One of the anarchists- I believe it was Bakunin- advocated for terrorism because he felt if violence fell indiscriminately, it would eventually de-legitimize the state. If there is a high likelihood that you are going to get blown up by some random terrorist bomb whether you obey the state or not- you stop caring so much about the state.
I don't like Bakunin's strategy, but it does have some logic to it. Leftists have been contradicting this logic. They either apply terrorism or take advantage of something that might as well be terrorism, and then insist we ban guns. But the terrorism erodes at the state- the very state one would have to use to ban guns.
So the people end up thinking- man, I need a gun, because this stupid state can't protect me.
And I can tell you, gunshots in your neighborhood don't make you think gun ban. They make you think you need camera's outside, perhaps a couple of dogs, and most certainly some sort of weaponry.
This is a small part of a larger whole- the de-legitimization of the modern state. But I think this logical mistake of using terror in an opposite manner to what Bakunin suggested indicates very clearly why the modern state will probably be eroded away. Because, at this point, the left's only logical solution is to rehabilitate the government's image. And I suspect it wouldn't be that hard to do with Trump as president because Trump isn't particularly ideological. But throwing out all the nonsense they've got up to and getting down to proper governance seems unlikely for people who think things like trans-whatever-ism is progress.
Additionally, I find their problem almost contradictory. When they fight, they forget they are establishment and need, first and foremost, to keep some credibility for these very levers of powers they want to keep playing with. Bakunin had it easier- he just wanted to burn it all down.
When they try to govern, however, they have the full weight of all the idiotic things that have been done. Empire, the destruction of health-care, 37 genders, the fascism in the workplace that goes by the name of HR...
Both contribute to less and less trust, and more of a sense of a need to do things ourselves.
Monday, November 12, 2018
Tuesday, November 6, 2018
Fat For Breakfast
Association between skipping breakfast in parents and children and childhood overweight/obesity among children: a nationwide 10.5-year prospective study in Japan
I learned of this study from episode 494 of Iron Radio.
So, basically, what I want to say is, they've got the association flipped. People do not get fat because they don't eat breakfast. They tend to stop eating breakfast as they get fat. Why?
Sleep is a period of fasting. If you have an excessive number of calories stored, your body will liberate some of that fat and burn it for fuel. You will awake less hungry than your skinny little next door neighbor. The neighbor has fat stores too, because the body always wants some fat stores, the difference is in degree. Thus, the neighbor is more strongly urged, via hunger and cortisol, to go find food, while you may not find yourself hungry for a while.
This is a piece of the puzzle I learned back in my fat loss days- don't eat when you are not hungry. A lot of these breakfast studies, as well as some of the circadian rhythm studies tend to encourage people to draw conclusions, which basically come down to getting people to eat breakfast, eat most calories earlier in the day, etc...
No. Lose the weight first, then do those things.
Depending on what you eat, if you eat breakfast, you'll probably be hungry again more quickly. If you wait until you genuinely feel hunger, and then eat something (preferably low-carb) you've burned fat the whole time you haven't eaten, you've shortened the window in which you will be eating, and you've reduced the likelihood that you will increase hunger.
It isn't just calories, or carbs that you need to worry about, but the interplay of flavor profile and calorie/nutrition payload. The reason processed food is so fattening is that it is a consistent flavor and a consistent payload. Although it is a simplification, generally speaking- more flavor equals more hunger.
But, again, this changes. As you become successful, you become hungry in the morning because you no longer have as many fat stores. If you are successful you'll probably catch yourself trying not to eat- trying to keep the habit that made you successful. It is important to be aware of the need to change- and this is were I think these breakfast stories are useful- yes, the healthier, thinner people eat breakfast- they have to. It is very likely that you will have to too, once you are thin, because you won't have all those extra calories around your waist.
I learned of this study from episode 494 of Iron Radio.
So, basically, what I want to say is, they've got the association flipped. People do not get fat because they don't eat breakfast. They tend to stop eating breakfast as they get fat. Why?
