "ownership" regarding something that is fundamentally the result of such a fusion.
EDIT: Speaking of which, if you haven't tried pasta or pizza with a Portuguese pepper-tomato sauce, you're missing out.
What they mean is that they originate from the Americas, not that it's the only place they grow, meaning it's not an ancient Italian dish. It didn't become popular in Italian food until the 18th century [1]
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Italy
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomato#Italy
While they might not have been making tomato-based pastas until the 17/18th century that's still earlier than the founding of the US - I think we can credit Sicily with having some impact on tomato based pastas!
I meant the Americas as a continent not the US specifically, and yeah I agree that Italy gets to be an authority on the subject. I was mainly replying to the other person taking "tomatoes are 100% American" to mean all tomatoes are grown in America because that wasn't at all what the comment they'd replied to was saying.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Also, you don't have to boil the pasta for the full 8 minutes or whatever, just the first couple of minutes, then let it sit, eg https://www.barilla.com/en-gb/passive-cooking
+1. I used to subscribe to "huge pot of boiling water" until Kenji studied it.
https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boi...
I've switched to his method. It works really well. Doesn't take as long to boil, uses less gas, uses less water, uses less salt (b/c you waste less in the water). Now I just heat the water to boiling, throw in the pasta, let it come back to a boil, stir a bunch, turn off the heat, and put the lid on. Works every time.
https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boi...
I've switched to his method. It works really well. Doesn't take as long to boil, uses less gas, uses less water, uses less salt (b/c you waste less in the water). Now I just heat the water to boiling, throw in the pasta, let it come back to a boil, stir a bunch, turn off the heat, and put the lid on. Works every time.
Had to wade through a lot of bad advice before finding a fellow Kenji acolyte ;) That man is an excellent teacher and a great mythbuster.
Obvious in retrospect: once the water is boiling, any other increase of energy will only be used to evaporate the water. The temperature won't increase. And water can stay hot long enough to cook the pasta. Also less vapor in the environment.
I'll try it next time.
I cared while I thought it was a way to better pasta. Very disappointing.
It's pasta, in boiling/hot water, so I'm not sure there are many variables apart from time.
I don't believe there's a 'gourmet method' or anything like that which can get better results than just 'correctly cooked' pasta.
But, you can measure the perfect cooking time/hydration by measuring the length ratio of cooked/dry (assuming spaghetti): https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2201/2201.09621.pdf
Perhaps you could use this to devise a protocol to parboil the pasta, and then finish hydrating it to the perfect consistency in the hot sauce.
I don't believe there's a 'gourmet method' or anything like that which can get better results than just 'correctly cooked' pasta.
But, you can measure the perfect cooking time/hydration by measuring the length ratio of cooked/dry (assuming spaghetti): https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/2201/2201.09621.pdf
Perhaps you could use this to devise a protocol to parboil the pasta, and then finish hydrating it to the perfect consistency in the hot sauce.
Someone introduced me to making red sauce by basically just cooking tomatoes for as much time as I have, and it's now my go-to red sauce. Really amazing how good just well-cooked tomatoes are. https://www.seriouseats.com/frankies-tomato-sauce-recipe
+1 just for the link to Serious Eats.
If you have a recipe in mind to make, look it up on Serious Eats. Their MO is to give you ideas on how to level up each recipe (compared to food network or similar) and explain the principles behind the techniques.
If you have a recipe in mind to make, look it up on Serious Eats. Their MO is to give you ideas on how to level up each recipe (compared to food network or similar) and explain the principles behind the techniques.
And really do look them up. In my experience they've completely lost the SEO game, so SRPs are not a reliable entry point to their (wealth of) content.
Well that should also be how they make tomato sauce you buy in the store, it's just filtered so you don't get seeds and large pieces of peel in it.
You can reduce the olive oil/salt for a lower-calorie/sodium version which is good for weight loss/high blood pressure
> One trick is to crush the garlic and let the oil it's in carry the flavor.
I usually sauté garlic in oil separately, discard the garlic and then use the oil as a sort of super garlic flavor concentrate.
I used to believe the actual ingredients were ~80% of the puzzle of cooking. I now believe they're closer to ~20% for most cases. The process you follow is way more important than anything else.
Just take a sweet onion for instance. The difference 2-3 minutes makes in a hot pan is incredible. If you simply chopped it up and threw it directly into whatever, you will wind up with something that tastes substantially less flavorful.
I usually sauté garlic in oil separately, discard the garlic and then use the oil as a sort of super garlic flavor concentrate.
I used to believe the actual ingredients were ~80% of the puzzle of cooking. I now believe they're closer to ~20% for most cases. The process you follow is way more important than anything else.
Just take a sweet onion for instance. The difference 2-3 minutes makes in a hot pan is incredible. If you simply chopped it up and threw it directly into whatever, you will wind up with something that tastes substantially less flavorful.
> Unlike rice, it's fine to "soak" pasta in the sauce
Why is this bad with rice? When I make a stew I often put some rice in, with the expectation that the rice will absorb some of the stew.
Why is this bad with rice? When I make a stew I often put some rice in, with the expectation that the rice will absorb some of the stew.
Rice can almost fully disintegrate if left in water, and will become something that disintegrates even more if stirred or agitated. In many other applications it replaces a pleasantly tactile and textured starch with a sort of sludge slurry, but as is often the case if you know and expect this it can be used in some applications advantageously. Thickening a stew is one of them. It's actually my favorite stew thickener. We discovered this the hard way once, though. We just "threw some rice" into a stew, and, well, if you put enough "sludge slurry" into a stew it starts to dominate... since then, though, it's been something very useful, especially since I'm allergic to flour, one of the traditional choices.
Same. Also to make risotto you cook the rice with everything else and keep stirring so the rice absorbs all of it whilst releasing starch to make that creamy texture.
It's not bad, per se. It depends what you're going for. There's a lot of different ways to cook rice "properly" depending on the end dish. Congee, risotto, paella, sushi, etc. all have you cook rice differently while adding various degrees of liquid at different times.
It doesn't work well with most Asian dishes with sauces. Such as butter chicken, curry, the stuff with coconut milk, sambal.
I think stew might be an exception, because you want it to be porridge-like. But for many sauces, that's too soggy. You usually want it to soak for a few seconds to minutes but not an hour.
I think stew might be an exception, because you want it to be porridge-like. But for many sauces, that's too soggy. You usually want it to soak for a few seconds to minutes but not an hour.
Relatedly, I spent far too long cooking my pizza sauce, treating it like other red sauces.
You can just mix tomato sauce, oregano, salt, and pepper, then slap it on the pie. It cooks in the oven. No need to pre-cook it.
[EDIT] unless you're gonna use it for dipping. There's a reason places have a separate "marinara", often, for that purpose. Even giving your pizza sauce a quick simmer will make it a lot better for dipping. Raw pizza sauce is... palatable, but not great, for dipping.
You can just mix tomato sauce, oregano, salt, and pepper, then slap it on the pie. It cooks in the oven. No need to pre-cook it.
[EDIT] unless you're gonna use it for dipping. There's a reason places have a separate "marinara", often, for that purpose. Even giving your pizza sauce a quick simmer will make it a lot better for dipping. Raw pizza sauce is... palatable, but not great, for dipping.
I learned this from the sopranos: https://youtu.be/J2TkCgLooRU
The following is well known by Italians, but apparently not the rest of the world so I'll post here. I'll use italian names whenever I don't know the english ones so you can search them and make a cool impression on friends. This is the base of any tomato based sauce:
1. Choose your soffritto base. Onion or garlic are fine, more exotic variations include scalogno or porro.
2. Choose your tomato. Canned, fresh, whatever, just keep in mind that fresh ones may need longer cooking times. As for canned, check that they contain no seasoning at all!
3. Choose your grease. Oil or butter are fine, the standard is olive oil though. It may be hard to find proper olive oil outside of Italy I'm told.
4. Start cooking. Put your oil in a large pan, enough to contain all the pasta you plan to use afterwards. Not too much oil: just enough to cover the pan with a thin layer. Don't start heating the pan.
5. Cut your onion or whatever in small pieces and add them to the oil. Now turn on the heat at a reasonable level. Not too high but not low. Don't touch the onion!
6. When the onion looks a bit browny (not dark brown), add the tomato and lower at minimum the heat. If you have a thermometer, ideally you don't want to cross 60 degrees celsius over all the cooking period. This period can vary between 10 minutes and 60 minutes, it gives different tastes (all good) to the sauce. If you opt for the shortest time, go back at step 5 and at the same time start the next step.
7. Put 1l of water for every 100g of pasta in a pot. Add salt. With experience you'll get the right amount, usually I use about a small fist for two people (160-200g). Heat up the water and wait until boiling.
8. Drop the pasta in the water. Start a chronometer. Almost immediately mix it or otherwise it will stick. Wait a couple of minutes and mix again.
9. Meanwhile the sauce will start bubbling and, depending on your kitchen, you may need to mix it. If you see large discrepancies in texture, definitely mix. Otherwise don't. If it becomes too dry, add some water from the cooking pasta to the sauce.
10. When the chronometer is at cooking_time_on_pasta_packaging - 2 minutes, take a glass of water and fill it with water from the pasta pot. Dry the pasta, and put it in the pan with the sauce. Make the heat level for the pan a bit higher.
11. Cook it until "al dente", that is still a bit hard at the inside, but not completely. If the sauce dries too much (it should, if not turn the heat higher), add the water you kept in the glass. This step is where science stops and art begins: you need to calibrate your taste to your desired results and in turn calibrate water and heating. During all this step, mix your pasta in the same direction continuously. This is called "risottatura". Taste the pasta while cooking often.
11. Take everything off the fire, serve, add parmisan.
Edit: look at maccard comment for water and salt because I don't recall the right quantities. After a while you go by eye.
Edit 2: preventing more comments on oil, that is merely my very limited experience and I'd say, as a rule of thumb (not incontrovertible truth), that if you like your oil alone with bread it is a good oil.
1. Choose your soffritto base. Onion or garlic are fine, more exotic variations include scalogno or porro.
2. Choose your tomato. Canned, fresh, whatever, just keep in mind that fresh ones may need longer cooking times. As for canned, check that they contain no seasoning at all!
3. Choose your grease. Oil or butter are fine, the standard is olive oil though. It may be hard to find proper olive oil outside of Italy I'm told.
4. Start cooking. Put your oil in a large pan, enough to contain all the pasta you plan to use afterwards. Not too much oil: just enough to cover the pan with a thin layer. Don't start heating the pan.
5. Cut your onion or whatever in small pieces and add them to the oil. Now turn on the heat at a reasonable level. Not too high but not low. Don't touch the onion!
6. When the onion looks a bit browny (not dark brown), add the tomato and lower at minimum the heat. If you have a thermometer, ideally you don't want to cross 60 degrees celsius over all the cooking period. This period can vary between 10 minutes and 60 minutes, it gives different tastes (all good) to the sauce. If you opt for the shortest time, go back at step 5 and at the same time start the next step.
7. Put 1l of water for every 100g of pasta in a pot. Add salt. With experience you'll get the right amount, usually I use about a small fist for two people (160-200g). Heat up the water and wait until boiling.
8. Drop the pasta in the water. Start a chronometer. Almost immediately mix it or otherwise it will stick. Wait a couple of minutes and mix again.
9. Meanwhile the sauce will start bubbling and, depending on your kitchen, you may need to mix it. If you see large discrepancies in texture, definitely mix. Otherwise don't. If it becomes too dry, add some water from the cooking pasta to the sauce.
10. When the chronometer is at cooking_time_on_pasta_packaging - 2 minutes, take a glass of water and fill it with water from the pasta pot. Dry the pasta, and put it in the pan with the sauce. Make the heat level for the pan a bit higher.
11. Cook it until "al dente", that is still a bit hard at the inside, but not completely. If the sauce dries too much (it should, if not turn the heat higher), add the water you kept in the glass. This step is where science stops and art begins: you need to calibrate your taste to your desired results and in turn calibrate water and heating. During all this step, mix your pasta in the same direction continuously. This is called "risottatura". Taste the pasta while cooking often.
11. Take everything off the fire, serve, add parmisan.
Edit: look at maccard comment for water and salt because I don't recall the right quantities. After a while you go by eye.
Edit 2: preventing more comments on oil, that is merely my very limited experience and I'd say, as a rule of thumb (not incontrovertible truth), that if you like your oil alone with bread it is a good oil.
This post is wrong in many areas,
> Canned, fresh, whatever, just keep in mind that fresh ones may need longer cooking times.
Unless you know you've got _excellent_ fresh tomatoes, canned ones will win.
> Oil or butter are fine
Cooking your onion in butter is going to give a very very different result to using oil. Personally speaking, not one I would recommend.
> It may be hard to find proper olive oil outside of Italy I'm told.
High quality dop/docg olive oil is readily available all over the world, and there are plenty of places all around the mediterranean that have olive oil as good as Italian oil.
> Put 1l of water for every 100g of pasta in a pot. Add salt.
This is way too much water. serious eats[0] has an excellent article that is well worth reading if you care about pasta. You also should give an indication of how much salt to use - it's way way way more than you think it is. Like, tablespoon of salt per litre of water salty.
[0] https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boi...
> Canned, fresh, whatever, just keep in mind that fresh ones may need longer cooking times.
Unless you know you've got _excellent_ fresh tomatoes, canned ones will win.
> Oil or butter are fine
Cooking your onion in butter is going to give a very very different result to using oil. Personally speaking, not one I would recommend.
> It may be hard to find proper olive oil outside of Italy I'm told.
High quality dop/docg olive oil is readily available all over the world, and there are plenty of places all around the mediterranean that have olive oil as good as Italian oil.
> Put 1l of water for every 100g of pasta in a pot. Add salt.
This is way too much water. serious eats[0] has an excellent article that is well worth reading if you care about pasta. You also should give an indication of how much salt to use - it's way way way more than you think it is. Like, tablespoon of salt per litre of water salty.
[0] https://www.seriouseats.com/how-to-cook-pasta-salt-water-boi...
>> > It may be hard to find proper olive oil outside of Italy I'm told.
> High quality dop/docg olive oil is readily available all over the world, and there are plenty of places all around the mediterranean that have olive oil as good as Italian oil.
There's a whole rabbit hole you can go down here. It's not clear cut AFAICT.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_oil_regulation_and_adult...
> High quality dop/docg olive oil is readily available all over the world, and there are plenty of places all around the mediterranean that have olive oil as good as Italian oil.
There's a whole rabbit hole you can go down here. It's not clear cut AFAICT.[0]
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_oil_regulation_and_adult...
Nowhere in that link does it say that it only happens on exports. It's also true of pretty much any product, e.g. wine [0], parmesan [1], champagne [2]
.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_fraud#Examples
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccahughes/2022/06/02/cheese...
[2] https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2022/12/e2m-of-fake-champa...
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wine_fraud#Examples
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/rebeccahughes/2022/06/02/cheese...
[2] https://www.thedrinksbusiness.com/2022/12/e2m-of-fake-champa...
I'm not saying it only happens on exports, nor am I arguing it happens with only olive oil. I'm responding directly to your claim that "high quality dop/docg olive oil is readily available all over the world."
It may be available, but readily available seems like a bit of a stretch to me. It can be deceptively difficult to obtain.
> It's reliably reported that 80% of the Italian olive oil on the market is fraudulent.[0]
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2016/02/10/the...
It may be available, but readily available seems like a bit of a stretch to me. It can be deceptively difficult to obtain.
> It's reliably reported that 80% of the Italian olive oil on the market is fraudulent.[0]
[0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/ceciliarodriguez/2016/02/10/the...
I disagree about tomatoes, you're right that to have a difference in taste of tomato alone you need very good tomatoes, but I was assuming the good taste of all the ingredients used. Anyway, using fresh tomatoes, especially if small, changes a dish completely because of its texture.
About oil it's clear, I think, if not sorry, that that is my experience, and as such should be interpreted. If you have good oil, all is good. I like to use butter, it's not standard but it's used. Of course you need less butter than the same amount of oil you'd use.
As for water/salt, you may be right and I will update my comment. I go by eye because I'm accustomed to the right quantities (or I taste the water for salt) so I was going by memory.
About oil it's clear, I think, if not sorry, that that is my experience, and as such should be interpreted. If you have good oil, all is good. I like to use butter, it's not standard but it's used. Of course you need less butter than the same amount of oil you'd use.
As for water/salt, you may be right and I will update my comment. I go by eye because I'm accustomed to the right quantities (or I taste the water for salt) so I was going by memory.
Again on butter: historically it was used in the north of Italy a lot, especially in the mountains, where oil wasn't available. My father didn't know what oil was when he was a boy. It was used in the center and south of Italy before it spread to everywhere. Today you will almost always find oil used, but I think it's an interesting variation. You can also do a split of oil and butter.
Roughly the dividing line between use of oil vs. butter (or lard) in traditional regional cuisine was slightly north of Bologna, until relatively recent times (I would say until post 2nd world war).
South, oil.
North, butter.
My grandmother (from Parma) firmly believed that olive oil was to be used uncooked for salads and similar.
JFYI:
https://www.cittadellolio.it/2017/06/15/olio-cucina-4-secoli...
South, oil.
North, butter.
My grandmother (from Parma) firmly believed that olive oil was to be used uncooked for salads and similar.
JFYI:
https://www.cittadellolio.it/2017/06/15/olio-cucina-4-secoli...
> but I was assuming the good taste of all the ingredients used.
In that case your entire post can be replaced with "use high quality ingredients, cook them".
> Anyway, using fresh tomatoes, especially if small, changes a dish completely because of its texture.
The texture is different, but "fresh" tomatoes that are readily available to most people even in season from their greengrocers are a poor substitue for even supermarket tinned tomatoes. My experience in Italy (and france/spain/croatia) is that excellent stuff is _available_, but it's not necessary "just" to use italian tomatoes - there's plenty of awful tomatoes available, and a large amount of the high quality tomatoes that _are_ grown in italy are canned and available outside italy; again DOCG San Marzano Tinned Tomatoes are available in supermarkets here in the UK.
> About oil it's clear, I think, if not sorry, that that is my experience, and as such should be interpreted.
It _really_ didn't come across as that to me, it came
In that case your entire post can be replaced with "use high quality ingredients, cook them".
> Anyway, using fresh tomatoes, especially if small, changes a dish completely because of its texture.
The texture is different, but "fresh" tomatoes that are readily available to most people even in season from their greengrocers are a poor substitue for even supermarket tinned tomatoes. My experience in Italy (and france/spain/croatia) is that excellent stuff is _available_, but it's not necessary "just" to use italian tomatoes - there's plenty of awful tomatoes available, and a large amount of the high quality tomatoes that _are_ grown in italy are canned and available outside italy; again DOCG San Marzano Tinned Tomatoes are available in supermarkets here in the UK.
> About oil it's clear, I think, if not sorry, that that is my experience, and as such should be interpreted.
It _really_ didn't come across as that to me, it came
beware of labels, because they can sometimes mislead. A whole lot of reports of fraudulent italian products exist (another thing we italians do great is fraud). Many things labeled as X DOC, DOP, DOCG don't necessarily equal high quality. Anyway, I sometimes buy Spain grown tomatoes and they're not that bad.
Another point: I don't think my whole comment can be reduced to the quality of ingredients. Of course better ingredient better your plate, but the process is important. Take good quality ingredients and mix everything in a pot, you don't get a good pasta (specific recipies excluded, general rule of thumb)
Another point: I don't think my whole comment can be reduced to the quality of ingredients. Of course better ingredient better your plate, but the process is important. Take good quality ingredients and mix everything in a pot, you don't get a good pasta (specific recipies excluded, general rule of thumb)
>> Canned, fresh, whatever, just keep in mind that fresh ones may need longer cooking times.
>
> Unless you know you've got _excellent_ fresh tomatoes, canned ones will win.
I would agree on this one. I live in France, so not that far from Italy, and our fresh tomatoes suck compared to Italian fresh tomatoes. Italian cuisine use simple products with few transformations because their products are amazing. If I try to do something as basic as tomato-mozzarella at home, it'll never be as good as the same Italian recipe because our tomatoes don't grow in the same weather.
Italian cuisine is very hard to make at home as well as they do it because of the quality of their raw products.
I would agree on this one. I live in France, so not that far from Italy, and our fresh tomatoes suck compared to Italian fresh tomatoes. Italian cuisine use simple products with few transformations because their products are amazing. If I try to do something as basic as tomato-mozzarella at home, it'll never be as good as the same Italian recipe because our tomatoes don't grow in the same weather.
Italian cuisine is very hard to make at home as well as they do it because of the quality of their raw products.
In this case yes, canned is better. Also longer cooking times. A trick for canned products is checking the indications of when they were harvested, for Italian products you have letters for the year of production, I bet there are similar rules in other countries as well. Better to get tomatoes harvested in summer and not too long ago
All of those are true but
>It may be hard to find proper olive oil outside of Italy I'm told.
Spanish and Greeks have nothing to be shy about here.
Spanish and Greeks have nothing to be shy about here.
This is the basic: many variations are possible, like heating oil before putting in the onion, onion cooking temperature, adding spices (but the only one I really like added is pepper). Also risottatura times can vary: some recipes are so extreme as cooking the raw pasta directly in the sauce, but unless you're making those specific recipes this is not recommended. A good time is 4 minutes, also 1 is good, if you want you can skip risottatura but at least do a copule of turns to pasta with sauce to mix everything together.
I have cooked the past directly in the sauce quite a few times. It tastes way better, but it takes way longer, so I don't bother much :)
I can't remember the specific recipe name, but putting uncooked pasta directly in the sauce is a thing you can do (well, you can do anything, as long as you make it taste good). But if unsure, mine is pretty close to the average recipe people do in their home.
Personally, I prefer cooking first for 5-6 minutes and then putting it in the sauce. Just my personal preference of course.
Personally, I prefer cooking first for 5-6 minutes and then putting it in the sauce. Just my personal preference of course.
And if you're making a red sauce, simmer a little anchovy paste or a couple anchovies (till they melt down) first with bay leaf, olive oil, and garlic before adding anything else into the pot. Broken up kalamata olives, basil, and onion are good around that point/shortly after too.
And when you add in the tomato puree (or your preference), add a tiny bit of sugar. If the sauce looks like it has a sheen, it's ruined. Just a tiny amount will do.
Do this and your sauce will taste 10 times better. Not a fan of anchovies, but you won't even be able to tell.
And when you add in the tomato puree (or your preference), add a tiny bit of sugar. If the sauce looks like it has a sheen, it's ruined. Just a tiny amount will do.
Do this and your sauce will taste 10 times better. Not a fan of anchovies, but you won't even be able to tell.
> it expands when freshly cooked but not when cool.
Make noodle soup and let it sit in the fridge for a week. It will expand.
Make noodle soup and let it sit in the fridge for a week. It will expand.
Yeah but "let sit in fridge for a week" is probably not a great instruction in the middle of an easy weeknight dinner.
I agree that people need to learn to combine them (add a little butter, too!). I like both variations, honestly. With most things, it's not either or, and there are different taste profiles. It's like variations on pizza where the sauce is added last.
> Unlike rice, it's fine to "soak" pasta in the sauce
Risotto would like a word.
Risotto would like a word.
You still don't soak risotto, you keep the liquid content within limits.
Also different rices.
Also different rices.
Heat your plates (e.g. with the cooking water) and rub dry to prevent your your delicious meal get cold too soon.
This is of course not only good for pasta.
and the secret spice of any sauce is ... sugar. yes, I'm very sorry. thank me later
I thought colorblindness tests were designed to be tricky and subtle, so I always passed them through very close inspection. I'm just colorblind.
I'm also colorblind and this cracked me up. I sent your comment to my friends who don't believe I can't see the numbers in those tests.
Had a friend who was absolutely convinced we were all pranking him when doing a colorblindness test. We were all doing the test because about 15 minutes prior, someone had asked him to grab a pink object off of a shelf and he came back with a green one in total seriousness
What cracked me up is when tons of color blind people on Reddit discovered peanut butter is not green.
My mom had me tested in kindergarten when we were learning the colors and I couldn't get pink right. I kept confusing it with white.
My kindergarten teacher basically beat me with their voice for not being able to get my colors correct. Two years later during art class, I was sent to the school nurse to find out I was colorblind. However, they never told anyone, not even my parents.
It really should be a part of general screening upon admittance to primary school. Then again, this was 30 years ago, so maybe it is now.
It really should be a part of general screening upon admittance to primary school. Then again, this was 30 years ago, so maybe it is now.
In grade 6, an adult came in to class to do a colourblind test on everyone.
Projection screen was lowered, lights turned off, and a series of multi-coloured dots on many slides were displayed one after another on the screen.
In the dots, there were numbers / letters in colours different from the general background colour of the slide.
Adult: "Can everyone see the number?"
Almost everyone: "YESSSSSS."
One boy: "Ummm - there's no number on the screen!"
Pregnant pause.
One boy: "Oh yeah. Now I see it."
Almost everyone turns their head to look at that one boy.
Test continues.
Afterwards, the one boy was selected for further consultation...
Projection screen was lowered, lights turned off, and a series of multi-coloured dots on many slides were displayed one after another on the screen.
In the dots, there were numbers / letters in colours different from the general background colour of the slide.
Adult: "Can everyone see the number?"
Almost everyone: "YESSSSSS."
One boy: "Ummm - there's no number on the screen!"
Pregnant pause.
One boy: "Oh yeah. Now I see it."
Almost everyone turns their head to look at that one boy.
Test continues.
Afterwards, the one boy was selected for further consultation...
Have you tried using those colorblind glasses? Maybe something like Enchroma [0] or dichroic filters?
[0] https://enchroma.com/
[0] https://enchroma.com/
I'm highly red/green colorblind. I got a pair of these as a gift and they allow me to differentiate between reds/greens much more clearly and to see red where I wouldn't notice without them. I know for some people they don't do much, but it makes hikes and such much more colorful for me!
Ooo! Good tip. Hiking with them.
I can't speak for OP's colorblindness, but for me those do basically nothing.
This company has so shady marketing. They don't work as advertised.
The way they hire actors to play out wholesome videos and upload them to YouTube as if it's organic content, with massive fake users to comment and push up false claims and down vote brigade all negative comments should tell you all you need about this shady company.
The way they hire actors to play out wholesome videos and upload them to YouTube as if it's organic content, with massive fake users to comment and push up false claims and down vote brigade all negative comments should tell you all you need about this shady company.
Lol, yeah, sometimes an analytical mind works against you by taking things too seriously.
This is when it would've been good to ask someone about it.
This is when it would've been good to ask someone about it.
[deleted]
I actually laughed at this one, you are a real hacker.
oh no
You should try a reverse colorblindness test like this: https://www.colorlitelens.com/color-blindness-test/secret-of...
That is one of the worst designed things I have ever seen. The instructions barely made sense at all for the first test, and for subsequent ones where you can enter 2 responses there is absolutely no indication what should be going on.
Wow, I was expecting this to be hyperbole but you’re right. No clue what you’re actually supposed to do on this site.
Yeah, I'm not sure what I did. But I went from question 1, to question 2, to question 2, then I saw a button saying "FINISH", so I clicked it and I got 12 answers wrong.
They're a site that sells goggles for the colorblind, so either way I wouldn't trust their colorblind diagnoses.
I’ve been in a lot of ophthalmologist’s offices for a variety of issues, and even had surgery as a child to correct one of them. The one issue I do not have is color blindness—and I’ve been given a lot of these tests.
This website doesn’t work on my iPhone’s screen. It’s impossible to discern most of the numbers, and the UI doesn’t instill confidence. Are they just using this garbage to hock their glasses to people who don’t need them?
This website is thoroughly broken, and nobody should even use it as a suggestion that they are or aren’t colorblind.
This website doesn’t work on my iPhone’s screen. It’s impossible to discern most of the numbers, and the UI doesn’t instill confidence. Are they just using this garbage to hock their glasses to people who don’t need them?
This website is thoroughly broken, and nobody should even use it as a suggestion that they are or aren’t colorblind.
I think the numbers are visibles only if you have color blindness
That's right. maushu even said it's a reverse color blindness test. If you can't see any of the numbers, then you likely do not experience red-green color blindness.
It's a completely broken test. The "correct" answers at the end indicate two-digits numbers for "plates" when only a single-digit answer was possible.
I, without color-blindness, can't make out any numbers. A coworker who is red/green colorblind also could not make out any numbers. Then the results, as I said, show that the whole process was broken from the start.
I, without color-blindness, can't make out any numbers. A coworker who is red/green colorblind also could not make out any numbers. Then the results, as I said, show that the whole process was broken from the start.
I just took a test. I cannot see shit in color. Haha. Fuk! Do those glasses actually help reverse this? I can clearly see RGB. But some hues look the same. Are people born color blind or is this wear and tear kind of situation?
Ignore this test. It doesn’t work on a computer. You need to take in in-person using specially-printed images.
Maybe they don't work to rule it out, but I am colourblind (as diagnosed in-person with specially-printed images by a professional optician) and when people have pointed me at these images on computers (only slightly less annoying than 'can you see this?', 'what colour is my shirt?') they've always 'worked' as expected.
This particular website doesn’t work on a computer. I’ve seen others that work well enough. This website is just broken. I believe this version is intended to only be legible if you’re colorblind, but good luck actually using it.
My father said to me: "I like a shower better than a bath, but ugh, that first blast of cold water when you turn it on is always a bit shocking."
Me: "Why don't you turn on the shower, wait for it to get warm, then get in?"
Him, realizing he'd been using a shower wrong for over 6 decades: "... huh."
Me: "Why don't you turn on the shower, wait for it to get warm, then get in?"
Him, realizing he'd been using a shower wrong for over 6 decades: "... huh."
There's a clever product that you can screw inline with the showerhead that lets cold water through at full blast but when the water gets hot, something pops (presumably using metal-expansion properties the way old thermostats did) and the flow is reduced to a trickle, so you only use just enough water to keep it hot.
Then when you get in, you pull a cord and it releases the full pressure of nice hot water.
Then when you get in, you pull a cord and it releases the full pressure of nice hot water.
We just keep a 5 gallon bucket next to the shower and fill it up with the pre-warm water. Then we use it to water the garden (and sometimes to power flush a stuck toilet).
The army method: stand there and take it like a man.
The Superman method: put your hand up to block the blast.
The Spiderman method: jump to the opposite side of the shower to avoid the blast.
The clever method: turn on the shower and wait outside.
The Superman method: put your hand up to block the blast.
The Spiderman method: jump to the opposite side of the shower to avoid the blast.
The clever method: turn on the shower and wait outside.
The Pakistani method: shower with fully cold water in the summer. And mock anyone (mostly spoiled people from the Middle East) who turns the water heater on during summer months.
Related: you can buy "hot water recirculation systems" to keep the water hot in your shower. When the water in your hot water pipes gets cold, it dumps it into your cold water pipes. Therefore the water isn't wasted.
This can save a lot of water if you're the type to let your shower run until it is warm. So some jurisdictions encourage their installation.
This can save a lot of water if you're the type to let your shower run until it is warm. So some jurisdictions encourage their installation.
Sounds like false economy to me. You’re saving a minute amount of water but using far more energy to keep less-insulated water warm.
"Far more" is relative, to say the least. We're talking about the amount of water that fills a shower pipe - very little - and unless you're only showering once a week it's not that big of a change.
In our house, the master bath is on the complete opposite side of the house from the water heater, and we have to run about two gallons of water before it gets hot, and if we wait more than 10 or 15 minutes between showers, the water in the pipes gets cold again, and we have to run another two gallons. In other words it isn't just the water in the shower pipe, it is the water in the full pipe between the heater and the shower.
I've just started looking into either getting a tank-less water heater in the master bathroom or a recirculating system to save water. I like that the recirculating system would help with the entire house, not just that one bathroom, but it is looking to be quite expensive and wasteful of energy, unless we can do something like have switches in the bathrooms and kitchen to manually turn on the recirculator for a few minutes before use instead of running the water for a few minutes.
I've just started looking into either getting a tank-less water heater in the master bathroom or a recirculating system to save water. I like that the recirculating system would help with the entire house, not just that one bathroom, but it is looking to be quite expensive and wasteful of energy, unless we can do something like have switches in the bathrooms and kitchen to manually turn on the recirculator for a few minutes before use instead of running the water for a few minutes.
Look at instant hot water heaters to colocate near the fixtures; they don’t have to be powerful enough to provide hot water for the entire fixture use, just the time between when fixture use starts and hot water arrives from the primary heat appliance.
Fossil gas tankless units are nice because they can be installed on the exterior of a home and are maintenance free, but emit CO2 and can be expensive depending on your gas costs (they’re better for seasonal dwellings imho). Ideal combination is resistive instant heaters at points of use with a heat pump water heater for the whole dwelling.
Fossil gas tankless units are nice because they can be installed on the exterior of a home and are maintenance free, but emit CO2 and can be expensive depending on your gas costs (they’re better for seasonal dwellings imho). Ideal combination is resistive instant heaters at points of use with a heat pump water heater for the whole dwelling.
They don't have to be instant either: I've seen 120V plugin models that have a small tank. No idea what's better, but you don't need a 240V hookup in the bathroom to have a "while the pipes heat up" heat source.
In my house it's a lot. Due to the shower being in a different spot than when the house was originally built so the routing is about as inefficient as possible, there's well over 100 feet of pipe between our hot water tank and our shower.
How much time does it take? In the US almost all shower-heads and faucets will only use a maximum of 2.5 gallons per minute. For me the water will get hot in about 30 seconds. So I am using approximately 1.25 gallons of water. For me that is acceptable.
You probably wouldn't need it in a single-family dwelling, but there's a recirculation system in my 100+ unit building and it works great. Once it was turned off by accident and it took almost a minute to get hot water. Multiply that by all the neighbors and it seems like a good bargain.
Like all thing in the water-energy nexus, the right answer depends on whether you live in a water-stressed environment. In California this may be a great idea, but it is probably not useful in New York.
There is no water shortage, there is an energy shortage. You can easily desalinate as much water as you want, it costs about $0.002 per gallon, while heating a gallon of water is 10x that.
Desal is 3.8 kilowatt-hours per thousand gallons while heating water 70 F to 120 F (reasonable minimum range) is 122 kWh per thousand gallons. You're absolutely right, this is a case where it makes no sense to use energy to save water.
Probably depends on your heater setup. My parents have a flow-activated central heating system in the basement and waiting for warm water can take over a minute. In my current apartment, I have an electric heater basically next to the shower and the water is warm within a few seconds at most.
I wonder why combination of central water heating plus electric heaters at the faucets is not more common. Probably the cost.
I don't know if they are still around, but I've seen a shower head that includes a clever mechanism to reduce water waste if you let the shower run until warm.
When you turn on the shower, the head operates normally while the water is cold. When the water becomes warm a valve in the head closes to stop the flow. There is a button on the head you press to open the valve, which then stays open until you turn off the water.
The idea is that many people turn on the shower to warm up but don't just wait around in the bathroom to jump in as soon as the water is warm. They go do other things like start their coffee machine or wake up the kids or check the news and weather. Between the time the shower warms up and they get around to coming to see if it is warm they might waster several minutes worth of warm water.
With this clever shower head they don't waste that water. Also, if they can hear the shower running from wherever they are doing other stuff when they hear it stop they know the warm water is ready.
When you turn on the shower, the head operates normally while the water is cold. When the water becomes warm a valve in the head closes to stop the flow. There is a button on the head you press to open the valve, which then stays open until you turn off the water.
The idea is that many people turn on the shower to warm up but don't just wait around in the bathroom to jump in as soon as the water is warm. They go do other things like start their coffee machine or wake up the kids or check the news and weather. Between the time the shower warms up and they get around to coming to see if it is warm they might waster several minutes worth of warm water.
With this clever shower head they don't waste that water. Also, if they can hear the shower running from wherever they are doing other stuff when they hear it stop they know the warm water is ready.
I get in, turn the water on max hot, and stick my hand in the stream of water coming out of the tub spigot. As it gets hotter, I adjust the temperature setting and converge on the right place. Then, I hit the diverter so water comes out of the shower head, while I stand mostly out of the spray (avoiding residual cold water and it takes a few seconds to warm up the pipes themselves). Then I stand fully under the spray and do minor adjustments, which continue throughout the shower.
This seems natural to me, but I've never met anyone else who does it this way.
This seems natural to me, but I've never met anyone else who does it this way.
I think it really depends on your water system at home. In this apartment, the water heats up fast and gets really, really hot. So it takes about 5 seconds to reach the desired setting. There’s also a pretty good range where it feels good to get in. So it’s just not worth putting a lot of thought into it.
At other apartments, I’ve had more involved systems.
This thread is making me think of that blog title: Reality has a surprising amount of detail.
At other apartments, I’ve had more involved systems.
This thread is making me think of that blog title: Reality has a surprising amount of detail.
I didn't spend any time designing that set of steps or anything. Rather at each point I'm just doing the immediate thing that will get me showering the quickest.
It's probably most useful when the hot water comes up quick, less useful when you have to wait a while for that. And it fails horribly when the hot water isn't working.
I've never felt the need to adjust though, except for shower-only stalls and the like.
It's probably most useful when the hot water comes up quick, less useful when you have to wait a while for that. And it fails horribly when the hot water isn't working.
I've never felt the need to adjust though, except for shower-only stalls and the like.
Same, but no diverter, they are not common in Australia.
Me too
My friend in Cupertino had these on the shower head to stop water as soon as it’s hot: ShowerStart TSV 3 Hot Water... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07WZQTWLG?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_shar.... Bought one and it’s pretty great to clear out long cold pipes
Our local power company sells these and other power/water saving devices at a roughly 50% discount over retail/amazon: https://www.dtemarketplace.com/collections/water
I think those mostly work when the shower is running though. When it's stopped the water in the cold pipe is eventually going to get cold. Still a good idea - I've been planning to get one when I next redo my bathroom.
These work when the hot water is cold, about twice a day for me, less if the shower is used regularly. The valve opens and water flows from your hot water pipe into your cold water pipe.
So you should turn it off when you go on vacation.
So you should turn it off when you go on vacation.
What's "a lot of water" in this context? My shower typically takes just a few seconds to get to temperature. Even a quick shower is typically a few minutes, so that tiny amount seems insignificant.
Why do not people use a bucket and a mug. By collecting water from the shower from freezing cold to scalding hot you average out the temperature for a nice warm shower and no wastage.
That makes me wonder if there's a system that can recycle the heat lost in drain (hot water from the shower that just got drained).
I looked at this kind of thing a while ago: https://www.showersave.com/
It seems like a no brainer, but the prices are so high (like £700 / $900) that it would take many many years to pay back the cost, so it wasn't worth it.
It seems like a no brainer, but the prices are so high (like £700 / $900) that it would take many many years to pay back the cost, so it wasn't worth it.
www.ecoinnovation.ca
or
https://www.supplyhouse.com/ThermoDrain
[deleted]
Not quite as effective, but even easier is that you can get a back-flow preventer valve (approximately $10 worth of metal) that allows the hot water to push into your cold water (but not the reverse)
As I understand it (and I am NOT a plumber) -- when you turn on the hot water, it pushes hot water up the line. Turn off the water, and that water will cool. But, if you add a one-way valve that allows flow from hot to cold, it will allow the higher pressure hot water line to flow into the cold water line so that it keeps hot water to the tap so that you don't have to wait (in my case) 5 minutes to flush out the cold water that has accumulated before getting to the hot water.
A plumber friend suggested this to me when I complained about my master bathroom (the furthest in the house away from the heater) taking SO LONG to warm up. Then he came out and installed it in about 15 minutes (which would probably amount to a one hour minimum charge for a plumber not doing it for free) plus a $10 part he had us buy on Amazon.
TLDR, now instead of taking 5 minutes to heat up from ice cold to warm to eventually hot, the hot water is warm from the second I open it, and hot within about 15-20 seconds.
As I understand it (and I am NOT a plumber) -- when you turn on the hot water, it pushes hot water up the line. Turn off the water, and that water will cool. But, if you add a one-way valve that allows flow from hot to cold, it will allow the higher pressure hot water line to flow into the cold water line so that it keeps hot water to the tap so that you don't have to wait (in my case) 5 minutes to flush out the cold water that has accumulated before getting to the hot water.
A plumber friend suggested this to me when I complained about my master bathroom (the furthest in the house away from the heater) taking SO LONG to warm up. Then he came out and installed it in about 15 minutes (which would probably amount to a one hour minimum charge for a plumber not doing it for free) plus a $10 part he had us buy on Amazon.
TLDR, now instead of taking 5 minutes to heat up from ice cold to warm to eventually hot, the hot water is warm from the second I open it, and hot within about 15-20 seconds.
If you have a sink near the shower, run it full blast on hot to flush the cold water from the pipe.
This mainly saves time, but it also saves water if your shower mixer valve doesn't go to 100% hot. (It's generally good to keep the hot limiter below 100%, to avoid full-body scalding.)
This mainly saves time, but it also saves water if your shower mixer valve doesn't go to 100% hot. (It's generally good to keep the hot limiter below 100%, to avoid full-body scalding.)
I think that blast of cold water might have done good things for his endorphin levels. Just curious about this anecdote, was he generally a happy person?
for me, I take showers at night close to bed time. The last thing I want to experience is a cold shock to my system at that time of day. I can see it being useful in the morning though
That ... still seems like the wrong way. Every shower I've known has let you angle the head down. So start it that way, feel for the water to get warm, then turn it towards you.
With the method you described, it takes longer, with more water usage, to get into position, plus you let some water spray out into the rest of the bathroom as you transition inside it.
With the method you described, it takes longer, with more water usage, to get into position, plus you let some water spray out into the rest of the bathroom as you transition inside it.
Wim Hof would disagree. I always start and end my showers with 1 minute of full cold (in Canada, so cold = 8°C)
I'm sure we can find a bizarre cult/motivational speaker/pyramid scheme to disagree with anything though.
Why start the shower full cold? (I end showers cold, not sure if 1 minute, sometimes less sometimes more depending on mood)
I start with full cold because it's more of a shock to the system. I find the cold water improves my mood and provides a daily dose of "suck it up, buttercup". I've __almost__ started crave that cold shock in the mornings now, and the cold water at the end of the hot shower feels like .. relief.
I like your dad's way better; also don't turn on the warm water
But that would ruin the best waking part of 95% of my days.
Reminds me of an old joke:
> The best part of having cold showers every day? You'll never get arthritis!
> The worst part? You'll have cold showers every day.
> The best part of having cold showers every day? You'll never get arthritis!
> The worst part? You'll have cold showers every day.
> The best part of having cold showers every day? You'll never get arthritis!
Is that so? My joints in fingers and toes can hurt quite badly after being to too much cold water. Doesn't feel like it's helping them in any way - quite the opposite.
Is that so? My joints in fingers and toes can hurt quite badly after being to too much cold water. Doesn't feel like it's helping them in any way - quite the opposite.
Huh. I just block the stream with my hand until it warms up.
I literally started doing this like five days ago. I'm 43...
Haha! Thanks for sharing! I had a good laugh :D
Right; the cold blast comes at the end!
my shower at my current apartment actually have the temp and volume nozzles separate so that i can taper the water pressure and it stays hot. Its delightful, i dont know why this isnt standard.
i meant that i intentionally run it on cold for the last 30 seconds or so of a shower.
Haha, gotta love the simple solutions
Worrying and arguing about things in the future.
I wasted so much time and energy on this but as I get older I've realised there is so little of what we can actually control vs what we think we can do. Most of the time just saying Yes and waiting for things to actually happen is so much easier. A lot of time what you worry about never happens and if it does it isn't always as bad as you make things out to be in your head. A lot of times it turns out to be actually good and it would've been a shame to avoid it.
Also when you say yes to people, a lot of time the other person never actually follows through the thing you didn't want. Otoh if you would argue or say No beforehand it always has the opposite effect.
I guess for most people this is common sense but I did this wrong for a large younger part of my life.
I wasted so much time and energy on this but as I get older I've realised there is so little of what we can actually control vs what we think we can do. Most of the time just saying Yes and waiting for things to actually happen is so much easier. A lot of time what you worry about never happens and if it does it isn't always as bad as you make things out to be in your head. A lot of times it turns out to be actually good and it would've been a shame to avoid it.
Also when you say yes to people, a lot of time the other person never actually follows through the thing you didn't want. Otoh if you would argue or say No beforehand it always has the opposite effect.
I guess for most people this is common sense but I did this wrong for a large younger part of my life.
I argue for the future so much. I hope to be able to at one point get rid of my anxiety about it. But:
> Also when you say yes to people, a lot of time the other person never actually follows through the thing you didn't want. Otoh if you would argue or say No beforehand it always has the opposite effect.
I recently started doing this and it's amazing. I was the one saying 'no' to so many 'offers' (as a full stack developer, from idea people), and always ended up being the negative guy that doesn't want to do things.
Recently I've started enthousiastically saying "Yeah, that sounds great! In order to get started, I'd need <whatever_thing_that_they_need_to_do> from you.". Up till now no one has followed up. When we talk about it next, I am as excited as in the beginning and mentioned the thing that they need to do again, and they usually go like "Oh yeah! I need to do that." and then I never hear about it again. It's a shocker to me.
> Also when you say yes to people, a lot of time the other person never actually follows through the thing you didn't want. Otoh if you would argue or say No beforehand it always has the opposite effect.
I recently started doing this and it's amazing. I was the one saying 'no' to so many 'offers' (as a full stack developer, from idea people), and always ended up being the negative guy that doesn't want to do things.
Recently I've started enthousiastically saying "Yeah, that sounds great! In order to get started, I'd need <whatever_thing_that_they_need_to_do> from you.". Up till now no one has followed up. When we talk about it next, I am as excited as in the beginning and mentioned the thing that they need to do again, and they usually go like "Oh yeah! I need to do that." and then I never hear about it again. It's a shocker to me.
AKA, the "Wally Reflector", https://imgur.com/Db0c9eP
It's really easy for people to put stuff on your to-do list, reflecting even a tiny task on them before you accept it makes so many requests go away.
Related to this for me, I generally make it clear that sending an email request does not mean a task is transferred to me. We need to have a conversation and agree before it goes on my list..
It's really easy for people to put stuff on your to-do list, reflecting even a tiny task on them before you accept it makes so many requests go away.
Related to this for me, I generally make it clear that sending an email request does not mean a task is transferred to me. We need to have a conversation and agree before it goes on my list..
Scott Adams goes in more detail on this in his "How to Fail" book. He says that after Dilbert, he got tons of requests to meet with amateur comic artists. He said the best filter was to ask them to prepare a list of questions for their meeting and that filtered out 98% of the people who contacted him.
He also noted that the people who actually did it would follow through and one such person was the author of "Pearls before Swine".
He also noted that the people who actually did it would follow through and one such person was the author of "Pearls before Swine".
Yes. You don't even need to be unreasonable.
Just a tiny clarification that requires 20 minutes of work is plenty.
Yes to this too! Conscious business taught me all about the difference between reasonable and unreasonable requests how to make reasonable ones. There's more pieces than I expected.
Just a tiny clarification that requires 20 minutes of work is plenty.
Yes to this too! Conscious business taught me all about the difference between reasonable and unreasonable requests how to make reasonable ones. There's more pieces than I expected.
People like dreaming more than they enjoy actualization. Pulling dreams into reality is hard work and necessarily heartbreaking as reality and dreams don't match.
Yes, this one hits home.
I subsequently realized that my “no” is often more involved because I actually have the idea more thought out than whoever was proposing the idea.
Then I realized that most “yes” in many contexts just means “no”. :-/ (And “no” means “no and you’re dumb” lol)
I subsequently realized that my “no” is often more involved because I actually have the idea more thought out than whoever was proposing the idea.
Then I realized that most “yes” in many contexts just means “no”. :-/ (And “no” means “no and you’re dumb” lol)
Ok, this makes more sense. Like asking you to do something that requires effort. Like group projects from HS. Or “wanna start a startup with me?”
Here's a pithy little saying for you on the topic: "Worry is interest paid in advance on a debt you may never owe."
So, insurance?
