Also take showers when you feel like it, not when it’s appropriate. Well, at least put some water on your face and make your feet wet, if shower is not an option.
(At least that helps me personally.)
The “less sugar” advice is good.
The physical exhaustion advice is good.
But frankly all this seems connected to that cluster of autism\depression\ADHD or something. Getting more dopamine, reducing prolactin, reducing bodily disregulation, something like that.
You teach your daughter how to spot manipulative behavior
Yeah, only do it right. Because some girls have apparently been taught to classify anything they don’t understand as that. Sucks being autistic and trying to explain some emotion and being accused of manipulation and ghosted, because that’s easier than admitting that sometimes you just don’t understand other people as well as you think.
I also hate that folk psychology with “personal borders” (usually asymmetric, quite normal things said to those people are apparently emotional abuse, and quite heavy things from them are just life) and “red flags” (usually applied to autistic people and not applied to literal creepy\insecure behavior) and a few thumb rules which apparently describe anything in a conversation. People employing that also by default consider that everything is fine with them personally.
What it definitely does is prevent you from verifying vote results and specific votes. While people selling votes will (in our day) just make a photo and send it to their buyer.
If by “other things” you mean violence against those voting “wrong” - yes, that’s a problem. When you invent a way to have a verified anonymous vote, let me know.
My comment is a specific application, and your comment is “no u wrong”.
To allow easier falsifications.
The users right now may fall into a false sense of privacy when voting because the votes are hidden from Lemmy users.
Why would you even want anonymous votes but not anonymous comments?
The former is as good\bad as the latter.
I know they were already technically public. I think they should be shown.
What your will allows you is too defined by health.
while body weight is something you can at least control through dedication.
Generally not.
There are quite a lot of disorders affecting eating habits, and there are quite a lot of conditions that mean that even on something like a keto diet you’ll get obese (or extremely thin).
So no, if you are not obese, you most likely are not more “dedicated” than some person you know who is. You are just healthier. Most likely since birth, and there’s nothing they’ve done wrong.
Obviously it’s still bad to be obese.
No, I don’t. I don’t have a plan and making it will take probably more than a month
Easy when there are bad people you’re interested in.
Buy 100M worth of drones with ammo and transportation, only I’ll have to find somebody from former Artsakh Defense Army to ask where.
Or maybe just buy samples of anthrax, bubonic plague, some particular nasty kind of covid and other such nice things, lots of pests able to carry them and, of course, rodents, bribe lots of people on my way and bring all that stuff to Baku.
Ancap is called anarcho-capitalism because it’s usually considered that you can make capitalism with it. But it’s not one of the axioms.
Its components are voluntarism, non-aggression and property as a simple concept, because otherwise taking anything forcibly from another person is not clearly aggression. Property on knowledge is generally not recognized in ancap (so no trademarks and patents), property on resources in usually disputed in ancap (because you haven’t made those resources and have the same right to them as everyone else).
You have also answered the wrong post, this one was not about ancap at all (are you a buggy bot or just came here through my post history?).
Actually the opposite - some compromise between Marxism and our world which for me personally seems better than all those complex wealth redistribution systems. Simply abolish inheritance of a kind of property that some call means of production, some something else etc. Then that material value may be used in some socially useful way, while the society becomes much more egalitarian and market mechanisms start working again. Naturally this means that companies won’t grow big, so cooperatives will become plausible form of organization.
It’s some kind of Trotskyist socialism, I’m just trying to extract it from my memory of the short period when I was excited by such stuff.
Oh, I’ve somehow remembered that weird period when I was kinda leftist. (Usually I’m ancap.)
Not because I stopped believing that people are not born equal or that people deserve and need different things, and that voluntarism is good, but because evolutionary mechanisms, which are one of the main arguments in favor of markets, invisible hands, bootstraps and such, are skewed by inheritance and starting with different base.
This led me to believe that the Marxist division of private property and “personal” property (doesn’t sound right in English, private seems more personal than “personal”, while it’s less in Russian), where the latter was what formally existed in USSR and the former was some bad, bad capitalist concept, has the right to exist.
The former shouldn’t be inherited or gifted. The latter is complete property.
This would kinda make sense by removing generational wealth, but there’d be a question of criteria separating these two things. I guess it would involve the concept of “means of production” and land and resources would be something that can’t be personal property. But it’d be all a question of amounts anyway.
And then there’s a question of whether such a society will or will not be eaten by another, where not only wealth is accumulated by clans, but also sometimes knowledge of power.
EDIT: It feels so good to put the A-word in any comment involving politics. You just know that every fool out there won’t think further. It’s as if you had a dam defending your little cozy town from sewage sea around.
Yes, I’m not particularly smart. The opposite actually. I may be more intelligent than some other people because of social problems conditioning me to avoid “smart” or “witty” ways of solving problems.
It is inflation. And “greed” is accounted for in the definition of a market. Oligopolies are not.