

AAAHHH
I NEEEEED IITTT
(biologist - artist - queer)
You’re the only magician that could make a falling horse turn into thirteen gerbils
AAAHHH
I NEEEEED IITTT
You didn’t mention it, but have you considered how it would feel if you had a bad day and didn’t live up to this standard?
You’re framing it like a moral philosophy, but feeling anger is not a morally bad thing. Neither is jealousy, or selfishness, at times. It’s just part of the human experience, and we can avoid it most of the time, but occasionally we’re going to need to focus on ourselves and our needs and our feelings.
Similarly, it’s impossible to avoid having an ego 100% of the time. Honestly, it sounds like this quality is part of your identity-- would you like yourself less if you lived up to this standard imperfectly?
I don’t think it’s unusual to want to be a good person and to want to control our worst impulses. But to describe it as “trying to act like a saint”, and saying you’re “deaf to your own needs”-- those are concerning statements.
I don’t think anyone can speak for you or guess what’s going on from the outside. But if I were you, I’d be exploring if there’s fear underlying these impulses. Fear of judgment: how do you think the world would perceive you if you stopped being so strict about it? Fear of badness: how does it feel when you have a bad day and you fail to be perfect? Do you resent yourself? Fear of impurity: do you feel like other people are bad when they have these natural reactions? Do you fear being like other people who are experiencing and dealing with normal feelings?
Disclaimer: I am not an expert in this and this is just my understanding of how to answer this question
You may or may not realize that most voters don’t usually go out well in advance and research all potential candidates, selecting the one they feel represents their values the best. Many of them don’t even check in to the conversation until the primaries are over and they can make a simple red vs. blue choice. Among voters that do participate in primaries, they mostly rely on information they learn about those potential candidates by watching advertisements, endorsements from other well known politicians, clips from debates, news and social media coverage, etc.
Creating that information (ads, debates, news coverage, social media, etc.) requires two things: money and momentum. Money comes first, and is disbursed according to the process the other commenter described-- the party talks with its donors and collectively they decide who to fund.
In Bernie’s case, he was systematically deprived of money by the DNC as described above, in addition to his moral philosophy of not taking money from big donors. Instead, he funded his campaign through small donations-- which he earned a LOT of-- but he still had fewer funds to generate advertisements, to host events, to “get the word out”.
Without this funding and support, Bernie couldn’t generate momentum as effectively. The fact that he is as popular as he is despite the lack of support from the party illustrates how popular his platform is, but that isn’t enough to get disengaged voters interested. Further, in his case, other party members actively wanted him to NOT be the nominee, so there were fewer endorsements, more intentional maneuvering by the party to convince voters to vote for other candidates, etc.
In essence, the idea that having the purest moral and policy philosophy is the most important element to winning the nomination is naive: it takes money and support from institutions, or else no one will ever even know what that pure philosophy is.
I want to point out that in the article/interview you posted,
the expert disagreed with the interviewer that the causes of the gap are biological in nature, and
that they both agreed that the causes of the gap are undergoing rapid change due to social factors from the covid pandemic, and they bet it will be decreasing over the next few decades
Figured I’d clarify in case anyone read your comment and got confused about what the expert was saying :)
It’s not the same dude. Dog murderer is Kevin Roberts, this guy is John McEntee
also… if it dies anyway and you’re heartbroken, dm me and maybe I can send you a cutting from mine :-) cheers!
So the plant you have there is a Maranta leuconeura. I have one that looks just like it!
There’s a couple things that could be going wrong. In general, here are the conditions it likes:
It likes indirect light. I keep mine by a south facing window that has an awning cutting the harsh light outside. Additionally, I have it behind a sheer curtain.
It likes to be kept in moist soil, and in a humid place. I don’t let mine fully dry out before rewatering it, and I live in a place where the ambient humidity is often 60-80%. If you live in a dry place, water it often and maybe keep it in the most humid place with enough light (kitchen or bathroom is usually more humid)
and this is key, it does NOT like hard water. I honestly think this could be the problem with yours given what you said. Hard water has a lot of minerals, and over time, they build up in the soil. The plant might have been fine with tap for months, but now the soil could effectively be too “salty” for it.
If I had this plant, I’d do one of two things.