What I want to say is that there is time and place for worrying. And sure, worrying about everything is counter productive.
What I want to say is that there is time and place for worrying. And sure, worrying about everything is counter productive.
That's a clever way of thinking about it. I like that. Sometimes insurance is invaluable and sometimes it is worthless.
But when it's the default you get the American medical system.
But when it's the default you get the American medical system.
You should read about stoicism and the Dichotomy of control.
I was pretty much very rational on things that I worry about, mainly asking myself "is this something I can do something about?" If not, I wouldn't worry about it anymore. After some years I learned how aligned I was to stoicism.
I used to worry about everything, now I mostly worry about stuff that has actually blown up in the last and people still prefer pain to preparedness.
I do see the Illusion of Control aspect in myself and others, and it’s weird being on the other side of that now and trying to explain to people that what they want isn’t what they need and also that we can put as much effort in as we like or we can just plan to do it twice and get on with it.
The latter is a problem magnified by management, who don’t want to pay for anything twice and will apply huge social pressure in service of the sunk cost fallacy.
I do see the Illusion of Control aspect in myself and others, and it’s weird being on the other side of that now and trying to explain to people that what they want isn’t what they need and also that we can put as much effort in as we like or we can just plan to do it twice and get on with it.
The latter is a problem magnified by management, who don’t want to pay for anything twice and will apply huge social pressure in service of the sunk cost fallacy.
You're comment threw me. I thought I was following, but discussions on the future of technology/whatever don't come with yes/no questions.
Can you give an example? Like “do you want to go ice skating Saturday?” also doesn't seem to fit your comment.
Can you give an example? Like “do you want to go ice skating Saturday?” also doesn't seem to fit your comment.
I feel this strongly, but it's very hard for me to stop worrying anyways. Any specific tips?
A big part of relieving worry is accepting that no matter what you do bad things do and will happen. It all comes down to being comfortable with uncertainty.
There are many ways of doing this, but consciously recognizing it and labeling is as such then allowing yourself to be okay with the possibility of the bad thing happening.
If it is a big worry sometimes you need to make it as specific as possible. Like getting fired. What exact steps would happen? What would your boss say specifically? And is that exact scenario likely to happen?
If you're still having trouble do the above, but at the end change who its about, to a co-worker for example, then ask again is this a likely scenario. And if it is then the outcome won't be that bad. If it isn't then you also have your answer.
Another is to describe the worry in detail to another person because to describe it you need to make it specific and linearize it. This is why talking it/rubber ducking out works so well. They can also point out gaps and whatnot. Usually my the time your done the worry is gone.
Many friends feel like they're not actually helping here, but just listening is the help and it makes a big difference. On the flip side you may feel like you're wasting the other person’s time because at the end there's nothing to do. His is also false, most people are happy to help even if they don't know what they did.
Anxiety/worry usually comes from unexamined fears which throw every possible bad result into your head. But pinning down specific stories you can eliminate many of them.
There are many ways of doing this, but consciously recognizing it and labeling is as such then allowing yourself to be okay with the possibility of the bad thing happening.
If it is a big worry sometimes you need to make it as specific as possible. Like getting fired. What exact steps would happen? What would your boss say specifically? And is that exact scenario likely to happen?
If you're still having trouble do the above, but at the end change who its about, to a co-worker for example, then ask again is this a likely scenario. And if it is then the outcome won't be that bad. If it isn't then you also have your answer.
Another is to describe the worry in detail to another person because to describe it you need to make it specific and linearize it. This is why talking it/rubber ducking out works so well. They can also point out gaps and whatnot. Usually my the time your done the worry is gone.
Many friends feel like they're not actually helping here, but just listening is the help and it makes a big difference. On the flip side you may feel like you're wasting the other person’s time because at the end there's nothing to do. His is also false, most people are happy to help even if they don't know what they did.
Anxiety/worry usually comes from unexamined fears which throw every possible bad result into your head. But pinning down specific stories you can eliminate many of them.
I would recommend therapy. It's helped me loads. Meditation can also help (but if you suspect you had a traumatic childhood, discuss meditation first with your therapist).
The reason I suggest therapy is because it can be a number of reasons for the underlying anxiety. I think it's mostly a symptom of something else, rather than a standalone issue.
The reason I suggest therapy is because it can be a number of reasons for the underlying anxiety. I think it's mostly a symptom of something else, rather than a standalone issue.
Therapy is great, but it can be very slow to get started because there can be a long ramp up process.
There are many techniques that don't require a counselor/therapist. I highly recommend the youtube channel healthygamer_gg. There's a great community and many suggestions for well understood steps you can take on your own.
Also, realizing you're not he only one feeling this way can help a TON!
There are many techniques that don't require a counselor/therapist. I highly recommend the youtube channel healthygamer_gg. There's a great community and many suggestions for well understood steps you can take on your own.
Also, realizing you're not he only one feeling this way can help a TON!
I've participated in the group coaching program offered by healthygamer.gg (I like what they do) and I'd like to share my POV:
For people with deep seated emotional/behavioral problems, I would strongly recommend against it. The coaches in the program aren't trained to be therapists, they're only there to facilitate discussions and prevent subgrouping. The kind of work involved with trauma and neglect is much better handled by a licensed therapist. Can't speak to individual coaching, but I imagine it's similar based on what I've asked about the coach's training. The only upside to the group coaching is it's cheap at $30 for a 90min session each week.
After fixing a lot of problems in my life, I joined the program expecting to talk to other people that are 90% of the way to getting their shit together but most of the people in group had much deeper, unresolved dysfunctions that __really__ brought me down. By all means, reach out and seek companionship in hard times, but individual therapy yields much stronger results.
For people with deep seated emotional/behavioral problems, I would strongly recommend against it. The coaches in the program aren't trained to be therapists, they're only there to facilitate discussions and prevent subgrouping. The kind of work involved with trauma and neglect is much better handled by a licensed therapist. Can't speak to individual coaching, but I imagine it's similar based on what I've asked about the coach's training. The only upside to the group coaching is it's cheap at $30 for a 90min session each week.
After fixing a lot of problems in my life, I joined the program expecting to talk to other people that are 90% of the way to getting their shit together but most of the people in group had much deeper, unresolved dysfunctions that __really__ brought me down. By all means, reach out and seek companionship in hard times, but individual therapy yields much stronger results.
Yeah, I would say I was worried about that too. I haven’t participated, but that was my sense too. Group coaching is valuable, but it needs to be the right group with everyone working on the same things. So screening is super important here.
That said his videos are excellent. He really knows his stuff and can help people start down the path improvement or to resolve simpler issues, but for deep seated issues individual therapy, not coaching, is probably a better choice.
Yeah, my impression is Dr. K is trying to get a lot of mal-adjusted people to start down he road to being emotionally healthy, but there’s such a pent-up need for this it's going to be a shitshow for a long time. So there's going to be a lot of toxicity coming out in those group session and if you're beyond the very beginning of your journey avoid them.
That said his videos are excellent. He really knows his stuff and can help people start down the path improvement or to resolve simpler issues, but for deep seated issues individual therapy, not coaching, is probably a better choice.
Yeah, my impression is Dr. K is trying to get a lot of mal-adjusted people to start down he road to being emotionally healthy, but there’s such a pent-up need for this it's going to be a shitshow for a long time. So there's going to be a lot of toxicity coming out in those group session and if you're beyond the very beginning of your journey avoid them.
Thanks for the suggestion!
You might be interested in reading The Mindful Path through Worry and Rumination by Dr. Sameet Kumar. I've read it multiple times and worked through it with many of my friends. A game changer for me. He makes a great case, backed up by scientific evidence, for a regular mindfulness practice can help with worry and rumination.
People see something like this and say "wow, <basic human emotion/instinct> isn't doing anything for me, how can I get rid of it?" and it becomes a sort of self-gaslighting. You're worrying about the future because it serves a function, or has served a function in the past. Find out what it's doing for you, and figure out something else you can do instead. Or maybe come to the conclusion that it actually is helping you, and accept that part of yourself.
Maybe you can acknowledge your worry, and rather than ruminating on it and letting it eat at you, you can come up with a plan to deal with the thing that's worrying you. Maybe that plan is to wait until it specifically requires your action, and give yourself permission to not worry about it for now.
Maybe you can acknowledge your worry, and rather than ruminating on it and letting it eat at you, you can come up with a plan to deal with the thing that's worrying you. Maybe that plan is to wait until it specifically requires your action, and give yourself permission to not worry about it for now.
If when you coil a long cable or hose you find yourself fighting a twist as you coil… then you should learn to coil in an alternating overhand/underhand style. Google a video. Basically when grabbing the next hunk of cable you alternate between your thumb pointing away from you down the cable and your thumb point back up the cable to you and things just sort of happen right.
When you uncoil the cable it will be laying flat on the ground with no twists.
An alternative for massive cables it lay it out in a figure 8 on the ground. That will also pay out without twists.
Extension: The upright vacuum cleaner you've been using that releases the cord from the handle by twisting the top hook down? If it is leaving you with a twisted mess of cord, that means you haven't been winding it up in a figure 8.
Even more, since you got this far: Do this with your short cables too. Your USB and audio cables will last longer. When you have a twisted cable, a torque shows up at each individual wire where it meets its connector. The repeated twisting and untwisting leads to connection failure.
And when you get a new cable that is rolled up (any Apple cable), unroll it instead of pulling the ends apart. Then you cable need never have twists put into it.
When you uncoil the cable it will be laying flat on the ground with no twists.
An alternative for massive cables it lay it out in a figure 8 on the ground. That will also pay out without twists.
Extension: The upright vacuum cleaner you've been using that releases the cord from the handle by twisting the top hook down? If it is leaving you with a twisted mess of cord, that means you haven't been winding it up in a figure 8.
Even more, since you got this far: Do this with your short cables too. Your USB and audio cables will last longer. When you have a twisted cable, a torque shows up at each individual wire where it meets its connector. The repeated twisting and untwisting leads to connection failure.
And when you get a new cable that is rolled up (any Apple cable), unroll it instead of pulling the ends apart. Then you cable need never have twists put into it.
This genuinely makes a huge difference with extension cords, garden hoses, etc., but reversing my grip never made this "just happen" the way the videos said it would. For anyone else who struggles, the main goal is to twist every other loop in the "wrong" direction, which negates the previous twist. This still forms a spiral shape, but as you create loops, the loose end alternates between laying on top of the loop and tucking under it. You can accomplish this without reversing your grip if you just alternate your twists instead.
Yes! And it is absolutely critical in using climbing ropes to NOT coil by loop+twist, but double-loops without twisting (to the point where it is a firing offense in climbing schools to coil w/loop+twist method); it is critical that you can uncoil a rope instantly with minimal risk of tangling.
This also works better for air hoses, water hoses, etc. If the thing isn't on a winding/unwinding reel, use the double-loop method; everything will last longer and you'll save yourself a lot of trouble.
This also works better for air hoses, water hoses, etc. If the thing isn't on a winding/unwinding reel, use the double-loop method; everything will last longer and you'll save yourself a lot of trouble.
> new cable that is rolled up (any Apple cable), unroll it instead of pulling the ends apart
An alternative method is gravity. Hold the cable up by one end and let it untwist. Obviously, don't do this for 10 foot (3m) cables unless you're very tall.
An alternative method is gravity. Hold the cable up by one end and let it untwist. Obviously, don't do this for 10 foot (3m) cables unless you're very tall.
Yup, this! I learned it from a musician for patch cables.
A quarter twist per loop is all it takes for nicely rolled cords your whole life!
Rereading your comment, yours is a more complicated one. I'll have to look it up. I've never needed more than a quarter twist per loop.
A quarter twist per loop is all it takes for nicely rolled cords your whole life!
Rereading your comment, yours is a more complicated one. I'll have to look it up. I've never needed more than a quarter twist per loop.
The wrist only needs to twist a small amount, just enough to make the next loop of cable fall the right direction. The amount of twist on the cable itself will be greater.
I used to be a NIMBY. I thought small neighborhoods that have nice characteristics should never evolve or change, I thought places with tons of people were unpleasant to live in, I looked down on people who could afford market-rate new housing ("evil techies"), I thought new development increased rents (it doesn't).
20ish years later, seeing the homelessness, property crime, and housing crisis in the Bay Area, I am convinced I was wrong and wish that the area had built a ton more housing in the past. There used to be so many artists that were able to survive on a part-time cafe job back then. That's no longer possible and it's a bummer and makes the area so much more mundane.
I do still consider open space and parks important and valuable and don't support building new housing on a lot of those types of places.
20ish years later, seeing the homelessness, property crime, and housing crisis in the Bay Area, I am convinced I was wrong and wish that the area had built a ton more housing in the past. There used to be so many artists that were able to survive on a part-time cafe job back then. That's no longer possible and it's a bummer and makes the area so much more mundane.
I do still consider open space and parks important and valuable and don't support building new housing on a lot of those types of places.
I read an article I found on HN about how housing regulations ensure there is a minimum price on housing. If you can only afford housing below the minimum required to meet the regulations then you go homeless.
We don't want people homeless but on the other hand, we don't want people producing unsafe housing just to keep costs down.
It's a particularly nasty problem that I've only seen discussed in that one article.
We don't want people homeless but on the other hand, we don't want people producing unsafe housing just to keep costs down.
It's a particularly nasty problem that I've only seen discussed in that one article.
In this context "housing regulations" doesn't usually mean stuff like electrical standards[1]
It means stuff like "houses must be single story", "no apartments", "yards required", "minimum 2500 square feet", "setback from street".
[1] - Although I have seen a lot of threads about how the requirements for multiple exits in US apartment buildings is probably unjustified. See also elevator requirements.
It means stuff like "houses must be single story", "no apartments", "yards required", "minimum 2500 square feet", "setback from street".
[1] - Although I have seen a lot of threads about how the requirements for multiple exits in US apartment buildings is probably unjustified. See also elevator requirements.
This is a general economic argument against any government-mandated price control.
People see someone making $6/hour and think that passing a law that minimum wage must be $8 means that person will now make $8, but technically the law only says "it is now illegal to pay that person $6."
Some businesses may be able to afford the raise and still turn a profit, but for others, if that person's labor is worth $7/hour to your bottom line, it is suddenly no longer a good business decision to keep them employed.
People see someone making $6/hour and think that passing a law that minimum wage must be $8 means that person will now make $8, but technically the law only says "it is now illegal to pay that person $6."
Some businesses may be able to afford the raise and still turn a profit, but for others, if that person's labor is worth $7/hour to your bottom line, it is suddenly no longer a good business decision to keep them employed.
It all depends on where their wage is on the cost/value curve. It's true that if the company is paying their employees close to their contributed value, increasing the minimum wage will put them out of a job, there often isn't a force that reliably pushes a wage near that point. Regardless of the value provided, if a company can get away with paying their employees less, then they will. The forces that determine wages have more to do with available supply of various skills than they do with the demand for the actual value provided.
not all companies of course, but as an aggregate, companies will follow this rule
not all companies of course, but as an aggregate, companies will follow this rule
It's worth noting that without a price floor, people will spend all of their time working just to eat. This can be seen all around the world in developing countries, for example where children shine shoes and scavenge trash to recycle for a quarter a day. Meanwhile the wealthy in those communities pay merely enough taxes to prevent a revolt.
So the minimum wage is really about deciding what type of society we want to live in. Do we want servants, or do we want opportunity? In developed countries, jobs below the minimum wage get automated or some form of government assistance pays for the jobs that can't be, for better or worse.
A better word for deregulation might be decivilization.
So the minimum wage is really about deciding what type of society we want to live in. Do we want servants, or do we want opportunity? In developed countries, jobs below the minimum wage get automated or some form of government assistance pays for the jobs that can't be, for better or worse.
A better word for deregulation might be decivilization.
I don’t understand the connection you’re making between minimum wage and food prices
George Carlin presented another solution for housing development: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbSRCjG-VLk
(2:38min if you want to skip ahead)
(2:38min if you want to skip ahead)
Our homeless crisis is determined by factors unrelated to the amount of housing (though it used to be, and it’s important to build new housing in general) - nowadays we actually import homeless people to places like SF.
Basic supply and demand along with every study I've seen points to housing supply being one of and usually the main factor in the level of homelessness of a city.
As to San Francisco homeless coming from outside the Bay Area, that's true for only around 10% of the population. Most (70%) became homeless in San Francisco and many others became homeless in other parts of the Bay Area. See the `PLACE OF RESIDENCE` section from https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019HIRDRep...
As to San Francisco homeless coming from outside the Bay Area, that's true for only around 10% of the population. Most (70%) became homeless in San Francisco and many others became homeless in other parts of the Bay Area. See the `PLACE OF RESIDENCE` section from https://hsh.sfgov.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/2019HIRDRep...
22% - out of county. 8% out of state.
If you'd like to learn more about this, here's an entire book that investigates the various factors involved: https://homelessnesshousingproblem.com/
Not telling my friends that I love them.
I was 28 the first time a friend told me "I love you" in a pure friendship way (and while sober), and without being a part of a special situation. I've also done it afterwards, and because I had never told my friend i love them, it made the message even stronger.
It feels wrong that we don't do this more often.
I was 28 the first time a friend told me "I love you" in a pure friendship way (and while sober), and without being a part of a special situation. I've also done it afterwards, and because I had never told my friend i love them, it made the message even stronger.
It feels wrong that we don't do this more often.
I don’t feel comfortable telling people I love them outside of a serious relationship, so this always makes me feel a touch weird.
Like, my best friends, I love them in a sense I guess…but I wouldn’t say that. It just doesn’t feel natural to me. I’d characterize our relationship as close, and that I care about them a lot, but “love” isn’t something that comes to mind outside of my parents or someone I’ve been in a long term relationship with.
I’m not sure why. Maybe it has to do with being an only child. Maybe it has to do with all my grandparents dying when I was young, and not being that close with extended family, so there was never really anyone to love outside of my parents for the vast majority of my life prior to any long term relationships.
Like, my best friends, I love them in a sense I guess…but I wouldn’t say that. It just doesn’t feel natural to me. I’d characterize our relationship as close, and that I care about them a lot, but “love” isn’t something that comes to mind outside of my parents or someone I’ve been in a long term relationship with.
I’m not sure why. Maybe it has to do with being an only child. Maybe it has to do with all my grandparents dying when I was young, and not being that close with extended family, so there was never really anyone to love outside of my parents for the vast majority of my life prior to any long term relationships.
You need to understand that expressing love, and being in love are separate things. Saying "I love you" to one of your buddies doesn't mean you're lusting after them, just that you care about them in a deeper way. I still struggle with it, but I say "I love you, brutha!" or "love you, dude!"
I'm also an only child. I wasn't told "I love you", I was told "shut up". Being able to say "I love you" to somebody in the context we're discussing has been a game changer for me. It's just so freeing.
I'm also an only child. I wasn't told "I love you", I was told "shut up". Being able to say "I love you" to somebody in the context we're discussing has been a game changer for me. It's just so freeing.
I mean I very much understand the difference, as I said in my original comment, I don’t just see love as an intimate thing with a partner, but as a way to express love to…well…loved ones. Like parents or family. I guess I just have for the vast majority of my life only associated with expressing love and caring via saying “love you” to my parents, that it feels as if it’s almost reserved for them. And then of course the “in love” meaning is reserved for a relationship.
Like, even when I’m around extended family that says love you, I just feel awkward and almost forced to respond with love you too back to them. Like I care for them of course…but I would never say I love you to one of them without them saying it to me first.
Like, even when I’m around extended family that says love you, I just feel awkward and almost forced to respond with love you too back to them. Like I care for them of course…but I would never say I love you to one of them without them saying it to me first.
I have reframed how I interpret feeling awkward because of things like this.
Awkward is the feeling of trying something new (a form of play). Similar to giddiness.
Like trying out a new style of clothing, it's just the feeling of a new experience.
It's an intense sensation because we don't allow ourselves to feel as adults and assume it means I did something wrong/bad. No, it's just the experience of doing something different than you've always done. The context can tell you if it is problematic, but usually, it isn't something others notice.
Awkward is the feeling of trying something new (a form of play). Similar to giddiness.
Like trying out a new style of clothing, it's just the feeling of a new experience.
It's an intense sensation because we don't allow ourselves to feel as adults and assume it means I did something wrong/bad. No, it's just the experience of doing something different than you've always done. The context can tell you if it is problematic, but usually, it isn't something others notice.
I like this perspective. Sometimes I notice that the people I value aren't quite ready to hear it from me.
When that happens, a funny thought pops into my head -- love is a four letter word.
When that happens, a funny thought pops into my head -- love is a four letter word.
Totally get where you're coming from with this, so if you're uncomfortable with that type of language in contexts where it doesn't make sense for you, don't feel pressured.
However, in my own life, I've found that there isn't some limited supply of love I have to share with others—in fact, it's been the opposite experience. The more freely I love those around me, the more fulfilling I find those relationships to be.
I am more reticent to use that language quite so flippantly with those I am actually romantically interested in though. When the potential for misunderstanding is there (i.e. romantic love vs platonic love or eros vs. philia vs. agape love to use koine greek terms), I tend to err on the side of caution so I don't accidentally communicate a level of depth that I don't intend.
However, in my own life, I've found that there isn't some limited supply of love I have to share with others—in fact, it's been the opposite experience. The more freely I love those around me, the more fulfilling I find those relationships to be.
I am more reticent to use that language quite so flippantly with those I am actually romantically interested in though. When the potential for misunderstanding is there (i.e. romantic love vs platonic love or eros vs. philia vs. agape love to use koine greek terms), I tend to err on the side of caution so I don't accidentally communicate a level of depth that I don't intend.
give it time :-) love might be a foreign thing in friendships if they’re all based only in hobbies or if your circle’s changing every year. stick with anyone for a decade though: watch them go through breakups, career changes, and grow into themselves — watch everything around the two of you change even as that friendship persists — and only a true stoic will insist that there’s no love there.
i’m not sure extended family is the right analog for this love. as you hint, that family is kinda forced on you, and that implicit v.s. opt-in nature of family vs friendship has big implications for how open you can be with each other, for example. it’s really its own thing.
i’m not sure extended family is the right analog for this love. as you hint, that family is kinda forced on you, and that implicit v.s. opt-in nature of family vs friendship has big implications for how open you can be with each other, for example. it’s really its own thing.
I guess spanish made this easier with 2 separate verbs.
You can say "te amo" to your significant other and "te quiero" to your friends and family.
You can say "te amo" to your significant other and "te quiero" to your friends and family.
It's unfortunate that English doesn't have enough words for different kinds of love: lustful "love", romantic love, brotherly love, general love of humankind, appreciation for non-human things (e.g. I love these shoes!), different words for levels of love (e.g. between "like" and "love"), etc.
Instead they're all lumped into "love". Ugh.
Instead they're all lumped into "love". Ugh.
Your examples show that you can express these ideas in English quite fine.
It sounds like you have normal and healthy relationships. I doubt they'll improve if you just start saying I Love You and I doubt they need to improve.
Try it :)
I recently remembered to tell my kids "I like hanging out with you" or "this was nice being with you today". I did it a while back when I had a realization that my parents didn't like spending time with me and I didn't want my kids to feel that. But then I forgot for a time...
Same. But specifically not initiating. I had a couple friends from way back who would say that and I would respond in kind. My change, later in life, was to be the first to say it - and with any good friend. For me the change was to be in a friend group of mostly women - who are generally more likely to share their feelings.
Share the love.
Share the love.
I completely agree. It wasn't until my best friend got terminal cancer that we started saying it.
Chef knives are designed to be held by pinching the blade between the forefinger and the thumb, and wrapping the rest of your fingers around the handle. I used to wrap all my fingers around the handle, until Jacques Pepin showed me how to do it properly: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMA2SqaDgG8
This only applies to Western style knives.
I was taught to choke up on the blade by a Western chef as well.
Then I went to Japan and was told to only hold the handle for their style of knives. Apparently, they balance the weight of the blade and handle differently there.
I tried to choke up on the blade at a very professional knife store in a market and was immediately corrected by one of the Japanese chefs there.
Then, the following evening, we went to a Michelin star rated kaiseki, all of the chefs were holding the knives by only the handle, no choking.
I realized I probably looked very foreign choking up on the blade in that store earlier. Humbling moment!
I was taught to choke up on the blade by a Western chef as well.
Then I went to Japan and was told to only hold the handle for their style of knives. Apparently, they balance the weight of the blade and handle differently there.
I tried to choke up on the blade at a very professional knife store in a market and was immediately corrected by one of the Japanese chefs there.
Then, the following evening, we went to a Michelin star rated kaiseki, all of the chefs were holding the knives by only the handle, no choking.
I realized I probably looked very foreign choking up on the blade in that store earlier. Humbling moment!
Dang! I just finished watching your half-hour video on how to cut/dice vegetables :-)
There is something which grabs your attention and fills you with admiration when you see a Master displaying his expertise so effortlessly and easily.
I am now going to watch more of Mr. Jacques Pepin.
There is something which grabs your attention and fills you with admiration when you see a Master displaying his expertise so effortlessly and easily.
I am now going to watch more of Mr. Jacques Pepin.
Wait until you find the series that Jacques Pepin and Julia Child did together. Absolute gold.
His chicken ballotine is a great video
An ex with commercial kitchen experience taught me this. My own experience is that, having held and used a knife the right way even once, the wrong way feels wrong forever after.
Tell that to my wife and in-laws. They’ve asked to be taught, been shown how to do it, shown why it’s safer and faster, have timed their speed and found it to be faster.
They still refuse to do the proper technique. They cut themselves regularly. Their stubbornness knows no bounds. Even when it involves literal blood at least once a week.
They still refuse to do the proper technique. They cut themselves regularly. Their stubbornness knows no bounds. Even when it involves literal blood at least once a week.
It isn't just about the grip. The stance also matters. I had trouble using a knife well for a long time because I would position myself parallel to the cutting board, which meant I would bend my wrist when using a knife.
Once I realized my wrist should be straight when using a knife and adjusted my stance to be slightly angled away from the cutting board, my knife skills leveled up a ton.
Once I realized my wrist should be straight when using a knife and adjusted my stance to be slightly angled away from the cutting board, my knife skills leveled up a ton.
The assistant in that video talks about holding the knife around where the center of the weight of the knife is. This spot is different knife to knife. So, knives with a heavier handle are designed to be held by the handle.
The pinch grip is the correct default for all knives in the classic "chef knife" shape and their derivatives like santoku. The exceptions are based on the application, not the knife; for example when cutting through a chicken leg joint you might want to exchange some control for power and a lot of cooks will use a full handle grip then.
The only cooking knives really meant to be held always by the handle entirely are heavy butcher cleavers, that have all the weight in the blade and you're meant to sling it around. Even a paring knife is often best used by holding the blade.
The only cooking knives really meant to be held always by the handle entirely are heavy butcher cleavers, that have all the weight in the blade and you're meant to sling it around. Even a paring knife is often best used by holding the blade.
Absolutely. And just work on your knife skills a little bit every time you cook. "The claw" for slicing things makes it so much faster and safer. And keep those tools sharp, a few months ago I finally got a whetstone set and stopped using a diamond steel to half-ass it, and it's a game changer.
Jacques 'scrape your fork in your non-stick pan' Pepin?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s10etP1p2bU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s10etP1p2bU
Chefs will hold different knives different ways dele ding on what they’re doing. That said, I also do a pinch grip for chopping.
Frankly, it's however it feels comfortable and allows you to cut well. Do whatever you want.
It was when I was younger, I was independent and living alone that I realized that I had the power to change myself. In order to succeed there was only one person responsible for my happiness and good fortune, myself. I had to stop waiting for good things to happen, and make sure that I took faith in my own hands.
This has led me to change employment, often, but not that often. It has made me approach many challenges from multiple angles.
Maybe it didn't made me rich (so far) but I feel much wiser and I observe people on the other side, they are stuck in their beliefs and loyalty. So many clever people, smarter than me, but lost to ideas, opportunities and self- improvement.
This has led me to change employment, often, but not that often. It has made me approach many challenges from multiple angles.
Maybe it didn't made me rich (so far) but I feel much wiser and I observe people on the other side, they are stuck in their beliefs and loyalty. So many clever people, smarter than me, but lost to ideas, opportunities and self- improvement.
Ech.. the "everything's your fault" view is typically American, but it's also pretty unbalanced. Sure you have to do things, yet interdependence exists. Also there's plenty situations where shit's stacked against you by heritage/law/social order quite unnecessarily.
It's not that "everything's your fault" though. It's that improving your life is your own responsibility, regardless of whose fault your circumstances are, because nobody else cares as much about your life as you do. It's not a statement about avoiding interdependence, it's about the fact that sitting around waiting for circumstances to change or for someone else to help you is not a practical way to improve your life because most of the time nothing will happen. I think of this is a variation on the serenity prayer, which is the single best piece of advice in the English language in my opinion: {insert higher power here} grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference. AA is full of clichés because they're true.
This reminds me a lot of stoic philosophy. The book "The Obstacle is the Way" is a nice little primer on it. There's a story in there where a man is falsely imprisoned for decades. He spends that entire time learning law and is eventually able to argue for his release. I never verified how true the story was or how it might have been embellished, but even if it's a fake story, the point still resonates with me. You can either give up and accept your lot, or you can spend your time trying to work towards your goal. You can't change that you were falsely imprisoned, or born in a third-world country, or any other shitty situation in life. You can only choose what to do moving forward. (Sometimes actual mental illness can make this nearly impossible though).
Yes and no. There are absolutely baseline random factors that have a big impact on your life. You could genetic predisposition to something unpleasant, be born into Money, have a skin tone that’s discriminated against, have birth citizenship in a nation with a great social safety net. Lots of factors that can go either way.
We underestimate the importance of positive factors and overestimate the importance of negative factors. I think the best approach to dealing with this is:
1) practice Gratitude for the foundational positives
2) accept the foundational negatives
3) Embrace your sphere of control and deliberately choose compounding actions that build on the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses to improve your life.
We underestimate the importance of positive factors and overestimate the importance of negative factors. I think the best approach to dealing with this is:
1) practice Gratitude for the foundational positives
2) accept the foundational negatives
3) Embrace your sphere of control and deliberately choose compounding actions that build on the strengths and mitigate the weaknesses to improve your life.
this is true, and thank you for responding. I am fortunate and live in a nordic country, and am experiencing life at the easiest setting. I acknowledge that for some, circumstances makes it impossible to achieve your goals.
I had a similar experience. I was independent fairly young, lack of experience is expected but without well-defined goals and mentorship I didn't leverage it to the fully. tip for others in similar situations: being independent doesn't mean you go alone.
> In order to succeed there was only one person responsible for my happiness and good fortune, myself. I had to stop waiting for good things to happen, and make sure that I took faith in my own hands.
This is the best response here. Too many people are stuck in a self defeating mindset of expecting life to happen to them, and blaming others when it doesn't, rather than taking charge for themselves.
This is the best response here. Too many people are stuck in a self defeating mindset of expecting life to happen to them, and blaming others when it doesn't, rather than taking charge for themselves.
I like to remind myself that the society that we live in is/was created by people generally no smarter than you or I. People accept things as if a higher power is imposing their will against them to fit into these mental and physical constraints but once you start questioning the status quo, it feels very freeing.
Not waking up earlier to the fact that the meat section in the supermarket is a product of systemic, gruesome torture of intelligent beings.
Like probably many of you who read this, I usually felt a bit guilty when I was confronted with the ugly facts we are all vaguely familiar with. I justified my meat consumption with specieist arguments (humans are so much better than pigs, cows, etc).
My wife challenged me to watch at least a little bit of a documentary, and if I still wanted to eat salami, so be it. Afterwards I didn't want to eat salami anymore. I now think that the extreme abuse of animals by the food industry on behalf of ignorant consumers is probably the worst evil of the 21st century.
If you disagree, I challenge you - watch 15min and then post your reply:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=LQRAfJyEsko
I think the "aha" moment was when I was thinking silently about how great this veggie wrap was, and someone expressed disgust. They said nothing compares to a meatball sub, and I realized that my palate had changed because I used to feel the same way. Like if you don't hork down a big chunk of meat, your meal is incomplete. But deliberate effort to be healthy and moral had changed my taste buds and gut. The sacrifice is not as big as you think. As for me, I will still eat a steak if I really crave it, but I typically feel heavy/slow afterward and it's just not as good as they say.
A few minutes of skipping around Dominion for me too.
> I now think that the extreme abuse of animals by the food industry on behalf of ignorant consumers is probably the worst evil of the 21st century.
I agree, there's no comparison, billions of land animals a year, trillions including sea life. I can't count that high.
The pain has gotten worse year after year. You watch otherwise smart people give bad arguments, or complete ignorance. To maintain any kind of social life you have to deal with being uncomfortable with those around you.
Hopefully we can have small impactful moments upon other's lives.
> I now think that the extreme abuse of animals by the food industry on behalf of ignorant consumers is probably the worst evil of the 21st century.
I agree, there's no comparison, billions of land animals a year, trillions including sea life. I can't count that high.
The pain has gotten worse year after year. You watch otherwise smart people give bad arguments, or complete ignorance. To maintain any kind of social life you have to deal with being uncomfortable with those around you.
Hopefully we can have small impactful moments upon other's lives.
My stock response to assertions that eating meat is cruel: plants feel too. Many species are self-aware every bit as much as animals are. It’s only because wheat and corn don’t have big googly eyes that we feel no sympathy for them. Implicit in the act of consumption is the notion that our lives are worth more than the lives of whatever we eat.
Even if it's true that plants feel and suffer, the pipeline of plants -> livestock -> food still kills many (an order of magnitude at least) more plants than the direct pipeline of plants -> food, so eating animals still causes more overall suffering.
In that sense, it seems to me that a plant-based diet is still the preferable choice if one wants to reduce unnecessary suffering.
In that sense, it seems to me that a plant-based diet is still the preferable choice if one wants to reduce unnecessary suffering.
> Many species are self-aware every bit as much as animals are
Do you have any sources you could share which support this claim? A cursory search has turned up nothing approaching convincing evidence.
Do you have any sources you could share which support this claim? A cursory search has turned up nothing approaching convincing evidence.
Plants do exhibit environmental response; plants do not exhibit consciousness.
I believe this is the strongest version of the argument you're making: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligen... (prepend archive.is/ to get around the paywall)
It's an admittedly fun argument, but it has flaws that I think make it unsuitable as a strategy for destroying vegetarians with facts and logic. It relies on abstract, black-box constructions of notions like sensation, awareness or intelligence based on analogy and observation, whereas in animals we can also rely on arguments based on equivalent biological structures. The breadth of that construction also has some intriguing but pretty challenging implications: you might also need to accept sentient traffic jams and Kubernetes clusters that feel pain.
Beyond all that, though, I think the major flaw in your reasoning is it treats concepts like awareness or moral worth as binaries, with language like "every bit as much" and "only because". Of course, one reason we don't treat wheat with empathy or offer it moral equivalence is because wheat doesn't look like us, but that's far from the only reason. Wheat is simply a less complex form of life than a fly, and certainly less complex than Google Chrome, neither of which I feel much compunction about killing when they are consuming my resources.
If you're going to accept an incredibly broad definition of awareness, then that definition also needs to be nuanced and gradated or else you end up saying nothing only with more words. You can absolutely define feeling such that grass can feel, but if that's also "every bit as much" as what humans feel then you've arrived at a notion of feeling that's almost tautological and struggles to support any meaningful consequences. We and the grass are also carbon, I suppose... or energy? I'm not sure why it matters. I care about the version of feeling that made me cry at the end of Homeward Bound, and plants don't have that, no matter what you call it.
All these contradictions disappear if you're willing to say that different forms of life have different levels of awareness, and different degrees of moral worth. Intuitively, I care less about the death of an animal than the death of a person, and I care less about the death of a plant than an animal. That exact mapping from being to moral worth is going to be pretty tricky to define, but I think it's pretty hard to argue that animals should have none at all.
If animals have non-zero moral worth, then there is some area between the curves of your enjoyment and their suffering within which it is okay to eat them, and outside of which it isn't. I don't have any desire to tell you what your curves should be, but as a matter of my own observation, I haven't found vegetarian food in general less enjoyable than food with meat in it. There are exceptions, of course, and I still eat meat sometimes, but as a practical matter I found the exchange rate from dining enjoyment to animal wellbeing very favourable. You might too.
It's an admittedly fun argument, but it has flaws that I think make it unsuitable as a strategy for destroying vegetarians with facts and logic. It relies on abstract, black-box constructions of notions like sensation, awareness or intelligence based on analogy and observation, whereas in animals we can also rely on arguments based on equivalent biological structures. The breadth of that construction also has some intriguing but pretty challenging implications: you might also need to accept sentient traffic jams and Kubernetes clusters that feel pain.
Beyond all that, though, I think the major flaw in your reasoning is it treats concepts like awareness or moral worth as binaries, with language like "every bit as much" and "only because". Of course, one reason we don't treat wheat with empathy or offer it moral equivalence is because wheat doesn't look like us, but that's far from the only reason. Wheat is simply a less complex form of life than a fly, and certainly less complex than Google Chrome, neither of which I feel much compunction about killing when they are consuming my resources.
If you're going to accept an incredibly broad definition of awareness, then that definition also needs to be nuanced and gradated or else you end up saying nothing only with more words. You can absolutely define feeling such that grass can feel, but if that's also "every bit as much" as what humans feel then you've arrived at a notion of feeling that's almost tautological and struggles to support any meaningful consequences. We and the grass are also carbon, I suppose... or energy? I'm not sure why it matters. I care about the version of feeling that made me cry at the end of Homeward Bound, and plants don't have that, no matter what you call it.
All these contradictions disappear if you're willing to say that different forms of life have different levels of awareness, and different degrees of moral worth. Intuitively, I care less about the death of an animal than the death of a person, and I care less about the death of a plant than an animal. That exact mapping from being to moral worth is going to be pretty tricky to define, but I think it's pretty hard to argue that animals should have none at all.
If animals have non-zero moral worth, then there is some area between the curves of your enjoyment and their suffering within which it is okay to eat them, and outside of which it isn't. I don't have any desire to tell you what your curves should be, but as a matter of my own observation, I haven't found vegetarian food in general less enjoyable than food with meat in it. There are exceptions, of course, and I still eat meat sometimes, but as a practical matter I found the exchange rate from dining enjoyment to animal wellbeing very favourable. You might too.
Just watched the whole thing. I have never conceived of suffering on such a scale before.
I can think of worse evils than the animal consumption industry: child sex slave trade, starvation and death of millions, genocide.
I get your point and don't disagree that animal suffering is terrible, but I wish people were more moderate in their language and not so quick to jump to hyperbole. No one can care about everything, and everyone's thing is 'the worst thing'.
I get your point and don't disagree that animal suffering is terrible, but I wish people were more moderate in their language and not so quick to jump to hyperbole. No one can care about everything, and everyone's thing is 'the worst thing'.
Have you watched at least 15min of the linked documentary? I am asking because I actually chose my language deliberately. I might be ignorant about extremely atrocious evils that happened on a large scale over the last 22 years, but at least to my knowledge and my subjective feeling, the systemic animal torture that is inflicted unto many millions of intelligent beings every day as shown in the documentary Dominion is the worst.
But I don't need people to share my opinion, you are right in that this is an important topic for me. What I just would like to happen is that people realize that eating animal products is evil enough to change their diet.
But I don't need people to share my opinion, you are right in that this is an important topic for me. What I just would like to happen is that people realize that eating animal products is evil enough to change their diet.
I watched the entire pig section at the beginning (so more than 15 mins.) Thanks for linking it — I’ll watch the rest later. I would still eat pork and don’t feel it’s the worst thing that exists in the world. (I eat a lot of vegetarian and vegan food though too.) It’s very bad, so I don’t mean to say that what I saw was no big deal. But I wouldn’t call it the worst. This documentary shows the absolute worst bits together so it’s a bit slanted. We have different value systems and opinions. I hope you don’t mind me sharing mine.
This is something I am guilty of ignoring. My excuse is protein. How do you get enough?
Tofu, Tempeh, beans, peas, Fu [1] (found in Japan but you might see local variants of this). If you are living a sedentary lifestyle you are bound to overeat if you want to reach anywhere near recommended protein levels. So it's just inevitable you will want to supplement your food with Protein powders. Soy Protein is a complete protein and much cheaper than Whey or Casein.
[1] - https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BA%A9
[1] - https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E9%BA%A9
You would be surprised how much protein is in certain vegetables, though most are not "complete" proteins so need to be combined with each other. So just eating a balanced mix of vegetables helps a bit (along with the obvious stuff like beans, nuts, pulses, tofu etc).
We generally eat too much proteins anyway and they’re not the challenge when quitting animal products.
Beans, tofu, peas all are excellent sources of proteins.
Beans, tofu, peas all are excellent sources of proteins.
Even with meat I sometimes find it hard to meet my daily protein requirements.
Curious, do you still eat meat? And if you do, do you prefer small farm butchers?
No I'm completely vegan by now (though I was vegetarian for a long time because cheese had a strong hold on me).
Regarding small butchers / organic farms: a long time ago, I spent two days at a tiny organic farm that was run by a local politician of a European Greens party. By meat industry standards, this farm was an absolute animal paradise. I helped around the farm, including with slaughtering a pig. My job as the guy from the city was to just herd it into the kill room. The pig seemed intelligent to me, it was confused and didn't want to die. A crew of men dressed in wifebeaters stunned the pig with an electroshocker, lifted it up with a chain, sliced its arteries to let it bleed out, all while cheerfully drinking beer. They made crude remarks while blood and guts was spilling everywhere. Needless to say, there was way more chopping to be done after that. The scene had a surreal quality to me - what had just been alive a moment ago was now dangling in halves in front of me like in a horror movie. The pig probably didn't suffer, but the experience still felt deeply wrong to me. But here's the kicker: even after this close-up slaughter experience I still continued to eat meat for years, because I just was so used to it. Back in the city, in the gleaming supermarket, meat again stopped being something that lived, and was again a yummy product to buy.
Long story short: even the best farm and the best butcher (which are getting exceedingly rare) are still using, abusing, and ultimately killing intelligent beings. This also does something to the people that do the killing: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-50986683
Long story short: even the best farm and the best butcher (which are getting exceedingly rare) are still using, abusing, and ultimately killing intelligent beings. This also does something to the people that do the killing: https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-50986683
I grew up around a farm for a while, and my stance today is that I only eat animals I'd be willing to kill myself. Which pretty much just knocked pork out of my diet, since as you pointed out they are very intelligent animals. The overlap between "smart pig" and "dumb dog" is substantial.
More like dumb pigs are on the level of smart dogs. "Pigs are widely considered to be more intelligent than dogs and equally as intelligent as chimpanzees. "
Age-restricted login required. That's a shame.
You can also watch it outside of YouTube here: https://watchdominion.org
Download and archive links are provided here: https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
Download and archive links are provided here: https://www.dominionmovement.com/watch
you would probably love Cowspiracy and the less gruesome and more wholesome The Game Changers. both on Netflix.
Managing my money. For much of my career, or just my adult life, I never did anything related to money management. I just worked and saved. That's it.
A little context: Growing up, no one ever talked about managing their money. No one had any money to manage. Everyone in my circle lived paycheck-to-paycheck. Any talk about money management was for rich folk, and that wasn't us. So basically, I never learned any of this stuff. Next, my career hit its stride right after the Enron scandal, and then the early-2000s dot-com meltdown. So I just saw investment/retirement accounts, and the stock market in general, as a big con to steal my money. (If you don't know about the Enron scandal, and you wanna be depressed, read up.) Anyway, I was full of FUD, and I was just gonna keep stuffing money in my mattress.
Then, a random conversation with a trusted colleague led to him spending an entire afternoon explaining it all to me. He explained that his various investments were extremely low-risk, and he was still making thousands every year, and that my mattress-stuffing strategy was leaving a lot of easy money on the table. It was the way he explained it all, and the fact that I trusted/respected him that changed everything for me. I'll always owe him.
A little context: Growing up, no one ever talked about managing their money. No one had any money to manage. Everyone in my circle lived paycheck-to-paycheck. Any talk about money management was for rich folk, and that wasn't us. So basically, I never learned any of this stuff. Next, my career hit its stride right after the Enron scandal, and then the early-2000s dot-com meltdown. So I just saw investment/retirement accounts, and the stock market in general, as a big con to steal my money. (If you don't know about the Enron scandal, and you wanna be depressed, read up.) Anyway, I was full of FUD, and I was just gonna keep stuffing money in my mattress.
Then, a random conversation with a trusted colleague led to him spending an entire afternoon explaining it all to me. He explained that his various investments were extremely low-risk, and he was still making thousands every year, and that my mattress-stuffing strategy was leaving a lot of easy money on the table. It was the way he explained it all, and the fact that I trusted/respected him that changed everything for me. I'll always owe him.
I feel you on this! As a follow up: what are some of the top tips you would recommend?
The usual advice is put your money in an index fund that tracks the stock market, not one with a fund manager who makes decisions.
Vanguard are good because the Vanguard company itself is owned by the funds it manages (which are owned by the customers), not by other people who take a percentage of the profits away.
Vanguard are good because the Vanguard company itself is owned by the funds it manages (which are owned by the customers), not by other people who take a percentage of the profits away.
Mental health. Haven't seen it mentioned yet.
Never think of yourself as wrong, invalid, defective or unworthy. That's wrong. Don't do it.
For about 90 % of my life I've thought about myself as defective in many ways.
- In puberty I thought I was defective because other boys were talking about their crushes, how they'd like to f--- this girl or that girl or how they got a boner just looking at them. Later almost everyone got a girlfriend or two. None of that happened for me, so I felt defective. Turns out I'm gay.
- Also in puberty I'd get random boners when sitting down in the bus. It made me feel ashamed and like a pervert, so I stopped sitting down in public transit. Turns out many boys experience this in puberty because, well... the vibrations. They're called "bus boners".
- I always struggled a lot remembering faces and names. I felt bad about it because I thought it meant I didn't care or try enough. I've always had issues forming relationships and again I felt bad and thought I just had to try harder and make a better effort, which didn't work. And various other issues, and for each of them I thought it was a defect of myself. Turns out I'm on the spectrum and my parents didn't bother telling me about being diagnosed as a child. I only found out when bored me stumbled over online autism tests and literally all of them came out strongly autistic-neurodivergent.
Never think of yourself as wrong, invalid, defective or unworthy. That's wrong. Don't do it.
For about 90 % of my life I've thought about myself as defective in many ways.
- In puberty I thought I was defective because other boys were talking about their crushes, how they'd like to f--- this girl or that girl or how they got a boner just looking at them. Later almost everyone got a girlfriend or two. None of that happened for me, so I felt defective. Turns out I'm gay.
- Also in puberty I'd get random boners when sitting down in the bus. It made me feel ashamed and like a pervert, so I stopped sitting down in public transit. Turns out many boys experience this in puberty because, well... the vibrations. They're called "bus boners".
- I always struggled a lot remembering faces and names. I felt bad about it because I thought it meant I didn't care or try enough. I've always had issues forming relationships and again I felt bad and thought I just had to try harder and make a better effort, which didn't work. And various other issues, and for each of them I thought it was a defect of myself. Turns out I'm on the spectrum and my parents didn't bother telling me about being diagnosed as a child. I only found out when bored me stumbled over online autism tests and literally all of them came out strongly autistic-neurodivergent.
Yes, knowing and understanding that you're not alone in your feelings and experiences is super important too.
Another piece is understanding your body's feelings and your emotions. Many people aren't taught how to understand their feelings and emotions, especially men. This is NOT automatic. It is not difficult, but it can be very hard and unpleasant. Everyone needs to be taught how to process emotions, emotionally healthy people are taught this as children.
But to balance this a bit.
You, as a person, are never wrong, but you are still accountable for your actions/words. This is an important distinction to keep in mind.
Another piece is understanding your body's feelings and your emotions. Many people aren't taught how to understand their feelings and emotions, especially men. This is NOT automatic. It is not difficult, but it can be very hard and unpleasant. Everyone needs to be taught how to process emotions, emotionally healthy people are taught this as children.
