For me, sugars and processed foods (grains especially) were an addiction. I see a lot of advice about allowing yourself a “cheat” day now and then but I would advise against it. It’s like telling a drug addict it’s ok to shoot up now and then, or it’s ok for the alcoholic to have a drink on special occasions. Processed foods are harmful to us over time. So while it won’t kill you when you are 20 or even 30, it will catch up with you.
Push through those cravings. They will go away.
I feel like they all see the inevitability that AI will drastically change the money model very soon. And it will not be to their profit, so best make every penny they can right now is their mentality.> Half the time when I comment, it just spins. :( Edit: Apparently when I comment it posts, but just shows spinning until I manually refresh. Must be on my end.
Of course, you have to realize that the definition of racism can change from an outlook of superiority to power + privilege on a whim too
I’m in my 50s, I don’t recall the definition of racism changing at all, much less “on a whim”. What are some of the other definitions you have seen arbitrarily assigned to the term racism?
Equal doesn’t mean equitable. For example, I hear people say everyone should pay a flat tax. Everyone pays 10% so that is equal. Yes. it is an equal percentage, and yes, the billionaires will pay vastly more than the poor. Suppose you make $1000 a month and you pay $100. That leaves you $900 to pay your bills and eat. Now a billionaire, let’s say he makes $10,000,000 a month. He pays out $1 mil but he still have $9 million to pay his bills…for that month. That is not equitable. Equitable would be to leave everyone with an equal burden on their income. Even if you taxed the billionaire 90%, he would still be able to live in luxury.
I do not feel there would be a need for racial quotas if there was instead a quota for xx% students from this income bracket must be accepted. Each applicant would be measured by both their skill and their ability to meet and overcome obstacles. There should be two piles: those that meet the standards, and those who do not. Out of all the potentials, shuffle the names and select at random.
That’s really difficult to do with a karma-like system. People posting in echo-chambers can post misinformation but receive many up votes.
Credibility is subjective. For example, people on one side of a political ideology will not think people on the opposite side are credible. So who can really determine an “attribute of credibility”?
We would have to agree on a standard first and that’s just not going to happen.
Former redditor. What do I call myself now? Lemming? lol But I also noticed that I don’t see some Karma score equivalent, which is a great thing to leave behind. Those imaginary points were just useless at best, and used against people who were new at the worst.
Collections add a little something real to an interest. You are into baseball? Collect baseball cards and baseball memorabilia. Some find a tactile connection improves their enjoyment. For some people, it may be old video games, for others it may be coins, stamps, achievements in video games. Yes they are digital, but you can see them in your achievement/trophy list. I think some people are drawn to collections more than others because they favor a certain learning style over another. I’m not educated in behavior in any way so I am qualified to share my opinion on the Internet. There’s nothing abnormal about that. The collecting part. Not the part where I have no real knowledge on a topic but I feel my opinion is worthy of being heard. That’s actually normal, too, probably. But it shouldn’t be.