Sleep is a period of fasting. If you have an excessive number of calories stored, your body will liberate some of that fat and burn it for fuel. You will awake less hungry than your skinny little next door neighbor. The neighbor has fat stores too, because the body always wants some fat stores, the difference is in degree. Thus, the neighbor is more strongly urged, via hunger and cortisol, to go find food, while you may not find yourself hungry for a while.
This is a piece of the puzzle I learned back in my fat loss days- don't eat when you are not hungry. A lot of these breakfast studies, as well as some of the circadian rhythm studies tend to encourage people to draw conclusions, which basically come down to getting people to eat breakfast, eat most calories earlier in the day, etc...
No. Lose the weight first, then do those things.
Depending on what you eat, if you eat breakfast, you'll probably be hungry again more quickly. If you wait until you genuinely feel hunger, and then eat something (preferably low-carb) you've burned fat the whole time you haven't eaten, you've shortened the window in which you will be eating, and you've reduced the likelihood that you will increase hunger.
It isn't just calories, or carbs that you need to worry about, but the interplay of flavor profile and calorie/nutrition payload. The reason processed food is so fattening is that it is a consistent flavor and a consistent payload. Although it is a simplification, generally speaking- more flavor equals more hunger.
But, again, this changes. As you become successful, you become hungry in the morning because you no longer have as many fat stores. If you are successful you'll probably catch yourself trying not to eat- trying to keep the habit that made you successful. It is important to be aware of the need to change- and this is were I think these breakfast stories are useful- yes, the healthier, thinner people eat breakfast- they have to. It is very likely that you will have to too, once you are thin, because you won't have all those extra calories around your waist.
Friday, November 2, 2018
Modern Evangelism and Communism
A standard tactic among the Communists- especially in China- was to lie publicly. The intent was simple- if you assented to the lie the leadership knew you were controllable.
Now, it ultimately doesn't work out so well, but it is an ever present temptation to people in positions of power.
Do you believe in Climate Change?
From fundamental standpoint, this is stupid, like asking someone if they believe in gravity. Why is there such, heh, gravity given- why is it so important that you personally believe in climate change?
Because it has nothing to do with science. Instead it has to do with the distribution of resources. They give unto those who demonstrate they are controllable. They do not spend this money on real research- they don't even give significant thought to the sort of infrastructure necessary to take the Earth's temperature. And for decades now, the one demonstration that they realize the core hypothesis has failed- i.e. that CO2 raises temperature, is the very political change of terms, from global warming to climate change, so they can be more vague.
They also do silly things, like claiming hurricanes in environments where hurricanes are a normal, seasonal event is climate change, but a season or several seasons without hurricanes is not climate change.
Now, we must take what may seem to be an abrupt turn, except it is not really so abrupt as one might think, because everybody responsible for this stuff are bureaucrats- taught by bureaucrats, with bureaucrat morals and mindset:
Modern non-denominational or ecumenical evangelism follows the same pattern. Belief seems to be the all encompassing issue. They seek your assent. And someone, somewhere, is seeking to see if you are controllable. Probably not everybody. I remember well this poor guy who asked me if I believe in Jesus while he was working behind the counter at a liquor store. I said yes, and thought- some "Christian" leader has dealt horribly with this man. He needed a job. What's more, he needed the kind of leadership that helped him build a life- get married, and all the things that St. Paul wrote about to the elders of the church, but that our elders ignore, because resources placed in the hands of a young couple so that they have the means of production for starting a family means fewer resources for consumption.
So, the individual evangelist is often being counseled to harm himself. I've been to that store many times since, and he's not there. No doubt he was fired soon after I met him.
He, personally, sacrificed much, and was likely quite sincere. And whoever his elders were likely have much to answer for.
And the name of Jesus is in this pattern of the lie, which is a terrible thing indeed.
This doesn't stop at the point of evangelism, especially among the newer protestant sects (although this behavior can happen anywhere). Every Sunday, every sermon, any sort of meeting- there can and often will be either a lie or something as trite as 'climate change' that one must assent to. Or at least appear to, so that your leaders can see you are still controllable. Don't mistake any of this for discourse- that they might actually welcome discussion. Much like the carbon footprint people don't want to talk to anyone who has read any of the science, your 'Christian' leaders don't want you do delve into much beyond entertainment. If you sit down and read a council or seven, you will seem dangerously subversive to them.