But to balance this a bit.
You, as a person, are never wrong, but you are still accountable for your actions/words. This is an important distinction to keep in mind.
What resource can you recommend for identifying one’s own emotions?
HealthyGamer_gg is a great YouTube channel for getting started. I'm unsure of his coaching services; he's trying something very hard to scale, so I'd be wary.
However, his knowledge and prepared materials are great, though they seem to be aimed at an extremely jaded and cynical audience.
Therapist Explains Why You Don't Feel Anything Anymore... (Alexithymia 101) [1] is great entry point.
Another fantastic resource is The power of vulnerability[2].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pQBdZ3RdfA&t=1
[2] https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_the_power_of_vulnerabi...
However, his knowledge and prepared materials are great, though they seem to be aimed at an extremely jaded and cynical audience.
Therapist Explains Why You Don't Feel Anything Anymore... (Alexithymia 101) [1] is great entry point.
Another fantastic resource is The power of vulnerability[2].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pQBdZ3RdfA&t=1
[2] https://www.ted.com/talks/brene_brown_the_power_of_vulnerabi...
Can you recommend an online autism test? Asking for a friend :)
I think I was in my late twenties when I found out I had been tying my shoes wrong all my life. There is a correct and an incorrect way to do it. This affects not just how the knot looks (straight vs crooked), but also how easily it becomes untied:
https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/theres-a-better-way-to-tie-...
Since someone is going to point this out, it might as well be me:
Ian's Knot [1] not only is super-fast (once you've learned it properly), it also ensures you are tying a strong knot.
Also, a heel lock [2] is a independent thing which is also good to learn.
Ian's Knot [1] not only is super-fast (once you've learned it properly), it also ensures you are tying a strong knot.
Also, a heel lock [2] is a independent thing which is also good to learn.
[1] https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/ianknot.htm
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBbc6TackDQIf you didn't do it, I was going to!
I've taught all of my children to do it this way. Super fast, reliable way to tie a square knotted bow.
Though it is somewhat of a misnomer that it is called an 'Ian knot', because it isn't a novel knot, rather a technique to arrive at one already commonly known.
I've taught all of my children to do it this way. Super fast, reliable way to tie a square knotted bow.
Though it is somewhat of a misnomer that it is called an 'Ian knot', because it isn't a novel knot, rather a technique to arrive at one already commonly known.
I LOVE IT
The linked article mentions that the "strong" knot is unlikely to come undone.
This knot will not come undone:
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/secureknot.htm
And you can still untie by pulling on one of the ends. Though you have to make sure that while untying, you don't allow the loop to go over the other end of the shoelace.
This knot will not come undone:
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/secureknot.htm
And you can still untie by pulling on one of the ends. Though you have to make sure that while untying, you don't allow the loop to go over the other end of the shoelace.
Yes! This is just about as strong as the standard childhood shoelace knot + double-knotting, but it's faster and doesn't need to be picked apart. I do get it tangled during the untie sometimes, but it's still worth it.
I second this. I've been using this knot for years. It's a bit tricky to tie but still the best.
For more on how to lace and knot shoes, see Iain’s Shoelace Site:
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/
Great website
I'm sure I'm also not doing it the most efficient way, but every time I watch my one particular friend tie his shoes, I feel like he must have wasted so much of his lifetime to this because it's so inefficient.
To be honest, the kind of shoes I'm mostly wearing nowadays work very well without having to untie and retie the knot, so I don't do that very often anyway.
To be honest, the kind of shoes I'm mostly wearing nowadays work very well without having to untie and retie the knot, so I don't do that very often anyway.
Adjacent to this, getting properly fitting shoes. The wrong size shoes can cause all kinds of problems for your feet and overall musculoskeletal health. There are still stores around where they will measure your feet for you and make recommendations. Strongly recommend!
Also, the material type can play a role.
I have one pair of shoes that will not stay tied. Nike runners with flat laces. I'm not sure if the synthetic material just wants to unwind. Replaced and have no issues.
wow. just go the other way around. very subtle it does feel stronger. will have to check it out throughout the day though
"Something you’ve done your whole life that you realized is wrong?"
Worked hard believing it would be rewarded.
Worked hard believing it would be rewarded.
I would have missed this because of lack of enough upvotes but.. here’s my perspective.
You should work hard but on yourselves not for others. I did working hard for others for a decade and ended up in the same place after. I started working for/on myself, I am happier now if not richer.
You should work hard but on yourselves not for others. I did working hard for others for a decade and ended up in the same place after. I started working for/on myself, I am happier now if not richer.
Thanks, that does add some nuance to the parent comment.
Yes. Something I learned from contractors on how to fix a big part of this is good communication (this is not self-promotion). People pay much less attention to others than we expect, so most don't know what we're doing or what we did.
1) Say what you're going to do.
2) Do it.
2a) Bonus: If something changes, immediately say what has changed and reconfirm the agreement.
3) Say what you did.
Those three steps go a long way toward being recognized for your contributions.
1) Say what you're going to do.
2) Do it.
2a) Bonus: If something changes, immediately say what has changed and reconfirm the agreement.
3) Say what you did.
Those three steps go a long way toward being recognized for your contributions.
Be careful with this one. Hard work, applied correctly, is rewarded. Hard work applied incorrectly is not.
Examples of incorrect application:
* working hard at something not valuable
* working hard at something valuable then giving it away well below market rate
*working hard at something valuable then poorly presenting it, e.g. bad marketing
The second happens when you never ask for a raise/promotion, switch to a market rate job, or start a business that captures the value of the skill.
Examples of incorrect application:
* working hard at something not valuable
* working hard at something valuable then giving it away well below market rate
*working hard at something valuable then poorly presenting it, e.g. bad marketing
The second happens when you never ask for a raise/promotion, switch to a market rate job, or start a business that captures the value of the skill.
>Worked hard believing it would be rewarded.
Even if you're not seeing the rewards of your hard work now, they will come one day.
Let's say you've spent the last 10 years working your arse off for a shitty boss who doesn't appreciate you. At least you're far more competent than if you'd been lazy for 10 years under the same shitty boss.
Go find a better situation and you'll be grateful for the skills you've picked up, even if it hurt to acquire them.
Even if you're not seeing the rewards of your hard work now, they will come one day.
Let's say you've spent the last 10 years working your arse off for a shitty boss who doesn't appreciate you. At least you're far more competent than if you'd been lazy for 10 years under the same shitty boss.
Go find a better situation and you'll be grateful for the skills you've picked up, even if it hurt to acquire them.
That would be true. But my situation was that I worked hard in an area that didn't have any real external opportunities (FileNet, then Neoxam). It had been about 8 years for me, and I still don't see any reward on the way.
Not my entire life, but competing with my girlfriend/wife. Trying to win arguments instead of trying to solve the problem. Holding onto resentments instead of letting them go.
We used to have huge arguements all the time, it took having a kid together to finally hammer it into my head that we are on the same team, we need to work together. Since then we've had 2 kids under 2 during covid and barely argued in 4 years
This reminds me of an article I read some time ago written by a house wife. In it, she admitted to verbally abusing her husband and demeaning his intelligence. When he'd do things like accidentally put colors in the wrong wash, she would chew him out and belittle him for not doing it right. And of course he felt ashamed and uncomfortable sharing his trivial mistakes with his wife. Then one time she left his tools out in the rain and they rusted. She apologized profusely but all he said was "It's okay, they're only tools."
It made her rethink how she treated her husband. She married him because she knew he was intelligent and kind, so why does she look for evidence to the contrary and berate him for it? She says their marriage was much better after she realized her fault in this. That article left a deep impression on me as to how I should treat my partner/people I respect.
It made her rethink how she treated her husband. She married him because she knew he was intelligent and kind, so why does she look for evidence to the contrary and berate him for it? She says their marriage was much better after she realized her fault in this. That article left a deep impression on me as to how I should treat my partner/people I respect.
Absolutely. People are human,and to be human is to make mistakes. You can't claim to love someone if you can't accept them for their imperfection and extend to them the same grace you allow yourself for your own mishaps and fuckups.
Back a long time ago, about a year into my relationship, my partner managed to spill an entire crockpot of apple cider all over the backseat of my car she was borrowing to take to a friend's place. I reminded her several times to make sure to shut it tight and to secure it somewhere on the floor in the middle of the rest of her stuff so it wouldn't tip and spill.
Of course she didn't do any of that and it got absolutely all over my seats and was a sticky gross mess. I later heard she spent the whole rest of the night over there fretting and worrying about how mad I was gonna be when she got home. And she was literally dumbstruck when my only response was "Alright no worries, sounds good" when she'd gotten back and offered to pay to get the interior detailed after explaining what happened.
"Aren't you mad," she asked and I just said "Not really, it's fixable and you already said you'd fix it, not much to be mad about."
Back a long time ago, about a year into my relationship, my partner managed to spill an entire crockpot of apple cider all over the backseat of my car she was borrowing to take to a friend's place. I reminded her several times to make sure to shut it tight and to secure it somewhere on the floor in the middle of the rest of her stuff so it wouldn't tip and spill.
Of course she didn't do any of that and it got absolutely all over my seats and was a sticky gross mess. I later heard she spent the whole rest of the night over there fretting and worrying about how mad I was gonna be when she got home. And she was literally dumbstruck when my only response was "Alright no worries, sounds good" when she'd gotten back and offered to pay to get the interior detailed after explaining what happened.
"Aren't you mad," she asked and I just said "Not really, it's fixable and you already said you'd fix it, not much to be mad about."
There was an HN thread a month or two ago about parenting books. One poster recommended "How To Talk So Children Will Listen and Listen So Children Will Talk" and it describes this theme very well as "natural consequences."
The book points out that when someone (like your child) does wrong by you, they know it, and you punishing them for it just "pays up the balance." And since the slate is clean, they just pay for the next mistake the same way. Without learning anything.
The correct response (and the response you show with your partner) is to let them experience the natural consequences. You trusted her with something, she couldn't follow through, so it would be totally reasonable not to let her do it in the future. But she did right by you in the end (as a natural consequence) and you both feel vindicated as a result. You see she really cares and she sees you're patient with her mistakes. I think it's a powerful concept that encourages being non-judgemental while still asserting your own desires.
The book points out that when someone (like your child) does wrong by you, they know it, and you punishing them for it just "pays up the balance." And since the slate is clean, they just pay for the next mistake the same way. Without learning anything.
The correct response (and the response you show with your partner) is to let them experience the natural consequences. You trusted her with something, she couldn't follow through, so it would be totally reasonable not to let her do it in the future. But she did right by you in the end (as a natural consequence) and you both feel vindicated as a result. You see she really cares and she sees you're patient with her mistakes. I think it's a powerful concept that encourages being non-judgemental while still asserting your own desires.
Hah, you caught me. I actually worked part time at k-5 afterschool program for 3 years during my first run at college. Nothing will teach you patience like working with young children, and I definitely recycle a lot of the stuff they taught us for interacting with children in dealing with my personal/work relationships.
> We used to have huge arguments all the time, it took having a kid together to finally hammer it into my head that we are on the same team
Nothing builds teams like having a common enemy. :-)
Nothing builds teams like having a common enemy. :-)
Putting off an annual checkup with a PCP (I’m 42, and the last PCP I had was a pediatrician). I had long suspected my cholesterol and triglycerides were high due to family history and my excessive love for cheese, and last week that suspicion was confirmed. I’m now more resolute than ever on lifestyle changes (exercise, less red meat, getting most of my calcium from 2% milk).
On the bright side, I also got reassurance that outside the lipid panel, everything else (sugar, kidney and liver function, PSA, etc.) seems normal.
Other than laziness and procrastination, a huge part of me was dreading being told I need a prostate exam and colonoscopy, but fortunately I don’t need either for at least 3 more years.
On the bright side, I also got reassurance that outside the lipid panel, everything else (sugar, kidney and liver function, PSA, etc.) seems normal.
Other than laziness and procrastination, a huge part of me was dreading being told I need a prostate exam and colonoscopy, but fortunately I don’t need either for at least 3 more years.
> less red meat
IIUC, they no longer believe that lipid cholesterol levels are directly correlated with intake of dietary cholesterol. See, for example: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...
> The biggest influence on blood cholesterol level is the mix of fats and carbohydrates in your diet—not the amount of cholesterol you eat from food.
> Although it remains important to limit the amount of cholesterol you eat, especially if you have diabetes, for most people dietary cholesterol is not as problematic as once believed.
I would recommend committing to getting a full blood panel (specific to your sex, male or female) at least every 6 months, especially if you are going to be making significant changes to your diet. This was a game-changer for me. I started working with a practice that does health optimization and blood work/labs and has doctors who know how to interpret the results and give recommendations based on them. For me, I had several biomarkers significantly improve by consuming more red meat. I hadn't been trying to avoid red meat consciously, just somehow over the years I started consuming a lot more chicken and turkey and really wasn't having enough beef, etc.
IIUC, they no longer believe that lipid cholesterol levels are directly correlated with intake of dietary cholesterol. See, for example: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...
> The biggest influence on blood cholesterol level is the mix of fats and carbohydrates in your diet—not the amount of cholesterol you eat from food.
> Although it remains important to limit the amount of cholesterol you eat, especially if you have diabetes, for most people dietary cholesterol is not as problematic as once believed.
I would recommend committing to getting a full blood panel (specific to your sex, male or female) at least every 6 months, especially if you are going to be making significant changes to your diet. This was a game-changer for me. I started working with a practice that does health optimization and blood work/labs and has doctors who know how to interpret the results and give recommendations based on them. For me, I had several biomarkers significantly improve by consuming more red meat. I hadn't been trying to avoid red meat consciously, just somehow over the years I started consuming a lot more chicken and turkey and really wasn't having enough beef, etc.
Red meat is a carcinogen according to the WHO.
https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E....
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/farm-animals/para....
https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/pr240_E....
https://worldanimalfoundation.org/advocate/farm-animals/para....
That's not true. The WHO thinks red meat might be a carcinogen. From the Q&A mentioned in your first link [0]. Also, I would not consider your second link a reliable source. An animal-rights group is not unbiased.
> In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.
> Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.
[0] https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monograp...
> In the case of red meat, the classification is based on limited evidence from epidemiological studies showing positive associations between eating red meat and developing colorectal cancer as well as strong mechanistic evidence.
> Limited evidence means that a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer but that other explanations for the observations (technically termed chance, bias, or confounding) could not be ruled out.
[0] https://www.iarc.who.int/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Monograp...
My suspicion is that it's the sodium nitrates used in treating certain meats that's causing a lot of the cancer. But this is just speculation on my end.
Are there any randomized controlled trials that show this? (As opposed to no-randomized observational studies)
Did you miss the last few years? The WHO is not to be referenced
How do you go about getting a full blood panel every 6 mo? Doesn’t that come from your primary care doctor? Mine would think I’m insane if I asked for a full blood panel every 6 months at my age with no health issues. But I see the utility in it (trends in the data, anomalies, etc.). So how to do it?
Yeah, you're right. No way in hell I could get my doctor to get a full blood panel every 6 months. Even if I could get him to get me one, he won't order all the stuff I want to see. So I use a boutique, turnkey telemedicine practice (I'm not sure how else to describe it). I order the blood panel and then go over the results with one of their expert patient care coordinators and then speak with one or more of their doctors as needed (all over Zoom). The one I use is Marek Health, but there are others (https://marekhealth.com/)
I think my initial intake was $200-300 to get the full blood panel and have a follow-up with a patient care coordinator as well as an appointment with the doctor (who is incredible). At the time I ordered the blood panel, I wasn't even planning on having a long-term relationship with them, but after seeing some stuff on my blood panel that I wanted to work on and having them come up with a plan, speaking to the docs regularly, I've just gotten so much value out of it. The whole thing made me feel like "wow, this is what healthcare should feel like."
Sadly, it's all out of pocket, but it's the last thing on the list of things I would complain about having to spend money on.
For some people, full bloods every 6 months might be overkill, I guess it just depends on what you have going on (not that I had major issues, but definitely things to address and others to optimize). But without a full panel, you're just flying blind. Sometimes, I get the panel and nothing has moved at all and there's nothing to do. Other times there are things I can easily address and the more panels I have, the more of a personal health profile I have to work with.
I think my initial intake was $200-300 to get the full blood panel and have a follow-up with a patient care coordinator as well as an appointment with the doctor (who is incredible). At the time I ordered the blood panel, I wasn't even planning on having a long-term relationship with them, but after seeing some stuff on my blood panel that I wanted to work on and having them come up with a plan, speaking to the docs regularly, I've just gotten so much value out of it. The whole thing made me feel like "wow, this is what healthcare should feel like."
Sadly, it's all out of pocket, but it's the last thing on the list of things I would complain about having to spend money on.
For some people, full bloods every 6 months might be overkill, I guess it just depends on what you have going on (not that I had major issues, but definitely things to address and others to optimize). But without a full panel, you're just flying blind. Sometimes, I get the panel and nothing has moved at all and there's nothing to do. Other times there are things I can easily address and the more panels I have, the more of a personal health profile I have to work with.
What physician is saying no to preventative medicine paid for by the consumer? Why do doctors think we are visiting for their benefit? I would be very interested in the arguments against blood labs. For the doctor, they draw blood and review results, which is something they do every day. For the patient, you draw blood and review results and pay for it, which is something normal people are not greatly inconvenienced by. The money may be the thing, but why would your physician know your budget? If you want a zero risk preventative procedure, the doctor should tell you how much it is, not give financial advice.
What argument would a doctor have against order a wider range of tests? The blood is outside of your body, and the physician is not in the lab running the centrifuge or mixing chemical agents to react.
What argument would a doctor have against order a wider range of tests? The blood is outside of your body, and the physician is not in the lab running the centrifuge or mixing chemical agents to react.
Every Primary Care doctor visit I've ever had in my life (note: USA) felt like a cross between an assembly line and the DMV. It's all about rushing you through the visit as quickly as possible, spending as little time with the actual expensive doctor as possible, and getting you out the door so that other cu$tomer$ can get crammed through after you. Blood labs? They aint got time for that!
And nowadays, to make matters worse, I have to book an appointment for this delightful experience 2 months in advance for my existing doctor, and five months in advance for a "new patient visit" at a new doctor. Everything around Family Doctors says "go away".
And nowadays, to make matters worse, I have to book an appointment for this delightful experience 2 months in advance for my existing doctor, and five months in advance for a "new patient visit" at a new doctor. Everything around Family Doctors says "go away".
> Every Primary Care doctor visit I've ever had in my life (note: USA) felt like a cross between an assembly line and the DMV.
Note that 'the DMV' is itself a bizarre American experience that a lot of the world doesn't put up with/find a need for.
It took quite a lot of references like this going straight over my head to look into this thing 'everyone [in the USA]' has to do and is familiar with and understand. (If I need a replacement driving licence or to change my address or whatever, I spend two minutes on a web form and it comes in the post. There just isn't 'a DMV' or equivalent office for me to (have to) go to.)
Note that 'the DMV' is itself a bizarre American experience that a lot of the world doesn't put up with/find a need for.
It took quite a lot of references like this going straight over my head to look into this thing 'everyone [in the USA]' has to do and is familiar with and understand. (If I need a replacement driving licence or to change my address or whatever, I spend two minutes on a web form and it comes in the post. There just isn't 'a DMV' or equivalent office for me to (have to) go to.)
The reasoning I heard from a GP is: the more values you get back, the higher the chance of a false positive. A GP who has blood tested will do so based on your symptoms. Get the lab to do all the possible tests, and chances are at least one of them will be off but since you had no symptoms you’re going to have to test again since it might be a false positive. All this takes a lot of time and creates feelings of insecurity with the patient. So where I’m from, there are no ‘check-ups’ within insured or government funded health care, you strictly react on symptoms. There are only checks for specific forms of cancer and you’re invited for this specifically. Don’t know whether this is the best way, but it’s an explanation for the approach.
> What physician is saying no to preventative medicine paid for by the consumer?
its more common than you think; and many professionals resent the idea that its anything resembling a 'free market' where a 'consumer' (patient) can 'order services' without their provider's approval.
as you might imagine there are reasonable-sounding prima facie arguments for both sides of this discussion.
its more common than you think; and many professionals resent the idea that its anything resembling a 'free market' where a 'consumer' (patient) can 'order services' without their provider's approval.
as you might imagine there are reasonable-sounding prima facie arguments for both sides of this discussion.
I have to fight with the doctor every time I want something he doesn't deem necessary.
For the general population, meat and eggs are OK within reasonable amounts of consumption. But those with genetic susceptibility to high cholesterol need to be more careful about their diet than the general population. Same story with diabetes and hypertension.
Edit: FWIW, I’m not planning on abandoning red meat and eggs, but striving for no more than 4 eggs a week and 1, or max 2, servings of red meat. I would rather enjoy beef and lamb for the rest of my life and avoid ever having to eat only egg whites.
Edit: FWIW, I’m not planning on abandoning red meat and eggs, but striving for no more than 4 eggs a week and 1, or max 2, servings of red meat. I would rather enjoy beef and lamb for the rest of my life and avoid ever having to eat only egg whites.
Eating less red meat is about lowering your inflammation in your veins - which is a major part of the battle for atherosclerosis. Agreed it's not about your dietary cholesterol. Dairy fat is a big issue for atherosclerosis.
However risk factors are individual so take everyones commentary as educational but apply on what's relevant look at your on individual use case.
However risk factors are individual so take everyones commentary as educational but apply on what's relevant look at your on individual use case.
It’s not red meat causing the inflammation.
It’s sugar.
It’s sugar.
Sugar also a culprit - its not a red meat vs sugar thing. However one of the top researchers in cholesterol in the US told me specifically to eat red meat once a year as it has inflammation qualities that are risky for people who have higher risk factors for a cardiac event.
> told me specifically to eat red meat once a year as it has inflammation qualities that are risky
Struggling with that - as in at most once a year?
Struggling with that - as in at most once a year?
Yes but that was for people with a high risk cholesterol level - not general public.
However translate that to general parameters as you see fit.
However translate that to general parameters as you see fit.
Sure, I understand. I was just parsing it as 'you should eat once a year' (not zero times) - which then didn't seem to tally up with the mentioned risk.
I'd think a small amount every other month or so might be safer - you don't want to look forward to that annual treat and go too crazy!
I'd think a small amount every other month or so might be safer - you don't want to look forward to that annual treat and go too crazy!
I see what you are saying. I think the advice was enjoy that one steak dinner a year on a special occasion. Yeah you could also break it up into smaller amounts over the year. I'm largely indifferent to beef but it was a surprising bit of advice from a respected source.
FYI the above is american-focused healthcare language. There are no annual checkups in most other countries outside of certain age or risk groups.
You might however get a health checkup from occupational healthcare sometimes!
Just putting this a note here for non-american readers so they don't get confused.
You might however get a health checkup from occupational healthcare sometimes!
Just putting this a note here for non-american readers so they don't get confused.
My family doctor in Canada does an annual check-up (BMI, basic physical, blood and urine) that's covered by provincial healthcare. In addition, those over 50 get a colon cancer check every two years that used to be a full colonoscopy but now it's a new poop sample test.
I'm surprised other countries with free government healthcare don't do that. I would assume it's more economical to detect signs of serious issues early.
I'm surprised other countries with free government healthcare don't do that. I would assume it's more economical to detect signs of serious issues early.
Which province? I've never been offered this from my doctor in Ontario, in fact when I requested blood tests it was denied so I had to drive to the US to get my own.
Yes, Ontario. You might need to shop around until you find a family doctor who "believes" in annual checkups. OHIP doesn't seem to object to it (except Vitamin D, which is now out-of-pocket).
> I would assume
So would I (Germany), yet it’s only one blood test every 3 years from the age of 35 on.
So would I (Germany), yet it’s only one blood test every 3 years from the age of 35 on.
You can look into the health benefits of annual checkups, there's a bunch of research showing that it's pretty much useless before say 50-60yo
That's kind of shocking to me. The normal narrative is about how much better the European model is for healthcare, but then you're saying it's missing one of the most fundamental and effective aspects of healthcare (preventative care & early intervention)?
Do you go to the dentist for regular cleaning & exams or only go if you have a toothache?
Annual checkups seem so critical to overall health outcomes- it's far better to catch cancer at stage 1 than stage 4, or to address blood pressure before having a stroke or heart attack rather than after, I'd have thought they'd be strongly prioritized and incentivized my government-controlled healthcare systems.
Do you go to the dentist for regular cleaning & exams or only go if you have a toothache?
Annual checkups seem so critical to overall health outcomes- it's far better to catch cancer at stage 1 than stage 4, or to address blood pressure before having a stroke or heart attack rather than after, I'd have thought they'd be strongly prioritized and incentivized my government-controlled healthcare systems.
How many cancers are you going to catch at stage 1 with an annual BMI & bloods check-up?
Yep, I had to Google PCP (I know one acronym PCP, and I was _fairly_ sure that wasn't what the commenter was referring to).
Primary Care Physician for anyone else wondering (equivalent to a GP in England I think)
Primary Care Physician for anyone else wondering (equivalent to a GP in England I think)
That being said most people in America don’t get annual checkups unless they have issues either. And there’s also a school of thought that more preventative medicine would be a good thing, so maybe other countries should consider it.
Tangentially, it’s common for your employer’s health insurance provider to provide a discount if get an annual physical.
Edit: (US specific)
Edit: (US specific)
Again, this is very USA-specific.
I learned from my father's generation that regular check-ups were vital. My oldest two uncles died from heart issues in their early 60's. The next two and my father have made it to their 70's and show no signs of stopping. There isn't really any difference in lifestyles between the dead and alive ones, other than going to the doctor regularly, and taking whatever medicine they are prescribed. I guess one uncle quit smoking. So that's probably good for him.
Study: No association between eating eggs and blood lipids, cardiovascular disease, or mortality in 177,000 people in 50 countries.
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article-abstract/doi/1...
https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/advance-article-abstract/doi/1...
That's great news that your cholesterol and triglycerides were high and that everything else looks normal! Are there any other tips that you would suggest for making lifestyle changes to help lower cholesterol and triglycerides?
I’m not a Physician or Dietitian, but my dad is a Gastroenterologist and my wife is a Registered Dietitian, so some of their knowledge rubs off on me. And my PCP gave me some tips last week that are still fresh in my mind.
- Exercise can help lower cholesterol slightly. But try to have a reasonable balance between cardio and resistance training. Too much cardio risks having some muscles actually weaken if you maintain a large calorie deficit.
- Diet-wise, you want to go for sustainable weight management, so no extreme or gimmicky diets. Avoid Atkins and Keto (unless a professional tells you you actually need to avoid carbs), extreme fasting, etc.
- 3 moderate meals a day are better than 2 or 1 large feast(s) because they keep your metabolism going for most of the day. Your body can adapt to feast/famine and can go into ketosis, but these are survival mechanisms and harmful, even counterproductive, if you keep your body in these modes for long periods of time (you might even gain weight in feast/famine mode because when you do eat, your body converts as much sugar into fat as it possibly can, in order to prepare reserves for the next “famine”).
- Some fasting is good for spirituality and to teach self-control, but it should not be a permanent state (I plan to fast Mondays and Thursdays as much as possible, leading up to Ramadan in about 50 days). Fasting every single day for the rest of your life is not realistic and probably does more harm than good.
- Eat raw nuts (raw almonds have been observed to lower total cholesterol, lower LDL, and raise the HDL/LDL ratio) as much as you can within your calorie allowance. In general, more plant-based protein and fats, and less animal-based is very helpful (but watch out for high saturated fat from coconuts, and too much soy can mess up men’s hormones). Edit: the soy evidence is not conclusive - see comments below.
- Keep your calorie allowance reasonable and sustainable, and try to eat a good variety of fruits, vegetables, grains, beans, legume, meats, etc. with moderation in everything.
- Exercise can help lower cholesterol slightly. But try to have a reasonable balance between cardio and resistance training. Too much cardio risks having some muscles actually weaken if you maintain a large calorie deficit.
- Diet-wise, you want to go for sustainable weight management, so no extreme or gimmicky diets. Avoid Atkins and Keto (unless a professional tells you you actually need to avoid carbs), extreme fasting, etc.
- 3 moderate meals a day are better than 2 or 1 large feast(s) because they keep your metabolism going for most of the day. Your body can adapt to feast/famine and can go into ketosis, but these are survival mechanisms and harmful, even counterproductive, if you keep your body in these modes for long periods of time (you might even gain weight in feast/famine mode because when you do eat, your body converts as much sugar into fat as it possibly can, in order to prepare reserves for the next “famine”).
- Some fasting is good for spirituality and to teach self-control, but it should not be a permanent state (I plan to fast Mondays and Thursdays as much as possible, leading up to Ramadan in about 50 days). Fasting every single day for the rest of your life is not realistic and probably does more harm than good.
- Eat raw nuts (raw almonds have been observed to lower total cholesterol, lower LDL, and raise the HDL/LDL ratio) as much as you can within your calorie allowance. In general, more plant-based protein and fats, and less animal-based is very helpful (but watch out for high saturated fat from coconuts, and too much soy can mess up men’s hormones). Edit: the soy evidence is not conclusive - see comments below.
- Keep your calorie allowance reasonable and sustainable, and try to eat a good variety of fruits, vegetables, grains, beans, legume, meats, etc. with moderation in everything.
I'm going to ask for a reference on the soy comment. I know there's a lot of fear mongering on soy but I haven't heard of any studies to prove that.
Rest of the advice seems good. Lower fat in diet (specifically dairy fats), increase exercise, higher fiber, lower sugar, more nuts/avocados/salmon.
Treat the disease and not the numbers - so look at all your risk factors for atherosclerosis.
Rest of the advice seems good. Lower fat in diet (specifically dairy fats), increase exercise, higher fiber, lower sugar, more nuts/avocados/salmon.
Treat the disease and not the numbers - so look at all your risk factors for atherosclerosis.
I’m not suggesting avoiding soy altogether, just cautioning against excessive consumption of it. Studies are showing mixed conclusions, but it’s not all fear mongering:
Study showing some effect: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15735098/
Study showing little effect: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11880595/
While the evidence is inconclusive, I wouldn’t take chances if I were trying to have kids. I would imagine getting __all__ of your protein from soy could potentially be harmful, perhaps even in ways other than decreasing testosterone and sperm count.
In general, everything in moderation is best.
Study showing some effect: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15735098/
Study showing little effect: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11880595/
While the evidence is inconclusive, I wouldn’t take chances if I were trying to have kids. I would imagine getting __all__ of your protein from soy could potentially be harmful, perhaps even in ways other than decreasing testosterone and sperm count.
In general, everything in moderation is best.
> Fasting every single day for the rest of your life is not realistic and probably does more harm than good.
What evidence is there for this statement? What is considered "fasting?" I can't see how a 12-hour feeding window would be problematic. I could understand some people might develop "disordered eating" if their approach is unsustainable, but "more harm than good" isn't true for those that can do it.
One reason for fasting is that it improves insulin sensitivity.
From: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/intermittent-fasting-sur...
"Based on this, researchers from the University of Alabama conducted a study with a small group of obese men with prediabetes. They compared a form of intermittent fasting called "early time-restricted feeding," where all meals were fit into an early eight-hour period of the day (7 am to 3 pm), or spread out over 12 hours (between 7 am and 7 pm). Both groups maintained their weight (did not gain or lose) but after five weeks, the eight-hours group had dramatically lower insulin levels and significantly improved insulin sensitivity, as well as significantly lower blood pressure. The best part? The eight-hours group also had significantly decreased appetite. They weren’t starving."
What evidence is there for this statement? What is considered "fasting?" I can't see how a 12-hour feeding window would be problematic. I could understand some people might develop "disordered eating" if their approach is unsustainable, but "more harm than good" isn't true for those that can do it.
One reason for fasting is that it improves insulin sensitivity.
From: https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/intermittent-fasting-sur...
"Based on this, researchers from the University of Alabama conducted a study with a small group of obese men with prediabetes. They compared a form of intermittent fasting called "early time-restricted feeding," where all meals were fit into an early eight-hour period of the day (7 am to 3 pm), or spread out over 12 hours (between 7 am and 7 pm). Both groups maintained their weight (did not gain or lose) but after five weeks, the eight-hours group had dramatically lower insulin levels and significantly improved insulin sensitivity, as well as significantly lower blood pressure. The best part? The eight-hours group also had significantly decreased appetite. They weren’t starving."
I can’t edit my original comment but I’ll try to add some nuance:
- When I say “fasting” I mean not eating for a good chunk of the day. My Muslim background made me overlook the need to define that clearly.
- I doubt most people can sustain fasting indefinitely, so “disordered eating” and metabolism going out of whack is the most likely outcome.
- If someone has a good reason to fast indefinitely - based on professional advice - then they should go for it. But, like other extreme measures, it’s probably not for the general population.
- When I say “fasting” I mean not eating for a good chunk of the day. My Muslim background made me overlook the need to define that clearly.
- I doubt most people can sustain fasting indefinitely, so “disordered eating” and metabolism going out of whack is the most likely outcome.
- If someone has a good reason to fast indefinitely - based on professional advice - then they should go for it. But, like other extreme measures, it’s probably not for the general population.
High cholesterol runs in the family (my grandfather exercises 7 days a week, is thin as a rail, and had a heart attack at 60). I'm 31 and learned that I have high LDL two years ago.
I can only speak to my case, so YMMV. Through a liver blood panel, I learned that I had high bilirubin, SHBG, and GGH - which indicate compromised gallbladder and liver function. One doctor suggested I have my gallbladder removed.
Instead, through research on pubmed and examine.com, I was pointed to TUDCA - a bile salt that helps clear cholesterol and biliary sludge. After two months of supplementation, I've seen a severe reduction in intestinal discomfort - and I suspect a follow-up blood test will show a reduction in my high liver panel and LDL.
If you have abnormally high LDL for your body type and lifestyle, I would encourage you to get a liver panel and look into TUDCA.
I can only speak to my case, so YMMV. Through a liver blood panel, I learned that I had high bilirubin, SHBG, and GGH - which indicate compromised gallbladder and liver function. One doctor suggested I have my gallbladder removed.
Instead, through research on pubmed and examine.com, I was pointed to TUDCA - a bile salt that helps clear cholesterol and biliary sludge. After two months of supplementation, I've seen a severe reduction in intestinal discomfort - and I suspect a follow-up blood test will show a reduction in my high liver panel and LDL.
If you have abnormally high LDL for your body type and lifestyle, I would encourage you to get a liver panel and look into TUDCA.
Wearing modern shoes. As a society, we have somehow led everyone down the path that feet must be wrapped in socks that constrict the feet, then placed in shoes that are designed for looks and not anatomy. It's led to generations of people that have weak feet, and unnecessary pain all throughout their body because the base of what they stand on has been weakened.
Wearing toe socks and minimalist shoes, combined with going barefoot as much as possible, has rescued my feet, ankles, and knees from pain.
Wearing toe socks and minimalist shoes, combined with going barefoot as much as possible, has rescued my feet, ankles, and knees from pain.
Just an addendum since HN is so often quick to try new things.
Do not. Do not. Do not jump into jogging with barefoot or minimal shoes without a very very slow increase in distance. Even if you feel fine and don't notice any pain or problem, or your cardio can support you going 5 kilometers, you want to very slowly adjust up your distance/time spent doing harder exercise with that type of big change in footwear.
Otherwise you can give yourself injuries that can lead to short-term or even long-term/permanent complications that interfere with your quality of life and physical abilities.
Do not. Do not. Do not jump into jogging with barefoot or minimal shoes without a very very slow increase in distance. Even if you feel fine and don't notice any pain or problem, or your cardio can support you going 5 kilometers, you want to very slowly adjust up your distance/time spent doing harder exercise with that type of big change in footwear.
Otherwise you can give yourself injuries that can lead to short-term or even long-term/permanent complications that interfere with your quality of life and physical abilities.
Agreed, I spent 8-12 months transitioning to minimalist footwear for daily use. Then picked up running slowly, to eventually running a half marathon in very thin running sandals.
I'll add to this. There are situations and people who need modern arch support for functional feet, but if you have healthy feet, arch support all the time only takes away from the muscle strength needed to keep them that way. I've found similarly for back support, my back is doing better sitting on a yoga pillow or stool (And putting effort into proper posture) than any amount of ergonomic back support.
Ergonomic keyboards, on the other hand, are something everyone should be using from the start (though we are still figuring out how to make them right). Humans evolved to sit and walk, but not to keyboard...
Ergonomic keyboards, on the other hand, are something everyone should be using from the start (though we are still figuring out how to make them right). Humans evolved to sit and walk, but not to keyboard...
> arch support all the time only takes away from the muscle strength needed to keep them that way
Years ago, I suddenly increased my walking and started having horrific pain in my arches. In response, I started wearing arch support insoles all the time. If I didn't wear them, my arches would ache. Like you said, my foot strength got very poor and I eventually suffered a serious injury in my midfoot playing basketball. During rehab, I stopped wearing the arch supports and eventually moved on to minimalist shoes and my feet have gotten dramatically stronger and I never notice weakness in my arches anymore.
Years ago, I suddenly increased my walking and started having horrific pain in my arches. In response, I started wearing arch support insoles all the time. If I didn't wear them, my arches would ache. Like you said, my foot strength got very poor and I eventually suffered a serious injury in my midfoot playing basketball. During rehab, I stopped wearing the arch supports and eventually moved on to minimalist shoes and my feet have gotten dramatically stronger and I never notice weakness in my arches anymore.
For me wearing superfeet inserts completely fixed my knee pain.
In a similar vein I found flat-soled shoes like Converse sneakers are a dream to wear during daily activities, rather than arch-supported shoes.
Hrmm, I've long been a fan of thin-soled, low profile shoes, but having experienced my first ever pair of Converse just last year, I'd suggest 'avoid'.
They're not expensive, but they're certainly not cheap - but they certainly don't last very long at all. I walk a couple of miles a day to and from work and they barely lasted 6 weeks. Soles were worn down and the uppers were just knackered.
They're not expensive, but they're certainly not cheap - but they certainly don't last very long at all. I walk a couple of miles a day to and from work and they barely lasted 6 weeks. Soles were worn down and the uppers were just knackered.
My partner had a similar experience.
Bought new Converse shoes which were specifically marketed as walking shoes. 5-6 weeks of ~20 minutes moderate walking per day and they both had holes in the soles.
Went back to the Converse store and got told "no refunds". We eventually got our money back, but not without an argument. It pays to understand consumer protection laws where you live.
Bought new Converse shoes which were specifically marketed as walking shoes. 5-6 weeks of ~20 minutes moderate walking per day and they both had holes in the soles.
Went back to the Converse store and got told "no refunds". We eventually got our money back, but not without an argument. It pays to understand consumer protection laws where you live.
Are you very heavy, drag your feet, or otherwise cause a lot of abuse to them?
They aren't the highest quality shoe but they should last much longer than six weeks. Most of mine have lasted years with daily use.
They aren't the highest quality shoe but they should last much longer than six weeks. Most of mine have lasted years with daily use.
I'm certainly not heavy and think in fact I'm quite light - dainty perhaps (!) - on my feet (hence the preference for thin-soled shoes).
My partner swears by Converse, but hers seem to get knackered within a year anyway.
I think I just walk quite a lot, comparatively.
My partner swears by Converse, but hers seem to get knackered within a year anyway.
I think I just walk quite a lot, comparatively.
Converse require you to have narrow feet or else they will just hurt your feet. They are also not very durable.
Definitely a good start. It can be difficult for many to transition as you are trying to use muscles that haven't been engaged properly for decades.
I suggest flip flops for almost everything. I hiked to Annapurna Bass Camp in a pair and was the only one in my trekking part not suffering from chronic foot pain.
I would guess that was more about people having rushed out for fancy new boots they'd never worn (and 'broken in') before, rather than the comparative quality/appropriateness of footwear?
I've never walked in flip flops, but I always take a pair to change into when we stop. People sit around in hot sweaty boots and socks, best case they're wetter & smellier than they need to be for the next day; quite likely to start rubbing and give sores; at worst promoting nasty fungal/bacterial goings on.
I've never walked in flip flops, but I always take a pair to change into when we stop. People sit around in hot sweaty boots and socks, best case they're wetter & smellier than they need to be for the next day; quite likely to start rubbing and give sores; at worst promoting nasty fungal/bacterial goings on.
Expecting other people to reach out to me without making any real effort myself.
At some point I heard this thought experiment: If you could only have one, which is more important: To love or to be loved?
Now I understand that if I want to receive love and connection that I have to be able to give it. This shift has strengthened so many of my relationships and helped me build new ones as well.
At some point I heard this thought experiment: If you could only have one, which is more important: To love or to be loved?
Now I understand that if I want to receive love and connection that I have to be able to give it. This shift has strengthened so many of my relationships and helped me build new ones as well.
[deleted]
I used to assume the religious people were missing something and missing out on the latest and greatest.
Now I am seeing that often it's us the non-religious that have lost something of value and are trying to replace it with things that don't work as well.
Now I am seeing that often it's us the non-religious that have lost something of value and are trying to replace it with things that don't work as well.
I was raised in a Christian community and went to a private Christian school all the way until graduation, though really stopped believing all the stuff by 11th grade or so. And it's wild the parallels I see between the modern political climate and religion. It really seems that in the process of masses leaving the church, they've gone on to adopt the exact same behaviors but worshipping other things - government, advertising, virtue signalling to show you're the most "on board" with the movement. They've wrapped around to enforcing censorship of art and being against free speech just like the Christians did when they were in charge.
But I recall most people in the actual church at least had some form of a community, and many seemed happy and selfless. This modern church that pretends it isn't a church only breeds toxicity, selfishness, vitriol, and depression. Everyone is holding each other hostage, knowing that if anyone steps out of line and questions the status quo they'll be burned in the village square as an example to whoever might do it next. The actual church community I was in was more accepting in almost all regards than this new system.
I honestly wish a lot of these people would just find a normal religion. It's way easier to get along with normal religious people than the types people being getting hooked on these new systems of thought.
But I recall most people in the actual church at least had some form of a community, and many seemed happy and selfless. This modern church that pretends it isn't a church only breeds toxicity, selfishness, vitriol, and depression. Everyone is holding each other hostage, knowing that if anyone steps out of line and questions the status quo they'll be burned in the village square as an example to whoever might do it next. The actual church community I was in was more accepting in almost all regards than this new system.
I honestly wish a lot of these people would just find a normal religion. It's way easier to get along with normal religious people than the types people being getting hooked on these new systems of thought.
> It really seems that in the process of masses leaving the church, they've gone on to adopt the exact same behaviors but worshipping other things - government, advertising, virtue signalling to show you're the most "on board" with the movement.
I think that's because these things aren't from church, they're part of human nature.
One of the churches I went to as a child was toxic, the other wasn't. The religious community isn't immune to human nature.
50-60 years ago the country was much more religious and you’d encounter people saying they’d never let their child marry a democrat and vice-versa according to my grandparents. To them, things are mostly better and what we have is the appearance of greater division.
I think that's because these things aren't from church, they're part of human nature.
One of the churches I went to as a child was toxic, the other wasn't. The religious community isn't immune to human nature.
50-60 years ago the country was much more religious and you’d encounter people saying they’d never let their child marry a democrat and vice-versa according to my grandparents. To them, things are mostly better and what we have is the appearance of greater division.
> 50-60 years ago the country was much more religious
and 100 years ago, much less! at most 40% of the US regularly attended church services in the 1910s.
and 100 years ago, much less! at most 40% of the US regularly attended church services in the 1910s.
I think the 1910 figure might have more to do with practical concerns. When you have no car and live on a farm far from anything, as a huge number of people did back then, you can't regularly get to church even if you wanted to. So I wouldn't interpret that number as a clean measure of religiosity.
Go for a drive in new england sometime and count the churches in the sticks. There's usually 2-5 congregations per tiny little hamlet, most of them built in the mid-1800s or earlier; most of them now defunct or dying. Sometimes you get 3 schisms of congregationalists in a row!
"build a church and school within reasonable walking distance" was rule 1 of new towns for a good long while.
"build a church and school within reasonable walking distance" was rule 1 of new towns for a good long while.
Could some of that be due to the shift from a rural to urban society? If getting to church requires taking a horse and buggy 10 miles down dirt roads, then most weeks you might have a DIY religious observance at home on the farm instead. If you live in a town where you can walk to a neighborhood church, you're probably more likely to make it a regular habit.
It's kind of the other way around: what was so weird and new about the 50s that performative church attendance was so high?
And i can think of ~three answers: post-war trauma, a population bubble, and a percieved need in the white middle class for social discrimination and "order" against internally, integration and externally, "the godless commies". (see: HUAC, adding "under god" to the pledge)
I figure that the 50s were an anomaly, not the other way around.
And i can think of ~three answers: post-war trauma, a population bubble, and a percieved need in the white middle class for social discrimination and "order" against internally, integration and externally, "the godless commies". (see: HUAC, adding "under god" to the pledge)
I figure that the 50s were an anomaly, not the other way around.
> 50-60 years ago the country was much more religious
I think religion adapts and changes; religion was more mainstream, less toxic, and uniform than it is now. The median person is probably less religious (in terms of sticking to an established religion) but the upper 1/3 of the spectrum is more religious, in that they believe more extreme things, with less evidence, and are less likely to compromise. The past 40 years of the evangelical movement, which has been coopted by the conservative movement, has been extremely polarizing.
I think religion adapts and changes; religion was more mainstream, less toxic, and uniform than it is now. The median person is probably less religious (in terms of sticking to an established religion) but the upper 1/3 of the spectrum is more religious, in that they believe more extreme things, with less evidence, and are less likely to compromise. The past 40 years of the evangelical movement, which has been coopted by the conservative movement, has been extremely polarizing.
I'm not sure that it was any less toxic, just that the background level of toxicity has decreased.
My mother clearly remembers being called out in front of her church for the unforgivable sin of attending a school dance, and that was in the mid-60s. Don't forget why the Southern Baptists broke away from the Baptists.
My mother clearly remembers being called out in front of her church for the unforgivable sin of attending a school dance, and that was in the mid-60s. Don't forget why the Southern Baptists broke away from the Baptists.
just grinning a little at the phrase "breaking away from the baptists" : really, what's to break away from? It's a denomination primarily defined by everyone being a schismatic from everyone else.
A certain amount of this conformism is human nature .. but a lot of people, especially anyone queer, was rejected by the church rather than left. I suspect you're not seeing this because you're not in the reject category.
The failure mode of churches (and, yes, some of the more optimistic commune arrangements) is toxic positivity: everything is great, and anyone who doesn't agree is going to be dealt with. This makes it extremely difficult to report when someone has been raping adults or children.
The failure mode of churches (and, yes, some of the more optimistic commune arrangements) is toxic positivity: everything is great, and anyone who doesn't agree is going to be dealt with. This makes it extremely difficult to report when someone has been raping adults or children.
I think the cat's out of the bag - there's no sky friend looking out for us. There's no going back now for most people.
This has been replaced by ersatz religions, but I think we should start explicitly worshipping the concept of civilization and progress. From a certain point of view, civilization is a cybernetic organism that encompasses all of us and gives us all sorts of neat things.
This has been replaced by ersatz religions, but I think we should start explicitly worshipping the concept of civilization and progress. From a certain point of view, civilization is a cybernetic organism that encompasses all of us and gives us all sorts of neat things.
"Progress means getting nearer to the place you want to be. And if you have taken a wrong turn, then to go forward does not get you any nearer.
If you are on the wrong road, progress means doing an about-turn and walking back to the right road; and in that case the man who turns back soonest is the most progressive man."
~ C. S. Lewis
~ C. S. Lewis
> there's no sky friend looking out for us
That's much too simplistic and isn't going to convince anyone of the point you're trying to make.
> his has been replaced by ersatz religions, but I think we should start explicitly worshipping the concept of civilization and progress
We've done this multiple times before and always with disastrous or at least dissipative results. The technical term for this is "cult" and more specifically "idolatry". There are very good reasons why this has generally been proscribed by monotheistic religions.
