not a big fan of that captcha thing where you gotta wait 30 minutes for google to decide if it wants to show you another bus
and that captcha thing where it never explicitly tells you if you succeeded or not, so you’re never sure if it’s making you do it like six times because you suck or because it’s just Like That
Tags:
#reply via reblog #relatable
replied to your post
“rustingbridges: brin-bellway: rustingbridges: rustingbridges: I…”
I think this makes perfect! I’m curious in what way this is surprising to you
Well, first of all the entire idea of balanced meals weirds me out. I eat in small-but-frequent quantities (you can see what a normal day looks like for me here), so to me the natural time unit across which one should balance one’s nutrient intake is the *day*. (Maybe even 2 – 3 days, since on any given day I often run out of appetite before covering all the categories I’d intended to.) I actually feel thrown off planning-wise when I *do* eat a balanced meal, because what am I supposed to eat to counterbalance it later? It counts towards a little bit of everything, which means it doesn’t *really* count towards *anything*.
(In fact, the entire idea of *meals* kind of weirds me out. My foods are generally much more atomised, and it never ceases to amaze me that there are so many people who go through meal levels of complicatedness and preparation almost *every time they eat*. I do that kind of shit once a day at *most*, and left to my own devices I make relatively simple meals at that.)
While my diet is quite rigid and has had some thought put into it, it’s not exactly *planned* in the same sense that yours seems to be. I don’t track precise nutrient intakes: I just try to cover a bunch of different kinds of food over the course of a time unit. The only thing I specifically seek out is fibre, as my body has repeatedly complained that [a version of my diet in which I do not actively seek out fibre] is not fibrous enough. I’ve also been eating fewer and less frequent high-fat foods, again because of negative physical responses rather than an abstract intellectual belief that they were bad for me.
so part of it is that it’s not a balanced meal – the dietary ‘goal’ of the yogurt is to meet my desired level of protein intake.
I want to be hitting a minimum of 80g/day, and ideally closer to 160g/day. plausibly you can’t usefully consume more than 30-50g of protein at a time.
this is kind of hard to do with balanced meals unless your whole diet is oriented around it. my diet is not and includes a bunch of shitty carbs, so I gotta make up the protein elsewhere.
the most straightforward supplement here is chicken. nonfat strained yogurt is one the next best things, the tier two of protein supplements if you will. fatty strained yogurt with add-ins is kinda down there, but still batting above replacement.
so the more skewed towards protein the yogurt breakfast is, the more room I have to eat cookies or something later. 160g/day is ~650 Cal from protein per day, which is 15-25% of my daily needs. a food which is ~30% protein by calories is considered high in protein, so either you need to eat exclusively that or you have to make up the difference with actually high protein foods.
Ah, okay. Pretty much the same reason I eat popcorn, but with protein instead of fibre.
What made you decide to seek out extra protein?
Want Beeg Mussels
#at greater length: #higher protein intake seems like it has upsides in terms of maximizing potential muscle gains #and minimizing losses if attempting to cut #with relatively few if any downsides
@rustingbridges replied: also, popcorn is great
It *is* great in many ways, but I do find it a bit time-consuming to make and eat, and I worry it’s going to wear down my teeth (I *definitely* have at least one chipped tooth directly attributable to popcorn, and I wonder about more subtle wearing as well). I considered buying some psyllium at the grocery store yesterday, but apparently you’re supposed to take it several times a day and that hardly seems any better on the hassle front.
Mom just ordered another batch of high-fibre tortillas off Amazon, and I accepted her offer to throw in a bag of the smaller-sized tortillas: they’re lighter and less prep-requiring than popcorn, and if I don’t like them she can just use them herself. Next time I’m able to get to a bulk-food store I might try some flax seeds: they do *sell* them in the grocery store, but the packages I saw were 450g and that’s far too much for a test run. I’m also thinking of buying a *different* flavour of fibre bars for evening use, so as not to confuse my brain by eating breakfast food at night.
(FTR, I’ve tried prune juice, but it’s easy to overshoot the dosage on that and also it only lasts a few days once it’s open. Separating out smaller quantities and freezing them only helps so much.)