The other aspect of this that is similar to Communism- the globalism.
Now, it ultimately doesn't work out so well, but it is an ever present temptation to people in positions of power.
Do you believe in Climate Change?
From fundamental standpoint, this is stupid, like asking someone if they believe in gravity. Why is there such, heh, gravity given- why is it so important that you personally believe in climate change?
Because it has nothing to do with science. Instead it has to do with the distribution of resources. They give unto those who demonstrate they are controllable. They do not spend this money on real research- they don't even give significant thought to the sort of infrastructure necessary to take the Earth's temperature. And for decades now, the one demonstration that they realize the core hypothesis has failed- i.e. that CO2 raises temperature, is the very political change of terms, from global warming to climate change, so they can be more vague.
They also do silly things, like claiming hurricanes in environments where hurricanes are a normal, seasonal event is climate change, but a season or several seasons without hurricanes is not climate change.
Now, we must take what may seem to be an abrupt turn, except it is not really so abrupt as one might think, because everybody responsible for this stuff are bureaucrats- taught by bureaucrats, with bureaucrat morals and mindset:
Modern non-denominational or ecumenical evangelism follows the same pattern. Belief seems to be the all encompassing issue. They seek your assent. And someone, somewhere, is seeking to see if you are controllable. Probably not everybody. I remember well this poor guy who asked me if I believe in Jesus while he was working behind the counter at a liquor store. I said yes, and thought- some "Christian" leader has dealt horribly with this man. He needed a job. What's more, he needed the kind of leadership that helped him build a life- get married, and all the things that St. Paul wrote about to the elders of the church, but that our elders ignore, because resources placed in the hands of a young couple so that they have the means of production for starting a family means fewer resources for consumption.
So, the individual evangelist is often being counseled to harm himself. I've been to that store many times since, and he's not there. No doubt he was fired soon after I met him.
He, personally, sacrificed much, and was likely quite sincere. And whoever his elders were likely have much to answer for.
And the name of Jesus is in this pattern of the lie, which is a terrible thing indeed.
This doesn't stop at the point of evangelism, especially among the newer protestant sects (although this behavior can happen anywhere). Every Sunday, every sermon, any sort of meeting- there can and often will be either a lie or something as trite as 'climate change' that one must assent to. Or at least appear to, so that your leaders can see you are still controllable. Don't mistake any of this for discourse- that they might actually welcome discussion. Much like the carbon footprint people don't want to talk to anyone who has read any of the science, your 'Christian' leaders don't want you do delve into much beyond entertainment. If you sit down and read a council or seven, you will seem dangerously subversive to them.
The other aspect of this that is similar to Communism- the globalism.
Wednesday, September 19, 2018
The Real Rookie
Recently Vox Day made some rather straight forward points about the trade war and the American economy. And somebody, just itching to prove he is smart, thinks he's found something wrong with Vox's statements.
He then points to this article, and quotes it:
I don't understand why anyone thinks this disproves Vox's statement. Tariffs lead to people substituting domestic purchases for some of these imported ones, and if a domestically produced piece of machinery ends up in a factory, it thereby qualifies as investment too. So, even if we grant the imports cancel out, by the same logic we've got a sort of double boost from a domestically produced product that gets purchased instead.
GDP will rise. It is strikingly simple.
But Vox makes a rookie mistake regarding GDP. A positive ‘balance of trade’ (more imports than exports) does NOT imply more GDP growth. It is true that the balance of trade is a component of GDP, but there are three other components, as shown by the GDP formula below:
GDP = C + I + G + (X − M)
He then points to this article, and quotes it:
Imported goods all end up as either C, I, or G because either consumers or the government are consuming them or the imported good is something like a big piece of machinery that ends up in a factory, thereby qualifying as investment (I). Thus, exactly offsetting the negative effect of a new import through the M term is a positive addition to one of C, I, or G.