> civilization is a cybernetic organism that encompasses all of us
Saying civilization is cybernetic in that it consists of feedback loops that keep it in a stable condition is stretching it. Perhaps a nation could be cybernetic since it contains a variety of channels through which this information can flow in both directions but a civilization as a supranational system has some very tight bottlenecks that would impede such functioning.
> gives us all sorts of neat things
It does not. People do that and the things are not so much given as they are bargained for whether with money or by signing on to a social contract or adopting cultural values.
That's much too simplistic and isn't going to convince anyone of the point you're trying to make.
> his has been replaced by ersatz religions, but I think we should start explicitly worshipping the concept of civilization and progress
We've done this multiple times before and always with disastrous or at least dissipative results. The technical term for this is "cult" and more specifically "idolatry". There are very good reasons why this has generally been proscribed by monotheistic religions.
> civilization is a cybernetic organism that encompasses all of us
Saying civilization is cybernetic in that it consists of feedback loops that keep it in a stable condition is stretching it. Perhaps a nation could be cybernetic since it contains a variety of channels through which this information can flow in both directions but a civilization as a supranational system has some very tight bottlenecks that would impede such functioning.
> gives us all sorts of neat things
It does not. People do that and the things are not so much given as they are bargained for whether with money or by signing on to a social contract or adopting cultural values.
> I think we should start explicitly worshipping the concept of civilization and progress
Isn't this exactly what the French Revolution's first wave, the Nazis, the Soviets, and the Maoists all did? Or are you suggesting something more explicitly Hegelian like the religion of "The sign of the T" from Brave New World (though that religion was focused on production not transformation)?
Isn't this exactly what the French Revolution's first wave, the Nazis, the Soviets, and the Maoists all did? Or are you suggesting something more explicitly Hegelian like the religion of "The sign of the T" from Brave New World (though that religion was focused on production not transformation)?
An interesting idea from the Soviet Union: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/God-Building
> replaced by ersatz religions
There's no doubt about that. Humans have a very strong religious bent that is bred into us by evolution selecting for motivated, tenacious people who fight to survive but whose brains can't stop patterning-matching, perceiving threats and agency behind things, and performing rituals. Not to mention, organizing around common beliefs. Without various sky-friend myths, we organize around other myths. Thankfully we have good science now, but that's unfortunately often less sexy (and more difficult) than pseudo-science and fads.
There's no doubt about that. Humans have a very strong religious bent that is bred into us by evolution selecting for motivated, tenacious people who fight to survive but whose brains can't stop patterning-matching, perceiving threats and agency behind things, and performing rituals. Not to mention, organizing around common beliefs. Without various sky-friend myths, we organize around other myths. Thankfully we have good science now, but that's unfortunately often less sexy (and more difficult) than pseudo-science and fads.
No only are people worshiping dishonest politicians, but since radical people don't abandon their ideas, the churches have gone through a selection process where all but the most radical of them weakened.
We have lost something very important on the conversion of our society to laic values. We have gained very important things too, so I don't think the best correction is to reverse anything, but we have some work to do on those things that we lost.
We have lost something very important on the conversion of our society to laic values. We have gained very important things too, so I don't think the best correction is to reverse anything, but we have some work to do on those things that we lost.
What are "normal religious people"? I think religion is really being used as a stand-in for Christian here.
Meet the new Puritans, same as the old Puritans.
This has way more to do with the kind of person who leans areligious in a religious society than being areligious itself. In a religious society, most normal people will be religious
In more atheistic countries, the religious people are the ones that are harder to get along with, as normal people are a lot less religious.
In more atheistic countries, the religious people are the ones that are harder to get along with, as normal people are a lot less religious.
Genuinely, you come across as someone who does not interact with non believers and have attitude about them shaped primary by hostile media. Starting from assumption that most people who left Christianity joined "movement" which seems to be mostly euphemism for culture war you are fully into.
Tribalism is at the core of our species i think. With metaphysical "explanations" or scientific ones.
> It really seems that in the process of masses leaving the church, they've gone on to adopt the exact same behaviors but worshipping other things - government, advertising, virtue signalling to show you're the most "on board" with the movement.
People serve these idols, and many others, to give meaning to their lives, to justify their existence. They are afraid of death--that is, not only physical death but everything which does or seems to militate against life: alienation, lack of identity, frustration, pain, meaninglessness. And so they grasp, as it were, after aspects of life which seem to promise freedom from some form of death, and serve them as idols. But what they are really serving is death, for the fear of death is the power behind all idolatry. And yet, as we have seen, idolatry can only lead to death in one form or another, to violence and dehumanization and also to the degradation or destruction of what is idolized.
It is a distinctive mark of the biblical mind to discern that human history is a drama of death and resurrection and not, as religionists of all sorts suppose, a simplistic conflict of evil vs. good in an abstract sense. For what is "good" is, basically, what is good for man and creation--in other words, what is life-giving, life-preserving, life-perfecting. God, the Living One, is the author of life, he is on the side of life...That which is truly evil is that which thwarts life. And sin is any denial or rejection of the gift of life; an offense against God who bestows the gift. But the wages of sin is death, not by some arbitrary decree on God's part, but because sin by its nature is possessed of death, anti-life, death-dealing, both to the sinner and in the various kinds of death it occasions in the world.
You're probably in the right head space to appreciate "Impostors of God: Inquiries Into Favorite Idols" by William Stringfellow (1969).
Cryptonomicon is another good one, though far less prophetic/scholarly:
To translate it into UNIX system administration terms (Randy's fundamental metaphor for just about everything), the post modern, politically correct atheists were like people who had suddenly found themselves in charge of a big and unfathomably complex computer system (viz, society) with no documentation or instructions of any kind, and so whose only way to keep the thing running was to invent and enforce certain rules with a kind of neo-Puritanical rigor, because they were at a loss to deal with any deviations from what they saw as the norm. Whereas people who were wired into a church were like UNIX system administrators who, while they might not understand everything, at least had some documentation, some FAQs and How tos and README files, providing some guidance on what to do when things got out of whack. They were, in other words, capable of displaying adaptability.
People serve these idols, and many others, to give meaning to their lives, to justify their existence. They are afraid of death--that is, not only physical death but everything which does or seems to militate against life: alienation, lack of identity, frustration, pain, meaninglessness. And so they grasp, as it were, after aspects of life which seem to promise freedom from some form of death, and serve them as idols. But what they are really serving is death, for the fear of death is the power behind all idolatry. And yet, as we have seen, idolatry can only lead to death in one form or another, to violence and dehumanization and also to the degradation or destruction of what is idolized.
It is a distinctive mark of the biblical mind to discern that human history is a drama of death and resurrection and not, as religionists of all sorts suppose, a simplistic conflict of evil vs. good in an abstract sense. For what is "good" is, basically, what is good for man and creation--in other words, what is life-giving, life-preserving, life-perfecting. God, the Living One, is the author of life, he is on the side of life...That which is truly evil is that which thwarts life. And sin is any denial or rejection of the gift of life; an offense against God who bestows the gift. But the wages of sin is death, not by some arbitrary decree on God's part, but because sin by its nature is possessed of death, anti-life, death-dealing, both to the sinner and in the various kinds of death it occasions in the world.
You're probably in the right head space to appreciate "Impostors of God: Inquiries Into Favorite Idols" by William Stringfellow (1969).
Cryptonomicon is another good one, though far less prophetic/scholarly:
To translate it into UNIX system administration terms (Randy's fundamental metaphor for just about everything), the post modern, politically correct atheists were like people who had suddenly found themselves in charge of a big and unfathomably complex computer system (viz, society) with no documentation or instructions of any kind, and so whose only way to keep the thing running was to invent and enforce certain rules with a kind of neo-Puritanical rigor, because they were at a loss to deal with any deviations from what they saw as the norm. Whereas people who were wired into a church were like UNIX system administrators who, while they might not understand everything, at least had some documentation, some FAQs and How tos and README files, providing some guidance on what to do when things got out of whack. They were, in other words, capable of displaying adaptability.
You might like Jordan Peterson's podcast. He talks often about the human need to believe in something outside of ourselves. This need can be satisfied by many things, not all of them good.
Dennis Prager is pretty good on this front too. But, he thinks that religion is a necessity for a happy life.
I don't follow any faith. There are too many religions for any one to be "correct". But I do see religion as a good moral guide, particularly in times of hardship.
Dennis Prager is pretty good on this front too. But, he thinks that religion is a necessity for a happy life.
I don't follow any faith. There are too many religions for any one to be "correct". But I do see religion as a good moral guide, particularly in times of hardship.
I personally wouldn’t recommend listening to either of these guys.
Peterson at least attempts to offer balanced. Prager is a religious quack.
Peterson at least attempts to offer balanced. Prager is a religious quack.
Just because somebody believes in a religion doesn't mean they have nothing to teach you. As far as I can tell through the internet, both are good honest people.
I don't think that it is an overstatement to say that Peterson alone has helped millions improve their lives through his books, talks, and interviews.
I don't think that it is an overstatement to say that Peterson alone has helped millions improve their lives through his books, talks, and interviews.
Prager is no different from the Rush Limbaughs of the world. He’s another divisive conservative talking head fomenting the culture wars they need to stay relevant.
Whether or not the changes many have made in their lives as a result of Peterson’s work are improvements is also debatable.
Whether or not the changes many have made in their lives as a result of Peterson’s work are improvements is also debatable.
I suppose the hundreds of people that have made a point to personally thank him for showing them a way to improve their lives are just lieing about his influence. /s
Is personal thanks a useful metric in this case?
People give thanks to prosperity preachers for their spiritual guidance even as they sit hungry watching the preacher drive away in his Bentley purchased with the money they tithed.
People give thanks to prosperity preachers for their spiritual guidance even as they sit hungry watching the preacher drive away in his Bentley purchased with the money they tithed.
Spot on! Science that can’t be questioned isn’t science it’s dogma. The whole Dr. Fauci worship culture and “trust the science” that emerged during the pandemic felt way too much like a religious cult.
There are a lot of things religion provides that modern society is really dismal at providing: community, care, socialization across class/career lines, relationships with people who live near you, a support system for sick/hurting people, and other benefits
The thing is, none of those are innately tied to religion. We've abandoned churches for what I feel are largely good reasons, but we haven't found something else to fill that void in community and care. We're more insular, more online, less of us know our neighbours or really have a stake in our community welfare in the same way. I don't think the solution is going back to religion.
The thing is, none of those are innately tied to religion. We've abandoned churches for what I feel are largely good reasons, but we haven't found something else to fill that void in community and care. We're more insular, more online, less of us know our neighbours or really have a stake in our community welfare in the same way. I don't think the solution is going back to religion.
Thanks for the response - yes and no.
I think you are right in that in theory you could have "all that stuff" sans religion. And in fact I think Atheism in the boomer generation benefited from cultural inertia - like, you could say you don't belong to a religion but still marry, have kids, participate in community etc simply because that's what everyone else (by the virtue of their religion) was doing around you.
But today it seems like critical mass is elsewhere, and it seems like the religious folks now have a huge advantage over everyone else in terms of marriage, family formation, community and maybe even mental health. So while in theory it's possible, it seems like in practice all of those things declined among the non-religious, just perhaps with a lag of a generation.
The reason I think it might make sense to reengage with religion is the crux of this question: does life have a point, a meaning, etc. Not even "what" the point is but does it exist at all. The idea that the universe is a total accident and nothing is relevant takes you in a certain direction in life and society, while the idea of "there's meaning and purpose" in another.
I think it's hard to anchor your life in the value of meaning without logically accepting a creator of that meaning.
So I think there's an element of faith - either you chose to believe there's meaning or you chose to believe there isn't, everything else is implied by that choice of belief.
I think you are right in that in theory you could have "all that stuff" sans religion. And in fact I think Atheism in the boomer generation benefited from cultural inertia - like, you could say you don't belong to a religion but still marry, have kids, participate in community etc simply because that's what everyone else (by the virtue of their religion) was doing around you.
But today it seems like critical mass is elsewhere, and it seems like the religious folks now have a huge advantage over everyone else in terms of marriage, family formation, community and maybe even mental health. So while in theory it's possible, it seems like in practice all of those things declined among the non-religious, just perhaps with a lag of a generation.
The reason I think it might make sense to reengage with religion is the crux of this question: does life have a point, a meaning, etc. Not even "what" the point is but does it exist at all. The idea that the universe is a total accident and nothing is relevant takes you in a certain direction in life and society, while the idea of "there's meaning and purpose" in another.
I think it's hard to anchor your life in the value of meaning without logically accepting a creator of that meaning.
So I think there's an element of faith - either you chose to believe there's meaning or you chose to believe there isn't, everything else is implied by that choice of belief.
I think you’re right. Religion isn’t the only answer, it’s just the answer that people are most familiar with.
I don't think they're missing out. I just think they're deluded.
It's not the worst thing in the world to be deluded - and frankly I just don't care what they do and say unless it starts to impact me and mine. It's not religion per se I dislike - people are free to live their lives as they see fit, it's the control-structure scam of an organized religion that reels in the gullible, the poor, the disadvantages, those who believe what they're being told. That is disgusting, IM(ns)HO.
These megapastors (and even not-so-megapastors) bilking their flock to pay for the latest Learjet... I think they believe in religion as much as I do, tbh.
It's not the worst thing in the world to be deluded - and frankly I just don't care what they do and say unless it starts to impact me and mine. It's not religion per se I dislike - people are free to live their lives as they see fit, it's the control-structure scam of an organized religion that reels in the gullible, the poor, the disadvantages, those who believe what they're being told. That is disgusting, IM(ns)HO.
These megapastors (and even not-so-megapastors) bilking their flock to pay for the latest Learjet... I think they believe in religion as much as I do, tbh.
You’re using the most extreme example to condemn essentially all organized religion. Many religious scholars and preachers live modest lives, sometimes even by choice.
Of course “religious” folks who tell people they should simply endure, rather than resist, injustice and inequality are disgusting. But sometimes despite your best efforts, the bad guys still win (temporarily).
Telling people that this life is not the end-all-be-all is only manipulative if it’s meant to make people passive. And I know that not everyone informs people about the afterlife out of malice.
Of course “religious” folks who tell people they should simply endure, rather than resist, injustice and inequality are disgusting. But sometimes despite your best efforts, the bad guys still win (temporarily).
Telling people that this life is not the end-all-be-all is only manipulative if it’s meant to make people passive. And I know that not everyone informs people about the afterlife out of malice.
I think you'll find many of them believe more in values than in what you're calling delusions in their own right.
I was born into a Muslim family and have remained a Muslim my entire life, but I have had ups and downs in how observant I have been. I’ve had periods where I was less enthusiastic than my parents. On the flip side, I’ve flirted with extremism a few times and even started alienating my immediate family members. Now, over 40 years old, I feel like I’ve found the right balance: a strong relationship with God, without being seen as obnoxious or dangerous. It feels amazing both personally and when subtly sharing what I believe is the most important factor in having a happy, fulfilling life.
Interestingly, Muslims believe most messengers began their missions at or around 40, so maybe everything before is “formative years”. The one known exception is Jesus Christ, whom we believe was raised to God at 33 but still has a huge role to play in shaping the world.
Interestingly, Muslims believe most messengers began their missions at or around 40, so maybe everything before is “formative years”. The one known exception is Jesus Christ, whom we believe was raised to God at 33 but still has a huge role to play in shaping the world.
Not all non-religious people suffer from some kind of spiritual or ethical deficiency.
I get saddened when religious storytelling fills people with fairy tales and arbitrary hate and makes them incapable of seeing things about existence that are truly beautiful.
I get saddened when religious storytelling fills people with fairy tales and arbitrary hate and makes them incapable of seeing things about existence that are truly beautiful.
What are examples of things about existence that are truly beautiful?
Not the person who you replied to, however:
I'm not sure exactly how to explain this, but the seemingly infinite level of "detail" or "texture" or "complexity" to our universe. No matter how small or large you go, there's always some patterns, some structures, some details to be seen. There's always some other perspective or way of grouping and organizing to reveal new information. The complexity is infinitely deep, wide and layered. Some of that I think is inherent, and some of it is what we create as living entities - which is a great privilege we enjoy.
Take a white painted wall made of drywall. Relatively uninteresting most of the time. But the potential amount of information about it is almost infinite:
* What are all the layers of construction needed to make it?
* What did it cost? For every cent of that money, where did it eventually go? All of them can be tracked from its creation until the end of the currency.
* What people designed the methods to construct it? What were their lives like, what led to them doing so?
* What does the surface look like if you were to look at it at 10x, 100x, 10,000x, etc. scale? How does all of that structure change when it's under pressure? Or wet? Or on fire? Or crushed? Or at different temperatures?
* What does it look like as molecules of air bounce off of it and it insulates the room?
* What are its physical properties? What does it look like in all the different wavelengths of light?
* What is it history, from the retrieval of the materials to its final destruction some time in the future? What is its eventual fate? Will it be destroyed to make room for a newer building? Or in a war? A natural disaster?
* What people were near it? What were they doing and why? Office workers? Secretaries? Programmers? Nurses? Was it separating people who were friends or hated each other?
* What's the history of the design of the pigment used on the wall? What previous pigments did it replace and why?
* If you look at the pattern of bumps and valleys on the surface, does it match some existing pattern? What mathematical formula would most closely re-create the surface variations? What's the closest match to that pattern anywhere in the universe, at any scale? Maybe there's some sand on a beach or a cluster of stars that when viewed from just the right angle matches the pits and valleys on the wall.
* What does the surface feel like? Not just for one person, but for all humans? If you were to take every single human who has ever lived and let them feel the wall, what would happen? Which ones would tell jokes? Which ones would remember something from their past? Which would have some interesting specialist perspective on it? Which ones would like it? Hate it? How would they all describe it?
We only have access to a tiny fraction of that information. But it's all there! You could spend an eternity studying a single blade of grass and it's relation to everything else and all of the history. There's always some new abstraction or perspective or way to look at everything.
I'm not sure exactly how to explain this, but the seemingly infinite level of "detail" or "texture" or "complexity" to our universe. No matter how small or large you go, there's always some patterns, some structures, some details to be seen. There's always some other perspective or way of grouping and organizing to reveal new information. The complexity is infinitely deep, wide and layered. Some of that I think is inherent, and some of it is what we create as living entities - which is a great privilege we enjoy.
Take a white painted wall made of drywall. Relatively uninteresting most of the time. But the potential amount of information about it is almost infinite:
* What are all the layers of construction needed to make it?
* What did it cost? For every cent of that money, where did it eventually go? All of them can be tracked from its creation until the end of the currency.
* What people designed the methods to construct it? What were their lives like, what led to them doing so?
* What does the surface look like if you were to look at it at 10x, 100x, 10,000x, etc. scale? How does all of that structure change when it's under pressure? Or wet? Or on fire? Or crushed? Or at different temperatures?
* What does it look like as molecules of air bounce off of it and it insulates the room?
* What are its physical properties? What does it look like in all the different wavelengths of light?
* What is it history, from the retrieval of the materials to its final destruction some time in the future? What is its eventual fate? Will it be destroyed to make room for a newer building? Or in a war? A natural disaster?
* What people were near it? What were they doing and why? Office workers? Secretaries? Programmers? Nurses? Was it separating people who were friends or hated each other?
* What's the history of the design of the pigment used on the wall? What previous pigments did it replace and why?
* If you look at the pattern of bumps and valleys on the surface, does it match some existing pattern? What mathematical formula would most closely re-create the surface variations? What's the closest match to that pattern anywhere in the universe, at any scale? Maybe there's some sand on a beach or a cluster of stars that when viewed from just the right angle matches the pits and valleys on the wall.
* What does the surface feel like? Not just for one person, but for all humans? If you were to take every single human who has ever lived and let them feel the wall, what would happen? Which ones would tell jokes? Which ones would remember something from their past? Which would have some interesting specialist perspective on it? Which ones would like it? Hate it? How would they all describe it?
We only have access to a tiny fraction of that information. But it's all there! You could spend an eternity studying a single blade of grass and it's relation to everything else and all of the history. There's always some new abstraction or perspective or way to look at everything.
Most of us suffer a kind of nihilism that mankind has never really faced before due to modern science. Materialistic understanding of the world has broken our ability to recognize patterns of being that were once obvious to our ancestors. They would find a modern atheist and fundamentalist equally blind in these areas as they saw the reality of the world much more alive and predictable over vast time periods than we do now and they had the language to understand it.
John Vervaeke and the Pageau Brothers are working hard on this front. I'd highly recommend John's Meaning Crisis Videos, Mathieu Pageau's book on Cosmic Symbolism and Johnathan's educational videos.
If you are new to this, it can be a bit mind bending, but it's duly needed in our time.
https://www.meaningcrisis.co/all-transcripts/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIJuIN6kUcU
https://www.amazon.com/Language-Creation-Symbolism-Genesis-C...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtmLCK1keFI&t=1874s
John Vervaeke and the Pageau Brothers are working hard on this front. I'd highly recommend John's Meaning Crisis Videos, Mathieu Pageau's book on Cosmic Symbolism and Johnathan's educational videos.
If you are new to this, it can be a bit mind bending, but it's duly needed in our time.
https://www.meaningcrisis.co/all-transcripts/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIJuIN6kUcU
https://www.amazon.com/Language-Creation-Symbolism-Genesis-C...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtmLCK1keFI&t=1874s
I really wish I could be religious. I know that the community and meaning it provides would bring me a lot of happiness, I just can't look past it being untrue.
Unitarian Universalism is a church without dogma. Basically, people who generally believe there's a purpose to life, that nobody has any sort of monopoly on the truth, and that there's value to congregating.
You might consider humanism. It provides purpose and community, without requiring a deity.
"There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship. And the compelling reason for maybe choosing some sort of god or spiritual-type thing to worship–be it JC or Allah, be it YHWH or the Wiccan Mother Goddess, or the Four Noble Truths, or some inviolable set of ethical principles–is that pretty much anything else you worship will eat you alive. If you worship money and things, if they are where you tap real meaning in life, then you will never have enough, never feel you have enough. It’s the truth. Worship your body and beauty and sexual allure and you will always feel ugly. And when time and age start showing, you will die a million deaths before they finally grieve you. On one level, we all know this stuff already. It’s been codified as myths, proverbs, clichés, epigrams, parables; the skeleton of every great story. The whole trick is keeping the truth up front in daily consciousness." - DFW
Academic science resembles religion with its dogmas, nepotism, bureaucracies, and favor-currying shibboleths. Deep learning in particular is akin to modern alchemy [1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7psGHgatGM
Academic science resembles religion with its dogmas, nepotism, bureaucracies, and favor-currying shibboleths. Deep learning in particular is akin to modern alchemy [1].
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7psGHgatGM
Everyone is always quick to tell you why you need to be religious, and I don’t even disagree with most of the reasons.
What’s frustrating is nobody tells you how to reverse a life of agnosticism bordering on atheism, and suddenly be catholic,Buddhist,etc
What’s frustrating is nobody tells you how to reverse a life of agnosticism bordering on atheism, and suddenly be catholic,Buddhist,etc
This is a great point and as someone who has grown from a total atheist to the person that kicked off this thread, I can relate.
I don't think there's a simple answer on how to flip that light switch but I can share some ideas.
First, do you have religious people in your life whom you respect even if you don't share their faith. Ask them about it - you can literally say "I don't get it at all but I am curious, what's this like for you?" And just see what resonates.
Second, that is a question you can direct to a member of clergy. If you can't envision yourself walking into a house of worship, shoot an email and be like "I am faithless but curious. I am sure I am not the first one..."
Third, be really for hits and misses. Not every religious person can articulate it in a way that will make sense to you, and not every clergy person can speak to it effectively either (some people can only preach to the converted, to borrow a phrase.) But if you ping a few people, some of them may give you something that's a good thread to follow.
Fourth, I suggest starting with whatever faith your family was historically in. There's something cool about that.
Fifth, if really nothing else - shoot me a way to contact you and we can chat about my experience.
I don't think there's a simple answer on how to flip that light switch but I can share some ideas.
First, do you have religious people in your life whom you respect even if you don't share their faith. Ask them about it - you can literally say "I don't get it at all but I am curious, what's this like for you?" And just see what resonates.
Second, that is a question you can direct to a member of clergy. If you can't envision yourself walking into a house of worship, shoot an email and be like "I am faithless but curious. I am sure I am not the first one..."
Third, be really for hits and misses. Not every religious person can articulate it in a way that will make sense to you, and not every clergy person can speak to it effectively either (some people can only preach to the converted, to borrow a phrase.) But if you ping a few people, some of them may give you something that's a good thread to follow.
Fourth, I suggest starting with whatever faith your family was historically in. There's something cool about that.
Fifth, if really nothing else - shoot me a way to contact you and we can chat about my experience.
Further. Religion requires something to assent and belong to. That will always be a choice to some degree.
As someone who is formerly deeply Christian and left for intellectual/theological reasons. I miss the communal binding of organized worship. But reversing or getting back to that place requires either 1) letting go of intellectual integrity, or 2) finding a group who is similarly interested in dispassionate community organizing without supernatural theology.
The 1st has proven personally impossible. The 2nd seems very unlikely. All the attempts of secular church I have seen never pick up steam and trail off over time. Thus, the person who sees religious association as a broad good is left without a natural landing spot.
As someone who is formerly deeply Christian and left for intellectual/theological reasons. I miss the communal binding of organized worship. But reversing or getting back to that place requires either 1) letting go of intellectual integrity, or 2) finding a group who is similarly interested in dispassionate community organizing without supernatural theology.
The 1st has proven personally impossible. The 2nd seems very unlikely. All the attempts of secular church I have seen never pick up steam and trail off over time. Thus, the person who sees religious association as a broad good is left without a natural landing spot.
// But reversing or getting back to that place requires either 1) letting go of intellectual integrity
I love how you crystalized the point although I've reached a different conclusion.
This was actually my original "before" state - I assumed that religion was an illogical holdover and not something that I ( a logical / scientist ) person can internalize.
But over time, I connected with people who are very smart and very logical and whose faith is deepened by this (though to be clear, faith is still faith - even if you believe in the absence of a deity that's still a belief)
So I am very happy that I am at a place where I can grow my religious and faithful over time while being logically and internally consistent.
I appreciate that this is something that matters to you and perhaps something you could enjoy is to connect with someone whom you respect as an intellectual who is also religious, and see how they make sense of it.
I love how you crystalized the point although I've reached a different conclusion.
This was actually my original "before" state - I assumed that religion was an illogical holdover and not something that I ( a logical / scientist ) person can internalize.
But over time, I connected with people who are very smart and very logical and whose faith is deepened by this (though to be clear, faith is still faith - even if you believe in the absence of a deity that's still a belief)
So I am very happy that I am at a place where I can grow my religious and faithful over time while being logically and internally consistent.
I appreciate that this is something that matters to you and perhaps something you could enjoy is to connect with someone whom you respect as an intellectual who is also religious, and see how they make sense of it.
"...where I can grow my religious and faithful over time while being logically and internally consistent."
But... HOW?
I don't know a single person who is an intellectual, scientifically minded, and openly religious. So I'm asking genuinely here on HN how you do it.
But... HOW?
I don't know a single person who is an intellectual, scientifically minded, and openly religious. So I'm asking genuinely here on HN how you do it.
I don't know what I believe about much of anything anymore, but here's some random nudges if you are indeed genuinely asking:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Plantinga
> I don't know a single person who is an intellectual, scientifically minded, and openly religious.
But you may well know people who are intellectual, scientifically minded and closeted religious. As this thread can attest, there is rampant discrimination against religious experience and thought in the science/tech community.
> So I'm asking genuinely here on HN how you do it.
I believe that most deep religious experiences are things that happen to you, not things that you actively plan for. But having said that, I believe that the key in general is humility. So many people in this thread (and others on HN) have displayed incredible arrogance that is an effective protective barrier from having a religious experience. This is very much their loss. We all end up humbled eventually though.
No matter how you feel about religion in the 21st century, we would not have a civilization were it not for religion. When you dig deep enough, you will generally find that the seed of the society came from a visionary mystic. Even Genghis Khan was a shaman as much as he was a warrior.
Empirical science is neither the beginning nor the end, though it is an extraordinarily powerful tool. The rules of empirical science are bounded in such a way that it is essentially impossible to talk scientifically about some of the most important aspects of being human. Funnily enough, scientists engage just as much as religious people in mysticism when they throw up their hands and describe consciousness as an "emergent" phenomenon.
Religious texts are deeply fascinating if you allow them to be. Think of them as founding civilizational documents like a constitution. All of us live in cultures that descend from these (relatively) ancient texts. You would not be here if it weren't for these past religious traditions. That doesn't mean that we should blindly follow religious leaders or accept everything that we read in these texts. But we should at least have some curiosity about how we got here and ask what relevant wisdom might still be there for us in these texts. That is a far more scientific approach than casually dismissing religion as nonsense.
But you may well know people who are intellectual, scientifically minded and closeted religious. As this thread can attest, there is rampant discrimination against religious experience and thought in the science/tech community.
> So I'm asking genuinely here on HN how you do it.
I believe that most deep religious experiences are things that happen to you, not things that you actively plan for. But having said that, I believe that the key in general is humility. So many people in this thread (and others on HN) have displayed incredible arrogance that is an effective protective barrier from having a religious experience. This is very much their loss. We all end up humbled eventually though.
No matter how you feel about religion in the 21st century, we would not have a civilization were it not for religion. When you dig deep enough, you will generally find that the seed of the society came from a visionary mystic. Even Genghis Khan was a shaman as much as he was a warrior.
Empirical science is neither the beginning nor the end, though it is an extraordinarily powerful tool. The rules of empirical science are bounded in such a way that it is essentially impossible to talk scientifically about some of the most important aspects of being human. Funnily enough, scientists engage just as much as religious people in mysticism when they throw up their hands and describe consciousness as an "emergent" phenomenon.
Religious texts are deeply fascinating if you allow them to be. Think of them as founding civilizational documents like a constitution. All of us live in cultures that descend from these (relatively) ancient texts. You would not be here if it weren't for these past religious traditions. That doesn't mean that we should blindly follow religious leaders or accept everything that we read in these texts. But we should at least have some curiosity about how we got here and ask what relevant wisdom might still be there for us in these texts. That is a far more scientific approach than casually dismissing religion as nonsense.
There's an intellectual, scientifically minded, and openly religious person that writes this blog: http://www.wall.org/~aron/blog/
And partly through his influence, today I am Christian and openly religious enough to write this comment. As to whether I'm intellectual and scientifically minded... I'd say so, though it seems a little vain to admit to being intellectual. :-)
And partly through his influence, today I am Christian and openly religious enough to write this comment. As to whether I'm intellectual and scientifically minded... I'd say so, though it seems a little vain to admit to being intellectual. :-)
// But... HOW? ... I don't know a single person who is an intellectual, scientifically minded, and openly religious. So I'm asking genuinely here on HN how you do it.
I need to write in more depth about it. I'll give you a super short TLDR and I apologize if this is not sufficient to intellectually connect to.
Let me hit it from two angles:
First of all, you do know many such people. For example, Isaac Newton was deeply religious, as was Darwin (his faith was later shaken by the loss of a child), Georges Lemaître who theorized the Big Bang was a Catholic Priest, Edward Hubble who observed evidence of the Big Bang, was a devout Christian. People claim that not much is known about Einstein's religiosity, but it's interesting that he supported a fundraising effort to translate the Talmud into English for example.
So one angle is - you know the founding figures today's science and many/most of them saw no conflict between their science and religion. A quick response may be "well that's what people just believed back then" but - what is the understanding that we have that these scientists didn't, which gives us firm foundation to dismiss religion whey they themselves embraced it?
Second, let's go on a quick mental experiment. Let's accept for the moment that the universe is an accident, that all life is random and that the only reason humans are as we are, is because we evolved to outsmart our predators and prey. A logical implication of that is that we would have no reason to develop the intellect and senses that enable us to understand true reality - to grasp how the universe works. We evolved to just be smart enough to eat a cow rather than be eaten by a wolf.
If you accept that perception/intellectual limitation, the implication is that humans can't expect to assert anything about reality. Just because our instruments don't detect something or our eyes can't see something speaks nothing of the existence of that thing either way. Same as just because some creature didn't evolve sight, doesn't mean that the thing it could have seen if it had sight, doesn't exist - but that creature has no idea!
That takes us to a logical place: humans aren't equipped to objectively conclude anything about the universe. So if you assert lack of creation, lack of divinity - that's just what you chose to believe despite the fact that your tooling for perceiving these things is lacking. So it's faith either way.
I don't think I articulate the 2nd point well enough, it needs more. But let me know how it sounds, I'd appreciate the feedback.
I need to write in more depth about it. I'll give you a super short TLDR and I apologize if this is not sufficient to intellectually connect to.
Let me hit it from two angles:
First of all, you do know many such people. For example, Isaac Newton was deeply religious, as was Darwin (his faith was later shaken by the loss of a child), Georges Lemaître who theorized the Big Bang was a Catholic Priest, Edward Hubble who observed evidence of the Big Bang, was a devout Christian. People claim that not much is known about Einstein's religiosity, but it's interesting that he supported a fundraising effort to translate the Talmud into English for example.
So one angle is - you know the founding figures today's science and many/most of them saw no conflict between their science and religion. A quick response may be "well that's what people just believed back then" but - what is the understanding that we have that these scientists didn't, which gives us firm foundation to dismiss religion whey they themselves embraced it?
Second, let's go on a quick mental experiment. Let's accept for the moment that the universe is an accident, that all life is random and that the only reason humans are as we are, is because we evolved to outsmart our predators and prey. A logical implication of that is that we would have no reason to develop the intellect and senses that enable us to understand true reality - to grasp how the universe works. We evolved to just be smart enough to eat a cow rather than be eaten by a wolf.
If you accept that perception/intellectual limitation, the implication is that humans can't expect to assert anything about reality. Just because our instruments don't detect something or our eyes can't see something speaks nothing of the existence of that thing either way. Same as just because some creature didn't evolve sight, doesn't mean that the thing it could have seen if it had sight, doesn't exist - but that creature has no idea!
That takes us to a logical place: humans aren't equipped to objectively conclude anything about the universe. So if you assert lack of creation, lack of divinity - that's just what you chose to believe despite the fact that your tooling for perceiving these things is lacking. So it's faith either way.
I don't think I articulate the 2nd point well enough, it needs more. But let me know how it sounds, I'd appreciate the feedback.
It sounds similar to the hypothetical what-happens-the-day-after-capitalism; those who want - or at least don't not want - struggle to think of the pragmatics of what it looks like.
I wouldn't say I'm a born-again-whatever - I usually describe myself as an optimistic spiritual agnostic - but I think a combination of broadening my horizons physically (geographically moving around) and mentally (actually paying attention in grad school to the liberal arts that I thumbed my nose at as an undergrad) and getting hit repeatedly with how little I/we actually know about anything has let me inch away from the cynical a(nti)religiosity and submit to something larger than me.
This has also given me a better appreciation of the books I (was supposed to have) read in high school; in hindsight, I don't think there's any way many students could draw much meaning from them without having their own life experiences.
I wouldn't say I'm a born-again-whatever - I usually describe myself as an optimistic spiritual agnostic - but I think a combination of broadening my horizons physically (geographically moving around) and mentally (actually paying attention in grad school to the liberal arts that I thumbed my nose at as an undergrad) and getting hit repeatedly with how little I/we actually know about anything has let me inch away from the cynical a(nti)religiosity and submit to something larger than me.
This has also given me a better appreciation of the books I (was supposed to have) read in high school; in hindsight, I don't think there's any way many students could draw much meaning from them without having their own life experiences.
I prefer the Buddhist interpretation of the afterlife to the Catholic one. Hell is temporary vs eternal, and contingent on not being a monstrous asshole, not your relationship with god.
Speaking as a Catholic, the eternity of hell is based on your willingness to be a monster rather than serve the one who is the source of all good. Which is as horrible an opinion as one could have.
"Suddenly" can only happen with grace. One day at a time, one moment at a time, searching for Him until He calls "Zacchaeus come down" (Luke 19:1-10) is the only way we can dispose ourselves for that moment.
As a religious person who has deeply considered leaving it, I've never understood the arrogance of some atheists. For me it was disturbing to try to internalize the ideas that the universe is uncaring, that good and evil are made up, that your consciousness is basically like the contents of a stick of RAM that will vanish when it loses its power source.
Even the original "God is dead" quotes from Nietzsche sound mournful, not arrogant. From what I understand he was trying to convey the same thing you are: that by turning away from religion, we are undoing many of the basic moral underpinnings of our culture. Now we have to rebuild them with something new, and quite obviously, people can't agree on one set of ideas.
Even the original "God is dead" quotes from Nietzsche sound mournful, not arrogant. From what I understand he was trying to convey the same thing you are: that by turning away from religion, we are undoing many of the basic moral underpinnings of our culture. Now we have to rebuild them with something new, and quite obviously, people can't agree on one set of ideas.
> For me it was disturbing to try to internalize the ideas that the universe is uncaring, that good and evil are made up, that your consciousness is basically like the contents of a stick of RAM that will vanish when it loses its power source.
I find that disturbing, too, even as someone who believes it's likely true.
But when I was deeply Christian, I also found my denomination's view on the afterlife disturbing, too. If you live literally forever, what happens when you've done everything that matters? What even matters anymore in a world without need? How can everyone be happy at the same time if happiness depends on other people whose wants may not align? If existence in the afterlife is fundamentally different from the mortal life, there's still something of familiarity to me that will end forever. Maybe that's equivalent to my current conscious experience blinking out.
I've come to view life as a ride. It's valuable for its own sake, not because of some greater meaning I can't ascertain. It's an absolute miracle that we all exist, in the thousands of years of culture and writing, we're nowhere close to knowing why we're here, so why bother wasting my one life worrying about it when the joys of existing are self-evident.
I find that disturbing, too, even as someone who believes it's likely true.
But when I was deeply Christian, I also found my denomination's view on the afterlife disturbing, too. If you live literally forever, what happens when you've done everything that matters? What even matters anymore in a world without need? How can everyone be happy at the same time if happiness depends on other people whose wants may not align? If existence in the afterlife is fundamentally different from the mortal life, there's still something of familiarity to me that will end forever. Maybe that's equivalent to my current conscious experience blinking out.
I've come to view life as a ride. It's valuable for its own sake, not because of some greater meaning I can't ascertain. It's an absolute miracle that we all exist, in the thousands of years of culture and writing, we're nowhere close to knowing why we're here, so why bother wasting my one life worrying about it when the joys of existing are self-evident.
Just like some atheists need to the corresponding lesson about theists, it's worth taking a step back and remind yourself that not everybody was raised in a religious way.
Don't forget that to some of us religious stories contain nothing of particular interest or are similar to ancient fairy tales, and the history of various churches and religions is a mere part of the general human history of power struggles between elites in various countries. When you haven't been raised in religious ways, you feel no guilt about making blasphemous remarks and do not fear the wrath of supposed supernatural entities.
Don't forget that to some of us religious stories contain nothing of particular interest or are similar to ancient fairy tales, and the history of various churches and religions is a mere part of the general human history of power struggles between elites in various countries. When you haven't been raised in religious ways, you feel no guilt about making blasphemous remarks and do not fear the wrath of supposed supernatural entities.
> For me it was disturbing to try to internalize the ideas that the universe is uncaring, that good and evil are made up, that your consciousness is basically like the contents of a stick of RAM that will vanish when it loses its power source.
Everyone of us wants to feel significant, loved, and giving up on an idea that we live forever, that there's always someone external looking out for us etc is an emotionally difficult process to go through.
But that's what personal growth is. It doesn't mean that you go nuts and do crazy shit - consequences exist. What it means is that your perspective changes and you become OK with just being you, and taking a journey on a speeding rock through space.
People think that you lose when you give up religion, which is in part true - but there is also a lot to be gained - in personal development, seeing life from a different perspective and appreciating the limited time we have before donating our atoms back to the universe.
Everyone of us wants to feel significant, loved, and giving up on an idea that we live forever, that there's always someone external looking out for us etc is an emotionally difficult process to go through.
But that's what personal growth is. It doesn't mean that you go nuts and do crazy shit - consequences exist. What it means is that your perspective changes and you become OK with just being you, and taking a journey on a speeding rock through space.
People think that you lose when you give up religion, which is in part true - but there is also a lot to be gained - in personal development, seeing life from a different perspective and appreciating the limited time we have before donating our atoms back to the universe.
> but there is also a lot to be gained - in personal development
So replace religion with unscientifically naive optimism? That too is a delusional narrative. "Donating your atoms back to the universe" as if a personified "universe" cares about you on its way to heat death, someone get me my spirit crystals.
You might say you're off the religious dance-floor, but you're still doing the moves. In fact it's almost more rational to get back into one of the holy books, at least there you can connect the dots on attaching meaning to the present.
So replace religion with unscientifically naive optimism? That too is a delusional narrative. "Donating your atoms back to the universe" as if a personified "universe" cares about you on its way to heat death, someone get me my spirit crystals.
You might say you're off the religious dance-floor, but you're still doing the moves. In fact it's almost more rational to get back into one of the holy books, at least there you can connect the dots on attaching meaning to the present.
Sounds like someone got triggered by the phrase "personal development"...
Not sure what's so delusional about having your atoms be reused for other purposes when you die... what else would happen?
As for the word "donating", that's more a personal mindset. What I'm saying is, I'm OK with death, I'm not so egotistical to think that I'm anything more than a moment in time.
Optimism and naivety, well you can interpret whatever I said however you like, but there's actually no real argument that you've made in relation to what I wrote.
Not sure what's so delusional about having your atoms be reused for other purposes when you die... what else would happen?
As for the word "donating", that's more a personal mindset. What I'm saying is, I'm OK with death, I'm not so egotistical to think that I'm anything more than a moment in time.
Optimism and naivety, well you can interpret whatever I said however you like, but there's actually no real argument that you've made in relation to what I wrote.
> For me it was disturbing to try to internalize the ideas that the universe is uncaring, that good and evil are made up, that your consciousness is basically like the contents of a stick of RAM that will vanish when it loses its power source.
How is that arrogant? It seems humble to me to acknowledge that I as an individual and a society on the whole don't actually mean much.
How is that arrogant? It seems humble to me to acknowledge that I as an individual and a society on the whole don't actually mean much.
I'm not saying that accepting those facts is arrogant, but that there is a subset of insufferable atheists that try to belittle religious people.
I disagree that we’re undoing the moral underpinnings of society.
I think humans have an in-built moral compass but sometimes that compass gets warped and distorted by our environment.
Name a society that hasn’t valued love, friendship, family, etc.
I think humans have an in-built moral compass but sometimes that compass gets warped and distorted by our environment.
Name a society that hasn’t valued love, friendship, family, etc.
Community is the main thing religious provides. But in exchange, you typically have to believe in some type of sky magician. It's too bad because I enjoyed the community aspect of religion growing up but never really was able to buy into the sky magician part.
You've discovered a (large) group of people who have torn down Chesterton's Fence without fully appreciating why it was there to begin with. Same with people who "smash the (patriarchy|capitalism)", they end up extremely discontent to realize that other things end up filling the vacuum and they're often worse, much worse.
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Chesterton%27s_Fence
https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Chesterton%27s_Fence
Same. I met so many religious people who were smarter, more widely read, and wiser than me that my childhood prejudices about them had to be drastically re-evaluated, even though my fundamental position on the existence of God is unchanged. Faith is now on an entirely separate axis from intelligence or wisdom for me.
That's interesting to me because for me, it's kind of the opposite. I was deeply religious the first half of my life. But eventually, I found it was the non-religious people in my life who challenged me to grow. And I find that many of the most religious people I know are frustratingly limited in the things they're willing to learn and think, to things that don't significantly challenge the particular edifices of their faith. To be clear, this can be true of non-religious people, too.
That's kinda my process as well. The next step was to be curious and ask those people - you are so smart how are you engaging with this thing that makes no sense to me at all. They may give an interesting perspective.
The real question is it better to lie to yourself and believe in something that is simply not true? Or to be true to yourself and deal with the loneliness that is existence.
To me the choice to clear- be true to yourself. In that sense, organized religion has no place in this world.
To me the choice to clear- be true to yourself. In that sense, organized religion has no place in this world.
I think you're mistaking (along with many people including many religious people themselves), what religion's purpose actually is.
IMO, religion isn't really about truth, or "there is an afterlife", or "there's a magical almighty person(s) out there". Rather, it's mostly just a bunch of advice, principles and curated wisdom passed down from generation and generation to help people live a happy, meaningful life.
Like "you shall not kill", or "you shall not steal" or "treat your neighbor like you would yourself" - are arguably good principles to follow if you want to live in a peaceful society free from violence, as obeying these rules minimizes desire for anyone to have vengeance upon their neighbor. Or take Buddhism, which preaches that nirvana is absence of desire and craving, which shows that sometimes your own greed and ambitions can be the cause of your suffering, and by simply being grateful, can bring you happiness.
In this sense, I think it's valuable and has a place in the world. I mean, are we alone in existence, and is death the end? I think so, but if it makes some people feel better thinking otherwise is possible, then what's wrong with letting them believe or put hope into that?
So to me, religion isn't so much about "what is true and not true", but more rather: "here's some wisdom on how to lead an enjoyable life".
IMO, religion isn't really about truth, or "there is an afterlife", or "there's a magical almighty person(s) out there". Rather, it's mostly just a bunch of advice, principles and curated wisdom passed down from generation and generation to help people live a happy, meaningful life.
Like "you shall not kill", or "you shall not steal" or "treat your neighbor like you would yourself" - are arguably good principles to follow if you want to live in a peaceful society free from violence, as obeying these rules minimizes desire for anyone to have vengeance upon their neighbor. Or take Buddhism, which preaches that nirvana is absence of desire and craving, which shows that sometimes your own greed and ambitions can be the cause of your suffering, and by simply being grateful, can bring you happiness.
In this sense, I think it's valuable and has a place in the world. I mean, are we alone in existence, and is death the end? I think so, but if it makes some people feel better thinking otherwise is possible, then what's wrong with letting them believe or put hope into that?
So to me, religion isn't so much about "what is true and not true", but more rather: "here's some wisdom on how to lead an enjoyable life".
Absolutely. I wish there was secular community that offered as much.
Amen to that.
Buying fewer more expensive items of clothing > buying more items at a much cheaper price point.
I've noticed this the most with outdoorsy equipment, like my pair of wool socks (Darn Tough). They are 3x more expensive that cotton, but they keep my feet warm without overheating them, are thicker so I can comfortably walk around the house with no other footwear, they don't hardly get smelly, they also dry really fast. That last one comes in handy when you need to cross streams.
I've noticed this the most with outdoorsy equipment, like my pair of wool socks (Darn Tough). They are 3x more expensive that cotton, but they keep my feet warm without overheating them, are thicker so I can comfortably walk around the house with no other footwear, they don't hardly get smelly, they also dry really fast. That last one comes in handy when you need to cross streams.
Funny, I've come to the opposite conclusion for most clothing.
My weight fluctuates, my clothing needs change, my style changes, I discover a new type of clothing item that obsoletes an old one. Or stuff shrinks, rips, gets stained, gets lost.
Expensive "long lasting" clothing isn't usually worth the investment in my experience for all of these reasons.
Outdoorsy equipment may be an exception, but I don't feel like it's the case for regular clothing or merchandise in general.
(Plus a lot of expensive stuff isn't actually any better quality than the cheap stuff, and it takes a lot of research to figure out when the expensive stuff actually is worth it and when it's not.)
My weight fluctuates, my clothing needs change, my style changes, I discover a new type of clothing item that obsoletes an old one. Or stuff shrinks, rips, gets stained, gets lost.
Expensive "long lasting" clothing isn't usually worth the investment in my experience for all of these reasons.
Outdoorsy equipment may be an exception, but I don't feel like it's the case for regular clothing or merchandise in general.
(Plus a lot of expensive stuff isn't actually any better quality than the cheap stuff, and it takes a lot of research to figure out when the expensive stuff actually is worth it and when it's not.)