Tags:
#food #disordered eating? #reply via reblog #medical cw #replies
🥤
I get that this is *trying* to be a joke, but “enchantment that, when cast on a liquid, renders it potable” sounds genuinely useful.
…mind you, they never actually *said* the liquid wasn’t poisonous, just that it was hydrating. Oh dear.
Tags:
#poison cw #fun with loopholes #reply via reblog
it’s interesting how many op-eds were written about how children born in the late 90s-onward were digital natives that would go on to become extremely versatile in tech when the reality is that tech becoming more consumer oriented nipped the incentive for a lot of kids to explore beyond the services offered to them. not knowing how to torrent things is only the tip of the iceberg and tech illiteracy is only going to continue to climb as the cultural shift from computers to phones becomes more pronounced in coming years. I used to joke that people in the late aughts saw laptops as like, $700 facebook machines but the modern comparison is that people see laptops as $1200 subscription service for media they don’t own machines.
Or a bit earlier, in the 1970s and early 80s there was a lot of talk about how how computers would empower individuals in school and society, because everyone would learn how to program, so they could learn by experiment and have completely understanding and control of their tools.
For example this video where Alan Kay talks about letting school children play with Smalltalk and write their own programs: “my aim here was not just to get people be able to access things by means of the windows but also to be able to do the equivalent of writing short essays and having them have great effect.” A few minutes later he talks about why being able to read and modify programs is important: “we don’t think a person is literate if all they are able to do is read, we think they should also be able to write”.
Also did not really come true.
I sometimes feel like I grew up at nearly the optimal time for this. I was born in 1986, which is late enough that having access to computers growing up wasn’t a special or unusual thing; they were starting to be everywhere.
But it’s early enough that I still had to understand how they worked in order to use them. My fist computer was a Dos computer; I have very clear memories of navigating directory hierarchies at the command line to find my favorite computer games. There weren’t a lot of ease-of-use features yet, so a lot of basic things exposed the bare metal of everything going on. And stuff broke all the time and you needed to understand things well enough to fix it.
My sisters are much less computer-savvy in a lot of ways. This is partly just a difference of interests, but I’m pretty sure it’s also just that they had to deal with a lot less exposed metal when they started using them.
(not exactly responding to anyone in particular)
When reading through the notes on this post, I noticed that most of the responses talking about the tech-illiterate folks in their lives are talking about…parents, younger siblings, clients. People whose company they *didn’t actively seek out*.
If it were true that people born in the 80’s have better tech-literacy, as a group, than people born in the 00’s, how we would *tell*? How would we distinguish this from “most people in *every* generation are tech-illiterate, people tend to run in social circles with similar levels of computer competence to themselves, and this filter works less well in intergenerational contexts”?
(To be fair there *is* one comment that the student body at their school as of a decade ago was more tech-literate than the current student body, though it’s only one and also some of that could be rose-tinting.)
—
I was born in the early 90’s, and my tech-literacy doesn’t *feel* generational: it feels *cultural*.
My father isn’t great at handling noobs gently, but he did his best to teach me right. He taught me the power in flexibility: he encouraged me to buy a laptop with my Christmas money rather than a Game Boy Advance, so that I could play games *and* do a lot of other stuff (I later got a GBA for the more console-specific games, but I got the laptop first and he was right to consider it a higher priority), and to buy a Sansa rather than buy an iPod and be trapped in Apple’s walled garden. (And yes–statute of limitations–he then taught me how to torrent music to fill it with. This was back in 2007, when YouTube had very little music and youtube-dl was correspondingly not very useful for this.) He taught me to dual-boot so I could use Linux as much as possible and Windows only when needed (and I have needed it less and less often). He even managed to teach me a lesson he has never been able to teach Mom: to google my own problems instead of always running to him. I rarely need his help anymore.