I don't understand why anyone thinks this disproves Vox's statement. Tariffs lead to people substituting domestic purchases for some of these imported ones, and if a domestically produced piece of machinery ends up in a factory, it thereby qualifies as investment too. So, even if we grant the imports cancel out, by the same logic we've got a sort of double boost from a domestically produced product that gets purchased instead.
GDP will rise. It is strikingly simple.
Tuesday, September 11, 2018
Whether President Or Pauper
There is a basic problem in America. Rights were generally conceived has having come from God, given to man, and therefore the government should not abrogate rights.
Corporations shouldn't abrogate our rights either.
Nor should they pretend to have our rights in a manner not consistent with they way we, individually, have our rights. That is, the 'press' does not have freedom of speech or the freedom to access the 'printing press' any more than the average citizen does.
And, additionally, these corporations must have some responsibility, to the individuals that have to deal with them.
IF the President is maligned,
If someone is banned on Twitter,
If Amazon suddenly stops publishing books,
And the allegations are always some violation of some rule- allegations that don't survive simple research, much less a trial. But letting it even get to a trail, in many ways, hobbles the individual when compared to the corporation. The corporations have plenty of lawyers. The people struggle to pay for such things.
Many of these corporations took advantage of the low interest rate environment and ensuing conditions to build out to the point where they are supposed to be platforms- platforms for distribution that function as the printing press once did.
End user license agreements should be illegal. Just sell the product.
Terms of Service- They should not be so vague as to allow political banning under the guise of a rule violation. Stick to what's legal, and things very specific to the running of the site.
Constant lies from the mainstream meda- Root out the CIA agents. Wikileaks was a gold mine, except you don't see many mainstream stories coming from that data dump do you? This is because someone paid by an agency has to continue to treat things marked as top secret as top secret, even after they are released to the public.
Additionally, since they are corporations and using these stories to make money, they should have a higher standard than the lone individual with limited resources trying to get what he thinks may be true out there. Given the nature of their business, fear and chaos, makes them more profitable, because everyone tunes in when there is a crisis. The temptation to routinely create a sense of crisis is strong.
The basic concept- make contract contracts again, and not escapades in corporate over-lordship. When you read your cell phone contract, do you feel you and the company are on the same page? Probably not.
Corporations shouldn't abrogate our rights either.
Nor should they pretend to have our rights in a manner not consistent with they way we, individually, have our rights. That is, the 'press' does not have freedom of speech or the freedom to access the 'printing press' any more than the average citizen does.
And, additionally, these corporations must have some responsibility, to the individuals that have to deal with them.
IF the President is maligned,
If someone is banned on Twitter,
If Amazon suddenly stops publishing books,
And the allegations are always some violation of some rule- allegations that don't survive simple research, much less a trial. But letting it even get to a trail, in many ways, hobbles the individual when compared to the corporation. The corporations have plenty of lawyers. The people struggle to pay for such things.
Many of these corporations took advantage of the low interest rate environment and ensuing conditions to build out to the point where they are supposed to be platforms- platforms for distribution that function as the printing press once did.
End user license agreements should be illegal. Just sell the product.
Terms of Service- They should not be so vague as to allow political banning under the guise of a rule violation. Stick to what's legal, and things very specific to the running of the site.
Constant lies from the mainstream meda- Root out the CIA agents. Wikileaks was a gold mine, except you don't see many mainstream stories coming from that data dump do you? This is because someone paid by an agency has to continue to treat things marked as top secret as top secret, even after they are released to the public.
Additionally, since they are corporations and using these stories to make money, they should have a higher standard than the lone individual with limited resources trying to get what he thinks may be true out there. Given the nature of their business, fear and chaos, makes them more profitable, because everyone tunes in when there is a crisis. The temptation to routinely create a sense of crisis is strong.
The basic concept- make contract contracts again, and not escapades in corporate over-lordship. When you read your cell phone contract, do you feel you and the company are on the same page? Probably not.
Friday, September 7, 2018
A Potential Future For Machine Assisted Work Outs
This summer I've been trying Power Factor Training (Pete Sisco and John Little). The basic idea is to use heavy weights at the point in an exercise where you are the strongest to overload all the muscle fibers. This is a signal to grow- and, at least in the case of my chest, this seems to be true.
