Maybe I could sit here and debate the pros and cons, supposed crap about my liberties, is the age bracket the right way to go about it. But this is a good thing, there is nothing good about cigarettes no matter which way you argue it, or compare it to anything else.
Should we completely stop smoking? Yes. There is absolutely nothing about it that is good for us or anyone near those smoking.
Its not just how you life your life to the state, its for your own health and those around you. Your life will be marginally better without cigarettes.
100% agree. What else follows from this line of thinking and will people have the power and ability to protect those activities when the next one comes. Yes the slippery slope is real. Look at the encroachment of surveillance capitalism. Sociopaths take an inch they take a mile and tell you its for your own good
It's a term simply used to describe installing software not through the official channels.
You'd be lying if you said it was normal practice sideloading applications to your mobile phone. The majority of people are used to installing apps through their respective platform stores. Which is why there is a term to name that practice outside of installing apps through the Google play store, for example.
We don't use that term on PC because it is the normal practice and our norms have evolved around that. Over time if sideloading becomes normal practice, we will stop calling it that and start calling it installing or downloading like we do normally.
There is no "official channels" on systems that allow installing software packages. Android for example, has no "official" channel because all stores just download and install APKs, like the Play Store, and FDroid. The same way you can go to a Github page and download an APK through your browser and install it. The only "official channel" I would say is the system APK installer.
But to do that on many Android devices you need to specifically enable that in the settings. You have enable installing what Android calls "unknown" apps.
I don't really care about the technicalities of it. The point still stands that sideloading is a term referring to installing software outside of the vendors preferred method.
It doesn't mean its bad, its just the term used on devices like mobile phone where the installing of software has been traditionally more locked down to specific shopfronts.
The term being born more so out of Apple than Android to begin with.
The article didn't really answer the question of whether the right time of day helps you feel like exercising. Just that you might get more out of the exercise you choose to do.
As someone who is more of a night owl, I just don't seem to be able to put out the same effort in the early morning than I can in the evening, whether it be in the gym or on the bike. I'm much more tired and I just can't seem to push as hard as I can in the evenings.
When exercising frequently it can still be really difficult to exercise and I try help that by tuning down the intensity of the workout if I am really feeling off, that way I'm not adding insult to injury by having a touch workout on a day I'm not feeling it.
Your hormones shift later at night, so your nervous system is in a relaxed state. Your improved breathing and heart rate let you push harder.
I don't think it has to do with being a "night owl" as much as noticing enough to take advantage of something that happens to everyone. A lot of people aren't curious enough to change things up and that's probably who this article is aimed at.
I don't think that's necessarily why, as I know people who feel they can push harder in the mornings compared to later in the evening. Those people I know have always been early risers and hit the pillow early.
I stopped having that issue when I was subscribed to the pages I enjoyed watching and watched that content. Without that its just going to throw you random popular content.
Sometimes powerful people just do dumb shit, because they're still a human being like all of us.
It's easy to look at Musk and say, he's done some dumb shit when his dumb shit makes news. But very few of us have the same type of scrutiny that powerful people have. He's done dumb shit, but he's done a lot of pretty good shit across his lifetime.
Regular people do dumb shit and embarrass themselves at a barbecue. Powerful people do dumb shit and move markets, wreck products, distort public discourse, and still get a choir singing about their ‘pretty good shit across his lifetime.’ At some point it stops being nuance and starts being unpaid PR.
All due respect I don't really care much about Musk, but my point is that a powerful person can have a done a good thing and a dumb thing over the course of their career. The dumb thing doesn't nullify the fact they did a good thing.
As the article presents, Napoleon is considered one of the great military commanders in history. But he also did some pretty dumb shit leading the many deaths.
Nullification doesn't work when you're mixing up competence with character. Good versus evil is one axis. Smart versus dumb is another.
Someone can be smart and still be rotten. Someone can make money and still be a fraud morally.
But here, the myth of him as some singular genius falls apart the moment you look at how much of his reputation is built on other people’s work, lucky timing, and high-stakes gambling dressed up as vision.
The dumb stuff he does, but mostly the dumb stuff he says, does a good job of nullifying the 'smart' stuff.
So you’re romanticising a rich exploitative gambler who wouldn’t hesitate to sneer at 'ordinary' people, like us, as sheep.
people's character also changes over time, and everyone's work is built on other people's (of course usually people try to make sure those people are credited correctly)
he is more of an extremely driven and singularly lucky workaholic asshole with sufficient capacity to cram a lot of technical details (or drugs) into his head, which impressed and motivated technical staff (and investors), who then morphed into this Nazi creep as he got more populare he simply began to ignore negative feedback more and more (and obviously got addicted to the far-right echochamber)
>The dumb thing doesn't nullify the fact they did a good thing.
I mean, surely it depends on the exact nature of the two things. Also, contrasting good with dumb strikes me as odd. Something can be good and dumb, or bad and smart.
I mean, I've never financed or platformed violent far-right politicians, nor caused thousands to die by callously "taking a chainsaw" to government institutions. But yeah, other than that, I guess we're pretty similar.
Oh yeah, I also don't run a breeding cult. Or beg notorious sex criminals to party on their private island.
Mismanaging your household finances can ruin your livelihood and you might end up on the street.
Mismanaging a company which you didn’t build won’t ruin your livelihood. It might of the employees. It may weight heavy on your conscience but we’ve heard enough of those “I take full responsibility” phrases that we know how heavy is that.
Maybe I could sit here and debate the pros and cons, supposed crap about my liberties, is the age bracket the right way to go about it. But this is a good thing, there is nothing good about cigarettes no matter which way you argue it, or compare it to anything else.
reply