A good thing, on top of working better, can beat out cheap things for price per use pretty easily. Darn Tough is a great example. Best socks I've ever had to wear, but also I have pairs from six years ago that are still kick (plus they have a life time warranty).
A cheap jacket for $50 dollars or a (well researched) jacket for $150 is an obvious win. Warmer, more durable, more comfortable, and looks better. I bet it can last 3 times longer than the cheaper jacket in a lot of cases, plus it could probably resell for much more. We don't often talk about equity in smaller purchases (probably because it's not as consequential), but buying good items means they'll probably hold value better for resale (same goes with buying them used).
A cheap jacket for $50 dollars or a (well researched) jacket for $150 is an obvious win. Warmer, more durable, more comfortable, and looks better. I bet it can last 3 times longer than the cheaper jacket in a lot of cases, plus it could probably resell for much more. We don't often talk about equity in smaller purchases (probably because it's not as consequential), but buying good items means they'll probably hold value better for resale (same goes with buying them used).
This only applies when you can accurately judge the quality of the clothes. I've stopped buying mid-market clothing a few years ago because they didn't last longer than the cheap stuff.
Mid-market for most things is a scam. The honest price points for most goods are "As cheap as they can be manufactured" and "As expensive as the majority of people who really care about a quality product will pay". Between those two, a middle range of products pop up, targeting people who are hesitant to buy cheap stuff, but aren't willing to shell out for premium goods, and thus ending up paying extra for cheap crap, and above the premium range you get into luxury items where the exorbitant cost is the selling point.
Clothing has a lot of this. For good clothes, you gotta shop on material and craftsmanship, and then get everything but your workout cloths and PJs tailored. Trying to buy clothes that fit right off the rack, or trying to figure out quality based on price range is just a losing game.
Clothing has a lot of this. For good clothes, you gotta shop on material and craftsmanship, and then get everything but your workout cloths and PJs tailored. Trying to buy clothes that fit right off the rack, or trying to figure out quality based on price range is just a losing game.
Not sure what you define as mid market, but for me, I'll go up in price point until I find something that fits me well. The issue with the cheaper and mid market clothing tends to be the fit. If I have to get a tailor, I'd rather spend more to avoid the hassle. The tailor works best at scale. Taking multiple pieces in one go.
Yes and no. Where I live I have a choice from dirt-cheap to "signature" garments. I like buying in the middle because I hate low-quality cloth and because I don't want to be wearing the same shirt 10 years in a row. Give me a good price for something that lasts 2-3 years and I'm set.
To each their own. I've been wearing a mid layer fleece from a big outdoor brand for about 8 years now. Ironically, it was company swag that I got for free and is actually what got me into buying more expensive pieces of clothing. Not too much into fashion, but do buy some pieces that tend towards timelessness. Shirts and underwear are about the only thing I replace frequently.
I'll chip in with a vote for proper boots, I was going to say $500 Trickers but now I see that they are more like $800 new... but $300 on Ebay.
And it's worth it - I've had two pairs (from ebay) that have lasted me for 10 years between them. Resoled many times, but still absolutely excellent.
10 years!
And it's worth it - I've had two pairs (from ebay) that have lasted me for 10 years between them. Resoled many times, but still absolutely excellent.
10 years!
A common one is the tying of one's shoelaces. It's pretty common to tie the knot in an unbalanced way. https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/grannyknot.htm
It wasn't until I had to teach knots to Cub Scouts that I realized my life was a lie, at least when it came to tying shoes. I was the object of ridicule for 50 years but now I walk with confidence, and always-tied shoes.
Yep. I did this for about 30 years before I learned the correct way (from that site, no less).
Worthy of the best TED talk ever:
https://youtu.be/zAFcV7zuUDA
That is now outdated:
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/ianknot.htm
Another view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cBtqhq5P28
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/ianknot.htm
Another view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cBtqhq5P28
I've been using the secure version of this knot for a few years now, and I've been entirely satisfied with how it holds up in the real world!
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/secureknot.htm
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/secureknot.htm
What does that even mean? lol. The Ted way still works and the shoe laces have not come undone in 10 years since I've been using it, so why would I change method?
It's quite hard to maintain tension with the Ian knot and it also doesn't speed up the initial twist. It's a good party trick though!
You can just leave the initial twist on the shoestring
I’m a full fledged adult but I also appreciate efficiency so I recently invested in these things and so far so awesome:
Orange Elastic No Tie Shoe Laces... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PK2N1PD?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_shar...
Orange Elastic No Tie Shoe Laces... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PK2N1PD?ref=ppx_pop_mob_ap_shar...
I came here to post this one. For about 25 years of my life I was tying my knots the wrong way and I just thought shoelaces just had to be re-tied periodically. I don't remember where I learnt to just tie the loop the other way. Now strain on the laces just serves to tighten the knot.
I was also about to post that, and note that my wife who is japanese told me that in japan the correct way to tie shoelaces was taught at school, and she laughed for about a week when I told her that at 40 I didn't know that.
Learning the Ian knot was life changing for me -- not only did it automatically correct the bow being in the correct orientation, but it doesn't take an inconvenient amount of time to tie my shoes anymore. Esp. when walking with a group, if a lace comes untied I can fix it without losing more than a couple paces.
Yes and then spend a lifetime with annoying workarounds. A friend has been double knotting forever :(
Regardless of the knot itself, a heel lock also helps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBbc6TackDQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBbc6TackDQ
[deleted]
This was so confusing to me. Don’t American kids learn how to tie their shoes properly? Here in Germany, I was taught that in kindergarten.
The knots being discussed are similar with one small difference: the direction you wrap the shoelace during one step.
The "incorrect" knot still works relatively well and looks almost the same as the "correct" knot. The "incorrect" one also requires significantly less finger dexterity which is why children tend to prefer it.
The "incorrect" knot still works relatively well and looks almost the same as the "correct" knot. The "incorrect" one also requires significantly less finger dexterity which is why children tend to prefer it.
Yeah, that is what we learned, not to make the shoddy knot.
this was my answer as well
Ive modestly tried to lose weight my whole life. Ive never been fat, but still had to work to keep my calories low. Im 5' 9", and it took 10 years to go from 170 to more like 160. Losing weight made me weaker and caused me to lose muscle.
Ive recently started weightlifting for strength (low reps high weights) and the mindset is totally different. With weightlifting to keep your lifts going up you have to eat more. One standard is 1g protein/pound of target body weight. It turns out it is really hard to eat that much protein and when you do you arent that hungry. Im now trying to gain weight to get up to 190-200. Ive gained 10 pounds back to 170, but it is more muscle than fat.
In the end weight is just a meaningless number and building muscle becomes a positive spiral. Losing weight causes a loss in muscle which becomes a negative spiral.
Paradoxically you can be leaner, look better, and be stronger at a higher weight.
Ive recently started weightlifting for strength (low reps high weights) and the mindset is totally different. With weightlifting to keep your lifts going up you have to eat more. One standard is 1g protein/pound of target body weight. It turns out it is really hard to eat that much protein and when you do you arent that hungry. Im now trying to gain weight to get up to 190-200. Ive gained 10 pounds back to 170, but it is more muscle than fat.
In the end weight is just a meaningless number and building muscle becomes a positive spiral. Losing weight causes a loss in muscle which becomes a negative spiral.
Paradoxically you can be leaner, look better, and be stronger at a higher weight.
I started lifting within the past couple years and focused on high protein intake, I found very quickly that if you are trying hard throughout the day to hit 130g+ of protein, there isn't much room to be craving other things. And when I did crave something sweet or unhealthy, I basically told myself that if I first have my big protein shake, and then if I still feel the desire to eat that thing, then I could eat it. But only after having a shake... and most of the time you are so full from the shake or protein bar that you don't care for that desert anymore anyways.
The standard is 1g per kg but American lifters got confused and repeat it ad nauseum online until it became heterodox.
That's not really that great advice - overdosing on protein long term will mess up your body in number of ways. Yes beginners always fixate themselves on this specific aspect (or very similar formula) but it ain't good path to sustainable wellness and health.
Let's put aside the super tiny category of professional bodybuilders where its valid approach, which ain't long term healthy place to be in for number of reasons.
For most folks doing heavy lifting, normal healthy diet is more than enough, if you get 60-100g of complete proteins in your body, mostly from real food and not just protein powder. You will grow muscles hard depending on the load, genes, active rest and billion other factors. At certain point (quite far from beginning) you should stop increasing weights, because you are removing health benefits more than adding by working out by entering joints / connective tissue injury territory.
The best is some place in between, just like with everything else in life. Do some heavy lifting if health allows it - ideally compound free weights (initially with trainer supervision to avoid mistakes that mess up your joints over time), do some cardio, HIIT, get into real sports out there and physical activities that become your passion and you stop caring about chasing meaningless weightlifting numbers.
The best side effect of all this is you start thinking much more what you eat, how much and how often. That is the key to good health, good weight and overall setup that can last you well into retirement.
Let's put aside the super tiny category of professional bodybuilders where its valid approach, which ain't long term healthy place to be in for number of reasons.
For most folks doing heavy lifting, normal healthy diet is more than enough, if you get 60-100g of complete proteins in your body, mostly from real food and not just protein powder. You will grow muscles hard depending on the load, genes, active rest and billion other factors. At certain point (quite far from beginning) you should stop increasing weights, because you are removing health benefits more than adding by working out by entering joints / connective tissue injury territory.
The best is some place in between, just like with everything else in life. Do some heavy lifting if health allows it - ideally compound free weights (initially with trainer supervision to avoid mistakes that mess up your joints over time), do some cardio, HIIT, get into real sports out there and physical activities that become your passion and you stop caring about chasing meaningless weightlifting numbers.
The best side effect of all this is you start thinking much more what you eat, how much and how often. That is the key to good health, good weight and overall setup that can last you well into retirement.
> overdosing on protein long term will mess up your body in number of ways
1g protein per pound of lean bodyweight is not an 'overdose' and has no ill effects, long term or otherwise.
the rest of your comment is good advice.
1g protein per pound of lean bodyweight is not an 'overdose' and has no ill effects, long term or otherwise.
the rest of your comment is good advice.
It's funny that the OP recommended taking 77g of proteins per day (1g per kg for a 170lbs person), while you say that he is recommending too much protein, then proceeding to recommend 60-100g.
Edit: I mixed the units.
Edit: I mixed the units.
OP recommended 1g/pound which is more than double that 77g for a 170lb person. Not saying that the comment you responded to is necessarily right, but they were talking about significantly higher amounts of protein than you.
Any advice/links on getting started lifting?
Generally my advice when people ask me is as follows:
1. In the beginning, going to the gym is the hardest part. Incentive: if you go to the gym consistently for a while you are rewarded with no more post workout muscle soreness, and easy newbie gains.
2. Do compound lifts if you can (squat, bench, deadlift (warning deadlifts are not for everyone, and may not be all that beneficial), pullups/pulldowns.) Add a bit of weight or reps each week. Aim for 3-6 sets. No one will care if you start with an empty bar. If you add reps, if you get up to around 10-12, add weight instead. These number are flexible and there is no right answer.
3. For accessory exercises or things that target single muscles: try a bunch of stuff and try new stuff often. If you don't like it, don't do it. If you like it, work it into your routine. These are generally fun but unnecessary until you hit a plateau/wall in another lift and do some research on what you want to do to get past that plateau/wall.
4. Good form is more important than adding weight. Don't hurt yourself.
5/Bonus. Try watching some cringey YouTube fitness influencers and see if they're doing anything that looks fun and try that.
Also follow the golden rule: clean up and put your damn weights back.
1. In the beginning, going to the gym is the hardest part. Incentive: if you go to the gym consistently for a while you are rewarded with no more post workout muscle soreness, and easy newbie gains.
2. Do compound lifts if you can (squat, bench, deadlift (warning deadlifts are not for everyone, and may not be all that beneficial), pullups/pulldowns.) Add a bit of weight or reps each week. Aim for 3-6 sets. No one will care if you start with an empty bar. If you add reps, if you get up to around 10-12, add weight instead. These number are flexible and there is no right answer.
3. For accessory exercises or things that target single muscles: try a bunch of stuff and try new stuff often. If you don't like it, don't do it. If you like it, work it into your routine. These are generally fun but unnecessary until you hit a plateau/wall in another lift and do some research on what you want to do to get past that plateau/wall.
4. Good form is more important than adding weight. Don't hurt yourself.
5/Bonus. Try watching some cringey YouTube fitness influencers and see if they're doing anything that looks fun and try that.
Also follow the golden rule: clean up and put your damn weights back.
Not OP but I would add - keep some kind of written record of your progress - it can be very motivating to look back and see eg. I went 3 days per week for the last 3 weeks, or 3 months ago I could lift X, now I can lift X+30
I’m pretty sure the deadlift comment would get you into fights in most gyms with power lifters. I’m curious where you have seen that they aren’t beneficial? Everything I’ve read about them puts them firmly into the “best exercises” category.
Not sure exactly what they meant, but I assume most arguments in this vein have something to do with form. A well-executed deadlift is a great exercise, but you have to balance the risk of injury, especially for new lifters without a trainer or coach to help with their form.
Sure. But I wouldn’t put them above squats or bench or overhead presses as far as risk of injury goes. It feels like an arbitrary callout.
If you have iOS, I highly recommend the Fitbod app. I've tried so many other apps and I just end up doing all this tedious logging that gets frustrating. But Fitbod just outsources all that away to its machine learning backend.
It uses an algorithm to maximize your strength gains and uses the equipment you have at home (or the gym). So even if you only have a few pieces of equipment, it can still create a diverse workout for you.
And it has videos for how to do each exercise, which comes in handy more than you might expect.
I like it because I don't have to keep track of anything, don't have to do any work in terms of number crunching.
It's like having a smart personal coach.
It uses an algorithm to maximize your strength gains and uses the equipment you have at home (or the gym). So even if you only have a few pieces of equipment, it can still create a diverse workout for you.
And it has videos for how to do each exercise, which comes in handy more than you might expect.
I like it because I don't have to keep track of anything, don't have to do any work in terms of number crunching.
It's like having a smart personal coach.
For strength training StrongLifts seems like a good program. It used to be highly recommended on the fitness reddits, but I haven't followed them for a few years. Regardless, I think it's a solid program for starting strength training. I do more of a bodybuilding/bro split, but I've been mixing in a couple of heavy days modeled after the StrongLifts plan. It's certainly simple if nothing else.
https://stronglifts.com/5x5/
https://stronglifts.com/5x5/
The /r/fitness wiki is a surprisingly good resource for beginners: https://thefitness.wiki/
Besides the other good suggestions, having a personal trainer demonstrate exercises and work with you to get the proper form is extremely helpful.
I worked out for years learning it myself, even doing a bodybuilding competition. I then had a personal trainer for a few weeks through work and discovered part of my squat form was wrong. It wasn't causing harm but was holding back my gains and did increase my risk of injury.
I worked out for years learning it myself, even doing a bodybuilding competition. I then had a personal trainer for a few weeks through work and discovered part of my squat form was wrong. It wasn't causing harm but was holding back my gains and did increase my risk of injury.
Starting Strength by Mark Rippetoe is what you will see recommended the most often
Starting Strength, Mark Rippetoe.
Walking.
Currently in my late 30s, I've long enjoyed pushing my limits in many forms of physical exertion - running, climbing, skiing, mountain biking, etc. However, as I've aged and my bones are no longer made of rubber, I have been forced to realize that pain is not often gain.
Dealing with the many persistent aches and pains, I was prompted by a friend to get a 'gait analysis' to assist with my running longer distances and in more diverse terrain. I quickly learned from my very skillful physical therapist/gait analyst, that my gait for running is not sustainable- and will lead to kinks and pains as I progress. Taking a step back, she identified that many of those gait quirks stem from my walking gait. And she quickly identified that my walking gait is out-of-wack due to an injury I sustained while playing basketball when I was 13.
25 years later, I am challenged to learn how to walk correctly.. so the question I have is if I haven't yet learned to walk, have I really ever been able to run? I doubt it, but I'm a pretty firm believer that I will be able to in the future.
Edit: I can't spelle
Currently in my late 30s, I've long enjoyed pushing my limits in many forms of physical exertion - running, climbing, skiing, mountain biking, etc. However, as I've aged and my bones are no longer made of rubber, I have been forced to realize that pain is not often gain.
Dealing with the many persistent aches and pains, I was prompted by a friend to get a 'gait analysis' to assist with my running longer distances and in more diverse terrain. I quickly learned from my very skillful physical therapist/gait analyst, that my gait for running is not sustainable- and will lead to kinks and pains as I progress. Taking a step back, she identified that many of those gait quirks stem from my walking gait. And she quickly identified that my walking gait is out-of-wack due to an injury I sustained while playing basketball when I was 13.
25 years later, I am challenged to learn how to walk correctly.. so the question I have is if I haven't yet learned to walk, have I really ever been able to run? I doubt it, but I'm a pretty firm believer that I will be able to in the future.
Edit: I can't spelle
Do you, by any chance, mean to say "gait" analysis, instead of "gate" analysis?
If not, can you please explain what "gate analysis" is?
If not, can you please explain what "gate analysis" is?
I used to have a very large stride and was always known as a fast walker. Started having hip/back pain and reassessed how I move entirely and realized my long strides meant my hip and lower back shifted dramatically with each step to give my leg extra reach. Got minimalist shoes to where I don't heel strike as significantly and its reduced my stride length quite a bit thus removing that excess rotation in my hip and lower back
You aren't supposed to rinse your mouth with water after brushing your teeth. You're supposed to spit excess, but leave the toothpaste on to absorb.
Ahh, mine is an interesting counterpoint to this!
I had canker sores for my entire life, well into my late 20s. I tried everything: changing toothpastes (more on this in a second), changing brushes, using mouthwash, being told my mouth was "dirty" and I need to brush more, etc.
Turns out (at least for me) the sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) used as a foaming agent in (almost) every single toothpaste causes canker sores. I found "canker sore toothpaste" that lacks the SLS, for $7 a tube. I used it for couple of years and it worked!
If you read up on SLS, this is not super-surprising. It's a known skin irritant, and is known to cause more irritation when left on the skin for more than a couple of minutes. Canker sores are an autoimmune issue, so my theory is the irritation triggers an immune response, leading to the sore.
And then I discovered if I rinse thoroughly (twice) after brushing, even with normal toothpaste, I just don't get canker sores anymore! Not sure if it's universal, but canker sores suck so much, I hope this helps someone suffering like I was.
I had canker sores for my entire life, well into my late 20s. I tried everything: changing toothpastes (more on this in a second), changing brushes, using mouthwash, being told my mouth was "dirty" and I need to brush more, etc.
Turns out (at least for me) the sodium lauryl sulfate (SLS) used as a foaming agent in (almost) every single toothpaste causes canker sores. I found "canker sore toothpaste" that lacks the SLS, for $7 a tube. I used it for couple of years and it worked!
If you read up on SLS, this is not super-surprising. It's a known skin irritant, and is known to cause more irritation when left on the skin for more than a couple of minutes. Canker sores are an autoimmune issue, so my theory is the irritation triggers an immune response, leading to the sore.
And then I discovered if I rinse thoroughly (twice) after brushing, even with normal toothpaste, I just don't get canker sores anymore! Not sure if it's universal, but canker sores suck so much, I hope this helps someone suffering like I was.
Interesting. I suffered from canker sores into my early 20's. Finally talked to a Dr, who sent me to a nutritionist. The problem for me was orange juice. I've never been sure what exactly it is in OJ that caused the problem. But I do know that if I drink a glass of processed orange juice today, I'll wake up with a bad canker sore in 2-3 days. If I drink a glass of fresh orange juice for a few days in a row, I'll get the canker sores.
Yes, I had the same experience. Went 40 years brushing, then rinsing, then I read advice similar to the original commenter's and stopped rinsing. Shortly after that, I wondered why I suddenly had all these weird sores in my mouth, and finally connected the dots. They went away immediately after I started rinsing again.
I've also suffered from canker sores. Vitamin B (B-12 is the important one, I think) is a wonder cure. At the first sign of mouth soreness I start taking daily doses of Vitamin B and it cures the sores right up.
For me and my 2x monthly canker sores, it turned out I was severely iron deficient and had anemia. Since taking supplements, I haven't had a canker sore in 7 months.
Triamcinolone acetonide oral paste works well for canker sores.
Much better than any over the counter stuff.
Much better than any over the counter stuff.
In the rare instance I get a canker sore I now immediately apply some raw bee propolis (can find it on Amazon). Put a few drops on a q-tip and directly apply to canker sore. It burns like hell, but what happens is it creates a "seal" around the sore that lasts for a couple days (unlike the OTC crap) which not only protects you as you eat from burning pain, but also speeds healing. Since using propolis, my sores will heal in 2-3 days vs. 7-10 on their own. It's incredible.
Wouldn't that result in the ingestion of a large quantity of toothpaste over the course of a lifetime? I can't imagine that would be good for you.
It's just diatoms. We all eat all sorts of things and it's fine for the most part. As long as you aren't eating actual poison you are fine.
Fluoride is toxic.
> We all eat all sorts of things and it's fine That's like saying you can lose some IQ every so often because you'll live so what
> We all eat all sorts of things and it's fine That's like saying you can lose some IQ every so often because you'll live so what
Safe: 10 mg/day
Toothpaste: 4mg / teaspoon
So you'd need to swallow several whole teaspoons to pass std. safety levels
cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride
Toothpaste: 4mg / teaspoon
So you'd need to swallow several whole teaspoons to pass std. safety levels
cf. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride
Safe, means it won't have any detrimental effects, or it won't be debilitating, or it won't kill me?
The lethal dose is 5-10 grams, the recommended safe dose is 10 milligrams maximum. Between those points you'll experience some pain and stomach discomfort. Regularly going over the safe dose may cause some organ issues.
Basically, even if you swallow all your toothpaste you're unlikely to have problems unless your diet is already rich in fluoride, and spitting but not rinsing is fine.
Basically, even if you swallow all your toothpaste you're unlikely to have problems unless your diet is already rich in fluoride, and spitting but not rinsing is fine.
That's a good question. Having not seen reliable research on that point, my approach is as follows: I use a small amount of toothpaste (say, 1/4th of what you see in ads or less) and I spit excess. In this way in the worst scenario I digest at least one order of magnitude less fluoride than the threshold of the safe amount.
Now I am fairly certain I probably use more than that even, but with the complexity of biological systems it might be as well saying that being shot with 10 bullets is somehow better than with 1000 bullets.
I just point that out, because I am acutely aware how good people are at convincing themselves with statistics of anything, really.
I just point that out, because I am acutely aware how good people are at convincing themselves with statistics of anything, really.
lol. You're comparing toothpaste to getting shot 10 times?
Yes that is better than getting shot 1000 times, not better than getting shot only once, in case you are wondering.
Complexity != Fragile
Yes that is better than getting shot 1000 times, not better than getting shot only once, in case you are wondering.
Complexity != Fragile
You are actually being hit a lot more by cosmic rays that are not deflected by our atmosphere. We survive this fine. This is probably a more acurate simile than the bullet one, based on the amounts involved.
Toothpaste contains a fluoride molecule, not direct fluoride. Not the same thing at all.
We drink Fluoide in the water.
"The dose makes the poison." Even ionizing radiation (sunlight) in small doses over a whole lifetime isn't really harmful. Especially given that it's how we naturally make vitamin D.
Or rinse and use mouthwash with fluoride and leave that. Brush from top to bottom, not side to side. "Scrape" your tooth when flossing. Seems like way too many never learn these basics.
Don't use mouthwash straight after brushing. Seems like way too many never learn these basics.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-teeth-and-gums/how-to-k...
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-teeth-and-gums/how-to-k...
> It doesn't matter whether you use an electric or manual toothbrush. They're both equally good
That's just so wrong already. Regular toothbrushes are absolute trash compared to sonics, every dentist will tell you that.
> don't use mouthwash (even a fluoride one) straight after brushing your teeth or it'll wash away the concentrated fluoride in the toothpaste left on your teeth
So in a nutshell, don't use it because it'll wash away the flouride... that you've already rinsed out. Yeah not much of a minus there.
That's just so wrong already. Regular toothbrushes are absolute trash compared to sonics, every dentist will tell you that.
> don't use mouthwash (even a fluoride one) straight after brushing your teeth or it'll wash away the concentrated fluoride in the toothpaste left on your teeth
So in a nutshell, don't use it because it'll wash away the flouride... that you've already rinsed out. Yeah not much of a minus there.
I've heard that studies found that electric vs manual can both do a sufficient clean.
But the issue is, most people don't know the proper technique to use a manual brush effectively. So even if you do a half ass job with an electric brush, it's still better then what most would do with a manual.
> Brush from top to bottom, not side to side.
Gonna need a cite on that. Pretty sure the recommendation is to hold the brush at 45 degrees and use circular movements.
Gonna need a cite on that. Pretty sure the recommendation is to hold the brush at 45 degrees and use circular movements.
Interesting. My dentist always told me the direction must be from the root to the top otherwise you would just push the remains of food into the gums - and it seems like a logical advice to follow.
This dental hygienist also says to use a circular motion at and angle.
https://youtu.be/FFq-2aA6m8Y?t=50
Maybe bring this up in your next session.
Maybe bring this up in your next session.
> "Scrape" your tooth when flossing. Seems like way too many never learn these basics.
Nothing proves flossing is beneficial actually
Nothing proves flossing is beneficial actually
What is there to prove...?
If the goal of toothbrushing and flossing is to remove bacteria and food debris from your mouth, hopefully an uncontroversial premise, it's pretty obvious how flossing helps.
Just flossing and carefully watching the action of the floss and the plaque is sufficient to demonstrate the benefit.
Sometimes your common sense is more than enough to make sense of the world, no ivy league double blind study required.
If the goal of toothbrushing and flossing is to remove bacteria and food debris from your mouth, hopefully an uncontroversial premise, it's pretty obvious how flossing helps.
Just flossing and carefully watching the action of the floss and the plaque is sufficient to demonstrate the benefit.
Sometimes your common sense is more than enough to make sense of the world, no ivy league double blind study required.
It's a question of return on investment. If spending the extra minute everyday saves a probable $10k over your lifetime due to dental work, then yes it might be worth it. But if it saves a probable $10, it might not.
The cost of the dental work pales in comparison to the value of keeping your natural teeth, which is going to be much much much higher than $10k over your lifetime.
Not flossing makes your dental visits longer as they scrape off all the plaque from in-between your teeth. Just avoiding that discomfort is worth it IMO.
I suppose you could skip going to the dentist altogether but that comes with risks of larger issues down the road.
I suppose you could skip going to the dentist altogether but that comes with risks of larger issues down the road.
Meta-analyses of RCTs do indicate flossing prevents gum disease, though, which is important. See another poster in this thread who suffered bone loss as a result of gum disease.
You're right though that there's no established effect on cavities.
Having said that, it's difficult to get people to actually floss, so there's a certain amount of uncertainty about the results of those RCTs, and whether participants were doing what they were supposed to be doing.
You're right though that there's no established effect on cavities.
Having said that, it's difficult to get people to actually floss, so there's a certain amount of uncertainty about the results of those RCTs, and whether participants were doing what they were supposed to be doing.
I think i read somewhere that the reason for this is that virtually all dentists agree you should clean your entire tooth, and the consensus is so universal that no one bothers to do controlled trials.
I would feel bad not cleaning half of the surface area at all anyways.
A nothing proves it isn’t, so you might as well spend the extra minute or two and do it.
That's quite a weird answer.
All else being equal, it's obviously better not to spend an extra minute or two doing something useless.
If you think it is not actually equal, and that scraping is indeed better, well say so and qualify your statement. You can even say that it's recommended by dentists, it's an authority argument but it surely is better than nothing.
All else being equal, it's obviously better not to spend an extra minute or two doing something useless.
If you think it is not actually equal, and that scraping is indeed better, well say so and qualify your statement. You can even say that it's recommended by dentists, it's an authority argument but it surely is better than nothing.
I do think it’s worth the time. My teeth feel significantly cleaner after doing so and it removes stuff my brush can’t reach no matter how much I try.
I’m not sure why I have have to defend flossing of all things. I’m not trained in that field, neither are you, we should listen to the people who are and guess what? They almost all recommend flossing.
That argument was accepted with COVID vaccines, so why not now?
I’m not sure why I have have to defend flossing of all things. I’m not trained in that field, neither are you, we should listen to the people who are and guess what? They almost all recommend flossing.
That argument was accepted with COVID vaccines, so why not now?
You said
>A nothing proves it isn’t, so you might as well
That's completely different from
>I’m not trained in that field, neither are you, we should listen to the people who are and guess what? They almost all recommend flossing.
>A nothing proves it isn’t, so you might as well
That's completely different from
>I’m not trained in that field, neither are you, we should listen to the people who are and guess what? They almost all recommend flossing.
[deleted]
> That argument was accepted with COVID vaccines, so why not now?
Far from universally and even in the pockets where it was, at least some percentage did it just to be able to go back to doing normal things which were gated by government rules.
Don’t do anything blindly. They won’t be the ones bearing the cost if and when something goes wrong.
Far from universally and even in the pockets where it was, at least some percentage did it just to be able to go back to doing normal things which were gated by government rules.
Don’t do anything blindly. They won’t be the ones bearing the cost if and when something goes wrong.
Well: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/hsph-in-the-news/dental-fl...
Also, nothing doesn't prove eating twelve apples per day cures cancer so why not try it ?
Also, nothing doesn't prove eating twelve apples per day cures cancer so why not try it ?
Because I would probably feel sick if I ate that many apples per day. Flossing is low effort, why not do it?
Smell the floss ;)
I blame movies. Nearly every brushing scene has the actor scrub brushing like it's nobodies business.
This is one where I KNOW I do it wrong. The dentist prescribed me a hardcore sensitivity toothpaste for an issue, but emphasized that it will only work if I don't rinse after brushing. But... I just can't not rinse after 30 years of muscle memory. I generally remember this right as I'm rinsing. The sensitivity toothpaste has not worked, of course.
I’m in the same boat as you — sensitive teeth, but can’t not rinse. What works for me is to treat the toothpaste as a “post-rinse medicated rub”: squeeze out a bit more, and rub it over the most sensitive teeth.
If you remember it as you're rinsing, brush your teeth lightly again to spread the tooth paste on the teeth. Once you've had yo do it again a few times, you'll pick up the habit of not rinsing.
What I find helps is to rinse my tongue (run the bristles over my tongue under water, but just the tongue). Then at least most of the toothpaste residue sticks to my mouth and teeth but not the taste.
Maybe mark the cup with something that will remind you. Clip a paperclip over the edge? Store it upside down? (If you're using a cup.) This could help interrupt the habit.
I'm glad to be wrong on that one
That just feels nasty though
Well now I learned something new and very useful. Applying to kids tonight.
May I swallow? I find that my breath and tonsils feel fresher.
It's definitely not recommended, at least for fluoride toothpaste, it usually is written on the box and the tube
Oh. Thanks for letting me know.
Monopoly. If the player elects not to buy the property he lands on, it
gets auctioned to the other players. This oft unfollowed rule makes the
game 100x more fun when followed.
That and free parking doesn't pay anything. Number of houses/hotels is also limited to the number that came with the game.
Play by the rules and the game will actually come to an end.
Play by the rules and the game will actually come to an end.
[deleted]
And the person who originally chose to not buy it can bid on it. Potentially buying it for less than list price!
On the subject of monopoly, it's also interesting that it's roots are in a game created to teach the negative aspects of monopolies. The original game that modern monopoly is based on had two sets of rules, one that rewarded all players for wealth creation, and a second with the goal of creating a monopoly to crush opponents.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)
I think the is a nice specific case of the general problem with mixing education and entertainment. Many have addressed this, but I like Postman’s ideas the most. If you give children educational television programs, you’re not teaching them to love learning, you’re teaching them to love television.
The Lindy-effect blessed methods are still just pen, paper, books, discussion, and debate.
The Lindy-effect blessed methods are still just pen, paper, books, discussion, and debate.
Not following this rule is also almost singularly responsible for Monopoly's reputation as an extremely long game.
How can you have an auction when there is only one other player?
The aim of monopoly is not to gather money / property, it is to bankrupt your opponents as quickly as possible. Any rule that increases money supply in the game (paying extra for landing on free parking or Go, for example) makes the game longer and worse.
It's a pretty terrible game - something about the psychology of it makes you hate everyone else playing, but it's somehow addictive, you think you like playing it but you don't. I think it's done a huge disservice to board games in general - other board games are so much better, but people think board games are boring because they played monopoly as a child.
The aim of monopoly is not to gather money / property, it is to bankrupt your opponents as quickly as possible. Any rule that increases money supply in the game (paying extra for landing on free parking or Go, for example) makes the game longer and worse.
It's a pretty terrible game - something about the psychology of it makes you hate everyone else playing, but it's somehow addictive, you think you like playing it but you don't. I think it's done a huge disservice to board games in general - other board games are so much better, but people think board games are boring because they played monopoly as a child.
- A: I've landed on Mayfair that's $400, I don't want to buy it at that price, so we go to auction. I bid $1.
- B: I bid $100
At this point A has to decide whether to keep bidding and risk bidding higher than the price they didn't want to pay anyway, just to stop their opponent getting it, or to hold on to their funds and potentially let their opponent get Mayfair for below list price.
- B: I bid $100
At this point A has to decide whether to keep bidding and risk bidding higher than the price they didn't want to pay anyway, just to stop their opponent getting it, or to hold on to their funds and potentially let their opponent get Mayfair for below list price.
NPR recently aired a story on the history of monopoly which was fascinating!
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/25/1151367036/story-monopoly-ame...
https://www.npr.org/2023/01/25/1151367036/story-monopoly-ame...
And well the McMillions scandal is something:
https://www.vulture.com/2020/02/mcdonalds-monopoly-game-frau...
OK here's a dumb one. You know how the label on EVERY toilet bowl cleaner bottle always says "Step 1: flush toilet"? I always dutifully followed those instructions, thinking "hmm, the extra splashing water must be pretty important and help it mix or something."
But no. One day I realized it's just that my toilet always started from a flushed state... like a normal person. But they knew somewhere out there, someone would try to clean their toilet still full of piss and shit.
But no. One day I realized it's just that my toilet always started from a flushed state... like a normal person. But they knew somewhere out there, someone would try to clean their toilet still full of piss and shit.
Step 1: Don't not flush toilet.
Isn't it about moistening the surface of the bowl above the waterline, which would probably otherwise be dry hours after the last flush?
Europeans often keep shit in their toilets for two reasons: Living in a multistory building and not annoying the neighbors downstairs during the night; and saving water. It’s absolutely disgusting, but such people also don’t usually wash their hair (and I mean, engineer-type people, not necessarily unemployed kind).
What? I’ve lived in Europe most of my life and have never seen any of that. People flush toilets and wash their hair here too.
Besides “Europe” is a big place, how can you generalize.
Besides “Europe” is a big place, how can you generalize.
The saying is 'if it's yellow let it mellow" (aka don't flush), "if it's brown, flush it down". And I haven't heard that as a European thing.
Ooooooohhhhhhhhhh.
I often thought: It seems like flushing first makes much of the cleaning product run right into the water rather than sticking to the bowl, but there must be a reason they say to do it.
I often thought: It seems like flushing first makes much of the cleaning product run right into the water rather than sticking to the bowl, but there must be a reason they say to do it.
No it's because urine contains ammonia, and if you mix bleach and ammonia you get a highly toxic chloramine gas that can literally kill you.
Taking a number two without the use of a footstool to get into a more natural squatting position. I look forward to the ritual every morning and usually achieve 'poophoria'.
Hugely underrated tip. Standard toilets are just that, a guesstimated average of the height one might need to poop relatively comfortably. Because it was originally derived from chairs (the first toilets being actual chairs with a hole), with no respect for how human anatomy developed over millions of years, in most cases it's way too high for anyone under 6 feet / 180cm. Someone should run studies on whether this influences the rates of colon cancer.
The most naturally-ergonomic toilet is actually the seatless "turkish" hole. Unfortunately it's often not the easiest to use in a hygienic manner, and it requires a lot of space. I wish someone would invest in evolving that model into something better.
The most naturally-ergonomic toilet is actually the seatless "turkish" hole. Unfortunately it's often not the easiest to use in a hygienic manner, and it requires a lot of space. I wish someone would invest in evolving that model into something better.
I grew up with the turkish holes. IMHO they're not ergonomic at all, and don't actually need much more space than a typical toilet. Eventually most of them get replaced by the typical Western toilets, because old people have problems squatting.
They might not feel more ergonomic to our increasingly-underused muscles, but they are to our colons.
> old people have problems squatting.
They shouldn't be required to, but everyone else should have the option to preserve their bodies better.
> old people have problems squatting.
They shouldn't be required to, but everyone else should have the option to preserve their bodies better.
If you need more convincing, you can buy the stool!
This video ad explains it in detail.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YbYWhdLO43Q
Wouldn't leaning forward accomplish the same thing?
I started leaning forward a few years ago. I'll just say it seems to help.
To make it explicit, the colon gets straightened that way, business becomes easier.
I have always taken my good relationship with my father for granted. Not sure how to properly express this in english, but I don't remember having issues with him. We were present in each others' lives but while at the same time not connected.
Yesterday while visiting him it just struck me like a lightning strike that I had no connection with him. Our world views are so fundamentally different that I might have disrespected him by some honest mistake. It was a difficult realization to process, but I feel like there's no going back from this.
Something very deep inside has changed. I spent the night awaken next to my toddler thinking how I want a different fate for our own relationship, while at the same time having no clue how to even bring this up to my father. He expects something from me that I just can't (and don't) want to give.
Still, I think this is progress, somehow.
Yesterday while visiting him it just struck me like a lightning strike that I had no connection with him. Our world views are so fundamentally different that I might have disrespected him by some honest mistake. It was a difficult realization to process, but I feel like there's no going back from this.
Something very deep inside has changed. I spent the night awaken next to my toddler thinking how I want a different fate for our own relationship, while at the same time having no clue how to even bring this up to my father. He expects something from me that I just can't (and don't) want to give.
Still, I think this is progress, somehow.
The big difference between most people's relationship with their father and their mother (at least for us of a certain age) is that fathers historically were not involved in caring how their children felt. The traditional role of the father was to lay down the law of the house and to provide income. This comes all the way back from the initial formulation of the nuclear family, which was an imitation of the royal family where the king makes the rules and is responsible for the wealth of the land.
I provide that background only to point out that it is based on nothing other than folklore and fairy tales. It was a tradition that served its purpose but is not really necessary in modern times. You can be emotionally involved in your son's life. You can let him know how you are feeling, even if you are feeling weak or unsure. I can't say for sure, but I would investigate if you are more concerned about how your father feels about you as a person or if you are more concerned as to whether or not he thinks that you are a success. Is he the voice in your head that says "you can do it, I believe in you!" or "you better not mess up!"?
Part of this has to do with being emotionally competent yourself, which is something that you can work on.
I provide that background only to point out that it is based on nothing other than folklore and fairy tales. It was a tradition that served its purpose but is not really necessary in modern times. You can be emotionally involved in your son's life. You can let him know how you are feeling, even if you are feeling weak or unsure. I can't say for sure, but I would investigate if you are more concerned about how your father feels about you as a person or if you are more concerned as to whether or not he thinks that you are a success. Is he the voice in your head that says "you can do it, I believe in you!" or "you better not mess up!"?
Part of this has to do with being emotionally competent yourself, which is something that you can work on.
That is a great observation and fits properly with my situation. My father is "old style", while I strive to overcome sexism and develop an emotional bond with my son. I am proud to be involved in his care for his first year and a half: bathing, diaper changing and sleep were all my duties. That is indeed half of the picture. The one I am proud and hopeful about.
The other half involves religion. This is the lost cause. His whole world view is built on top of dogmatic religious practice, which I have long rejected. Up to this point it didn't bother me at all: I respect his religious practices and even engage while visiting. But I won't hide my lifestyle choices because of this. I try my best to be considerate, but something will leak. I am not going to deceive him.
There was a brief moment when he was disconnected from his practices. I was maybe 19 at the time. We talked about life and I got some "father advice". It didn't last long, and now all advice is tainted by religion. It is not useful nor practical. I can accept it, be considerate and try to adapt it, but it is ultimately useless. This drives us apart slowly.
The other half involves religion. This is the lost cause. His whole world view is built on top of dogmatic religious practice, which I have long rejected. Up to this point it didn't bother me at all: I respect his religious practices and even engage while visiting. But I won't hide my lifestyle choices because of this. I try my best to be considerate, but something will leak. I am not going to deceive him.
There was a brief moment when he was disconnected from his practices. I was maybe 19 at the time. We talked about life and I got some "father advice". It didn't last long, and now all advice is tainted by religion. It is not useful nor practical. I can accept it, be considerate and try to adapt it, but it is ultimately useless. This drives us apart slowly.
I have a somewhat similar issue. He was never really present in my life (working too much etc.) and so we never connected. But he's also just a... somewhat unpleasant person to be around. If it's more than a few hours, it starts to get too much, so I rarely stay overnight in my home town. Recently (last Christmas) he's been making an effort to connect with me, but it's just so awkward and makes visits for me even more unpleasant. I just can't imagine ever connecting with him, no matter how hard he tries. (Doesn't help that he's recently started smoking again after like 15 years of being clean. I just don't understand it.)
It's most pronounced in my relationship with my father, but it's also my family in general. I feel a bit more connected to my mom and my grandparents, but I just can't say my family is very important to me, even if it sounds sad. My friends have always been my substitute family, in a way, even as a child, and it's even stronger now as a single adult. I probably spend more times with my friends from Norway (I live in Germany) in a single year than with my family in a decade.
Needless to say, this is also an unresolved issue for me. Not sure if it's possible to solve it other than accepting how it is.
It's most pronounced in my relationship with my father, but it's also my family in general. I feel a bit more connected to my mom and my grandparents, but I just can't say my family is very important to me, even if it sounds sad. My friends have always been my substitute family, in a way, even as a child, and it's even stronger now as a single adult. I probably spend more times with my friends from Norway (I live in Germany) in a single year than with my family in a decade.
Needless to say, this is also an unresolved issue for me. Not sure if it's possible to solve it other than accepting how it is.
I'm happy to read you have good friends. I have a really hard time in that front. Few friends, unable to nourish the friendships. They mostly live away. I have started to take action to keep in touch recently, but I'm still just learning how to do it. I would like to do it in person rather than through text or calls, which is impossible at the moment. I have no clue how to make new ones either, since I work from home. Still an unresolved issue too and like you I might just accept it for now, keeping an eye for future opportunities.
I guess this is why my family has become so important lately. The perils of fatherhood away from any support just push me in this direction.
I guess this is why my family has become so important lately. The perils of fatherhood away from any support just push me in this direction.
Making friends is indeed getting more and more difficult the older you get. I feel extremely lucky that I found a great group of friends during high school and somehow we were able to nourish this group and even grow it over time.
All the best for you on your journey!
All the best for you on your journey!
Not using a bidet.
I was enlightened the first time I traveled to Japan, and an affordable ($50) add-on has been installed in our master bath ever since.
I was enlightened the first time I traveled to Japan, and an affordable ($50) add-on has been installed in our master bath ever since.
+1000000
I used to think bidets were weird European things.
Now I know that wiping your dry poopy butt with paper is a weird American thing :)
Bidets for life!
I used to think bidets were weird European things.
Now I know that wiping your dry poopy butt with paper is a weird American thing :)
Bidets for life!
A weird American thing that caught on because bidets were considered “sinful”!
My current toilet has a sink besides it. Wet TP does equivalent. But in my new house, the sink is not within reaching distance. I am considering an add-on.
Wet TP is by no means equivalent to a bidet (or spray-hose-thingy, as we have where I live). It is worlds better than dry TP, still.
All hail the bidet. Even the European-style bidet is kind of an inconvenient waste because you're still supposed to use plenty of paper before moving onto it. In Asia you use toilet paper only to dry.
The Japanese one is nice but the one common across South East Asia is the best because it doubles as a bowl cleaner: No need for a toilet brush.
The Japanese one is nice but the one common across South East Asia is the best because it doubles as a bowl cleaner: No need for a toilet brush.
At least in Thailand, Western foreigners call this a "bum gun."
which $50 one do you recommend?
$34.
I've recently switched to the handheld ones because the seat attachments require you to shift your butt around to catch the stream. Friends seem to be more weirded out by this one though.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B076G9M9JG/
I've recently switched to the handheld ones because the seat attachments require you to shift your butt around to catch the stream. Friends seem to be more weirded out by this one though.
https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B076G9M9JG/
How do you install that though?
Haven't looked in a long time, but I've had this one for almost 10 years with no issues: https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00A0RHSJO (only $35).
Not getting my dog professionally trained.
I spent the money to send him to a proper board and train, and it was life changing. Our relationship is better. He is happier and less stressed. I was able to take him off sedatives. Plus it's cool to have a dog with perfect recall that I can take anywhere without worrying.
If you can afford it, I can't recommend finding a reputable balanced trainer more highly.
I spent the money to send him to a proper board and train, and it was life changing. Our relationship is better. He is happier and less stressed. I was able to take him off sedatives. Plus it's cool to have a dog with perfect recall that I can take anywhere without worrying.
If you can afford it, I can't recommend finding a reputable balanced trainer more highly.
This is interesting. What part of the curriculum do you think made the difference?
I feel like this would only be half a solution. That, to work as a pair, you would need some amount of training as well. To better understand your dog's signals to you and know how to respond appropriately.
I feel like this would only be half a solution. That, to work as a pair, you would need some amount of training as well. To better understand your dog's signals to you and know how to respond appropriately.
> What part of the curriculum made the difference.
I think the big difference is in three parts.
First, they are doing the training all day. I simply don't have the time.
Second, the balanced training methodology adds consequences as well as rewards. This is a far more effective methodology. It is what people use to train working K9s like attack dogs and the like.
The last part is mindset. I have a working dog, granted it is a Corgi, and he wants to be working. Instead of making him "be good," I am giving him jobs throughout the day that reward him.
> That, to work as a pair, you would need some amount of training as well.
You would be correct. I got pretty significant training the day I took him home (about 3 hours). After that, we had a few follow hour-long ups. There they show you the commands and behaviors the dog learned, how to interpret there body language, and how to extend them at home.
I think the big difference is in three parts.
First, they are doing the training all day. I simply don't have the time.
Second, the balanced training methodology adds consequences as well as rewards. This is a far more effective methodology. It is what people use to train working K9s like attack dogs and the like.
The last part is mindset. I have a working dog, granted it is a Corgi, and he wants to be working. Instead of making him "be good," I am giving him jobs throughout the day that reward him.
> That, to work as a pair, you would need some amount of training as well.
You would be correct. I got pretty significant training the day I took him home (about 3 hours). After that, we had a few follow hour-long ups. There they show you the commands and behaviors the dog learned, how to interpret there body language, and how to extend them at home.
Sounds great. How did you choose what kind of training to do?
Also, what kind of jobs do you give to him?
Also, what kind of jobs do you give to him?
My partner at the time had lovely dog that was VERY scared of other dogs. He would become very aggressive. She ended up finding a place in southern Ohio called The balanced corner[1]. They seem to do great work.
This inspired me to find a similar place near me. I went to a place in Northern Ohio called Boss K9[2].
> Also, what kind of jobs do you give to him?
We try and make everything a job. Our training sessions, even place time. Sitting still for a reward is actually really hard for a dog, even tiring. So we make that time rewarded as well.
This leads to a more structured life for him, which is good.
If you are interested in this sort of training, I would contact Boss k9. The owner will help you find what to look for.
- [1] https://www.facebook.com/haleyhowessoundhounds/ (sorry, but it only looks like they have facebook?)
- [2] https://www.bossk9cle.com/
This inspired me to find a similar place near me. I went to a place in Northern Ohio called Boss K9[2].
> Also, what kind of jobs do you give to him?
We try and make everything a job. Our training sessions, even place time. Sitting still for a reward is actually really hard for a dog, even tiring. So we make that time rewarded as well.
This leads to a more structured life for him, which is good.