One thing I have noticed, however, is that gyms are not optimized for this sort of thing. The leg press I use isn't even bolted to the floor. It'll only take eighteen plates. There's a little room behind where I put my feet- I threw some more weight on there, but I started noticing the back rest would flex. So I quickly found the limits of the machine. Additionally, with various racks, you get some ability to choose the height, but often it isn't optimal.
And some of the machines I have tried this with- there are sweets spots- more specifically weights- where it seems to work very well. But then, as you try to go up in weight, the stress seems to move away from the muscles you were targeting. There's this old high pull Hammer Strength back machine that seemed to be just nailing my upper back- in straight line from one shoulder to the other- all of these various back muscles really being effected. Perhaps they just adapted, but as the weight got heavier, it seems less effective.
So, there are a few areas where we could improve things. First we help this mind muscle connection along, and get some real-time feedback as to what muscles are actually being effected (and which joints)- preferably, in order to fix potential problems. Currently, due to the nature of heavy weights in a gym, at least some of your attention is going to go away from which muscles are being effected, and towards 'oh shit, if this falls on me, I am going to die.' I would prefer to reduce the possibility of death to zero, although I am aware that such fear may in fact help us achieve our goals.
Secondly, connected intimately with the first, would be the ability to have a greater degree of control over range of motion. In my imagination, I think of two handles instead of a bar- handles which can essentially be placed anywhere- but 'anywhere' would be figured out based on the feedback from the muscles.
Third there's weight and your response to it. Classic problem with regular weights- one side is stronger, so you unconsciously use that side more, and end up making the imbalance worse over time. Immediate feedback and correction would avoid all that. Weight increments can also be smaller and more fluid- and if people do want to use a longer range of motion, it could be changed with regard to where you are in the range of motion. And changed on the fly, based on the level of power you are putting out as you lift.
The other big deal about this sort of training is that the recovery period is longer, and the flip side to that is less time in the gym. So I see this could be very popular in high powered business centers. Really busy guys who want a good physique. Only having to work out every twelve days or so is helpful for them.
But it could also be paired with something like Kaatsu, and provides something Kaatsu is missing. To see a growth response in bones and other tissue, heavy weight is necessary.
And of course, it could just be paired with fun hobbies, family, whatever. I remember Arthur DeVany saying something about going to the gym so that he would be ready for life instead of just going to the gym for the sake of the gym.
I imagine booths, or perhaps platforms. The handles extend in from the sides- and can be set at different heights. Dead lifts, bench press, overhead press- it's all just a matter of moving the handles in to the right place and then locking that in for that particular exercise. And various ways to keep your feet on the floor, depending on what you are trying to do. Lat pull downs with a lot more than your weight, for example. Feedback that might be needed immediately could be shown on whichever wall you are looking at- and a more detailed chronicle of the workout would be available after.
One thing I have noticed, however, is that gyms are not optimized for this sort of thing. The leg press I use isn't even bolted to the floor. It'll only take eighteen plates. There's a little room behind where I put my feet- I threw some more weight on there, but I started noticing the back rest would flex. So I quickly found the limits of the machine. Additionally, with various racks, you get some ability to choose the height, but often it isn't optimal.
And some of the machines I have tried this with- there are sweets spots- more specifically weights- where it seems to work very well. But then, as you try to go up in weight, the stress seems to move away from the muscles you were targeting. There's this old high pull Hammer Strength back machine that seemed to be just nailing my upper back- in straight line from one shoulder to the other- all of these various back muscles really being effected. Perhaps they just adapted, but as the weight got heavier, it seems less effective.
So, there are a few areas where we could improve things. First we help this mind muscle connection along, and get some real-time feedback as to what muscles are actually being effected (and which joints)- preferably, in order to fix potential problems. Currently, due to the nature of heavy weights in a gym, at least some of your attention is going to go away from which muscles are being effected, and towards 'oh shit, if this falls on me, I am going to die.' I would prefer to reduce the possibility of death to zero, although I am aware that such fear may in fact help us achieve our goals.