(He’s still much better than I am at coding and command-line usage, but there are areas in which I have surpassed him. He taught me to avoid DRM primarily as a matter of principle, whereas I actually *use* my hard-won right to make backups. I shrugged off an abrupt laptop failure when I was fifteen: everything I cared about was also stored on the Sansa (and vice versa), and I simply repopulated my next laptop with files from there. A few years later *Dad* had a sudden failure, and he ended up having to go buy an adapter so he could plug his old hard drive into his new computer’s USB port and pull the data over that way. I shudder to think what would have happened if the hard drive *itself* had failed.)
When I grew up I hung out in social spheres where I was often among the *least* techy people there, and they kept it going: they taught me about tracker-blockers and encryption and password managers, about web scrapers and spreadsheets.
But I think if I hadn’t had my father around growing up, I’d have a much more shallow understanding of computers and a much greater willingness to stay within the bounds of what the megacorps deign to allow me.
—
I continue [link] to be horrified by people paying a thousand-plus dollars for a computer unless they have very ambitious plans for it. A streaming-and-maybe-occasionally-typing-in-Word-documents computer costs, like, one to two hundred. My general-purpose computer cost three hundred *after* international shipping and tariffs: an American resident would have paid 250.
(And you say it’s going *up* over time, instead of holding steady or dropping in non-inflation-adjusted dollars? For a *netbook*?!)
Please, folks, buy used business laptops: there are plenty of refurbisher stores on eBay. Depending on how old the laptops are and how high-end they were when they were new, you can get specs to suit a wide variety of needs; they’ve usually been upgraded to Windows 10 if they’re too old to have come with it originally; because companies often overestimate how many laptops they need to outfit their workforce, quite a few business laptops are “used” in only the most technical of senses (Dad, querying a newly-purchased laptop: “what is the cumulative amount of time you’ve spent turned on, throughout your entire life?” laptop: “about six hours”).
If you are not tech-literate enough to pick out a laptop on eBay, use that intergenerational mixing to your advantage and find a relative or something who can fill the role of the Best Buy employee (but without the incentive to convince you to spend as much as possible). If you can’t find anyone, ask *me* and I will see what I can do. Even if you are a complete stranger: everyone deserves a reasonably priced computer.
Tags:
#reply via reblog #proud citizen of The Future #adventures in human capitalism #amnesia cw?
replied to your post
“rustingbridges: brin-bellway: rustingbridges: rustingbridges: I…”
I think this makes perfect! I’m curious in what way this is surprising to you
Well, first of all the entire idea of balanced meals weirds me out. I eat in small-but-frequent quantities (you can see what a normal day looks like for me here), so to me the natural time unit across which one should balance one’s nutrient intake is the *day*. (Maybe even 2 – 3 days, since on any given day I often run out of appetite before covering all the categories I’d intended to.) I actually feel thrown off planning-wise when I *do* eat a balanced meal, because what am I supposed to eat to counterbalance it later? It counts towards a little bit of everything, which means it doesn’t *really* count towards *anything*.
(In fact, the entire idea of *meals* kind of weirds me out. My foods are generally much more atomised, and it never ceases to amaze me that there are so many people who go through meal levels of complicatedness and preparation almost *every time they eat*. I do that kind of shit once a day at *most*, and left to my own devices I make relatively simple meals at that.)
While my diet is quite rigid and has had some thought put into it, it’s not exactly *planned* in the same sense that yours seems to be. I don’t track precise nutrient intakes: I just try to cover a bunch of different kinds of food over the course of a time unit. The only thing I specifically seek out is fibre, as my body has repeatedly complained that [a version of my diet in which I do not actively seek out fibre] is not fibrous enough. I’ve also been eating fewer and less frequent high-fat foods, again because of negative physical responses rather than an abstract intellectual belief that they were bad for me.
so part of it is that it’s not a balanced meal – the dietary ‘goal’ of the yogurt is to meet my desired level of protein intake.