If you are interested in this sort of training, I would contact Boss k9. The owner will help you find what to look for.
- [1] https://www.facebook.com/haleyhowessoundhounds/ (sorry, but it only looks like they have facebook?)
- [2] https://www.bossk9cle.com/
My fear for this is that they "train the owner". Is that your experience?
I’m not sure what you mean by “training the owner.”
But if you explain I’d be happy to give my thoughts.
But if you explain I’d be happy to give my thoughts.
Oh, I thought it was a popular term. ChatGPT describes it as "Training the owner in dog training refers to educating and teaching the human caregiver how to effectively communicate and work with their dog in order to achieve desired training outcomes and behavior changes. This often involves teaching the owner about the principles of dog behavior, positive reinforcement techniques, and proper training methods. The goal of training the owner is to empower them to be able to continue training their dog effectively, even after the professional training sessions have ended."
I don't want to pay a lot of money for dog training if the training consists of telling me how to train the dog - and then it doesn't work. I want a professional to train the dog.
I don't want to pay a lot of money for dog training if the training consists of telling me how to train the dog - and then it doesn't work. I want a professional to train the dog.
Oh I got.
So they do train you some, and you are expected to keep up with the training. But that’s just to make sure you are following the system of things they taught the dog. In my case, the dog came home with the following skills.
Place training. I can say “bed” and he’ll go to place and stay until released. Same follows for “crate.”
Sit and Down. He’ll down till I release him.
When we are walking, “heel” brings him to my left side. Release word and he can run about. He does this on and off a leash. (But you should always use a leash) he also sits when I stop without a command.
He learned much better recall. Comes and downs immediately.
The training that I do is walking him in a “structured walk.” That is making sure he heels and sits when I stop.
I also do a 10 minute session running though all his commands in different areas of my home once a day.
I didn’t train him. They did. I just keep him sharp.
So they do train you some, and you are expected to keep up with the training. But that’s just to make sure you are following the system of things they taught the dog. In my case, the dog came home with the following skills.
Place training. I can say “bed” and he’ll go to place and stay until released. Same follows for “crate.”
Sit and Down. He’ll down till I release him.
When we are walking, “heel” brings him to my left side. Release word and he can run about. He does this on and off a leash. (But you should always use a leash) he also sits when I stop without a command.
He learned much better recall. Comes and downs immediately.
The training that I do is walking him in a “structured walk.” That is making sure he heels and sits when I stop.
I also do a 10 minute session running though all his commands in different areas of my home once a day.
I didn’t train him. They did. I just keep him sharp.
That sounds ideal. I'll see if anywhere close to me offers anything like that.
Same as I said in another comment, you could reach out to boss k9 in Cleveland and see if they know anyone near you, or what to look for.
My doctor had me work on increasing the amount of water I drink in a day until I hit the recommended amount, and journaling the result.
Turns out, I had spent most of my life dehydrated. I feel so much better when I drink a ton of water.
Turns out, I had spent most of my life dehydrated. I feel so much better when I drink a ton of water.
This. I thought I had allergies that stuffed up my nose and sinuses my entire life. Then I started tracking my water intake, drinking the proper amount, and boom, my entire head cleared up. I'm so mad at myself for not realizing this decades ago.
Curious. What changes have you observed from drinking more water.
For me it was better digestion and less headaches. The downside is kidneys aren’t ready for that amount of water (or are, depending on perspective) and you need to pee much more often, like every 1.5-2 hours. I use around 3l/100kg/day.
Being arrogant for 47~ish years, did nothing good for me.
Now I work hard on being friendly, curious and kind towards others.
Now I work hard on being friendly, curious and kind towards others.
As my grandfather lay dying in a hospital bed he said, "I wish I had been a nicer person".
I'm glad you figured this out with time to make adjustments and I hope that it brings you a smile in your final days.
I'm glad you figured this out with time to make adjustments and I hope that it brings you a smile in your final days.
I did lol @ Final Days. He's 47!
That's relating to GP's anecdote about his own grandfather's 'final days', who regretted not doing so - i.e. may GGP not have such regret when the time comes.
Sorry, I meant that he can be nice for years and then he can smile when those final days do come. I didn’t mean he’s in his final days. :)
It's a koan
It brings me nothing but good experiences already, and I for sure will smile at the end of my days here on earth knowing I at least for some time had a positive impact on others.
"In this world, you must be oh so smart, or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant." ― Elwood P. Dowd
Main (human) character from the movie “Harvey” starring Jimmy Stewart, 1950.
"Like all young men I set out to be a genius, but mercifully laughter intervened." ― Lawrence Durrell from the novel “Clea”, 1960.
Main (human) character from the movie “Harvey” starring Jimmy Stewart, 1950.
"Like all young men I set out to be a genius, but mercifully laughter intervened." ― Lawrence Durrell from the novel “Clea”, 1960.
I apparently hold chopsticks incorrectly. I am a white guy so it’s not like this is my culture—I just started holding them the way I do as a kid in sushi restaurants and no one ever corrected me. I found out when I married my wife, who is from Taiwan.
Here’s the kicker though: I’m more dexterous with chopsticks than even she is. I can pick and place a single grain of rice, or hold the most slippery noodles with ease. So she just laughed about it and told me to keep doing whatever the heck I do.
Here’s the kicker though: I’m more dexterous with chopsticks than even she is. I can pick and place a single grain of rice, or hold the most slippery noodles with ease. So she just laughed about it and told me to keep doing whatever the heck I do.
Do you hold the moving one like a pencil and let the other one rest on your ring finger? I had always done this and was eventually told that you're really supposed to use only three fingers. But after trying it that way for a while, I found it limited my dexterity quite a bit, and went back to the pencil method.
Surprisingly, I did it in China for a month-long work trip and nobody batted an eye.
Surprisingly, I did it in China for a month-long work trip and nobody batted an eye.
My family is ethnic Chinese and I grew up using chopsticks. I hold it using the pencil hold and no one has ever corrected me. It works well like 98% of the time. I may not be able to delicately pick up a tiny grain of rice or an entire salt shaker like my uncle who was demonstrating the proper hold but honestly those are such edge cases. The pencil hold is just way more natural and easier adoption may outweigh the benefit of handling some edge cases.
Yup! So much easier than the “right” way of doing it.
Turns out different people were taught to hold pencils very differently. I use two fingers to hold the moving one, which is also how I was taught to hold a pencil, and let the the other one rest on my middle finger. I've met people who use four fingers to hold a pencil and find the instructions incomprehensible.
I can't make heads or tails of any of these descriptions - it's not like I use chopsticks much, but I would hold the top/moving one between one (index) finger and thumb, but that's also how I'd hold a pencil (sort of resting on middle finger). (The non-moving chopstick kind of between middle finger & thumb.) Is that.. at all right?
...when people say "I use X fingers to hold this" and do not explicitly mention the thumb, they're including it in the count. Well, at least I am; I guess OP might be using one more finger than I'd thought. IG the unambiguous thing to do is say "digits" instead of "fingers" when that is intended; mea culpa (though if OP truly meant fingers and not digits their grip is more cursed than I'd imagined).
It sounds like you and I use much the same pencil grip.
It sounds like you and I use much the same pencil grip.
Even in countries like Japan it is not especially rare for people to hold them that way. It's wrong but like you say, you can be just as good as anyone else with a bit of practice.
Thinking other people's emotions were my responsibility (or likewise that other people were responsible for my emotions).
I can control my actions and that is all.
If someone reacts negatively, it's not my fault, and it's not my responsibility.
I may choose to help them through it, but at the end of the day, I can't, nor should I want to control other people's emotions.
I think you have a responsibility to understand how your words and/or actions may impact someone else's emotions. It is then your decision to act in a suitable way to you.
But if something needs to be said, you shouldn't shy away from saying it, if you're worried about how they might react.
But if something needs to be said, you shouldn't shy away from saying it, if you're worried about how they might react.
I agree, I'm not trying to absolve all responsibility.
The comment was just highlighting that despite how well you may word something, you can't prevent someone from reacting poorly.
You can't know with certainty the right words to use, so all you can do is your best. The rest is out of your hands.
One of the worst thing I did for many decades was drink bottled water and/or tap water. For many years I bought bottled water for home consumption. I eventually learned about under-sink reverse-osmosis water filtration systems and invested in one. For the last ~15 years, I've used such systems, following scheduled filter replacements. The water tastes and feels better than bottled water. Last year, my county water utility issued a boiled water alert due to high levels of e-coli. This wasn't a problem at all for me because of my water filtration system.
This depends a lot on where you live. In a lot of places, tap water is just fine. In others you might as well be drinking from a public swimming pool.
Typical reverse osmosis filter systems have to throw away 1x-3x the amount of water filtered, which could be quite wasteful depending on your water usage. It also removes many minerals which some people then have to add back into the water. With the water shortage issue in California, I decided to switch to just regular undersink water filter as a replacement for bottled water instead of reverse osmosis.
It could be wasteful if hooked up to the whole house, but it's unlikely an under-sink reverse osmosis system will have a meaningful impact on your water consumption. Accurately identifying where to implement it matters.
If you have hard water, I suggest a whole-house water softener and reserve reverse osmosis for the kitchen.
Re: remineralization. Ick, I just skip these. They taste awful to me.
If you have hard water, I suggest a whole-house water softener and reserve reverse osmosis for the kitchen.
Re: remineralization. Ick, I just skip these. They taste awful to me.
Is drinking de-mineralised water from RO not bad for you? I'd always heard it leeches minerals out of you.
Not a significant concern because it's what your digestive system is designed for. Pulling out the materials it needs from a slurry.
Deinionized water on the other hand immediately chemically to pull in ions. So same action, but with a more powerful mechanism. You'd probably have to drink a lot of deionized water to cause issues, plus water reionizes pretty quickly in air, and it takes terrible.
Deinionized water on the other hand immediately chemically to pull in ions. So same action, but with a more powerful mechanism. You'd probably have to drink a lot of deionized water to cause issues, plus water reionizes pretty quickly in air, and it takes terrible.
There is no consensus [1] except that exclusively drinking demineralized water could cause issues. So like everything moderation matters. I only use it for drinking water not cooking for example.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4223198/
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4223198/
Add country and region for regional advice please.
In the Netherlands and afaik all surrounding countries, this is definitely not necessary. Drink tap water all you want.
In the Netherlands and afaik all surrounding countries, this is definitely not necessary. Drink tap water all you want.
I live in France where tap water is considered good and very tightly controlled.
You cannot go wrong with tap water.
Now, there is the matter of taste. My tap water is ok, some are much better. I drink from a Brita pitcher (the one with overpriced filters) and the taste is noticeably better.
But again it is just the taste. The safety of tap water is a given here (town halls have to post results from water tests that are done on a regular basis).
You cannot go wrong with tap water.
Now, there is the matter of taste. My tap water is ok, some are much better. I drink from a Brita pitcher (the one with overpriced filters) and the taste is noticeably better.
But again it is just the taste. The safety of tap water is a given here (town halls have to post results from water tests that are done on a regular basis).
Can you recommend a brand? They are expensive and there are the usual low quality, planned obscelesence game playing techniques to sort through.
AO Smith works well from what I've tried.
> there are the usual low quality, planned obscelesence game playing techniques to sort through
Umm, a water filter is mostly a reservoir, tubing, and a pile of chemical reactants. This is not planned obsolescence. This is just pure chemistry. The reactants become saturated and need replacing.
All water filtration systems require periodic changing of filters.
That said, there are many stage filtration systems, and you don't need most of them. A three-stage reverse osmosis system will give you the cleanest water possible. Like mine was a 4 stage with a final remineralization step that I just didn't hook up.
If you want to understand it better watch this [1], just skip the deionization step because drinking deionized water is very unhealthy.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb1w15DHO4g
> there are the usual low quality, planned obscelesence game playing techniques to sort through
Umm, a water filter is mostly a reservoir, tubing, and a pile of chemical reactants. This is not planned obsolescence. This is just pure chemistry. The reactants become saturated and need replacing.
All water filtration systems require periodic changing of filters.
That said, there are many stage filtration systems, and you don't need most of them. A three-stage reverse osmosis system will give you the cleanest water possible. Like mine was a 4 stage with a final remineralization step that I just didn't hook up.
If you want to understand it better watch this [1], just skip the deionization step because drinking deionized water is very unhealthy.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nb1w15DHO4g
I own an iSpring under-sink RO system and it's been working fine for the last 8 years. I'm replacing filters every 6 and 12 months, and RO membrane every 3 years. I also replaced the RO tank once when pressure couldn't be restored. I don't think you're going to be able to sort through planned obsolescence schemes for water filtration systems. The money is made in the filters, not the under-sink systems. There are generics for just about every part.
I installed APEC RO HI filter, which is really good.
https://www.freedrinkingwater.com/ro-hi-detail.htm
https://www.freedrinkingwater.com/ro-hi-detail.htm
For the past 15 years or so, every night before bedtime I would proclaim “Time to hit the shack!” or “I’m going to hit the shack”.
In reality it is a “sack” that you hit, not a “shack”.
In reality it is a “sack” that you hit, not a “shack”.
For all intensive purposes, they're the same. (I'd been saying "intensive" instead of "intents and" until my mid 20s)
*edit: Fixed a spelling mistake. It's still early here... :-p
*edit: Fixed a spelling mistake. It's still early here... :-p
It's actually "intents and"
oof!! yes, embarrassing on my part for sure... it's still super early on a Monday here. I do know that it's "intents", that was just my fingers typing out the wrong word... corrected my comment.
I thought you did it on purpose as a nod to the OP making the same kind of mistake. Should run with that story
My original comment was "I'd been saying "intensive" instead of "intense and" until my mid 20s"
I even had the "correct" version wrong! The first was a nod to op, the second was a goof on my part. :-p
I even had the "correct" version wrong! The first was a nod to op, the second was a goof on my part. :-p
The best one of these is "Knowledge is power, France is Bacon"
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/dxosj/comment/c1...
I had a colleague some years ago, who consistently said 'add hook' instead of 'ad hoc'. I never had the heart to correct him.
The real question is for those people who heard you make this proclamation.
Oh! Another!
Car side mirrors. I spent more than a decade of driving adjusting them wrong. You want them so you don't see cars behind you at all in your side mirrors until they're transitioning off the edge of your center rear-view mirror. This gives you far more coverage of your sides, and every car is still visible in at least one mirror at all times. For me, where I put my seat, this usually means setting them as far out as they'll go.
Car side mirrors. I spent more than a decade of driving adjusting them wrong. You want them so you don't see cars behind you at all in your side mirrors until they're transitioning off the edge of your center rear-view mirror. This gives you far more coverage of your sides, and every car is still visible in at least one mirror at all times. For me, where I put my seat, this usually means setting them as far out as they'll go.
That's not what I was taught. It sounds logical but before I take an internet stranger's word on changing one of the likeliest things in life to kill you or those around you, did you read somewhere that this is a good idea based on research xyz or is this something you came up with?
IIRC I read it somewhere long after I learned, tried it, and it was so much better I was certain it was correct. All but completely eliminated my blind spots (I still turn and look, but pretty much never see anything that wasn't already in a side mirror, now). Turn them farther in and you're losing side visibility to gain redundant rear coverage.
[EDIT] I think I read about it in the context of correcting a common misconception or mistake, actually. Correct adjustment of the mirrors was described as watching a car leave your rearview mirror, and ensuring they show up on your sideview just as they're leaving the rearview—so if you can see cars on your sideviews before they're starting to slip off the edge of your rearview, you've got those adjusted too far in. For me, given how far back I put my seat, this ended up meaning I should adjust the mirrors all the way out in most cars. The idea is both to not have a gap in the sideview/rearview coverage, while maximizing side coverage within that constraint. So, if you can see cars in your sideview while they're still solidly in your rearview, that means you've got less side coverage than would be ideal.
[EDIT] I think I read about it in the context of correcting a common misconception or mistake, actually. Correct adjustment of the mirrors was described as watching a car leave your rearview mirror, and ensuring they show up on your sideview just as they're leaving the rearview—so if you can see cars on your sideviews before they're starting to slip off the edge of your rearview, you've got those adjusted too far in. For me, given how far back I put my seat, this ended up meaning I should adjust the mirrors all the way out in most cars. The idea is both to not have a gap in the sideview/rearview coverage, while maximizing side coverage within that constraint. So, if you can see cars in your sideview while they're still solidly in your rearview, that means you've got less side coverage than would be ideal.
Society of Automotive Engineers, 1995: https://www.sae.org/publications/technical-papers/content/95...
Referenced in: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15131074/how-to-adjus...
(edited to include 2nd link)
Referenced in: https://www.caranddriver.com/features/a15131074/how-to-adjus...
(edited to include 2nd link)
BMW has a performance driving class and they teach the same thing - set them far away from your own car. It is a little disorienting at first because you kind of don't have a point of reference like you would normally, but it is totally worth it.
Absolutely! I know what the sides of my car looks like and don't need to see them in the side mirrors. Cars leave the edge of the rearview and immediately show up on the inside edge of the side mirror. I love it, but anyone else who drives my car hates it.
I often see this technique used to eliminate your blind spot since side view mirrors are mainly facing the area where your blind spot is. I don’t recommend this:
1. When you set your side mirrors like this you are heavily relying on you rear view mirrors to see cars behind/around you in the other lanes. However your rear view mirror can easily get blocked by people or items sitting in the back of the car or large vehicles following closely behind who completely block your view of cars in the other lanes (remember side view mirrors will only show cars in your blind spot, not cars traveling in the other lanes that may be go significantly faster than you if you decide to change your lane).
2. Positioning your mirrors like this does not make all cars visible to you if you are on a road with more than 2 lanes and so you still must do a blind spot check by physically turning your head. This is because on a 3+ lane road and you are in lane 1, there may be a car in lane 3 moving into lane 2 while you are at the same time moving into lane 2 as well. Having your mirrors set so they only watch your blind spot you will not see that the car is moving towards the lane you are moving to until it’s too late. Doing a blind spot check you will be able to see a car 2 lanes over is trying to move to the same spot you’re trying to move to.
I like setting my mirrors so I just barely see the edge of my car when I look at the mirror. That way if there is a car behind me, their headlights aren’t constantly flashing at me from the mirror in my peripheral vision until I turn my head toward the mirror and then I can see his headlights near the edge of my car. I can see cars in the other lane but it doesn’t show cars in my blind spot (I still do a blind spot check). Another plus to this is that it’s easier to park backwards. The best of both worlds is also having a fisheye mirror on top of you regular mirror that shows you your blind spot but this is not a substitute for doing a blind spot check!
1. When you set your side mirrors like this you are heavily relying on you rear view mirrors to see cars behind/around you in the other lanes. However your rear view mirror can easily get blocked by people or items sitting in the back of the car or large vehicles following closely behind who completely block your view of cars in the other lanes (remember side view mirrors will only show cars in your blind spot, not cars traveling in the other lanes that may be go significantly faster than you if you decide to change your lane).
2. Positioning your mirrors like this does not make all cars visible to you if you are on a road with more than 2 lanes and so you still must do a blind spot check by physically turning your head. This is because on a 3+ lane road and you are in lane 1, there may be a car in lane 3 moving into lane 2 while you are at the same time moving into lane 2 as well. Having your mirrors set so they only watch your blind spot you will not see that the car is moving towards the lane you are moving to until it’s too late. Doing a blind spot check you will be able to see a car 2 lanes over is trying to move to the same spot you’re trying to move to.
I like setting my mirrors so I just barely see the edge of my car when I look at the mirror. That way if there is a car behind me, their headlights aren’t constantly flashing at me from the mirror in my peripheral vision until I turn my head toward the mirror and then I can see his headlights near the edge of my car. I can see cars in the other lane but it doesn’t show cars in my blind spot (I still do a blind spot check). Another plus to this is that it’s easier to park backwards. The best of both worlds is also having a fisheye mirror on top of you regular mirror that shows you your blind spot but this is not a substitute for doing a blind spot check!
It doesn't replace looking around, but does expand how much I'm aware of from mirrors alone, a ton. I don't get how seeing less is better (though I do adjust them in if something's blocking the rear-view, but that's not a normal situation).
It’s a normal situation for me. I might be hauling a couple people in my back seats so their heads block the rear view. There maybe a semi truck behind me and I need to change lanes but they completely block my view out the rear view so I will only ever know that there isn’t a car in my blind spot but won’t know if there are cars in the other lane traveling significantly faster than me.
It’s not about seeing less. It’s just the fact that the rear view mirror is the most likely to get obstructed. I use the rear to mainly get a feel for the amount of traffic around me but I try to check it first then my side mirror then my blind spot before changing lanes.
It’s not about seeing less. It’s just the fact that the rear view mirror is the most likely to get obstructed. I use the rear to mainly get a feel for the amount of traffic around me but I try to check it first then my side mirror then my blind spot before changing lanes.
Yeah, from your normal driving position, you want to barely see your own car. Which is pretty close to all the way out.
Most people's side mirrors are filled with their own car which tells you nothing.
Most people's side mirrors are filled with their own car which tells you nothing.
So you're telling me that people have their car mirrors adjusted so that when they look into their mirrors they mainly see their own car?
I'll add to this that if, while you're parking, you angle your mirrors downward, you can easily see your proximity to the curb/line
Putting a teaspoon handle-down into a bottle of champagne when putting it in the fridge in order to "retain the fizziness" which I did unquestionably as something we just "did", until I had to tell someone else to do it a few months ago and realised that there was no reason this should work and, lo and behold, it makes no difference whatsoever.
I imagine that could actually make it worse, as it would provide more nucleation sites for the bubbles to form.
I dont think the spoon handle is actually supposed to touch the liquid. That would be hard to achive in a classic bottle of champagne, even if its full, I guess. Teaspoon handles are not that long.
This works for pop/soda. I'm not entirely sure why, but if you pour a glass of coke/pepsi/whatever, and put a steel spoon or fork in the glass, and put it in the fridge, it won't go flat (nearly as quick).
Having my tongue rest on the bottom of your mouth.
Proper tongue positioning is when you rest your tongue on the roof of the mouth and away from the teeth. It's been 2 years I've been "mewing"[1]. A good side effect for me: Now I stop snoring and I believe I have better posture. Some claim that it will improve your jawline but not for me, I guess I started too late. If I had started in my teen, I believe I would have had a great face today ?
[1] Check youtube videos for "mewing" or lookup JawHacks videos
Proper tongue positioning is when you rest your tongue on the roof of the mouth and away from the teeth. It's been 2 years I've been "mewing"[1]. A good side effect for me: Now I stop snoring and I believe I have better posture. Some claim that it will improve your jawline but not for me, I guess I started too late. If I had started in my teen, I believe I would have had a great face today ?
[1] Check youtube videos for "mewing" or lookup JawHacks videos
”Mewing” is just normal tongue posture. It will not improve your jawline. Usually it’s the reverse: if you need to “mew” / put your tongue on the roof of your mouth consciously and if you naturally snores it’s because of a problem.
Problem that is often genetic or more rarely that appeared during your development: either your face lacks forward projection or a part only is recessed (malocclusion: your upper and lower teeth don’t perfectly fit).
The only way to definitively cure it is to go through an orthognatic surgery. If not treated it might evolves into sleep apnea as you are getting older. You should check with an orthodontist or a maxillo-facial surgeon to make sure that’s what your are suffering from.
If your are lucky like me, ie you have enough projection and no malocclusion, a genioplasty might be sufficient to naturally seal your lips without muscle contraction by bringing them closer. In my case it’s what created the pressure differential needed for my tongue to stay in the roof of my mouth. If you are unlucky a BSSO, a Lefort I or both (Bimax) might be necessary. Some extreme cases might even require the three surgeries.
Problem that is often genetic or more rarely that appeared during your development: either your face lacks forward projection or a part only is recessed (malocclusion: your upper and lower teeth don’t perfectly fit).
The only way to definitively cure it is to go through an orthognatic surgery. If not treated it might evolves into sleep apnea as you are getting older. You should check with an orthodontist or a maxillo-facial surgeon to make sure that’s what your are suffering from.
If your are lucky like me, ie you have enough projection and no malocclusion, a genioplasty might be sufficient to naturally seal your lips without muscle contraction by bringing them closer. In my case it’s what created the pressure differential needed for my tongue to stay in the roof of my mouth. If you are unlucky a BSSO, a Lefort I or both (Bimax) might be necessary. Some extreme cases might even require the three surgeries.
While genetic/heritable factors play a role, the evidence is overwhelming that the main cause is weak jaw muscles and improper resting posture during childhood, due to soft diets and allergies.
I'd also like to add that even in absence of sleep apnea, Upper Airway Resistance Syndrome, where the airway collapses but the body partially wakes up before it progresses into an apnea, is likely, and often missed by diagnostics.
In general, maxillomandibular advancement is always more effective than genioglossus advancement during genio.
I'd also like to add that even in absence of sleep apnea, Upper Airway Resistance Syndrome, where the airway collapses but the body partially wakes up before it progresses into an apnea, is likely, and often missed by diagnostics.
In general, maxillomandibular advancement is always more effective than genioglossus advancement during genio.
Thanks for the precision! Bimax indeed best practice but performing BSSO comes with significant risk of nerve damages.
In my (light) case for example two independant surgeons advised me against as the risk outweighed the potential benefice
In my (light) case for example two independant surgeons advised me against as the risk outweighed the potential benefice
The risk scales with BSSO distance, surgeon expertise(both quality of work, and especially how long the operation takes).
I wish more research was conducted into improving nerve healing using administration of stuff like Cerebrolysin, other neurotrophic, or cellular stress therapy - e.g. in fat transplantation, pre-op suction promotes vascularization and local growth factor release, dramatically improving fat graft survival rates, in skin/hair, microneedling works wonders through local growth factor release. Could we do the same to the nerves?
I wish more research was conducted into improving nerve healing using administration of stuff like Cerebrolysin, other neurotrophic, or cellular stress therapy - e.g. in fat transplantation, pre-op suction promotes vascularization and local growth factor release, dramatically improving fat graft survival rates, in skin/hair, microneedling works wonders through local growth factor release. Could we do the same to the nerves?
I'd not heard of this and so googled mewing. The first link[0] seems to imply that the research into it is somewhat lacking (or shows there to be no effect), and that the guy that invented it had his license stripped.
I assume now you have anecdotal evidence of it working for you for snoring, but what made you think it would work in the first place?
[0] https://www.webmd.com/oral-health/what-is-mewing
I assume now you have anecdotal evidence of it working for you for snoring, but what made you think it would work in the first place?
[0] https://www.webmd.com/oral-health/what-is-mewing
Hard to tell, but I think this is the natural resting spot for my tongue. Now I'm curious, where else would you rest it?
The other (incorrect) resting position would be the tip of your tongue touching , and not your full tongue.
https://imgur.com/a/0BBXGUz
https://imgur.com/a/0BBXGUz
Wow, I physically can't do this. I can only touch the tip of my tongue to the roof. Guess I need jaw surgery.
According to GP, incorrect:
> on the bottom of your mouth
correct:
> when you rest your tongue on the roof of the mouth and away from the teeth
> on the bottom of your mouth
correct:
> when you rest your tongue on the roof of the mouth and away from the teeth
I also wrote about it. It’s connected to „infantile swallowing”. Seems like 3-4 year old child should change tongue placement but if you have alergy and runny nose then you might never learn it.
I suspect that for me it switched back later as I was very good in long distance running as kid and after one time beeing sick I never recovered to my previous form. It never occured to me that it was tongue placement :(
I suspect that for me it switched back later as I was very good in long distance running as kid and after one time beeing sick I never recovered to my previous form. It never occured to me that it was tongue placement :(
Ask my wife what she prefers and tell her what I prefer.
Years of marriage before we figured out I hate cleaning small things (silverware and glasses) and she hates cleaning big things (pots and pans). We permanently changed how we clean up after meals.
Not exactly in line with your premise, but changed my entire outlook about expressing what I want or prefer about almost anything.
Years of marriage before we figured out I hate cleaning small things (silverware and glasses) and she hates cleaning big things (pots and pans). We permanently changed how we clean up after meals.
Not exactly in line with your premise, but changed my entire outlook about expressing what I want or prefer about almost anything.
I always thought I need to exercise [more] to lose weight. Wrong. For all practical purposes, to lose weight you must change what you eat.
You can lose weight exercising, if you’re willing to give up 3 hours a day to do it.
Actors are getting paid to work with a coach who is putting the through weight or strength regiments that are a part time job. It works for them because it’s all they’re doing.
If you want to walk or bicycle three hours a week then no, you aren’t going to lose weight from exercise.
You can burn a couple thousand calories in a day by walking or biking or running, but it’s going to color your whole day.
Actors are getting paid to work with a coach who is putting the through weight or strength regiments that are a part time job. It works for them because it’s all they’re doing.
If you want to walk or bicycle three hours a week then no, you aren’t going to lose weight from exercise.
You can burn a couple thousand calories in a day by walking or biking or running, but it’s going to color your whole day.
Great one. Not many people know this, or will even think it's nonsense. Exercise is overrated. What you eat is really, really important.
Exercise is great for a pile of things, to be fair. Losing weight is just not one of them.
It is just calories in calories out. Exercise may help with that. Depends how much you eat.
If you eat to lose weight and keep that up for a long time you will end up weak if you do exercise
Nice one. also if you see extremely fit adults, it is mostly because they were extremely active/fit during their teens. (note: inverse won't be true, active teens might get unfit later). Their current diet or current activity has nothing to do with it.
Is that causation or just correlation? Isn't it likely to be at least partially genetic - if you have "fitter" genes you are going to be fitter both as a teenager and as an adult?
It has a lasting effect on metabolism - i.e. in terms of 'calories in, calories out' as someone else put it, raising the rate at which calories 'go out' at rest.
Breathing.
I was sucking my gut in on inhale, and expanding it on exhale. Once I tried it the other way around, it locked and I've breathed this new way ever since.
It's obvious to give your lungs more room, couldn't believe to have been doing something so basic wrong.
I was sucking my gut in on inhale, and expanding it on exhale. Once I tried it the other way around, it locked and I've breathed this new way ever since.
It's obvious to give your lungs more room, couldn't believe to have been doing something so basic wrong.
The first part of learning to play a wind instrument (clarinet, flute, trumpet, etc.) is learning how to breathe.
Muscles can only do two things: contract and relax. Lungs are controlled by two muscle groups: the diaphragm and the chest.
The muscles in the front of the chest are the most obvious, and the least important: they only squeeze the air out, which doesn't really take active effort most of the time.
The diaphragm is what pulls air in to the lungs. It does this by pulling the lungs straight down toward the stomach.
Practicing this intentionally, by pulling your diagram down and holding it, is great exercise. Deeper slower breaths are more effective at cycling oxygen and CO2 through the blood stream, help you speak louder and longer, and can even significantly reduce your stress level.
Breathing is something we do automatically well enough, but breathing intentionally is incredibly useful.
Muscles can only do two things: contract and relax. Lungs are controlled by two muscle groups: the diaphragm and the chest.
The muscles in the front of the chest are the most obvious, and the least important: they only squeeze the air out, which doesn't really take active effort most of the time.
The diaphragm is what pulls air in to the lungs. It does this by pulling the lungs straight down toward the stomach.
Practicing this intentionally, by pulling your diagram down and holding it, is great exercise. Deeper slower breaths are more effective at cycling oxygen and CO2 through the blood stream, help you speak louder and longer, and can even significantly reduce your stress level.
Breathing is something we do automatically well enough, but breathing intentionally is incredibly useful.
Er, is it weird/bad that that's natural to me? I can do 'traditional relaxed breathing (eupnea)' if I concentrate on it (but it's very fast and shallow) or 'gut in on inhale' as GP describes, but neither without thinking about it.
I was surprised enough to read that GP could change subconscious breathing technique (or have had it 'wrong' to begin with) - I'm even more surprised that this is supposedly a health/musicians' exercise, not just normal.
I was surprised enough to read that GP could change subconscious breathing technique (or have had it 'wrong' to begin with) - I'm even more surprised that this is supposedly a health/musicians' exercise, not just normal.
Peeling bananas.
I used to open them from the hard stem bit which was not always successful, but it turns out that if you pinch them at the other end, they open up much easier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8svUCSuMS4
I used to open them from the hard stem bit which was not always successful, but it turns out that if you pinch them at the other end, they open up much easier:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8svUCSuMS4
You can also grab it with both hands and just break the whole banana in half with a quick pop. The line will be clean. Hand one half to your date as if nothing happened.
One every x times, the banana is too late and you squash it between your hands. Also hand it to your date as if nothing happened.
But then you need to remove the nasty dark bit.
It's called the "bananas"
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/bananus
https://theoatmeal.com/comics/bananus
I prefer devil's anus. :)
When in Poland, I learned of one urban legend there which was that your head to remove the end of the banana because there are some small livings (?) there (I think they called them "lamblia").
Some folks (usually older) strongly believe that.
Some folks (usually older) strongly believe that.
Exactly, which is why I also think starting from the stem is better.
Devil's anus
Grab with two hands, break apart in the middle.
Dismissing people as undesirable without any thought of why they became the way they are. It's very easy to quickly make up your mind about someone who you don't like without asking yourself "why did this person became such an a-hole or someone you just don't want to have any relation with". I have realized that most of these people have had lives that have made them whatever negative adjectives I would give them.
I try to think everyone is a product of their environment.
Everyone has reasons for being the way they are, but I don’t see why I should suffer assholes even if they’re the product of their circumstances? It feels like it would be a huge energy leech with no benefit. What am I not seeing?
For several years since I got my first cell phone I held my cell phone during conversations so its top side is on the same level as top edge of my ear. Seems neat an logical, right?
Then I realized that I should align its speaker to be right against my ear canal, that is 1-2 cm lower. And now I could hear the other person so much better!
Then I realized that I should align its speaker to be right against my ear canal, that is 1-2 cm lower. And now I could hear the other person so much better!
How to text if you would like to date someone.
Not: “What’s up”
Not: “<open-ended question>”
Not: “<this is what I did over the weekend>. How was yours?”
Yes: <Logistics of meeting up>
Not: “What’s up”
Not: “<open-ended question>”
Not: “<this is what I did over the weekend>. How was yours?”
Yes: <Logistics of meeting up>
Get agreement of Time, Agenda, Outcome -- up front and in that order. Helps with all meetings not just dates.
You could call it the TAO of meetings.
What do you mean by Agenda and Outcome?
In my experience.
Agenda - What are we going to do?
Outcome - How do we know if the agenda was successful? / Or when to end the meeting (more for exploratory stuff, dates included).
Agenda - What are we going to do?
Outcome - How do we know if the agenda was successful? / Or when to end the meeting (more for exploratory stuff, dates included).
When is this meeting?
What is this meeting?
Why is this meeting?
What is this meeting?
Why is this meeting?
That barring any real medical issue ... intermittent fasting is hard. We just think it is.
Every time I tried it, I'd sabotage my efforts not knowing by chewing gum, eating tic tacs, using flavored tea, etc this would just trigger my insulin response and I'd get hungry throughout the day.
All I had to do, is just simplify my intake to any of these: water, black coffee, black tea or any tea with a bitter profile.
And that's it. Fasting would get easier after that, especially after first few days.
And you could do 4h, 6h, 8h, 12h, 20h easy peasy. No problem.
And if you should experience the desire to eat during those periods, most of the time it was just psychological. Your body isn't dying. You are more resilient than that.
Every time I tried it, I'd sabotage my efforts not knowing by chewing gum, eating tic tacs, using flavored tea, etc this would just trigger my insulin response and I'd get hungry throughout the day.
All I had to do, is just simplify my intake to any of these: water, black coffee, black tea or any tea with a bitter profile.
And that's it. Fasting would get easier after that, especially after first few days.
And you could do 4h, 6h, 8h, 12h, 20h easy peasy. No problem.
And if you should experience the desire to eat during those periods, most of the time it was just psychological. Your body isn't dying. You are more resilient than that.
If I understand you correctly.
To do fasting drink more non-calorie liquids. Which is absolutely correct. I drink like 2x as much liquid when I'm fasting.
To do fasting drink more non-calorie liquids. Which is absolutely correct. I drink like 2x as much liquid when I'm fasting.
You gotta be careful with just the no-calorie definition.
Technically, Bubbly / Flavored Sparking Water has no calories but can still break your fast because the flavoring can trigger your insulin response by fooling your body into thinking food is coming and you start to salivate and the stomach starts to rumble.
That's why I said coffee or teas with bitter taste.
Technically, Bubbly / Flavored Sparking Water has no calories but can still break your fast because the flavoring can trigger your insulin response by fooling your body into thinking food is coming and you start to salivate and the stomach starts to rumble.
That's why I said coffee or teas with bitter taste.
Sure, you want to avoid non-sugar and artificial sweeteners in there too.
I wouldn't go as far as flavored drinks that don't include artificial sweeteners though (not that there are too many of those in practice).
I wouldn't go as far as flavored drinks that don't include artificial sweeteners though (not that there are too many of those in practice).
Arching my lower back as a default position for sitting and standing and avoiding rounding my back at all times. I always thought that slumped posture was the most important thing to avoid, but this created maladaptive muscle fixedness around the spine, confirmed by imaging taken by orthopedists.
The spine is adapted to bend multiple ways, including rounding, as a matter of good exercise form. It's a major function of your abdominal musculature, in fact, to compress the spine forward along the transverse plane. Just don't pick up heavy stuff that way or hunch over a desk all day.
The spine is adapted to bend multiple ways, including rounding, as a matter of good exercise form. It's a major function of your abdominal musculature, in fact, to compress the spine forward along the transverse plane. Just don't pick up heavy stuff that way or hunch over a desk all day.
Neutral back
Typing. I've always been a self-taught hunt-picker, but for some reason, as a teenager I picked up a terrible technique that involves using thumbs for keys to the side of the spacebar.
Later in life I trained myself into touch-typing (and then to use Colemak), but for some reason I can't seem to shake off this annoying thumb bit.
Later in life I trained myself into touch-typing (and then to use Colemak), but for some reason I can't seem to shake off this annoying thumb bit.
Is using your pinky really any better?
The only way to truly get an economically "correct" typing posture is to use a keyboard that actually has keys under your resting hands' fingers. That means using a keyboard that was designed to match the shape of hands, not the shape of a 19th century typewriter.
There is no ergonomical way to use a traditional keyboard. All you can do is pick your favorite compromise. Using a better layout (like Colemak) helps a lot, but it can't fix the whole problem.
The only way to truly get an economically "correct" typing posture is to use a keyboard that actually has keys under your resting hands' fingers. That means using a keyboard that was designed to match the shape of hands, not the shape of a 19th century typewriter.
There is no ergonomical way to use a traditional keyboard. All you can do is pick your favorite compromise. Using a better layout (like Colemak) helps a lot, but it can't fix the whole problem.
I agree wholeheartedly. I use a split keyboard and it helps a lot. Unfortunately, keyboards who really go all the way are still prohibitely expensive for most of us.
I think a reasonable compromise is "keyboards with 2-3 keys for each thumb".
Rather, with 2-3 keys for each thumb, and either using home row modifiers (with tap-hold, or with chording): it allows for really minimizing the need to use pinkies, and eliminates needing to reach for the corners where Ctrl/Gui/Alt are typically placed.
Rather, with 2-3 keys for each thumb, and either using home row modifiers (with tap-hold, or with chording): it allows for really minimizing the need to use pinkies, and eliminates needing to reach for the corners where Ctrl/Gui/Alt are typically placed.
I think using your thumb for Cmd on Mac or Alt on other keyboards (i.e. the closest modifier key to the spacebar) makes sense and feels like less of a position shift from homerow compared to using a pinky.
And in fact I'd find it very hard to hit something like Cmd+Q with just my left hand if I use the pinky for Cmd.
And in fact I'd find it very hard to hit something like Cmd+Q with just my left hand if I use the pinky for Cmd.
How did you train yourself into it?
I used GTypist but it was a long time ago.
These days there are excellent tools online: ratatype, typeracer, keybr, keyzen-colemak, typelit.io, typing cat, speedcoder, etc etc.
The main approach is:
1. don't look at the keyboard. Print out a layout, better if color-coded to indicate which finger should be used, and put it near the monitor. Whatever happens, don't look at the keyboard, ever.
2. index fingers on the two central keys with the little rubber bit (F and J in qwerty).
3. accept that it will take weeks to be as productive as you were before, but then it will (should) be much easier to go faster.
These days there are excellent tools online: ratatype, typeracer, keybr, keyzen-colemak, typelit.io, typing cat, speedcoder, etc etc.
The main approach is:
1. don't look at the keyboard. Print out a layout, better if color-coded to indicate which finger should be used, and put it near the monitor. Whatever happens, don't look at the keyboard, ever.
2. index fingers on the two central keys with the little rubber bit (F and J in qwerty).
3. accept that it will take weeks to be as productive as you were before, but then it will (should) be much easier to go faster.
Thank you, that is really helpful.
Not using a meat thermometer, especially when cooking fish, and extra especially when cooking halibut, which is ridiculously touchy and easy to overcook. Now I used a thermometer to get the interior to exactly 120F and it comes out perfect every time.
Completely agree with this, I got one recently and my chicken is so much better
Avoiding and suppressing uncomfortable emotions and feelings instead of fully accepting and acting on them. This is of course a huge topic in itself and easier said than done but I'm confident that investment on this area almost always worth it. You are fortunate if you got this already in childhood!
Another thing would be flossing with dental brushes. Gum infections can ruin your health in many ways.
Another thing would be flossing with dental brushes. Gum infections can ruin your health in many ways.
Telling myself that I have no worth. Thinking that lead me to believe the only way to demonstrate my worth is to be superman at work. Being superman allowed me to demonstrate my value each day (corresponds to the 'but what have you done for me lately' mindset of American tech culture), allowed me to get validation that I was not worthless. That drive helped me professionally, which helped me demonstrate my worth as a provider, because obviously without the nice house, new cars, etc my wife would leave me (even though she didn't ask for these things). Being superman burned me out and took up all my time. Which lead to worse relationships with my wife/kids, which re-enforced I had no value/worth. We tried an external solution of moving to the countryside. But ultimately my thinking broke me completely. My court ordered rehab counselor trips out on it. He's like dude, you are a person, you lived better than I ever will, you helped tens of thousands of people in a demonstrable way (software I wrote and was the name on patents for had some life changing impacts), all of the women in this office comment on how it's crazy you are attractive and have no partner, talking to you you are well educated, present yourself well and people like you. In group you are the natural leader. Dude none of your thinking makes any sense. I hear him say it, but inside I know. I put on a good show, I can convince people I am a person, but I know the truth. I have no value. Everyone in group will see through and realize it eventually. I don't know how to change this or get past it.
But I want to. I want friends. But I can't accept friends, because they will find out I have no worth, so I only have acquaintances. Honestly, I want my best friend back, my ex, but that is way gone.
Being superman != a way to measure your worth. Work != the value of you. You != nothing.
Be kind to yourself, show yourself love. You have value. I know that you do. If only I knew that I do too.
But I want to. I want friends. But I can't accept friends, because they will find out I have no worth, so I only have acquaintances. Honestly, I want my best friend back, my ex, but that is way gone.
Being superman != a way to measure your worth. Work != the value of you. You != nothing.
Be kind to yourself, show yourself love. You have value. I know that you do. If only I knew that I do too.
My good man, a therapist is certain to help you overcome this false and harmful belief that continues to destroy your life. Start tomorrow.
Been there done that. It actually led to my final spiral out of control.
The court ordered person I work with has been the best help. He doesn't fuck around. While the therapist said 'why do you feel this way...why do you think that...blah blah' this guy was the first person my whole life to say 'dude, you have value, I wish you could see the person I see'. I can't explain what hearing that did for me. Especially from someone that knows ALL the good and the bad. I can't use my 'but if he only knew' cop out.
The court ordered person I work with has been the best help. He doesn't fuck around. While the therapist said 'why do you feel this way...why do you think that...blah blah' this guy was the first person my whole life to say 'dude, you have value, I wish you could see the person I see'. I can't explain what hearing that did for me. Especially from someone that knows ALL the good and the bad. I can't use my 'but if he only knew' cop out.
I used to be a smoker. I started at a very young age. For the longest time I would carelessly flick cigarette butts.
One day it dawned on me that I was littering.
Odd thing was I never littered outside of that. In fact cleaning up litter was part of my job at the time.
One day it dawned on me that I was littering.
Odd thing was I never littered outside of that. In fact cleaning up litter was part of my job at the time.
Unlike most litter, though, cigarette butts disintegrate almost immediately and completely in the rain.
"It has been estimated that cigarette filters will take between 500 and 1000 years to decompose"
https://eradicateplastic.com/how-long-do-cigarettes-take-to-...
https://eradicateplastic.com/how-long-do-cigarettes-take-to-...
Sounds like we've found my thing I've been getting wrong the whole time.
good for you. if you gonna smoke at least don't litter :)
Not going to a therapist because of fear of social stigma.
Tbh, people can use this to reductively explain your behavior. I learned that easy way, but the therapist advised me from the beginning to stay, well, not silent, but selective about it. I didn’t and some people tended to ignore my arguments for “that’s anxiety and depression speaking” or something along the lines. Ask yours about it next time.
It doesn't matter if you do nice things for other people. Do it because you enjoy helping others, not because you want a response.
You are acting incredibly selfishly if you help people because you feel it entitles you to a specific outcome.
I now see why people have called me childish. You have to let people have their own agency and decide whether they want your help or even like what your doing. You can't get upset if they don't think it's as good as you do.
Find people who care and lean into those. Forget the rest. Don't get emotionally attached to people who don't care about you. You can never "nice" them into liking you. Fake friendships are everywhere and you may seem "rude" by realizing this or pointing it out... but you can both live better lives by not continuing the charade.
You are acting incredibly selfishly if you help people because you feel it entitles you to a specific outcome.
I now see why people have called me childish. You have to let people have their own agency and decide whether they want your help or even like what your doing. You can't get upset if they don't think it's as good as you do.
Find people who care and lean into those. Forget the rest. Don't get emotionally attached to people who don't care about you. You can never "nice" them into liking you. Fake friendships are everywhere and you may seem "rude" by realizing this or pointing it out... but you can both live better lives by not continuing the charade.
Swallowing ;) I learned from ortodontist that the reason I don’t have nice teeth arch and the reason that I have trouble with pills is because of „infantile swallowing”, basically pressing tongue to lower teeth and not lower palate. Learning this solved so many of my problems. This lowers efficiency of breathing and make you snore and might be related to sleep apnea and this makes you tired and depressed so please check your kids.
So you shouldn't place your tongue on your front lower teeth? Or you should? Sorry, It's not 100% clear to me in your text.
Your tongue shouldn't push against your teeth when you swallow (called "tongue thrust swallowing"). Instead, it should press against the roof of your mouth, behind your upper teeth.
Ideally, it's something that is noticed and corrected in childhood. Or, like me, you end up in braces (again) as an adult, because your tongue pushed your previously corrected teeth all over the place over the years.
Ideally, it's something that is noticed and corrected in childhood. Or, like me, you end up in braces (again) as an adult, because your tongue pushed your previously corrected teeth all over the place over the years.
Yeah, no one said nothing to me about it ever. Is this something one should talk to with their dentist?
Orthodontist send me to speech terapist. I corrected tongue placement on my own but still have problems during sleep so I’ve booked visit.
I’m currently testing these exercises from YT - https://youtu.be/aSdc1pKnqDY
I’m currently testing these exercises from YT - https://youtu.be/aSdc1pKnqDY
Using cannabis recreationally, regularly.
I've voted twice to (successfully) repeal prohibition laws in states I've lived in, and would do it again.
Cannabis dependency is real however, and it's the "safe" drug compared to, say, heroin; but I'd recommend taking breaks, or consider stopping.
I've voted twice to (successfully) repeal prohibition laws in states I've lived in, and would do it again.
Cannabis dependency is real however, and it's the "safe" drug compared to, say, heroin; but I'd recommend taking breaks, or consider stopping.
I fully support cannabis but but it’s a really boring thing to do.
How bad are Cannabis withdrawals compared to tobacco?