Option 1:
Option 2:
As backup, I might also try and root a cutting (again, in RO water) just in case it still dies anyway. Hopefully with these efforts it will revive, though!
Note on soft/RO water:
If you are looking for soft water, don’t use water from a water softener (confusing, I know). This is because water softeners for humans replace the minerals with sodium ions. In essence, water softener water is just as “salty” as hard water, it’s just different salts.
Instead, try and get deionized (DI) or reverse osmosis (RO) water.
Ideally, this would come from an RO system, which is a common kind of in-house water filter. If you live by a college, you could maybe ask for some from their science departments (especially biology or chemistry). You can also buy it online and have it shipped to you, but this is really expensive, especially considering that the maranta needs so much water.
Instead, I would buy a TDS meter (available on Amazon for like $7). It’s a little stick device that you put in the water and it tells you how hard it is. With this, you could test a few brands of bottled water (avoid “spring water”, or “remineralized” water-- go for “filtered” or “purified”) until you find one with less than ~30 ppm / ~75 µS/cm dissolved solids. My grocery store sells water in big machines out front that reads 15 µS/cm, and it costs $2.50/5 gallons!
Honestly, I cheat and get lazy sometimes with mine and water it with tap. You saw yourself how long it takes for the solids to build up, and watering it with RO dissolves some of those over time. It’s not like tap will kill it right away, but these guys sure are picky! :)
Oooooh I have some ideas! Some of these are paid/premium (but NOT micro transactions) and some have mild ads. But I share the distaste for data-mining, money grubbing, brain-melting-ad-ridden games, so I’m certain they are on the least intrusive end of the spectrum.
I really love biology (I’m a biologist…) so these are both pet games and usually breeding/evolution games!
Using Jesus as a reference is unfortunate, yeah, but any other world calendars have to pick a nearly equally arbitrary way to contextualize the start and end year.
Take your pick: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Year_in_various_calendars
I personally use “2024 CE” for “common era”, with BCE referring to “before common era”. This allows us to communicate relatively clearly with other people who use the Gregorian calendar without explicitly endorsing the birth of Jesus as the important event defining the switch-over between CE and BCE… A bit of a cop out, but
Anyway have fun, there are lots of options
Edit: also the one you’re referring to in your post is the Holocene Calendar
I don’t think you’re wrong, but I think this might be over simplifying.
For one thing, in the USA, our building codes and standard methods for making apartments makes it very difficult and space inefficient to make apartments with enough bedrooms for families. Affording a SFH is only so desirable because there aren’t apartments big enough for families to grow into, and while moving to a rural area might allow for enough living space, now the family has to figure out how to have a job that supports them.
For another, we don’t make as many apartment-like buildings you can own part of. This deincentivizes staying in apartments, because with the way our real estate economy is structured, owning any real property is one of the best ways to secure a spot in the middle class.
Another aspect-- a lot of desirable places to live have populations that literally and directly state they don’t want to build more dense housing, they don’t want people who can’t afford the sfhs to live there. It’s not just about pricing people out of homeownership, it’s literally trying to gatekeep access to specific towns by class. Plenty of people would gladly accept living there even without SFHs, so the housing shortage is not caused by the people who want houses, and is instead caused by the people who don’t want apartments next to their houses.
It’s also like, if they made $29,000/year before plus $12,000 during the study, they’re still making less than someone with a full time job making $20/hour.
$20/hour felt AMAZING as a promotion to a broke-ass food service 20-something, and is a hell of a lot better than $29,000/year-- but having been in that pay-range before, 100% of that increase is going towards stability and comfort stuff.
Imagine-- you can afford more than just scraping by on rent! Wow, what if I can buy a video game?! You mean I can actually say yes when my friend invites me out for a drink this month??? I CAN BUY THE NICE CHICKEN NUGGETS???
Like, damn, of course they aren’t like, “starting an entrepreneurial endeavor”, they’re still broke as hell. The might work a little less, but maybe that’s because they’re like, taking time off when they’re sick, where before they would power through to afford rent? Or maybe they will feel more like they can call off work to help for family or friend emergencies? Like it’s pretty obvious that this UBI amount still falls into the category of bringing people out of poverty stress into “normal human decision making” mode, not like into “has the space to be able to dream about visionary possibilities” mode
I’m trans
I don’t support murder
Not of 80 year old Trump supporters, not of anyone
Are you an artist? I don’t know many artists with your perspective, but I don’t want to say artists never have this perspective.