I want to be hitting a minimum of 80g/day, and ideally closer to 160g/day. plausibly you can’t usefully consume more than 30-50g of protein at a time.
this is kind of hard to do with balanced meals unless your whole diet is oriented around it. my diet is not and includes a bunch of shitty carbs, so I gotta make up the protein elsewhere.
the most straightforward supplement here is chicken. nonfat strained yogurt is one the next best things, the tier two of protein supplements if you will. fatty strained yogurt with add-ins is kinda down there, but still batting above replacement.
so the more skewed towards protein the yogurt breakfast is, the more room I have to eat cookies or something later. 160g/day is ~650 Cal from protein per day, which is 15-25% of my daily needs. a food which is ~30% protein by calories is considered high in protein, so either you need to eat exclusively that or you have to make up the difference with actually high protein foods.
Ah, okay. Pretty much the same reason I eat popcorn, but with protein instead of fibre.
What made you decide to seek out extra protein?
Tags:
#reply via reblog #food #disordered eating?
I made some yogurt (with my roommate’s instantpot) and it’s pretty good. it’s super easy to do, it tastes like how I remember yogurt tasting, and it’s probably something like 30 or 40% of the cost so that’s a win I guess
turns out one banana for an bowl yogurt is a lot of banana. but no way in hell am I going to the effort of preserving half a banana. guess I either need to lose the granola or eat twice as much yogurt
Eat the other half of the banana straight-up?
Tags:
#food #reply via reblog #bananas *can* be an Ingredient I guess but mostly they are a Food
HEY THERE Y’ALL. So I go through phases where I read nothing but Tumblr and then phases where I devour new books like a ravening wolf. I’m getting to a point where I want to Read Things, but of course the library is not open (and my local library is shite anyway, that’s a separate rant). So I’m basically stuck with Project Gutenberg, and I don’t know where the fuck to start. I don’t even know what genre I want to try.
So! Does anybody have any recommendations? What are your favorite out-of-copyright books? Are there Great Classics that are surprisingly readable? Assume I haven’t read anything aimed at adults, but I’m game to try anything. I’m generally fonder of adventure than of romance, but the thing about books old enough to be on Project Gutenberg is that they really don’t fall into the same categories as the mid-century kidlit I grew up reading.
If you’re willing to tolerate DRM designed to mimic library lending restrictions (the file self-destructs after two weeks), I hear the Internet Archive has a bunch of copyrighted ebooks as well [link].
As for Gutenberg specifically, I got a set of ACD Sherlock Holmes books there, and I quite enjoyed them. I read an Agatha Christie book there once too…The Mysterious Affair at Styles, I think.
Tags:
#reply via reblog #the more you know #recs
By what right does a government, entrusted with the preservation of liberty, see fit to prohibit consensual acts? This question, which was the catalyst of the Sexual Revolution, has led this author to reconsider all manner of social taboos.
While considering the rise of PDAs on campus, I considered how the right to show affection had superseded the expectation of those around them to feel comfortable. This is a positive change, primarily because the taboo against this act is rooted in the belief that people have the right to control the expression of their peers. This value has no place in a free society. From this position, I considered more extreme examples of the same principle. If society has no right to prohibit public signs of love, why should it prohibit its members from the literal act of love? It is this question that led me to my thesis, that it should be legal to have sex in public.
The first objection that will be raised against this is that the other people do not consent to seeing this. This response misrepresents the nature of consent. Many of you have seen a video in which consent is explained using the metaphor of giving someone tea. In this video, consent is understood to be a state in which the two people involved in sex agree to the act. Nowhere in that explanation does the opinion of those around them come into consideration. Because of this, saying that public sex violates the rights of passersby, or that they should just “get a room”, holds no weight.
The second point is that public sex does no harm to those who witness it. As with PDAs, there is no injustice that one can point to in order to justify its prohibition. The most likely grievance one could have is that people having sex on the ground would cause people to move around them. This is certainly an inconvenience, but not one that warrants government intervention. The worst-case scenario is that the coitus occurs in an exit or other narrow location. In this scenario, the appropriate action would be to use applicable fire codes to identify this as a safety violation. They could then be punished accordingly, public sex not being relevant to the matter. In neither case can the public claim harm that comes directly from the act of making love, but from factors that would be relevant whether or not sex was involved.