Nightmares were the worst part for me. Cannabis prevented me from really dreaming for several years so every dream was super vivid for the first few weeks after I stopped smoking.
That and learning to enjoy things sober again. Movies/tv shows are harder to pay attention to when not high. The first few weeks they were painfully boring.
That and learning to enjoy things sober again. Movies/tv shows are harder to pay attention to when not high. The first few weeks they were painfully boring.
it's psychological so it is different.
from my experience I could simply outright stop and be fine with it. I might want later on, I might not, but it wasn't physical dependency.
what I realized many years ago is that getting "high" is, imho, actually overdosing. you should treat it like any other drug. let's say you wouldn't want to overdose on ibuprofen for example, or sleeping pills. you could but the outcome reverses to negative. so the same is for cannabis, you want to hit just the sweet spot. the problem is that every strain is different, it is also heavily based on your situation (e.g. same amount could have very different effects if you're hungry/thirsty or even just in a different mood; same with different strains) and these (more often than not) don't come with a prescription and well defined dose.
you would be surprised how little it takes to "overdose" (according to my definition, ie. get high) and how little you actually need to gain the positive effects while avoiding negative effects. for that I realized smoking socially helps a ton, but you still need to be accountable for yourself.
personally I rarely smoke weed now since I very rarely get net positive effects. when I do it performs miracles, but more often than not it's neutral or net negative effect. maybe it changes with age. a lot of people say they remember it differently from when they were younger.
from my experience I could simply outright stop and be fine with it. I might want later on, I might not, but it wasn't physical dependency.
what I realized many years ago is that getting "high" is, imho, actually overdosing. you should treat it like any other drug. let's say you wouldn't want to overdose on ibuprofen for example, or sleeping pills. you could but the outcome reverses to negative. so the same is for cannabis, you want to hit just the sweet spot. the problem is that every strain is different, it is also heavily based on your situation (e.g. same amount could have very different effects if you're hungry/thirsty or even just in a different mood; same with different strains) and these (more often than not) don't come with a prescription and well defined dose.
you would be surprised how little it takes to "overdose" (according to my definition, ie. get high) and how little you actually need to gain the positive effects while avoiding negative effects. for that I realized smoking socially helps a ton, but you still need to be accountable for yourself.
personally I rarely smoke weed now since I very rarely get net positive effects. when I do it performs miracles, but more often than not it's neutral or net negative effect. maybe it changes with age. a lot of people say they remember it differently from when they were younger.
Depends on how heavily you're using.
If you're smoking all day and quit cold turkey, you'll be cranky for a few days either way. The craving for nicotine never feels completely gone, unlike cannabis. (Neither were as hard as alcohol.)
Quitting/pausing the use of cannabis has some immediate benefits compared to nicotine, more energy, fewer mood swings, your dreams come back.
If you're smoking all day and quit cold turkey, you'll be cranky for a few days either way. The craving for nicotine never feels completely gone, unlike cannabis. (Neither were as hard as alcohol.)
Quitting/pausing the use of cannabis has some immediate benefits compared to nicotine, more energy, fewer mood swings, your dreams come back.
Cannabis withdrawals are worse initially, but easier over time. With Cannabis, sleep and mood are really effected, but it subsides pretty quickly.
I smoked both for a decade. Haven't craved weed in years, but still crave tobacco pretty regularly.
I smoked both for a decade. Haven't craved weed in years, but still crave tobacco pretty regularly.
Wrong in thinking that being a nice guy and always doing what women/partner want would make them desire me more. Robert glover's book was eye opening.
Multiple people beat me to the shoelace one, so here's one I don't see yet: running. At 48, I had hated running practically since I had first been able to do it, but I was in a situation where I decided to give it another try. I quickly figured out why I had hated it. I had been doing it wrong all my life. A little reading taught me about pacing and body lean and foot landings, and then ... well, it still kinda sucked TBH. But it sucked a lot less, in the way that anything hard will suck, and I've been able to stick with it year-round for almost nine years since. Still amazes me that I spent more than four decades doing something so basic so wrong. So much for being a smart guy, I guess.
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.
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.
Do you recall the reading material? You just overcome my biggest barrier to healthy living.
I don't recall specifically, but it's pretty easy to find articles e.g. on Runners World. Practically everyone seems to recommend Born to Run but personally I've never read it. For me it was getting my body lean and foot landing more forward, pushing more than pulling, and sacrificing a bit of stride length for higher cadence. And not being afraid to take breaks, especially when I was first building up to 5K. Any halfway decent running store should be able to help you understand about foot landings and get you the right shoes for your style. In fact, one of the things that has really helped me stick with it is being able to geek out about training and gear and stats. Plenty of room for that, and without it I might have had more trouble especially in the winter months. Good luck!
I realized that blaming the The world and other people for my misery was a waste of my life.
http://scottrlarson.com/books/book-most-improved/
http://scottrlarson.com/books/book-most-improved/
Rinsing after brushing my teeth.
This may be controversial, but keeping the fluoride on your teeth as much as possible helps prevent tooth decay. Rinsing immediately after brushing dilutes or removes fluoride. What was the point? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
This may be controversial, but keeping the fluoride on your teeth as much as possible helps prevent tooth decay. Rinsing immediately after brushing dilutes or removes fluoride. What was the point? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Drinking a glass of orange juice every morning. That stuff is full of sugar.
Actually managing sugar intake in general. I'm 30 and just starting to do something about it.
Actually managing sugar intake in general. I'm 30 and just starting to do something about it.
I always overengineer and min/max things. Simple and some progress is better than none.
No, grandma doesn't need a fibre connection with a NAS server with plex, using usenet, when she just wants the basic gardening channels :D
No, grandma doesn't need a fibre connection with a NAS server with plex, using usenet, when she just wants the basic gardening channels :D
I've always thought the sun was some kind of yellowy orange. It's not, it's bright white. Not entirely my fault because if you check the NASA images of the sun they are all yellowy orange so either they are helping to perpetuate the conspiracy or, they don't know what color the sun is either!
Focusing on who is right. On average, when you want to improve any given situation, it's a lot less important then it intuitively should be.
I used to always stand up to wipe. At one point in my adult life, there was a conversation and I realized everyone else does not do this. Then I tried wiping while sitting down. So much easier.
I've tried both. Standing is clearly easier.
There are three main parameters: stand/sit, front-to-back/back-to-front, front-access/reverse-access (i.e. between the legs or behind the back)
Back-to-front is a health risk for 50% of us, and just a bit gross for the rest. So rule that out.
Wiping hand between the legs is awkward and requires that the thumb (a notoriously larger-than-the-other-digits digit) is used as the primary wiping vane.
Sit + wiping hand behind the back + wipe front to back allows use of the index finger, but requires an awkward lean and lift of one cheek to gain access.
Stand + wiping hand behind the back + wipe front to back is, therefore, the only sensible option. Additionally it makes checking the bowlean return value indicated on the paper much easier.
There are three main parameters: stand/sit, front-to-back/back-to-front, front-access/reverse-access (i.e. between the legs or behind the back)
Back-to-front is a health risk for 50% of us, and just a bit gross for the rest. So rule that out.
Wiping hand between the legs is awkward and requires that the thumb (a notoriously larger-than-the-other-digits digit) is used as the primary wiping vane.
Sit + wiping hand behind the back + wipe front to back allows use of the index finger, but requires an awkward lean and lift of one cheek to gain access.
Stand + wiping hand behind the back + wipe front to back is, therefore, the only sensible option. Additionally it makes checking the bowlean return value indicated on the paper much easier.
I think this starts because as a kid maybe it is easier to stand up? And no-one ever told you to stop because once you are old enough to handle your business on your own no-one is there to see and offer advice.
Yeah but if you stand your hand will never touch the water in one of the tiny grandma's house sized toilets.
I thought I was the only one! I think I learned this when I was like 28.
It must be cultural. We never stand up to wipe in France.
For 30 years I sang "whoa-a, head waving" instead of "whoa-a, we're halfway there"
The term for this is mondegreen: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondegreen
The ones I still hear despite knowing the correct lyrics are the first itemized one in the bullet list in that article, "there's a bathroom on the right".
My personal favorite one though is "I want to rock and roll all night, and part of every day" (instead of "party every day"), mostly because unlike most mondegreens it sort of works, but changes this confident declaration of desire into a bizarrely flaccid one. (Listening directly to the audio in a pristine listening environment like I'm in now I don't hear this, but in a normal day-to-day environment with other life happening I can still hear this.)
The ones I still hear despite knowing the correct lyrics are the first itemized one in the bullet list in that article, "there's a bathroom on the right".
My personal favorite one though is "I want to rock and roll all night, and part of every day" (instead of "party every day"), mostly because unlike most mondegreens it sort of works, but changes this confident declaration of desire into a bizarrely flaccid one. (Listening directly to the audio in a pristine listening environment like I'm in now I don't hear this, but in a normal day-to-day environment with other life happening I can still hear this.)
My friend thought brown eyed girl started with "hey there amigo" instead of "hey where did we go"
Ha! This is another one of mine, but I had thought, for a while, that it was 'hey there Rodrigo'
ooof but the syllables don't match! It didn't make your brain hurt??? you just stretched out the -'ing'?
I can hear head waving by ignoring the we're (pretty easy to do). Stretching the -ing is even easier.
Oooo-uh head waveang
Oooo-uh head waveang
Oh wow! I used to think it was "invisible tough shed", instead of "invisible touch, yeah"
And my favorite one from my wife:
A modern day warrior Mean, mean stride Today's Tom Sawyer Mean, mean guy
A modern day warrior Mean, mean stride Today's Tom Sawyer Mean, mean guy
Making promises.
When my child would ask to do something or desire something I might have said, "Not today but I promise in the future ...". Often I would never follow up on those.
Now, I am more inclined to say, "I will do my best to make that happen" or something along those lines but no promises.
When my child would ask to do something or desire something I might have said, "Not today but I promise in the future ...". Often I would never follow up on those.
Now, I am more inclined to say, "I will do my best to make that happen" or something along those lines but no promises.
Assuming. As in, others understanding, maybe not believing, what I'm trying to get across. Others get a reasonable argument or are open minded. (Of course what's reasonable to me isn't always to others.) Others can walk their own life path instead of being led by others. (This is still very difficult for me as I try to understand how people are led by others who don't always have their best interest at heart.)
Now I've learned to take almost nothing for granted, which makes me happier.
Now I've learned to take almost nothing for granted, which makes me happier.
I used to regularly feel bad but didn’t recognize the feeling as thirst. Turns out humans are supposed to drink water.
"Recognizing feelings" is something we can be really bad at.
Occasionally I would feel "really hungry" in the morning. Only in my thirties I realized that that "hungry feeling" was just stomach pain and a direct consequence of eating late at night.
Similarly, I couldn't understand why I had a headache at 5 AM. Hint: I hadn't gone to bed yet. Realized by my late twenties.
Occasionally I would feel "really hungry" in the morning. Only in my thirties I realized that that "hungry feeling" was just stomach pain and a direct consequence of eating late at night.
Similarly, I couldn't understand why I had a headache at 5 AM. Hint: I hadn't gone to bed yet. Realized by my late twenties.
Similarly, my father had headaches on Sundays his whole adult life. Turns out he wasn't wasn't drinking coffee on the weekends so was getting withdrawal syndromes every Sunday.
This is heavily underrated
I used to always cut open packages in the kitchen with a sharp knife (typically a steak knife). When I got married, my SO was a big fan of kitchen shears, so I was introduced to them.
Using shears is a far better experience, and they're useful for pizza too.
Using shears is a far better experience, and they're useful for pizza too.
Try a Slice micro ceramic blade! https://www.sliceproducts.com/products/safety-cutter
> kitchen shears
I had to search for that, not really sure what I was expecting, but that's just 'scissors' right? Is this a US/UK thing, everyone's replying talking about 'shears' too.
(I'd call the action shearing, but 'shears' just makes me think of what I suppose you'd call 'garden shears' - or I think in sewing/upholstery they distinguish between scissors (small) and shears (larger).)
I had to search for that, not really sure what I was expecting, but that's just 'scissors' right? Is this a US/UK thing, everyone's replying talking about 'shears' too.
(I'd call the action shearing, but 'shears' just makes me think of what I suppose you'd call 'garden shears' - or I think in sewing/upholstery they distinguish between scissors (small) and shears (larger).)
Typically that have thicker and sharper blades than standard scissors. They also can come apart for easier cleaning. A good pair of kitchen shears and cut through chicken bones without much effort.
Yeah! I really like (prefer) to cut tortillas with scissors. Specially when they are stacked (to use them for chilaquiles).
Kitchen shears are also great for cutting meat into strips for stir fry.
Please don't judge me. I'm just trying to get by.
Please don't judge me. I'm just trying to get by.
An actual pizza knife (sharp wheel thingy) will be undoubtedly better.
Definitely not! Cutting pizza with scissors/kitchen shears is far more effective. I'd never cut home-cooked pizza with a wheel if I had my way. Unfortunately it tends to upset Italians and other sticklers for tradition.
I can only imagine the cheese layer getting plaqued onto the shears.
I've used the sharp wheel thingy (didn't know it was called a pizza knife) in the past. It's nice but only good for that one purpose.
Kitchen shears are far better than a regular knife because they give you a lot more control, it's easy to cut different sized pieces. Plus, shears are useful for other things too (butterflying a chicken, for example).
Kitchen shears are far better than a regular knife because they give you a lot more control, it's easy to cut different sized pieces. Plus, shears are useful for other things too (butterflying a chicken, for example).
This is for people who lift weights. Do you get calluses along the pads of your hand, just below your fingers? You are probably gripping the bar incorrectly. This also applies to pull-ups/chin-ups grip: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9OK-S3ZJZxQ.
TL;DR: grip the bar across the joint at the bottom of your fingers instead of across the middle of your palm. This doesn't apply to bench pressing (a push), but applies to all moves that involve pulling/lifting the bar.
TL;DR: grip the bar across the joint at the bottom of your fingers instead of across the middle of your palm. This doesn't apply to bench pressing (a push), but applies to all moves that involve pulling/lifting the bar.
Good for callus prevention, but probably bad for actual serious "pulling". I remember this video from 10+ years ago, when powerlifters were still doing the alternate grip for DL. Now more or less everyone hooks and depending on hand size, you need bar much lower on pads to have extra finger length wrap around bar for thumb to securely hook. Smaller the hands the lower on palm you need for good hook, every extra mm you get on that thumb counts. Which makes a huge different depending on bar diameter, typically 25-32mm where women bar thinnest, then deadlift bar, men standard, then garbage cheap commercial bars. If you have big hands it might not matter much, but medium/small hands could be pulling 100s of lbs less. That said, it's not dogmatic GOMAD tier of bad advice from Rippetoe, this is pretty good advice to get newbies especially women to start lifting, along with everyone wearing tights now to prevent shin scrapes. Ultimately, if you want to pull weight fast, you have to hook and heavy weight over 100s of reps will roll in hands and form calluses anyway, IMO best to invest in a nice razor pedicure shaver and keep up with hand health.
I get these from deadlifting. I think I intuitively know what he's saying, but I have small hands (for a man of my height), and my grip is pretty weak so I'm already using the thinner 35lb bar. I do mixed grip, left hand over + right hand under, and gripping it the first way adds a bit of friction as the bar tries to rotate out of my hand.
I don't know, maybe I'll try this next time I deadlift but I feel like it would just weaken my already weak grip.
I don't know, maybe I'll try this next time I deadlift but I feel like it would just weaken my already weak grip.
I forgot to add in my first response to your comment: it's worth learning the hook grip to get that additional "friction" you're looking for. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMA2SqaDgG8
The linked video is about kitchen knife skills, linked elsewhere in this thread. Is the one you wanted to share?
Practice hanging from a pull-up bar for time (i.e. practice hanging from a pull-up bar for longer and longer periods of time, using the grip shown in the video) if you want to build up this type of grip. You can also practice by putting bags of rice or a gallon of milk (or two) into a bag, then holding the handles across your second knuckle for time.
Grip is the main way we interact with the world, so it's worth training it. Also, grip strength is the most reliable predictor we have found for life expectancy. (i.e. higher grip strength means higher life expectancy). It could be correlation/causation fallacy, but I have decided to just assume it's worth training it for all the other benefits that having good grip strength brings.
Grip is the main way we interact with the world, so it's worth training it. Also, grip strength is the most reliable predictor we have found for life expectancy. (i.e. higher grip strength means higher life expectancy). It could be correlation/causation fallacy, but I have decided to just assume it's worth training it for all the other benefits that having good grip strength brings.
And here's one more video that teaches the hook grip for people with small hands: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKQXkZbPzdQ
Related note, if you lift enough weight - even with this technique - you'll still get callouses. But this is good nonetheless.
I recently started lifting weights. I just bought gloves. I like this tip though - thanks.
In the theme of the OP and by way of response, I've been lifting weights for decades but only in the last couple years realized that gloves were detrimental to lifting. They add a layer of material around the bar that increases its circumference and thereby increases the effort required to grip it for pulling movements. They reduce your tactile connection to the bar which is important for engaging secondary muscles in certain lifts (e.g., lats in the overhead press) as you progress in strength and for very technical lifts such as the clean. The only time hand protection may be beneficial is for movements in which your hand rotates relative to a bar. That is never the case for a (properly performed) barbell exercise but may be the case in certain gymnastic movements on a pullup bar and in that case, you might consider gymnastics grips.
I would highly recommend not using gloves. They reduce the feedback you have on the bar and can lead to entrenching bad habits with regard to grip. Chalk and the technique in the video are a time-tested approach.
I took too much chalk and "ripped" part of my skin under my hands.
Where can I read more about the techniques and/or bad habits? Interesting.
Where can I read more about the techniques and/or bad habits? Interesting.
Not using a bidet. I honestly feel like the single biggest quality of life improvement I've had in my adult life was realizing how much of a difference a bidet makes.
That, and using flushable wipes when at home instead of just 100% toilet paper.
That, and using flushable wipes when at home instead of just 100% toilet paper.
Flushable wipes aren't flushable. It's a bit of wishful thinking on the part of marketers. They really do clog sewars.
No flushable wipes in the toilet! Those destroy plumbing! If you want to use them, then throw them in the trash, not the toilet.
Flushable wipes are NOT actually flushable.
Flushable wipes are NOT actually flushable.
Shoe lacing. Then I found out Ian's fantastic website:
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/grannyknot.htm
Small, but life-changing discovery.
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/grannyknot.htm
Small, but life-changing discovery.
After years and years on my mental backlog, having first seen it ages ago, I finally started using the Ian Knot (World's Fastest Shoelace Knot) to tie my shoes and similar bow knots: https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/ianknot.htm
As a developer you need to have a Documents, Downloads and Development folder. I was always shuffling things around in documents and downloads till i realised I need a Development folder.
I'm sure i read it somewhere but never took it seriously. It is one of those things that needs to be included in CS 000 (how to use command line, github etc.)
Ice might not be the best treatment for aches, pains, muscle sprains, etc.:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34051860
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34051860
This is relatively new, I wouldn’t classify it as “wrong” but “changing science/protocol”
The new protocol is MEAT instead of RICE.
The knowledge hasn’t reached every medical provider yet
The new protocol is MEAT instead of RICE.
The knowledge hasn’t reached every medical provider yet
such a fun thread. I started reading when there were 600 comments, I only managed to read a few and now there are 900. but I'm learning a lot! I even improved my shoe tying skills!
Breathing through my mouth.
I trained myself to breathe through my nose during the day. And at night, I put a little piece of tape on my mouth to make sure I breathe through my nose.
I trained myself to breathe through my nose during the day. And at night, I put a little piece of tape on my mouth to make sure I breathe through my nose.
where is your tongue position?
The proper position should be on the roof of your mouth then you'll automatically breath with your nose.
The proper position should be on the roof of your mouth then you'll automatically breath with your nose.
Tying my shoelaces: https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/grannyknot.htm
I was doing what Ian calls the "Un-balanced Shoelace Knot". Reversing the starting knot makes all the difference.
I was doing what Ian calls the "Un-balanced Shoelace Knot". Reversing the starting knot makes all the difference.
I tried switching when that first showed up on HN a couple years ago. Tried it for a few days but the habit didn't stick. I should try again.
Eating. I’ve stressed and binged eaten all my life without knowing.
Removed the two, started surfing and 50kg (110 pounds) later I’m happier and more active than I’ve ever been.
Removed the two, started surfing and 50kg (110 pounds) later I’m happier and more active than I’ve ever been.
STILL struggling with this one - like millions I'm sure. An every day struggle. I am trying to reward myself with good behavior and enforce "kitchen is closed at 9". My GF only eats at three meals. I find it impressive and amazing.
How did you stop? That sounds like a difficult change to make.
I had the same problem, and the answer was a bit of therapy and a lot of rethinking my mind’s relationship to my body.
I used IFS methodology, which encourages you to investigate what “part” of you is doing the overeating, and why that part seems to think it’s necessary (is it protecting you? Distracting you?). I don’t really buy much of the IFS framework, but there’s some stuff in there that subjectively helped me.
I also suffered from a tendency (probably common here) to over-intellectualize things and generally feel disconnected from my actual body. Exercise and mindfulness practice helped that part.
All those things together helped me feel like I could stop fighting my body, and I could find better outlets for my furiously running mind than trying to calm it down by eating chocolate chips out of the bag at 10pm.
I used IFS methodology, which encourages you to investigate what “part” of you is doing the overeating, and why that part seems to think it’s necessary (is it protecting you? Distracting you?). I don’t really buy much of the IFS framework, but there’s some stuff in there that subjectively helped me.
I also suffered from a tendency (probably common here) to over-intellectualize things and generally feel disconnected from my actual body. Exercise and mindfulness practice helped that part.
All those things together helped me feel like I could stop fighting my body, and I could find better outlets for my furiously running mind than trying to calm it down by eating chocolate chips out of the bag at 10pm.
Surf was a great motivator, cause I discoverers i loved it and it helps to be skinnier. But I’m kind of the just stop doing it kind of guy and this time it just worked. It’s simple but hard, if you just stop doing it, that’s it. I’m no weight loss guru tho, just worked for me. Move way more, eat way less.
New weight loss medication works. Both the big ones are showing 20% loss over a year versus 3% with placebo. It's crazy expensive, but a lot of the tech workers here could afford.
Like what? I know some do but they are basically just suppressing your appetite and speeding up your metabolism. Like meth does.
I've used methods to control hunger in the past but basically felt like my heart was racing and had hard times sleeping when using it.
I've used methods to control hunger in the past but basically felt like my heart was racing and had hard times sleeping when using it.
Semaglutide and tirzepatide are the big ones. They are appetite suppressants, but they’re not stimulants like the old “requiem for a dream” style weight loss meds. They just make you a lot less hungry.
Interesting. Good to know. I didnt know there were non stimulate appetite suppressants. Thanks.
Seniglutide has been getting a lot of press lately.
Standing. Turns out you shouldn’t be standing with locked knees. I learned it in my twentees. People with hyperlordosis have tendency to do that it seems.
It's also better advice for not fainting while standing long periods than rolling onto balls of feet and back to heels - the reason that works is that it forces you to unlock knees, if you can just unlock/bend slightly without doing that it's fine (and how you should be anyway as you say).
Tangential to the original question, just want to note that having such realizations constantly is one of the primary benefits that accrues if you expend the energy to constantly keep yourself in a learning/teaching mindset.
The primary global benefit of teaching, in my experience, is that it keeps us jaded experts constantly at the entry point to our field. Close to the basic, foundational material. Making sure that it’s easy for new people to join, because that’s how the field grows and it’s good for everyone in it.
The primary local benefit, to the teacher, is that you have moments like this that allow you to constantly refine your worldview to be more congruent with reality. This allows you to better define what should be taught, and how.
The primary global benefit of teaching, in my experience, is that it keeps us jaded experts constantly at the entry point to our field. Close to the basic, foundational material. Making sure that it’s easy for new people to join, because that’s how the field grows and it’s good for everyone in it.
The primary local benefit, to the teacher, is that you have moments like this that allow you to constantly refine your worldview to be more congruent with reality. This allows you to better define what should be taught, and how.
Being correct is extremely overrated, it’s better to allocate that time to doing more things or fully internalizing information you already know (I.e. how everyone knows it’s better to take chances than not but basically everyone is at least somewhat chance-averse).
I don't know to what extent it's wrong, but I've been drinking tap water for years. Here in Germany it's generally said to be of high quality, but apparently 1 litre contains 100 nanograms of hormones (via birth control medication).[1] Even at such concentrations the hormones are said to have an effect (the article quotes a professor for membrane technology and describes a new filtering process aiming to solve this issue).
[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.de/umwelt/2022/03/hormone-im-...
[1] https://www.nationalgeographic.de/umwelt/2022/03/hormone-im-...
We live in the US, in an old house and generally the tap isn't good. But, in combination with the old pipes, it was gross. I have a friend who is a pipe fitter, and he told me "Poison kills you quickly. Bad pipes do it slowly." So, we got a Berkey Walter Filter [1] and it's great. They are heavy duty and apparently it even alkalizes the water.
[1] https://www.berkeyfilters.com/
[1] https://www.berkeyfilters.com/
[deleted]
Not really "wrong" but at some point in the last couple years I was using my microwave, putting something in for a minute, and for that I've always input 1:00 but suddenly I realized how obvious it was that I can just be inputting 60.
As long as you can easily modulo the time, this works for the range 1 minute (60) to 1 minute 39 seconds (99). Technically you could also do this for times like 2:65 instead of 3:05 but at that point you're not saving a keystroke. And on most microwaves they have an annoying delay between when you can do another keystoke after doing the last one, so I've appreciated the little bit of time saving I get with this knowledge.
As long as you can easily modulo the time, this works for the range 1 minute (60) to 1 minute 39 seconds (99). Technically you could also do this for times like 2:65 instead of 3:05 but at that point you're not saving a keystroke. And on most microwaves they have an annoying delay between when you can do another keystoke after doing the last one, so I've appreciated the little bit of time saving I get with this knowledge.
The bigger "Why wasn't I doing this sooner" with microwaves is using lower power modes.
They don't actually reduce the 'power' of the microwave, but they turn it on and then back off again for a proportion of time, over and over.
It takes longer to reheat stuff this way, but it comes out much more evenly heated, I find.
They don't actually reduce the 'power' of the microwave, but they turn it on and then back off again for a proportion of time, over and over.
It takes longer to reheat stuff this way, but it comes out much more evenly heated, I find.
Panasonic "inverter" microwaves actually do reduce the power output. It's one of my favorite features. On power level 1 you can actually soften butter without melting random pits into it.
Unfortunately, at least on my current model, the UX to access this feature is very bad: repeatedly pressing the "power" button until it reaches the desired level. I've had other microwaves where you just key in the desired power after pressing "power", and much prefer that method.
I don't know whether Panasonic has licensed this to any other manufacturer.
Unfortunately, at least on my current model, the UX to access this feature is very bad: repeatedly pressing the "power" button until it reaches the desired level. I've had other microwaves where you just key in the desired power after pressing "power", and much prefer that method.
I don't know whether Panasonic has licensed this to any other manufacturer.
I also have the one from Panasonic, but I'm seeing other manufacturers advertise inverter technology on their microwaves recently.
Inverter microwave is not complex system so many microwaves in Japan supports it.
>you can actually soften butter
Ooh that's a good use case. What else do you do with it?
Ooh that's a good use case. What else do you do with it?
Anything dense (e.g. lasagna, meatloaf, etc.) is good for a lower power level / more time trade-off. It will end up more evenly warm without the edges exploding. I usually use power 3 or 4 for these dense dishes.
Stir or otherwise rearrange what you're heating every so often, too. Microwaves deliver energy mostly to the outside of what they're bombarding, so it improves heat distribution to mechanically move the heated parts toward the center and vice versa - this helps prevent the "burnt outside and still cold in the middle" problem.
Can confirm. I make omelet in a microwave sometimes and the center is always last to cook compared to an outside ring. I simply rearrange contents when it’s half-ready.
And on many microwaves, the “reheat” button is just a guided version of a low power mode.
The newer microwaves with a sensor reheat button are pretty great.
The newer microwaves with a sensor reheat button are pretty great.
Some do operate in a "true" lower power mode (or at least in some mode that's indistinguishable to us). Ours does and it's great. But it's the first one I've had that actually does that; the rest have operated in lower power mode in the way you're describing.
The ones that have a true low power mode are called inverter microwaves and cost like twice as much. They may be worth it if you like to defrost food in the micro as it prevents the food from cooking
They are absolutely worth it! Easy defrosting, uniform reheating, less noise, especially if it’s a rotation-free model like Panasonic NN-DS596B.
Pretty crucial for defrosting. You really don't want to try to defrost a slab of lasagne say on 100%, 1kW or whatever, it's going to come out both just as frozen as when it went in and steaming hot ready to eat.
(I agree it applies just as well generally - but defrosting makes it more apparent/visible.)
(I agree it applies just as well generally - but defrosting makes it more apparent/visible.)
> They don't actually reduce the 'power' of the microwave,
Depends on the microwave, you can get models that do adjust the power and they are very nice to use. Being able to slowly and evenly heat up food in the microwave is a huge game changer when it comes to how you use your microwave.
Depends on the microwave, you can get models that do adjust the power and they are very nice to use. Being able to slowly and evenly heat up food in the microwave is a huge game changer when it comes to how you use your microwave.
66 is close enough to 60, and lets you just mash the one key :) Though I just mash the +30 seconds button until it gets in the ballpark, and it turns on the microwave immediately with the first press. 15 seconds either way isn't going to make a difference, and I usually pull it early anyway once it starts to smell/sound/look cooked.
I prefer simpler microwaves with just two knobs: one for amount of power and one for the time. No buttons to press and no ambiguous user interface either. Just turn the knobs to the desired values and you're done. No buttons to press at all.
Yes! I once had a cheap microwave that only had a timer knob on it and I found myself twisting it indiscriminately because all I wanted was for it to be on. Being a mechanical timer, the resolution wasn't good enough that precise cook times were achievable. The power level on that unit was not very good, anyway.
I grew to prefer that method of interfacing with a microwave. "Just go! I don't care about the cook time!" When my wife and I bought our first house and purchased our appliance set, I wanted a microwave that did not force me to go through a timer workflow. Having such a workflow was good, but I also wanted some sort of "on" button on it. We picked out a GE Profile unit that had two user-assignable functions on the main interface. I assigned a "30s cook" function to one of the buttons. This is my "on" button. Additional presses of the button append 30s to the timer. This satisfies most of my needs.
Unfortunately, when I want to reduce power, the buttons that I have to press to do so are not as simple. I start the cook via the normal quick 30s button, but then I have to press the power button, then have to press the down button several times to lower the default power level of 10 to something more reasonable like 5 or 3, then I have to press to confirm that level. This takes precious seconds -- if it's a sensitive item like a small dipping bowl of marinara or something, the adjustment may be too late. Sure, I guess I could go through the full cook workflow, but that's not how I want to interact with it. And you know, if I am expending the time and energy to lower the power level from 10, it is highly unlikely that 9 will be my desired power level. Instead, I wish there was a "halve power level" button on the cook screen that cut the active duty cycle in half. So one press takes me from PL10 to PL5, another press goes to PL2.5, and so forth. Then I'd be happy.
I don't use any of the other features buried in the menus. It's all superfluous.
I grew to prefer that method of interfacing with a microwave. "Just go! I don't care about the cook time!" When my wife and I bought our first house and purchased our appliance set, I wanted a microwave that did not force me to go through a timer workflow. Having such a workflow was good, but I also wanted some sort of "on" button on it. We picked out a GE Profile unit that had two user-assignable functions on the main interface. I assigned a "30s cook" function to one of the buttons. This is my "on" button. Additional presses of the button append 30s to the timer. This satisfies most of my needs.
Unfortunately, when I want to reduce power, the buttons that I have to press to do so are not as simple. I start the cook via the normal quick 30s button, but then I have to press the power button, then have to press the down button several times to lower the default power level of 10 to something more reasonable like 5 or 3, then I have to press to confirm that level. This takes precious seconds -- if it's a sensitive item like a small dipping bowl of marinara or something, the adjustment may be too late. Sure, I guess I could go through the full cook workflow, but that's not how I want to interact with it. And you know, if I am expending the time and energy to lower the power level from 10, it is highly unlikely that 9 will be my desired power level. Instead, I wish there was a "halve power level" button on the cook screen that cut the active duty cycle in half. So one press takes me from PL10 to PL5, another press goes to PL2.5, and so forth. Then I'd be happy.
I don't use any of the other features buried in the menus. It's all superfluous.
I sincerely wish I could get a new microwave with a good quality digital dial/knob for setting the timer, and a popcorn button.
Buttons suck.
Buttons suck.
Hmm. Maybe there's more opportunity for you to optimize even a bit more. On my (cheap) microwave, I can push 1 through 6 and it just goes for that number of minutes. And pushing Start adds 30 seconds. More resolution is seldom needed.
It's a fun fact that the reason for this was for preparation for the introduction of a metric minute composed of 100 seconds that was mandated by the government in the 1960s just as the first digital controls for home appliances were being introduced.
If I recall correctly - 60 imperial seconds are equivalent to 100 metric seconds a sort of inverse to the 100 kph being equivalent to 60 mph (metric units were mandated on American speedometers at the same time)
Of course on the speedometer you can just display both units where as on the microwave entry it's more the intention of the user that drives interpretation. So they got stuck at 100=60 and since everyone just interpreted 100 metric seconds as 1:00, minute it never caught on but never went away either.
If I recall correctly - 60 imperial seconds are equivalent to 100 metric seconds a sort of inverse to the 100 kph being equivalent to 60 mph (metric units were mandated on American speedometers at the same time)
Of course on the speedometer you can just display both units where as on the microwave entry it's more the intention of the user that drives interpretation. So they got stuck at 100=60 and since everyone just interpreted 100 metric seconds as 1:00, minute it never caught on but never went away either.
It's a fun fact that the reason for this was for preparation for the introduction of a metric minute composed of 100 seconds that was mandated by the government in the 1960s just as the first digital controls for home appliances were being introduced.
This sounds like complete nonsense and I can't find any evidence of such a "mandated by the government metric time" with Google.
This sounds like complete nonsense and I can't find any evidence of such a "mandated by the government metric time" with Google.
I think "imperial second" kind of gives it away.
> It's a fun fact that the reason for this was for preparation for the introduction of a metric minute composed of 100 seconds that was mandated by the government in the 1960s [...] (metric units were mandated on American speedometers at the same time)
The Metric Conversion Act was in 1975, not the 1960s, and I am fairly sure that a decimalized minute was never part of any plans for US metrication anyhow.
This seems like an urban legend where the more likely reason is that its a practical design to treat the last two digits as seconds abd everything before as minutes, irrespective of whether the last two digits are greater than one minute, when making a keypad entry system. It bith does what is likely intended and avoids needing validation/error reporting since every possible numerical entry becomes correct.
The Metric Conversion Act was in 1975, not the 1960s, and I am fairly sure that a decimalized minute was never part of any plans for US metrication anyhow.
This seems like an urban legend where the more likely reason is that its a practical design to treat the last two digits as seconds abd everything before as minutes, irrespective of whether the last two digits are greater than one minute, when making a keypad entry system. It bith does what is likely intended and avoids needing validation/error reporting since every possible numerical entry becomes correct.
I (almost) exclusively use the "Start (+30 s)" button to set time. It's very rare for me to microwave things more than 3 minutes (6 rapid button presses), I normally do 60 or 90 s. The microwave starts going as soon as the first button is hit.
I assume everyone talking about button presses has simply never used one with a knob, and so doesn't know what they're missing - it's a vastly superior time-setting UI for a microwave I think.
Alongside this point, just discovered using the “sensor cook” mode on my microwave a few days ago. Apparently it measures the humidity coming off the food and adjusts the cooking power and time accordingly. One button push and you can walk away, confident the food will be heated through but not overcooked. Game changer.
Even easier than typing 60 for one minute is to type 55.
I often type 33, 111, 222, etc for the time saving benefit
I often type 33, 111, 222, etc for the time saving benefit
I do 55 or 66 seconds. Or the +30 button.
Related: hold down 2 on the microwave for a couple of seconds to silence all chirps.
Related: hold down 2 on the microwave for a couple of seconds to silence all chirps.
In must microwaves just pressing 1 (and correspondingly 1-5ish) and nothing else will start the microwave on high for 1 minute at full power. Rather than having to press <timed-cook + 6 + 0 + start>.
You all won’t believe me, but I just turn the knob to 1 minute, turn the power setting and close the door (in any order). No “input” required.
It’s amazing how they manage to sell that touch nonsense for $$$$.
It’s amazing how they manage to sell that touch nonsense for $$$$.
Microwaves are getting better UX these days. The cheap one I bought from Walmart about a year ago lets me press `1` and it auto-starts a one-minute heating process.
I realised most of my basic health routine was useless to detrimental:
- Soap: it disrupt the skin microbiome. Only useful for hand washing and to clean private parts / the bottom. Even then use high quality soap like Marseille soap or Aleppo soap.
Note: Also as mentioned in the comments if you avoid soap / deodorant you *will* probably need to shower two times a day even without doing physical activities. Three times with physical activities.
You may also need to particularly rub the smelly parts of the body (e.g. the armpits) with a clean sponge, use mild to hot water (cold water doesn’t do it without soap) and trim your body hair. There is no magic. People use soap for a reason: it’s more “practical” and it requires less care to stay clean
And if you are used to wash yourself with soap and you brutally stop you may smell a little the first month until your microbiome is able to handle all the waste and your skin to balance its oil production. Even if you shower multiple times a day.
- Shampoo: Most shampoos are very a agressive for your scalp / hairs and should be avoided. Especially if you have fragile / curly hair. You can wash them with plain water or conditioner instead.
Note: Using a gentle shampoo without silicones and surfactants can still be useful from time to time. Especially to reset the pH of the scalp.
Also using a shampoo rarely and co-washing instead can be impractical if you have long hair as it’s way harder to clean and takes far longer to dry
- Toothpaste: it can be useful but it’s not so important. What really is important is to brush your teeth energetically to remove by mechanical friction the dental plaques and to change toothbrush frequently. Avoiding for a time to use toothpaste and using dental plaque revealer can be a great way to learn how to properly wash one’s teeth
Note: As someone else noted “energetically” means speed and taking your time. *Not* applying pressure on your teeth. Also toothpaste helps the teeth by providing fluoride. It’s just that using it every time may not be so useful and do not replace brushing your teeth effectively
- Soap: it disrupt the skin microbiome. Only useful for hand washing and to clean private parts / the bottom. Even then use high quality soap like Marseille soap or Aleppo soap.
Note: Also as mentioned in the comments if you avoid soap / deodorant you *will* probably need to shower two times a day even without doing physical activities. Three times with physical activities.
You may also need to particularly rub the smelly parts of the body (e.g. the armpits) with a clean sponge, use mild to hot water (cold water doesn’t do it without soap) and trim your body hair. There is no magic. People use soap for a reason: it’s more “practical” and it requires less care to stay clean
And if you are used to wash yourself with soap and you brutally stop you may smell a little the first month until your microbiome is able to handle all the waste and your skin to balance its oil production. Even if you shower multiple times a day.
- Shampoo: Most shampoos are very a agressive for your scalp / hairs and should be avoided. Especially if you have fragile / curly hair. You can wash them with plain water or conditioner instead.
Note: Using a gentle shampoo without silicones and surfactants can still be useful from time to time. Especially to reset the pH of the scalp.
Also using a shampoo rarely and co-washing instead can be impractical if you have long hair as it’s way harder to clean and takes far longer to dry
- Toothpaste: it can be useful but it’s not so important. What really is important is to brush your teeth energetically to remove by mechanical friction the dental plaques and to change toothbrush frequently. Avoiding for a time to use toothpaste and using dental plaque revealer can be a great way to learn how to properly wash one’s teeth
Note: As someone else noted “energetically” means speed and taking your time. *Not* applying pressure on your teeth. Also toothpaste helps the teeth by providing fluoride. It’s just that using it every time may not be so useful and do not replace brushing your teeth effectively
I’ve met a few people in my life that avoid deodorants and soaps and claim they don’t need them and don’t stink. They all did. My theory is they get used to their smell after awhile and can no longer smell it.
That is an interesting and seemingly likely explanation. I've had this "debate" with entire groups of people who live in much cooler environments and claim they don't have body odor, but they most assuredly do. I never understood whether they "don't stink when they're in their normal environment" or just couldn't smell it anymore.
I recently moved from Texas to seattle. They smell like dirt and wet dog as well as traditional musky BO.
They don’t smell it because their olfactory neurons have habituated.
They don’t smell it because their olfactory neurons have habituated.
Yep, they stink and this guy stinks too.
I went through a phase of stinking and I can confirm you don't realize it. Something in the brain just filters out smells that you're used to.
Humanity ignored soap for significant amounts of its existence. Nearly everyone stunk. There are likely very very few people whose natural body microbiome won't end up stinking. You (the reader) are probably not one of those people.
I indeed tends to get “dirty” and smell faster and I indeed feel it. However I wash myself more often. Usually in the morning and before bed. After sport sessions also
These are not universals. I’ve seen the no-shampoo meme repeatedly in online comments. As someone with long, fine hair, I’ve made two attempts to go without, waiting almost a month for my scalp to “reset”. It always looked extremely greasy (like Gary Oldman’s character in Slow Horses).
I have had luck opting for gentler shampoos and not using them every wash, but I wouldn’t speak for anyone else. There is large variance in peoples’ bodies.
I have had luck opting for gentler shampoos and not using them every wash, but I wouldn’t speak for anyone else. There is large variance in peoples’ bodies.
Same, except I get very dry and frizzy hair. I only wash mu hair 2 times a week already & tried other crap for months with no difference in how shitty my hair is
I concur that my takes largely depends of my own situation. Long hair is tremendously more difficult to wash and takes way more time to dry. Just co-washing them is often impractical. When I had longer hair I usually used shampoo once every two to three days instead of once every two weeks. Very gentle ones however
Same here. Though with a dry shampoo (or corn starch) I have found I can make it a few days in between washes.
> until your microbiome is able to handle all the waste / oil that your skin produces
Or maybe until you stop noticing the smell? Ask a friend perhaps.
Or maybe until you stop noticing the smell? Ask a friend perhaps.
I indeed did asked friends. They couldn’t tell the difference. That’s why I stocked to it. However I indeed need to wash myself more often, especially when the temperature is kinda hot
I see. I wonder if you've been phrasing this (tricky) question correctly.
For example, if you've been asking "I don't smell bad right?? I smell great, right!?" you're unlikely to get honest replies.
Reminds me of "The Mom Test" [1]. The book has a few tricks that can help with asking tough questions and receiving an honest feedback.
[1] https://www.momtestbook.com/
For example, if you've been asking "I don't smell bad right?? I smell great, right!?" you're unlikely to get honest replies.
Reminds me of "The Mom Test" [1]. The book has a few tricks that can help with asking tough questions and receiving an honest feedback.
[1] https://www.momtestbook.com/
I asked friends which I know to be brutally honest as I was both skeptical and worried.
And you indeed smell if you don’t shower two times a day without soap and deodorant.
And even by showering two times a day you will smell the first month until the skin regulates its oil production and the microbiome is able to handle skin wastes.
Great book btw.
And you indeed smell if you don’t shower two times a day without soap and deodorant.
And even by showering two times a day you will smell the first month until the skin regulates its oil production and the microbiome is able to handle skin wastes.
Great book btw.
Strong disagree on toothpaste. Toothpaste is more than just a physical abrasive, it’s also a source of fluoride that makes your enamel far more resistant to acid erosion.
That’s why I said it was useful in the first place. However you already get enough fluorides with a moderate use.
If you sweat and you don't use soap and you don't want to stink you need to wash every 4 hours or so. If you don't sweat you need to wash every 8 hours or so. Soap adds about 50% to those numbers.
If you're not dancing closely with people maybe you can extend that time a little bit, but those are the numbers we settled on as a dance community who regularly had dances longer than 4 hours...
If you're not dancing closely with people maybe you can extend that time a little bit, but those are the numbers we settled on as a dance community who regularly had dances longer than 4 hours...
> Soap: it disrupt the skin microbiome. Only useful for hand washing and to clean private parts / the bottom. Even then use high quality soap like Marseille soap or Aleppo soap.
> Shampoo: Most shampoos are very a agressive for your scalp / hairs and should be avoided. Especially if you have fragile / curly hair. You can wash them with plain water or conditioner instead.
Wait, what? I would love to see some supporting evidence for all this.
> Shampoo: Most shampoos are very a agressive for your scalp / hairs and should be avoided. Especially if you have fragile / curly hair. You can wash them with plain water or conditioner instead.
Wait, what? I would love to see some supporting evidence for all this.
I'm going to point at a company and product that I am aware of, but have not personally experienced. AOBiome Therapudics has a list of its published research, [0], on its website. They helped develop the mother dirt body wash product, [1] [2].
[0] https://www.aobiome.com/published-articles-and-papers/
[1] https://mightynest.com/shop/bath-body/skin-care/soaps-bodywa...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20181116064007/https://motherdir...
[0] https://www.aobiome.com/published-articles-and-papers/
[1] https://mightynest.com/shop/bath-body/skin-care/soaps-bodywa...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20181116064007/https://motherdir...
Not research backed, but to add one data point, I bought into the whole "I need a three-step skincare routine" trend (which I think is positive, people should care for their skin as they should any other organ). However, after trying ~5 different cleansers (varying in ingredients, lathering vs non-lathering, and oil cleansing), I realized my acne is best when I cleanse twice daily with water.
On the other hand, moisturizing and sunscreen has helped with dryness and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation from acne.
On the other hand, moisturizing and sunscreen has helped with dryness and post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation from acne.
I used to think I had oily skin, and so I would use harsh cleansers to cut through that oil. They didn't help at all, and I had bad skin for years. It took a skin conscious girlfriend to make me realize that I actually have dry skin, which produces an excessive amount of oil to compensate for the dryness. Just keeping my skin regularly moisturized and using a gentle soap or cleanser before bed/as needed cleared my skin.
Just in case: for many people with acne problems, changing the pillowcase daily (or every other day, turning your pillow over the second night) seems to make a clear difference.
Not research-backed, but you can google "Curly Girl Method" for much of the reasoning, and probably many examples of people who avoid shampoos to great success, so it's at least true for some.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/mounting-data-sugges....
Soap is a rather recent invention (the Romans didn't have it until later in their Empire), and one that until 1-2 centuries ago people used sparringly. And yes, they did clean themselves with bathing, even in medieval times, despite the prevalent myths about those times.
Also, the last 80 years or so, after TV became popular soaps and fancy shampoos have been marketed to death with BS snakeoil claims. 99% of what you hear in those ads is bogus, including claims about the efficacy of their fancy sounding ingredients...
Might also want to check the book "Clean"
Soap is a rather recent invention (the Romans didn't have it until later in their Empire), and one that until 1-2 centuries ago people used sparringly. And yes, they did clean themselves with bathing, even in medieval times, despite the prevalent myths about those times.
Also, the last 80 years or so, after TV became popular soaps and fancy shampoos have been marketed to death with BS snakeoil claims. 99% of what you hear in those ads is bogus, including claims about the efficacy of their fancy sounding ingredients...
Might also want to check the book "Clean"
I think this is an example of overly pushing everything to the demand of science.
It obviously depends on your body, diet, and microbiome.
There's no definitive answer like if Earth was balls around the Sun. The answer is personal. Does that work for you or not? What have you tried and what works and what doesn't
It obviously depends on your body, diet, and microbiome.
There's no definitive answer like if Earth was balls around the Sun. The answer is personal. Does that work for you or not? What have you tried and what works and what doesn't
I think the problem is that everyone knows “that person” who thought they didn’t need soap/shampoo etc. but it turns out they just have a terrible sense of smell and are deluded
Like the friend of mine who told me she never used shampoo in which my immediate reaction was “no shit..”