As someone with higher education in studio arts, I can’t speak for all artists. But I can say, in my experience, the cognitive skills that allow an artist to break a subject down into base, renderable components aren’t particularly burdened by familiarity. Like, I don’t think it’s harder to realistically paint my face, or my spouse’s face, etc. than it is to paint anyone else’s face. Part of that is just that it’s generally hard to render faces realistically without adding stylistic choices or bridging over the tricky parts, whether the face is familiar or not. Again, just my experience.
I also don’t think realism or “visually accuracy” is necessary for a good self portrait. Sometimes the self portrait is an introspective exercise. Sometimes a self portrait is not representative of our physical self at all, or is fully abstract.
This self portrait is lovely, especially since I feel like (read: don’t know for sure) based on the title that he tried to capture his expressive emotions during a vulnerable moment. It’s raw.
The whole point is that we still don’t know what Lucy actually looked like, and therefore whenever we depict her we are “filling in the blanks” with our own interpretations. In the past, we didn’t know whether she was likely to be covered in hair or not, but almost every depiction showed her covered.
The author of the article, who has a PhD and is the chair of a college’s interdisciplinary humanities department, makes the point that when we exclusively depicted her covered in hair when we didn’t know whether or not she was covered in hair, we were projecting our standards of modesty onto her. We also idealized her as a mother, as exemplifed by her depiction with protective and warm body language toward fictional children and male partners. These are aspects that various artists, researchers, and journalists projected onto a skeleton, not truths about Lucy as an individual.
When it was revealed that Lucy, in fact, was likely not covered in hair, and instead likely walked around naked and uncovered, we did not immediately revise these depictions. They disrupt the previously held projections and interfere with the narrative of Lucy as a “perfect mother” by modern standards-- not because she can’t be both naked and a good mother in an absolute sense, but because these are disparate and conflicting signifiers in our modern society. In essence, it’s harder to solidifiy her illustration as “the mother of all humans” to an audience of modern Westerners if she can’t be depicted with “chastity and modesty”, because we strongly associate those characteristics with good motherhood.
It is, therefore, a media analysis of the depictions of Lucy, it’s not about Lucy herself. It’s about how we project onto Lucy, and what that says about the people doing the projecting.
Of course, humans societies that are alive today are also valuable examples in the process of self reflection. But ignoring the observations made by the author and other researchers is like saying we don’t need to analyze media (books, movies, TV shows) that depict society, because real society is right there!
The literature on PTFEs illustrates that it is, at best, uncertain whether there are health harms relating to contact and ingestion. Most of the studies struggle with confounds, controls, and sample sizes because almost literally everyone has been exposed to PTFEs. Toxicity researchers would not definitively agree that it is “completely harmless”.
The other commenter is right, also, that PFOA and GenX (the chemical, not the generation) are more evidently harmful and both involved in, and released from, the creation of PTFE.
Just throwing this out here in case someone is like “wait, IS Teflon fine???”
Why would we even want that, though? Harris is a cop, and her presidency would likely be just as impotent and mediocre as Biden’s. Like Biden, she’s going to bend to corporate interests, please no one in the interest of pleasing everyone, not make or advocate for any major protective reforms to the democratic process (ranked choice voting, etc.), and try to take the high road against directly calling out fascism. When will the DNC get it through their heads that their departmental politics and seniority process shouldn’t decide the president-- the people should?
Also, I find it immoral of them to play a horrible game of “switcheroo” with Harris and Biden. It feels like what you’re saying is, they know she’s unpopular and would lose an election, but if we switch her in for Biden through this presidency then everyone will see how great she is! We don’t need an election, we just need the great and powerful DNC to plan our presidents for us!!!
To clarify in case it isn’t obvious, I am a trans, disabled leftist. But this is EXACTLY why Trump is so popular and why everyone hates the DNC.
Is this household or individual income? Either way, whack
Idk I think the most memorable thing he did was bring a cow up to his college bell tower as a prank
Cows can’t walk down stairs so they had to butcher it in the tower
He was expelled for it