As I end this, I should address the reader’s assumption that the author is a crazed sex maniac. On the contrary, I am only interested in freedom for its own sake. I have no desire to partake in the act, nor would I gain sexual pleasure from seeing this in my daily life. I am content to know that the government will not interfere with those who chose to do so. Being free does not require that you partake in an act, it only requires that you reserve the right to do so, should the desire come. That is why I write this, so that we may all be a little more free.
People should not have sex in public because–given the fluids involved–it is unsanitary and against the interests of public health. They also should not talk in public for the same reason.
would you then support the idea that those having sex should be responsible for the cleanup of their own fluids?
I highly doubt that would be enforceable in practice. Our current public-health measures are unreliable and generally inadequate: we can’t even prevent restaurants from serving rotting food!
(while you could argue the *later* instances were a natural punishment for forcing service workers into proximity with them during a plague, those poor bastards who simply ordered the least popular variant of chicken during Christmas break absolutely did not deserve what they got)
By requiring people who have sex to do so in (ideally) their own space or (at minimum) a space owned by people in a good position to trace the sex back to them, we both increase the probability that they will have disinfectant available and ensure that, if they fail to use it (or fail to use it thoroughly enough), it will either harm *themselves* or harm someone with the capacity to figure it out and seek restitution. One of many situations where we eliminate the tragedy of the commons by eliminating the commons.
Tags:
#reply via reblog #discourse cw #unsanitary cw #nsfw text #in which Brin has a job #in which Brin has a food poisoning phobia #illness mention
By what right does a government, entrusted with the preservation of liberty, see fit to prohibit consensual acts? This question, which was the catalyst of the Sexual Revolution, has led this author to reconsider all manner of social taboos.
While considering the rise of PDAs on campus, I considered how the right to show affection had superseded the expectation of those around them to feel comfortable. This is a positive change, primarily because the taboo against this act is rooted in the belief that people have the right to control the expression of their peers. This value has no place in a free society. From this position, I considered more extreme examples of the same principle. If society has no right to prohibit public signs of love, why should it prohibit its members from the literal act of love? It is this question that led me to my thesis, that it should be legal to have sex in public.
The first objection that will be raised against this is that the other people do not consent to seeing this. This response misrepresents the nature of consent. Many of you have seen a video in which consent is explained using the metaphor of giving someone tea. In this video, consent is understood to be a state in which the two people involved in sex agree to the act. Nowhere in that explanation does the opinion of those around them come into consideration. Because of this, saying that public sex violates the rights of passersby, or that they should just “get a room”, holds no weight.
The second point is that public sex does no harm to those who witness it. As with PDAs, there is no injustice that one can point to in order to justify its prohibition. The most likely grievance one could have is that people having sex on the ground would cause people to move around them. This is certainly an inconvenience, but not one that warrants government intervention. The worst-case scenario is that the coitus occurs in an exit or other narrow location. In this scenario, the appropriate action would be to use applicable fire codes to identify this as a safety violation. They could then be punished accordingly, public sex not being relevant to the matter. In neither case can the public claim harm that comes directly from the act of making love, but from factors that would be relevant whether or not sex was involved.
As I end this, I should address the reader’s assumption that the author is a crazed sex maniac. On the contrary, I am only interested in freedom for its own sake. I have no desire to partake in the act, nor would I gain sexual pleasure from seeing this in my daily life. I am content to know that the government will not interfere with those who chose to do so. Being free does not require that you partake in an act, it only requires that you reserve the right to do so, should the desire come. That is why I write this, so that we may all be a little more free.
People should not have sex in public because–given the fluids involved–it is unsanitary and against the interests of public health. They also should not talk in public for the same reason.
Tags:
#one hot take deserves another #nsfw text #discourse cw #unsanitary cw #reply via reblog
We all want to be Granny Weatherwax but in reality we are all Rincewind.
Nah, I’m absolutely Rincewind and I embrace that.
That’s why I like him so much: in any other story he’d be a villain or at best an obstacle, and it’s so refreshing to see a character who values his own life portrayed sympathetically.
Tags:
#reply via reblog #Discworld
Brinens and Things - Tumblr Mirror 