On the flip side, I do have a close friend who admitted he only showers every three days or so, and smells impeccable (which is extra funny because he has anosmia)
Like the friend of mine who told me she never used shampoo in which my immediate reaction was “no shit..”
On the flip side, I do have a close friend who admitted he only showers every three days or so, and smells impeccable (which is extra funny because he has anosmia)
I would add flossing on a daily basis to the list. In between every single teeth - I missed that part when I was in my 20’s and now have bone loss in my jaw due to gum disease. Also why most old people loose teeth at some point.
Also, oral care is correlated with mortality risks -- the more plaque that builds up, the significantly greater chances of all-cause mortality:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34575939
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34575939
That's one of them correlations innit? People who brush less IN GENERAL are less healthy people, but not BECAUSE they brush less.
> That's one of them correlations innit?
You might have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion, but using a "word" like "innit" is not going to get anyone to take your comment seriously.
You might have something meaningful to contribute to the discussion, but using a "word" like "innit" is not going to get anyone to take your comment seriously.
Flossing can be sort of boring, so I purchased one of those electric water-piks to floss using blasts of water. It’s similar to the little water gun they use at the dentists. It works really well, kinda fun, and makes your mouth feel super clean. Can’t recommend it enough.
[deleted]
> I would add flossing on a daily basis to the list.
As something to do, or something to avoid? Most tribespeople and animals don't floss and have healthier teeth than modern people. I'm not sure sawing between ones gums is the ideal way of removing plaque, and I suspect is not been tested properly because I don't believe people actually do floss every every day.
As something to do, or something to avoid? Most tribespeople and animals don't floss and have healthier teeth than modern people. I'm not sure sawing between ones gums is the ideal way of removing plaque, and I suspect is not been tested properly because I don't believe people actually do floss every every day.
If you are going to compare to tribes people or animals then you are going to have to completely avoid refined sugar. Which may be more unrealistic than flossing every day...
> You are going to have to completely avoid refined sugar
Yes, obviously.
> Which may be more unrealistic than flossing every day...
Why?
Yes, obviously.
> Which may be more unrealistic than flossing every day...
Why?
>> Which may be more unrealistic than flossing every day...
>Why?
Assuming your question is in good faith, because refined sugar is everywhere. Not just in sweet treats which are commonly part of cultural celebration but also in a wide range of processed and prepared foods.
>Why?
Assuming your question is in good faith, because refined sugar is everywhere. Not just in sweet treats which are commonly part of cultural celebration but also in a wide range of processed and prepared foods.
That was my thinking when I was younger but I was definitely wrong. My gums are objectively healthier now than back then.
The problem with this comparison is that most tribespeople had kids by 18-20 so health issues that come much later don’t have much of an evolutionary hit. Losing teeth at 40 was not going to change things much for their genes.
Most tribespeople have diet that basically has no sugar, no processed carbs, and most men died by 40-50 due to intertribal warfare/infection so it didn’t matter much if you lose some teeth at 50. When you see documentaries of tribespeople almost all the old people have some missing teeth. If you don’t mind loosing teeth when you get older then I guess you can ignore that advice.
The problem with this comparison is that most tribespeople had kids by 18-20 so health issues that come much later don’t have much of an evolutionary hit. Losing teeth at 40 was not going to change things much for their genes.
Most tribespeople have diet that basically has no sugar, no processed carbs, and most men died by 40-50 due to intertribal warfare/infection so it didn’t matter much if you lose some teeth at 50. When you see documentaries of tribespeople almost all the old people have some missing teeth. If you don’t mind loosing teeth when you get older then I guess you can ignore that advice.
Ha, I learned about no soap on HN some years ago, a HNer claiming their lovers thought the no-soap skin smelled great. I guess it's likely that other bacterial species may thrive on your skin when not washing with soap (soap washing would remove more bacteria, only allowing fast-multiplying bacteria to repopulate the area, while water-washing would leave more different species). Not sure if the microbiome difference is better/healthier/nicer smelling. I jumped at the "my lovers loved it" recommendation and gave it a try (still used shampoo, no success excluding that, washed hands, used deodorant and paid extra care to smelly areas), and the armpits definitely smelled differently (but hardly like flowers) after a while of this practice, __to me__. As pointed out already, that may be have been my olfaction getting used to my newly acquired BO, like not noticing the smell of your own house, but others' houses smell different. My post-training clothes still smelled terrible.
No man you definitely need soap.
If you only shower once a day, you need soap. If you're willing to shower multiple times a day, you don't need soap.
Exactly: I shower often two times a day. And that is when I avoid sport
That's bizarre to me
What would multiple showed a day look like? Morning, post-lunch, before bed? How long are the showers and do you use any soap at all?
I shower before any type of socialization (including work), and after any type of exercise. That's multiple times a day and similar to most westerners.
The big thing some people don't do is shower after work before going out for the evening. Women might be able to get away with that, but if you're a man and you occasionally sweat you can't, soap or not.
The big thing some people don't do is shower after work before going out for the evening. Women might be able to get away with that, but if you're a man and you occasionally sweat you can't, soap or not.
I only used soap on my hands and bottom. Usually I shower in the morning, then after sport if I am doing a sport session and then before going to bed. Showers take far less time as you don’t use soap, however you need to use mild to hot water as cold water won’t wash anything without soap
[deleted]
I stopped washing my body with soap 3 years ago. Now I just wash my nether region. I also wash my hair once a week. My skin isn't dry and scratchy and my hair is strong and silky. Kind of amazing that marketing has us all thinking that hygiene means soaping everything everyday. Just water will remove most things. Soap is to remove oil and fat.
Related discoveries/improvements I've made:
1) Soap/Shampoo: I stopped using fancy perfumed big-brand shampoos (Dial/Dove/Pert/etc. filled with things like Methylchloroisothiazolinone which, despite being an endless source of literary entertainment, is just a preservative) and started using very very simple soaps, like Dr. Bronner's all-purpose castile stuff, and I've found my hair/body is just as clean and doesn't turn to oil/grease after a skipping one day
2) Toothpaste: I switched to a brand that does NOT have sodium lauryl sulfate (which just makes fake foam) and any minor bumps or scratches (from an awkward tortilla chip chomp, for example) no longer cause days worth of pain. MAJOR life improvement.
1) Soap/Shampoo: I stopped using fancy perfumed big-brand shampoos (Dial/Dove/Pert/etc. filled with things like Methylchloroisothiazolinone which, despite being an endless source of literary entertainment, is just a preservative) and started using very very simple soaps, like Dr. Bronner's all-purpose castile stuff, and I've found my hair/body is just as clean and doesn't turn to oil/grease after a skipping one day
2) Toothpaste: I switched to a brand that does NOT have sodium lauryl sulfate (which just makes fake foam) and any minor bumps or scratches (from an awkward tortilla chip chomp, for example) no longer cause days worth of pain. MAJOR life improvement.
Wow, you managed to convince yourself that something you were doing right was wrong
Most conditioners are filled with silicones that are not water soluble. But after a while, they break down and make your hair look dirty.
The solution is to remove them, but you can only do that by using strong solvents.
So you use shampoos that contain strong solvents. This damages your hair, so you make sure to use conditioners to repair the damage. Except they don't repair, they fill in the holes with silicones. The silicones are now deeper into your individual hair strands. It looks good, but after a while, they break down. So you use solvents, deeper this time.
This damages your hair. Then you use conditioners. Most conditioners are filled with silicones that are not water soluble. Yet, after a short time...
The solution is to remove them, but you can only do that by using strong solvents.
So you use shampoos that contain strong solvents. This damages your hair, so you make sure to use conditioners to repair the damage. Except they don't repair, they fill in the holes with silicones. The silicones are now deeper into your individual hair strands. It looks good, but after a while, they break down. So you use solvents, deeper this time.
This damages your hair. Then you use conditioners. Most conditioners are filled with silicones that are not water soluble. Yet, after a short time...
That doesn't mean you shouldn't cowash, it means you should upgrade to products that do not have silicone (also phosphates). There are various haircare forums that will give you the specific ingredients to look out for.
I'm not saying you shouldn't wash.
The comment we are commenting under is not even saying that but recommending that we pay attention to the ingredients: "Most shampoos are very a agressive for your scalp [...] Using a gentle shampoo without silicones and surfactants"
Here is an interesting web application that allows you to scan products to know their ingredients. It tells you if they contain hard to remove silicones or harsh solvents. https://curlscan.com/
Using it to scan the brands at the stores that are local to me reveals that only a small minority of product do not contain the silicone-solvent circle.
Anecdotal, sure, but I have been teaching this to all the women in my life and they all report back that they are able to go longer without washing their hair with products now that they pay attention to the ingredients. Turns out that for a lot of people, we were going through the motion of adding a coat of product and removing that coat of product daily instead of actually fighting grime and sweat.
The comment we are commenting under is not even saying that but recommending that we pay attention to the ingredients: "Most shampoos are very a agressive for your scalp [...] Using a gentle shampoo without silicones and surfactants"
Here is an interesting web application that allows you to scan products to know their ingredients. It tells you if they contain hard to remove silicones or harsh solvents. https://curlscan.com/
Using it to scan the brands at the stores that are local to me reveals that only a small minority of product do not contain the silicone-solvent circle.
Anecdotal, sure, but I have been teaching this to all the women in my life and they all report back that they are able to go longer without washing their hair with products now that they pay attention to the ingredients. Turns out that for a lot of people, we were going through the motion of adding a coat of product and removing that coat of product daily instead of actually fighting grime and sweat.
I donate my time to help the homeless. I know what people that don't use soap smell like.
The key thing is water. And clean cloths.
Exactly. There is a world between “don’t use soap on your body” and “never shower yourself or change your clothes”. I often wash myself with water two times per day
You are telling me that you are able to detect by smell whether a person is using a conditioner that contains silicones?
???
It sounds like this person previously had a healthy relationship with hygiene but has somehow convinced themself to just stop cleaning themselves.
Soap and toothpaste are good things. These are miraculous modern inventions. Use them.
Soap and toothpaste are good things. These are miraculous modern inventions. Use them.
These are heterodox views about personal hygiene.
> What really is important is to brush your teeth energetically
Potentially bad advice. If you apply too much pressure or use too hard of a toothbrush you will get yourself early gum recession. Brush gently using a soft brush, ideally electric because it cleans better. Lots of info available on this online, or ask your dentist.
Potentially bad advice. If you apply too much pressure or use too hard of a toothbrush you will get yourself early gum recession. Brush gently using a soft brush, ideally electric because it cleans better. Lots of info available on this online, or ask your dentist.
I should have clarified that I meant speed not pressure. Applying pressure is indeed a awful for teeth
Not sure why this received so much flak. I have been soap and shampoo free for 15 years or so. Have seen no issues. I do use soap for washing hands after meals to get rid of oils and stuff. Its not like I have perfect skin or hair. Just average perhaps but not bad either. At 42 I have only 4 gray hair, probably its just genetics.
Why though? What advantage are you getting from avoiding soap that would convince people to stop using it?
I heard conflicting info on this. I thought you were not supposed to use soap for private parts?
You need to use special soap that has the right pH value. Handsoap / shower gel is not the correct one.
please use more than just water.
Unless you have a vagina, in which case err on the side of no soap, unless it becomes a problem (and then buy special soap)
Not regularly but before / after intercourses. And for the ass usually after each time you need to defecate.
Is Dr. Bronners a good one?
I had a bad experience using Dr. Bronner's as body soap. It really disrupted my natural barrier. However, for non-skin purposes, I think it's an excellent general purpose soap.
This is actually something I found myself doing the past few years. A good wash cloth and self made products are 1000x better than the heavy duty chemicals we put on our bodies everyday. I have a rule: If I can't eat it, don't use in externally either.
I can smell this comment.
How to blow my nose. I used to have to find a bathroom to blow my nose, because I couldn't figure out how to keep it from going everywhere, while still getting it emptied. I just recently learned the proper way in my late 40s.
Using a vegetable peeler. You can cut on both strokes, push and pull, and it goes (more than) twice as fast.
I learned this one about a year ago and every time I try and do the push stroke I pretty successfully slip and cut myself. So I get you can do both but I'll be damned if the pull stroke isn't the only one I'm still doing.
Oh, damn. Duh!
I never even thought about it, but that's why there are two sharp blades.
I never even thought about it, but that's why there are two sharp blades.
Well I've never heard of, seen, or done 'two stroke peeling' - but I use both blades depending what/how I'm peeling: you can either brush away from you, or pull in against your thumb as you would if using a paring knife.
That could also be explained by left handed people wanting to join in on the vegetable peeling fun.
I'm thinking peelers with horizontal blades. Not the knife keepers with the blades parallel to the handle.
I have been tying my shoes the wrong way my whole life. It was thanks to HN that I found out, and it was mind-boggling. My knots were always untying, but I just thought that was the way they were, so I just kept tying them as hard as I could, to prevent them from untying.
This video explains it very well:
https://www.ted.com/talks/terry_moore_how_to_tie_your_shoes
This video explains it very well:
https://www.ted.com/talks/terry_moore_how_to_tie_your_shoes
Focussed too much on the technical side of things and not enough on the people side of things at work. I'm trying to change this but should have done it years ago.
Binding your shoe laces wrong with an easily loosening granny knot instead of a proper square knot.
Not answering strictly according to "you've done your whole life", but I see this often when deliberately looking at other's shoe laces. I just recently tried to correct someone's 40yr old habit :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granny_knot
Not answering strictly according to "you've done your whole life", but I see this often when deliberately looking at other's shoe laces. I just recently tried to correct someone's 40yr old habit :)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granny_knot
I've been using this one ever since a discovered it, like ten years ago: https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/secureknot.htm
[deleted]
I only do that on some shoes that just won't stay tied with a "regular" knot.
Do you have to tie a double knot to keep your shoes from coming untied? Do your loops end up pointing down at your toes and up your leg instead of pointing to the sides of your shoe? Do you shoes come untied all the time? You are probably tying a granny knot instead of a square knot. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAFcV7zuUDA
Proper hand washing. The only good thing about the pandemic. I wonder how many colds I could have avoided by spending 20 seconds soaping up instead of 2.
To add to this: don’t touch your eyes when you’ve been in public places and touched unsanitary surfaces. Your eyes are a really easy path into the body for pathogens.
It's been awhile, but learning to set my side mirrors correctly on my car. Once set correctly my blind spot isn't 0%, but it was dramatically reduced by 95% or so. That's also when I learned only the passenger side mirror is convex (in the States) the driver side isn't.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIkodlp8HMM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIkodlp8HMM
Adding little round stick-on mirrors can vastly improve your situational awareness.
I hold spoons kind of "wrong"; basically put your palm facing down, make a fist, and then support the spoon with your thumb. That's how I eat soup when I'm not actively thinking about it. I just control the angle of the spook with my thumb.
It's objectively not as flexible as the traditional spoon grip but I can't seem to shake the habit. Gets me strange looks sometimes
It's objectively not as flexible as the traditional spoon grip but I can't seem to shake the habit. Gets me strange looks sometimes
Flatware grips and even orientations (tines up vs. tines down on a fork) can vary with culture and is also a bit tied up with class. What you're doing may be "correct" somewhere :-)
So many haha ...
1) Working for someone else instead of starting my own company.
2) Trusting people to do right thing instead of accepting that people are selfish.
3) Giving up on interesting tech projects because my friends didn't understand its value.
4) Write a lot of code before testing it haha
5) Avoiding tech bubbles instead of figuring out how to get in and out quickly.
6) Not keeping close contact with my tech friends (many of whom are super successful now).
1) Working for someone else instead of starting my own company.
2) Trusting people to do right thing instead of accepting that people are selfish.
3) Giving up on interesting tech projects because my friends didn't understand its value.
4) Write a lot of code before testing it haha
5) Avoiding tech bubbles instead of figuring out how to get in and out quickly.
6) Not keeping close contact with my tech friends (many of whom are super successful now).
Tying my shoelaces. It turns out, most of us have been doing this wrong for years. When you get to the stage where you have a loop in your right hand and are taking the left lace around that loop, it's actually better to go behind the right loop, not in front.
If you do this properly, you never need to double knot your shoes.
One thing to keep in mind, it will be harder at first and that might lead to your initial knot being looser which will lead to unties. Keep at it, and I guarantee it is better. It still blows me away that the other method is so prevalent when this one is better and no harder. How does that happen!?
Source and graphics: https://www.realmenrealstyle.com/tie-shoes-right-way/
If you do this properly, you never need to double knot your shoes.
One thing to keep in mind, it will be harder at first and that might lead to your initial knot being looser which will lead to unties. Keep at it, and I guarantee it is better. It still blows me away that the other method is so prevalent when this one is better and no harder. How does that happen!?
Source and graphics: https://www.realmenrealstyle.com/tie-shoes-right-way/
Several years ago, I was reading the NYRB selections from Thoreau's journals. Somewhere well into it, he wrote of talking with a friend, and the two deciding that perhaps they were tying their shoes wrong. They switched the order of the first cross-over, and found the results much better.
I tried it (age 50-something), and discovered that I no longer needed to double-knot my shoes.
I tried it (age 50-something), and discovered that I no longer needed to double-knot my shoes.
Food is not a reward. Food is not for recreation. Food is not for fun.
Food is fuel.
Food should be delicious and enjoyable. Your enjoyment can come from taste, not from quantity. Being hungry is a good sign, not a problem. And "Just full enough" is more than full enough.
I have a long way to go, but at 46 years old, this is all a revelation to me.
Food is fuel.
Food should be delicious and enjoyable. Your enjoyment can come from taste, not from quantity. Being hungry is a good sign, not a problem. And "Just full enough" is more than full enough.
I have a long way to go, but at 46 years old, this is all a revelation to me.
A couple of years ago I realized that the big metal rod inside the box that holds the knives is for sharpening.
As already mentioned, it's for honing. The difference is that sharpening involves removing metal to create a new edge, while honing simply bends the edge back to being straight. Although we think of steel as being a hard material, the edge of a knife is thin enough that it gets bent to one side or the other just through normal use. Using a honing rod to push the steel back to where it belongs means the knife feels sharper because you're now cutting with the actual edge.
What I found interesting when learning more about sharpening is that you’re actually looking for the edge of the blade to bend. That bend creates the “burr” and you can feel it by running your finger along the flat of the blade towards the edge. A consistent burr across the blade is one way to know it’s sharpened enough. Then you hone that burr until it is straight.
When you no longer have a burr which can be honed, it’s time to sharpen again.
When you no longer have a burr which can be honed, it’s time to sharpen again.
It's not, it's for honing
and til the difference between (and that there was a difference between) honing and sharpening.
[deleted]
It's a honing rod or honing steel. Honing isn't exactly the same thing as sharpening, but yes it will help the knife cut better.
I've heard it explained that honing is for improving the cutting edge you have, and sharpening is cutting a new edge.
I've heard it explained that honing is for improving the cutting edge you have, and sharpening is cutting a new edge.
How to tie my shoes. If if loop around the other way than I normally do, the bow stands parallel to the ground plane instead of vertical and gets tighter over time instead of looser and undone. I don’t have to constantly retie my shoes anymore since figuring that out.
Diet. I think everyone should do keto diet or carnivore. There is no "everbody has his own diet". It is a little bit strong, but I believe it to be true. Everything else is either addictive and harmful or doesn't have nutrients.
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." ... the best food is plant based and reduction of animal products is beneficial for one's health.
You only took the "carnivore" part, which is just an easy way to do keto.
My idea is that "keto diet" is best. You'll find that doing "vegan keto" is a bit hard because plants don't have nutrients that are bio-available. "vegan keto" is insanely better than "vegan".
My idea is that "keto diet" is best. You'll find that doing "vegan keto" is a bit hard because plants don't have nutrients that are bio-available. "vegan keto" is insanely better than "vegan".
awful opinion! carnivore diet?? just awful
I'm pretty sure you don't even know what it is. Example question: is carnivore high protein or high fat?
Any thoughts on the 'putrefactive' criticism of carnivore diets?
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms7528
EG: "In the Nature study referenced by Dr. Patrick, the authors write, “…high intake of red meat relative to fruits and vegetables appears to associate with outgrowth of bacteria that might contribute to a more hostile gut environment,” and, “Together, our results suggest venues through which a diet low in fruits and vegetables relative to meats select for outgrowth of putrefactive bacteria, which might help promote colorectal carcinoma.”" from: https://medium.com/@pkslater/why-the-carnivore-diet-works-an...
EG: "In the Nature study referenced by Dr. Patrick, the authors write, “…high intake of red meat relative to fruits and vegetables appears to associate with outgrowth of bacteria that might contribute to a more hostile gut environment,” and, “Together, our results suggest venues through which a diet low in fruits and vegetables relative to meats select for outgrowth of putrefactive bacteria, which might help promote colorectal carcinoma.”" from: https://medium.com/@pkslater/why-the-carnivore-diet-works-an...
Please focus on the "keto diet", that's the most important.
Think of carnivore as a bonus, or an easier way to do keto (at least for me).
Feel free to ask on forums such as /r/zerocarb, /r/carnivore, etc for specific details including this one.
Also, carnivore is very-high-fat and low-to-medium protein. I literally buy 2.5kg fat-trimmings/week.
Think of carnivore as a bonus, or an easier way to do keto (at least for me).
Feel free to ask on forums such as /r/zerocarb, /r/carnivore, etc for specific details including this one.
Also, carnivore is very-high-fat and low-to-medium protein. I literally buy 2.5kg fat-trimmings/week.
You are tying your shoes wrong:
https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/theres-a-better-way-to-tie-...
(tie the bow reversed from the square knot and it will last much longer)
But then trying to come up with a good link I hit this alternative version which is really cool: https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/ianknot.htm
Likely you can do an Ian knot reversed from the square knob, but I need to play with that.
But then trying to come up with a good link I hit this alternative version which is really cool: https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/ianknot.htm
Likely you can do an Ian knot reversed from the square knob, but I need to play with that.
I too kind of hold my pencil “wrong” when I write. I tend to rest my wrist on the paper, which leads to smudging of the text and graphite building up on my hands.
I never really learned a better way; I am just a really fast typist now and I type everything.
I never really learned a better way; I am just a really fast typist now and I type everything.
I've been playing guitar on and off for 30 years. I'm holding the pick completely wrong and it probably negatively impacts my playing - but I've struggled to correct it (I hold it with thumb, index and middle finger; if I try to hold it with just two fingers, it inevitably slides out after a few strums; I don't know how people do it).
I've also been trying to snap my fingers wrong for 20 years until somebody finally explained to me that it wasn't my fingers rubbing / clicking / pouncing against each other that made the sound, it was the finger snapping/clapping on the meaty part of your wrist. Doh!
I've also been trying to snap my fingers wrong for 20 years until somebody finally explained to me that it wasn't my fingers rubbing / clicking / pouncing against each other that made the sound, it was the finger snapping/clapping on the meaty part of your wrist. Doh!
> I've been playing guitar on and off for 30 years. I'm holding the pick completely wrong and it hugely negatively impacts my playing - but I've struggled to correct it (I hold it with thumb, index and middle finger; if I try to hold it with just two fingers, it inevitably slides out after a few strums; I don't know how people do it).
Try orienting the pick slightly so that when you strum the strings, it plucks the string with the leading edge, rather than with the flat side of the pick, so you don't need to press as hard.
> I've also been trying to snap my fingers wrong for 20 years until somebody finally explained to me that it wasn't my fingers rubbing / clicking / pouncing against each other that made the sound, it was the finger snapping/clapping on the meaty part of your wrist. Doh!
I've found snapping to be louder and fuller sounding if I don't use my thumb to "tension" the middle finger at all, but instead just smack the the middle finger against the "meaty part". Plus you can get a lot more snaps done in much less time if snaps-per-minute is an important metric.
Try orienting the pick slightly so that when you strum the strings, it plucks the string with the leading edge, rather than with the flat side of the pick, so you don't need to press as hard.
> I've also been trying to snap my fingers wrong for 20 years until somebody finally explained to me that it wasn't my fingers rubbing / clicking / pouncing against each other that made the sound, it was the finger snapping/clapping on the meaty part of your wrist. Doh!
I've found snapping to be louder and fuller sounding if I don't use my thumb to "tension" the middle finger at all, but instead just smack the the middle finger against the "meaty part". Plus you can get a lot more snaps done in much less time if snaps-per-minute is an important metric.
Many fine players use the three finger approach. Steve Morse comes to mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
EDIT: link to Dixie Dregs in case you have no clue who Steve Morse is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrAa6K_28NU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
EDIT: link to Dixie Dregs in case you have no clue who Steve Morse is https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrAa6K_28NU
Hillybillymetal, Hell yeah!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD9j0VfX7QU
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fD9j0VfX7QU
Steve Morse's Cruise Missile track is also a great track
Thanks, note that your first link came up empty (it's missing the video tag in the URL)
What thickness pick do you use? I found thin picks very difficult to hold and moved to a .96mm Dunlop Delrin (the pink ones) standard and I found them easier to hold. There is more resistance from the strings but at least you can alternate pick.
Here's me playing: https://youtu.be/gVIt8CVq7KQ?t=181
But now you've made me question how I actually hold the pick - is it the first or second finger? I think it's first and thumb because my middle finger is stronger and calloused so more useful for tapping notes whilst the first finger grasps the pick during the tapping phase.
Here's me playing: https://youtu.be/gVIt8CVq7KQ?t=181
But now you've made me question how I actually hold the pick - is it the first or second finger? I think it's first and thumb because my middle finger is stronger and calloused so more useful for tapping notes whilst the first finger grasps the pick during the tapping phase.
I got a guitar pick with a bit of texture on the part you grip with. I have really oily hands so glossy picks just slip through my fingers.
I've also tried angling the pick so I have more surface area to grip with.
I've also tried angling the pick so I have more surface area to grip with.
You’re in good company James Hetfield plays this way too!
The song jingle bells - I'd been saying "one horse slope and sleigh" for like 25 years.
I'm not dumb, I just never looked at the lyrics I guess? IDK, it was a life changing moment I'll tell you that much.
I'm not dumb, I just never looked at the lyrics I guess? IDK, it was a life changing moment I'll tell you that much.
Love it
Rinsing my mouth with water after brushing my teeth.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-teeth-and-gums/how-to-k...
> Don't rinse with water straight after toothbrushing
> After brushing, spit out any excess toothpaste.
> Don't rinse your mouth immediately after brushing, as it'll wash away the concentrated fluoride in the remaining toothpaste.
> Rinsing dilutes it and reduces its preventative effects.
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/healthy-teeth-and-gums/how-to-k...
> Don't rinse with water straight after toothbrushing
> After brushing, spit out any excess toothpaste.
> Don't rinse your mouth immediately after brushing, as it'll wash away the concentrated fluoride in the remaining toothpaste.
> Rinsing dilutes it and reduces its preventative effects.
I've been rinsing my mouth after brushing my teeth my whole life. Turns out you should not. Logically, why even buy that expensive toothpaste only to negate all its positive impact by rinsing it away?
I spent the first 25+ years of my life[1] thinking that philosophy, logic and reason were the most powerful and effective tools for driving and guiding my life.
Nope!
[1] OK, maybe not my whole like but at least from 10-11 onwards.
Nope!
[1] OK, maybe not my whole like but at least from 10-11 onwards.
So what is then?
Culture, religion, tradition, instinct, with a little philosophy on the side as a modifying influence.
when regulating temperature, the body does better at heating than cooling: i sleep better and all the way through the night with a wool blanket @ 10C than with thin sheets @ 20C.
This, and also the way our bodies go to sleep is by dropping it's body temperature a bit. If it's hot in your room, or too many blankets, you're body will struggle to cool down and thus you'll struggle to get to sleep.
Realizing that the food we commonly eat, like butter, meat and dairy, are the main source of cardiovascular diseases that are the prevailing cause of death in our society.
Elaborating for those that don't know: In the US, sugar is the leading cause of cardiovascular disease. Butter, meat, and animal products were Coca-Cola and others' scapegoat to deflect attention away from their sugary products. This was bad information that originated from a PR department. Like much of the common nutrition knowledge we have.
A few years ago I discovered that I had spent my entire life tying my shoes incorrectly, with a Granny Knot instead of the stable Square Knot (the knots are very similar). My shoes would always come untied and I frequently double knotted them. Now a single knot is always sufficient.
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/grannyknot.htm
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/grannyknot.htm
This! I've never had a good explanation, but being left handed I was making a granny knot about 80% of the time. I never figured it out consciously, but it eventually nearly stopped. Just the rare one.
Now I understand!
Now I understand!
Huh. Not only have I been tying my shoes incorrectly for decades, I've taught my children to do the same.
I realised in my 20's I was tying my shoes wrong and that's why my laces always got lose. I don't think I ever had them loosen themselves since I learned the correct way from this Ted X video : https://www.ted.com/talks/terry_moore_how_to_tie_your_shoes?...
[deleted]
Pronouncing "February" with an r after the b.
Either way is correct. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February#Pronunciation
• Just be kind to women
• If you like a girl, tell her she's pretty
• Buy a girl some flowers and watch her appreciate it
• Just make her laugh, women love a guy with a sense of humour
• Just let her know how you really feel if you like her
• Just hold the door open for her
• Just ask her out, the worst she can say is no
• Just find a girl that likes you for you
• Just listen to her and show her you care
• Just be a gentleman and pay her compliments
• Just be yourself!
• Just stop trying and the girl of your dreams will come into your life when you least expect it.
• If you like a girl, tell her she's pretty
• Buy a girl some flowers and watch her appreciate it
• Just make her laugh, women love a guy with a sense of humour
• Just let her know how you really feel if you like her
• Just hold the door open for her
• Just ask her out, the worst she can say is no
• Just find a girl that likes you for you
• Just listen to her and show her you care
• Just be a gentleman and pay her compliments
• Just be yourself!
• Just stop trying and the girl of your dreams will come into your life when you least expect it.
> Just make her laugh, women love a guy with a sense of humour
Tbh Im done being funny. People take me significantly less seriously and I just become a sort of “court jester” for whoever I’m hanging out with.
Tbh Im done being funny. People take me significantly less seriously and I just become a sort of “court jester” for whoever I’m hanging out with.
What is the new writing grip and what were you doing before?
I always assumed dynamic tripod grip was what was taught, and the best, as it's how I write, but a couple of my kids used a cross between lateral tripod and quadrupod - and their teachers would complain about their writing.
I had to restrain myself when I realized this is what they'd been taught, and next met the teachers responsible.
I always assumed dynamic tripod grip was what was taught, and the best, as it's how I write, but a couple of my kids used a cross between lateral tripod and quadrupod - and their teachers would complain about their writing.
I had to restrain myself when I realized this is what they'd been taught, and next met the teachers responsible.
When making jam or cooking anything to keep for later, not touching the inside of the lid after to boil it to kill germs! I learned that when making jam with a friend who's a doctor in a hospital and it's so easy to accidentally touch something to then comes into contact with the food. Also, to properly kill germs, you need to cook stuff for 7 minutes...
I walked wrong. When I was around 11 years old, a relative pointed out that my gait was weird because I placed the front-of-the-foot on the ground before the heel. I'm not sure if I'd done this for all my life, or if it was a recent habit, but once it was pointed out - I fixed it immediately, to the point where I forgot my old gait by the next few days.
Not exactly "wrong", just nonstandard in the modern (western?) context. I've read that the toe-first gait was once relatively common before footwear became strong and universal---heel-strike walking is definitely harder on a bare heel, and more likely to hurt if you step barefoot on a small object.
I'm able to walk either way, which was a lifesaver one time when I started developing shin splints (from a temporary job with a lot of unaccustomed fast walking on concrete floors) but couldn't really be off my feet—the toe-first walking was nearly as fast and used a completely different muscle pattern, so I could walk that way without triggering the inflammation. :)
I'm able to walk either way, which was a lifesaver one time when I started developing shin splints (from a temporary job with a lot of unaccustomed fast walking on concrete floors) but couldn't really be off my feet—the toe-first walking was nearly as fast and used a completely different muscle pattern, so I could walk that way without triggering the inflammation. :)
Based on modern understanding of walking ergonomics, it would be better for you to go back to your 11 year old walking style
Sleeping on my stomach. I'm pretty sure it makes my back/neck pain worse, but I'm just unable to change this habit.
I've tried changing from stomach to side sleeping for probably the last 5 years and have completely failed. I have resorted to the "rotisserie chicken" method where I have to turn every which way multiple times all night to get sleep.
Depends on your back. I’m a back sleeper with back pain and my physical therapist told me to start stomach sleeping. It helps a lot.
I had a cold last week, and started going to sleep on my stomach because I was able to get more comfortable and relaxed.
[deleted]
Consuming animal products.
I previously used to rinse my mouth after brushing my teeth, then was told not to do this. Not rinsing is a big improvement.
Tying my shoes.
For almost 40 years my RT shoe lace would always come undone after walking for a few minutes.
Turns out I was making the same mistake on only my RT shoe, rather constantly.
Thanks Ian! https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/grannyknot.htm
For almost 40 years my RT shoe lace would always come undone after walking for a few minutes.
Turns out I was making the same mistake on only my RT shoe, rather constantly.
Thanks Ian! https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/grannyknot.htm
[deleted]
Realizing one needs to move their 401k plans when you leave a job or incur higher fees and potentially stagnant growth.
Also, it appears Roth IRAs need you to pick an investment option, but when I created one I don't recall there being an option. Invested ~3k and many moons later it was still ~3k.
Also, it appears Roth IRAs need you to pick an investment option, but when I created one I don't recall there being an option. Invested ~3k and many moons later it was still ~3k.
> and potentially stagnant growth
Shouldn't growth not matter where the money is.
$100,000 gaining 6% is $106,000, gaining 6% is $112,360.
$25,000 in 4 different accounts gaining 6% is $26,500 in 4 different accounts, gaining 6% is $28,090 in 4 different accounts, or $112,360.
Shouldn't growth not matter where the money is.
$100,000 gaining 6% is $106,000, gaining 6% is $112,360.
$25,000 in 4 different accounts gaining 6% is $26,500 in 4 different accounts, gaining 6% is $28,090 in 4 different accounts, or $112,360.
There was a thing about tying shoelaces a few years back, for example this from the BBC [1]. Apparently I was doing it wrong but anyway I prefer the extra back exercise I get from bending down to retie.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT2XiPgiZK8
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tT2XiPgiZK8
Honestly - when I bought a bidet seat, I truly felt like I had been lied to my whole life that TP was acceptable.
[deleted]
Tying shoelaces in a granny knot instead of a square knot. In a granny knot the shoe laces sit crooked and easily come undone.
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/grannyknot.htm
https://www.fieggen.com/shoelace/grannyknot.htm
Tying my shoes: My knots would always come out, so i got into the habit of tying the loops together. A few years ago, in my mid 50's I realized that I was tying a granny not rather than a square not. I made the adjustment and have never tied my loops together again.
Trying to do everything by myself instead of asking for help.
Buying alcohol based mouthwash. For years the burning sensation was always terrible and I'd often cheat, either not using as much or not swishing as long as recommended. Accidentally grabbed alcohol free mouthwash one time and it was wonderful.
I'm not sure it's alcohol, but the worse offender on "mouthwash that burns" is Listerine.
Alcohol or no, there's no need to get an aggressive one
Alcohol or no, there's no need to get an aggressive one
[deleted]
I recently realized why snowboard jackets have double zippers. I always struggled to bend down to clip in my boots into my snowboard bindings while standing up. I now unzip a third of the way there and it’s a lot easier to bend down.
Apparently, I've been doing lat pull-downs the wrong way for like 20 years, using too much biceps instead of the lats. Took a trainer just a few minutes to correct me and I def feel the difference.
So I learned recently that I was tying my shoes in the wrong way my whole life.
The classic knot has two versions, the weak one where loops are more vertical, and the strong one where loops are more horizontal.
It took me about two weeks to re-learn tying my shoes.
The classic knot has two versions, the weak one where loops are more vertical, and the strong one where loops are more horizontal.
It took me about two weeks to re-learn tying my shoes.
Self-doubt. Assume I was always the least intelligent person in the room.
Operated like Clarence Thomas did at oral arguments for close to a decade... Assumed that if something was worth asking someone else would ask it.
Operated like Clarence Thomas did at oral arguments for close to a decade... Assumed that if something was worth asking someone else would ask it.
not wrong/right but I was watching a video where monkeys were eating bananas. And then I tried it and now I've stuck to it. I've always had issues opening bananas so for me, that's the right way.
I always thought the SUM() function in spreadsheets was “here be maths” function. So, whenever I do anything in spreadsheets I wrap it in =SUM(), like SUM(A1 / B1).
I know it’s wrong, but it’s in muscle memory already.
I know it’s wrong, but it’s in muscle memory already.
holding pens & pencils wrong. I've known since I was in like 2nd grade when my teacher told me. I only tried to change it in my twenties with some success in my mid-late twenties. I work on the computer mostly so I rarely write, but I keep trying to improve!
see second image here to see what I mean by wrong: https://thecrackedamethyst.tumblr.com/post/180226225116/appa...
see second image here to see what I mean by wrong: https://thecrackedamethyst.tumblr.com/post/180226225116/appa...
Turns out there are two ways to tie your shoelaces (the direction of the top knot wrt the bottom) and the one I didn’t do never went untied.
(Also turns out you can buy perfectly good shoes without laces so extra win)
(Also turns out you can buy perfectly good shoes without laces so extra win)
You-buntu vs oo-buntu,
Something coworkers from years ago still like to give me grief about.
Something coworkers from years ago still like to give me grief about.
[deleted]
Wait, which one is correct?
Wait, which one is right?
The one without the "y":
> Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning ‘humanity to others’. It can also be interpreted as ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’. The Ubuntu operating system brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the world of computing. And one last extra question for the road…
> How do you pronounce Ubuntu? Many people don’t get it right the first time, but it’s pronounced: oǒ’boǒntoō.
> There’s no ‘y’ at the beginning!
https://ubuntu.com/blog/top-10-questions-about-ubuntu
> Ubuntu is an ancient African word meaning ‘humanity to others’. It can also be interpreted as ‘I am what I am because of who we all are’. The Ubuntu operating system brings the spirit of Ubuntu to the world of computing. And one last extra question for the road…
> How do you pronounce Ubuntu? Many people don’t get it right the first time, but it’s pronounced: oǒ’boǒntoō.
> There’s no ‘y’ at the beginning!
https://ubuntu.com/blog/top-10-questions-about-ubuntu
Just a little correction. The word ubuntu is not ancient. It's still in use today and more than 100 million people subscribed to the spirit of ubuntu. What qualifies me to correct an FAQ of a conglomerate? I belong to a group of people who are classified as Bantu and own the word.
While Mark Shuttleworth is originally from South Africa, where bantu people originates, he was not classified as a Bantu by apartheid government. Which is strange because the word Bantu means people. During our dark days of apartheid, as in less than 30 years ago, areas designated for black only were called bantustans.
umuntu, also(muthu, motho) = person bantu, vhathu, batho, etc = people ubuntu, vhuthu, botho, etc = normal behaviour of a human being.
We are still called bantu(people) and ubuntu is our way of life. Ok. Theoretically.
While Mark Shuttleworth is originally from South Africa, where bantu people originates, he was not classified as a Bantu by apartheid government. Which is strange because the word Bantu means people. During our dark days of apartheid, as in less than 30 years ago, areas designated for black only were called bantustans.
umuntu, also(muthu, motho) = person bantu, vhathu, batho, etc = people ubuntu, vhuthu, botho, etc = normal behaviour of a human being.
We are still called bantu(people) and ubuntu is our way of life. Ok. Theoretically.
I don't read 'ancient' as necessarily meaning archaic or obsolete, you can both be correct.
Thanks!
“Debian”.
Working on social interactions and refining nuances would have gone a long way for my career but my sheer technical aptitude has managed to carry me pretty far as I am happy to go.
Similar. When my baby lets air out of his esophagus, he makes a stuttering sound. I've started throttling my burps with my mouth and it's more comfortable.
For years I dealt cards with my non-dominant hand. When I switched I got twice as fast.
That and wearing incorrectly sized dress shirts and feeling like I was being choked in ties.
That and wearing incorrectly sized dress shirts and feeling like I was being choked in ties.
When I was about 12, I sprained my thumb and started holding pencils very differently because my thumb was in a splint. It took decades to go back to the right way.
As someone who sits at a desk for long hours it was not doing stretching exercises, such as yoga, every day.
I thank my partner for introducing that habit into my life.
I thank my partner for introducing that habit into my life.
I eat hotdogs "sideways". Since I don't put condiments on mine, I eat it so there's bun on top like a hamburger would be.
Supposedly you're not to rinse after brushing so the flouride can "apply" to your teeth. I think that's gross so oh well.
Peeling a banana.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i733KI8B6-Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i733KI8B6-Q
Care about what the company I'm working with is making. If I'm not heavily in equity and it's just a job then I shouldn't be giving a dam about they are making. I should only be interesting in what they are paying me and the benefits I get from working at the company.
I used to get real upset when the codebase I working on was shit and even left companies due to this. In reality what was more important was those companies where paying a shit wage that was why their codebase stank.
I used to get real upset when the codebase I working on was shit and even left companies due to this. In reality what was more important was those companies where paying a shit wage that was why their codebase stank.
Surely you should also care what impact said company is having on society? :)
Pretty sad to spend half your waking time making something you don’t care about.
I still innately spell maybe mabye. I have to stop myself and correct my spelling manually wver single time I write the word.
Eating Marmite instead of Vegemite. Only in my fifties did I discover that Marmite tastes different because it contains sugar.
Trying to get happiness from external conditions instead of making it at home in my body through meditation and understanding.
Not asking a questions.
Curiosity or lack of understanding of topic is great opportunity to learn new things. And also put my ego on side.
Curiosity or lack of understanding of topic is great opportunity to learn new things. And also put my ego on side.
Acquired a utility knife with those cheap replaceable blades instead of abusing the kitchen scissors for everything
Now I'm curious how you held it!
In my late 30s, I learned that I'd been tying my shoes wrong my entire life.
In my late 30s, I learned that I'd been tying my shoes wrong my entire life.
I should have become a goat farmer...
I should have done something else at this point anything.
Worry about what other people think
My psychology friends are going to be busy for months (or years) with the responses here…
I can't imagine dealers and manufacturers agreeing to fix these vehicles on their dime. I can't imagine the charging station owners offering to fix the vehicles on their dime.
I think the only option for these people will be to file an insurance claim, let the insurance company sort out who's at fault and try to pursue them.
I think the only option for these people will be to file an insurance claim, let the insurance company sort out who's at fault and try to pursue them.
It took me up until this year to learn I tie my shoes wrong.
The knot has to be balanced. I never knew.
The knot has to be balanced. I never knew.
Believing main-stream media when they would say "conspiracy theory".
Just about everything. Not a single thing I do is the right way. It is a way.
Elon Musk mentioned the "Elevate the head of your bed by 3"" a few months back. Had an open schedule that day so I said "f-it, let's go look at my lumber out back".
Long story short, I put a 4x4 (3.5" actual) across the head of the box spring and a 2x4" (1.5" actual) across the middle. I have been sleeping a whole lot better even since.
Long story short, I put a 4x4 (3.5" actual) across the head of the box spring and a 2x4" (1.5" actual) across the middle. I have been sleeping a whole lot better even since.
Reading hackernews to find out how to start a startup
Almost everything.
Not sure if I was doing it wrong, but I recently started putting the pizza out of the oven and into the frozen pizza box it came in. It's much cleaner!
I can't understand what you're saying, do you not bake the pizza and keep it packaged(??) Or do you bake it then put it back into packaging(how do you eat it?)
my cousin taught me that frying cold pizza in a pan is 1000x better than microwaving. I could only think of the hundreds of microwaved pizzas I've lost the opportunity to do this to. it's even better than when you just order it!
What’s with the proliferation of Ask HN post? Take this back to Reddit.
Not liking how Ask HN is turning into AskReddit
Reminder that you can flag topics that violate the guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
ignoring god.
Thinking that most people have good intentions.
I saw a documentary once where a cop said that 10% always have bad intentions, 10% always have good intentions, and 80% are situational. We don't normally encounter the ones with constant bad intentions because most end up in prison.
But it stuck with me because my father was always around really nice people and I realised he faced the opposite of the prison effect. If you're consistently nice to people, you end up in the crowd of people with better intentions. It's a selection bias.
But it stuck with me because my father was always around really nice people and I realised he faced the opposite of the prison effect. If you're consistently nice to people, you end up in the crowd of people with better intentions. It's a selection bias.
If you want to do a marvelous deep dive on this concept, I highly recommend the Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod. It's a masterful work on the game theory behind how different species/animals/people cooperate and why, and it is a deeply intellectual and rigorous book that uses no more than 6th grade algebra to get its point across. Promise you you'll like it.
If a cop said it, I'm just going to assume it's false.
Bad people don't end up in prison, not for the most part. Bad intention and crime aren't the same thing.
Bad people don't end up in prison, not for the most part. Bad intention and crime aren't the same thing.
The 10% bad and 10% good is also a strong proxy for poverty/plenty. Desperate people do desperate things.
Also, be careful how you assign "bad". It can either be unethical or illegal, as they are not the same thing.
Also, be careful how you assign "bad". It can either be unethical or illegal, as they are not the same thing.
Poverty/plenty is in the 80%.
Bad means someone who would molest a child because it's a new experience or run over a stranger with a car. A business owner who is proud that the people he hires don't make enough money to eat.
Hitmen who consider the people they kill as rats so they don't get emotional scarred by the murder - they're in the 80%. A tyrant who orders a city pillaged and raped to assert dominance, also in the 80%.
Bad means someone who would molest a child because it's a new experience or run over a stranger with a car. A business owner who is proud that the people he hires don't make enough money to eat.
Hitmen who consider the people they kill as rats so they don't get emotional scarred by the murder - they're in the 80%. A tyrant who orders a city pillaged and raped to assert dominance, also in the 80%.
not everyone in prison. many are smart, cautious and/or experienced. I would even say most are not while most people in prison are not "always bad" but situational.
Not everyone in prison is bad and not everyone bad ends up in prison.
But it got me thinking that there are people out there who will stab you just for disagreeing with them. We don't encounter them often because nearly all the people who can't control themselves end up in prison. It's dangerous to assume that people will always act in their own best interest.
But it got me thinking that there are people out there who will stab you just for disagreeing with them. We don't encounter them often because nearly all the people who can't control themselves end up in prison. It's dangerous to assume that people will always act in their own best interest.
I think it’s a good practice to assume that people have good/average intentions. Nobody is the villain in the story they tell themselves. I get farther in life with this philosophy:
Nobody is out to get me. Also, it’s a C+ world out there, with a lot of incompetent people.
Be smart, and be very careful about whether you trust somebody to deliver the outcome that you want. But if they mess it up, come up with some reasons other than “so-and-so is evil” or "so-and-so hates me". It’ll help your state of mind, and also your interactions with them.
Nobody is out to get me. Also, it’s a C+ world out there, with a lot of incompetent people.
Be smart, and be very careful about whether you trust somebody to deliver the outcome that you want. But if they mess it up, come up with some reasons other than “so-and-so is evil” or "so-and-so hates me". It’ll help your state of mind, and also your interactions with them.
Most people just follow the trend. But there are leaders that promote the worst in people. And they have a huge part of attention nowadays.
Put a person in debt for 30+ years so that he has to deliver (most of the time they fake it) and see how toxic that person becomes. I see a lot of managers beeing trapped and replaceable. They are the most toxic people. They will do anything not to loose that job because the bank will take their home. Developers are not much better, but the culture is set by managers.
Everything happens in a good intention, in the person own regards. This may conflict with your values.
i'm the opposite, how to balance it?
Even if they say they have your best interest in mind, they might not, or they might be misinformed about you and act on un-truths. Either way it can be very detrimental.
you should always assume this, otherwise you just sign yourself up to play a losing game for the rest of your life
tabs, not spaces.
you mean you were wrong to use tabs your whole life instead of space? ;)
Being a smart-ass and saying to my kids: "I don't believe it, I know it" without first stopping to realise that knowledge of something additionally requires that one believes it to be true.