Secondly, connected intimately with the first, would be the ability to have a greater degree of control over range of motion. In my imagination, I think of two handles instead of a bar- handles which can essentially be placed anywhere- but 'anywhere' would be figured out based on the feedback from the muscles.
Third there's weight and your response to it. Classic problem with regular weights- one side is stronger, so you unconsciously use that side more, and end up making the imbalance worse over time. Immediate feedback and correction would avoid all that. Weight increments can also be smaller and more fluid- and if people do want to use a longer range of motion, it could be changed with regard to where you are in the range of motion. And changed on the fly, based on the level of power you are putting out as you lift.
The other big deal about this sort of training is that the recovery period is longer, and the flip side to that is less time in the gym. So I see this could be very popular in high powered business centers. Really busy guys who want a good physique. Only having to work out every twelve days or so is helpful for them.
But it could also be paired with something like Kaatsu, and provides something Kaatsu is missing. To see a growth response in bones and other tissue, heavy weight is necessary.
And of course, it could just be paired with fun hobbies, family, whatever. I remember Arthur DeVany saying something about going to the gym so that he would be ready for life instead of just going to the gym for the sake of the gym.
I imagine booths, or perhaps platforms. The handles extend in from the sides- and can be set at different heights. Dead lifts, bench press, overhead press- it's all just a matter of moving the handles in to the right place and then locking that in for that particular exercise. And various ways to keep your feet on the floor, depending on what you are trying to do. Lat pull downs with a lot more than your weight, for example. Feedback that might be needed immediately could be shown on whichever wall you are looking at- and a more detailed chronicle of the workout would be available after.
Wednesday, September 5, 2018
Patreon Killed The Internet Star
Once there were blogs, rss feeds, and people who got into huge arguments with each other.
And that was actually cool. More cool than now, because although folks still get into arguments with each other, there's less in the way of hashing out ideas in real time.
But now, a lot of folks who sort of need the free-for-all in order to educate themselves put up a Patreon page and try to develop an audience.
This is creating a huge drag on the creative and generative nature of the internet. The first drag is Patreon itself, because it decides it doesn't like a person, and shuts that person down. If you aren't shut down, you will tread carefully around those topics you think might upset the corporation. The second drag are the fans.
Having fans, I have to agree, would be great. Especially those thousand true fans internet gurus like to talk about. But think from a quality perspective- if you put up a Patreon page and get fans more or less immediately, well, it's probably due to your attractiveness and gender rather than the intellectual content you put out.
So the fans end up being another drag, especially if you are young, poor, and desperately want to keep the few bucks being sent your way coming.
I've seen a few folks that I followed in the health/diet space go to Patreon and ditch putting their full blogs out. Knowing how they wrote before, I know it isn't valuable enough to go to Patreon and pay to read. The quality insights often happened when people clashed or collaborated in the comments, so their blogs would have to be out in the open for that to happen.
But no. Now we are up for a whole lot of blandness. Just like television. I know people got to make a living, but we need a better way.
And that was actually cool. More cool than now, because although folks still get into arguments with each other, there's less in the way of hashing out ideas in real time.
But now, a lot of folks who sort of need the free-for-all in order to educate themselves put up a Patreon page and try to develop an audience.
This is creating a huge drag on the creative and generative nature of the internet. The first drag is Patreon itself, because it decides it doesn't like a person, and shuts that person down. If you aren't shut down, you will tread carefully around those topics you think might upset the corporation. The second drag are the fans.
Having fans, I have to agree, would be great. Especially those thousand true fans internet gurus like to talk about. But think from a quality perspective- if you put up a Patreon page and get fans more or less immediately, well, it's probably due to your attractiveness and gender rather than the intellectual content you put out.
So the fans end up being another drag, especially if you are young, poor, and desperately want to keep the few bucks being sent your way coming.
I've seen a few folks that I followed in the health/diet space go to Patreon and ditch putting their full blogs out. Knowing how they wrote before, I know it isn't valuable enough to go to Patreon and pay to read. The quality insights often happened when people clashed or collaborated in the comments, so their blogs would have to be out in the open for that to happen.
But no. Now we are up for a whole lot of blandness. Just like television. I know people got to make a living, but we need a better way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)