*index fund

Has anyone ever opened one of those books? For all we know, they could just be a bunch of blank pages on the inside

I will join the chorus asking for examples of what you are talking about. Any actually misogynistic content I see is typically massively downvoted.

“Everyone is dumb but me” libertarian-brained lather.

Yes, yes, very, ummmm, libertarian of them…

Anyway, see also: the Lizardman Constant

Source: I read it once on the internet.

1% reply rate on cold outreach is totally normal. You are basically spamming people. Do you reply to spam?

3 problems:

1. I dont see you say anywhere that you have a portfolio. You need a portfolio to show off to potential employers what you can actually do in these fields.
2. You say you quit in the boring middle part. Well… don’t. People who go to school for graphic design go to school for years - even if the schooling isnt perfect, it is better than kind of aimlessly tooling around for a few weeks.
3. You don’t have any connections. Like you noticed, your cold outreach response rate is abysmal. Of course it is. If a random stranger walked up to you on the street and asked if you want to be friends, you would probably be quite hesitant. But if you meet through a mutual friend, at a party, or in a hobby club, you will be much more interested in meeting them. 80% of jobs are never posted on online job boards, because they are filled via informal social connections.

In left-leaning spaces with strong feminist influences like Lemmy, it is 100% a legitimate question. For the past several decades in these online spaces (and longer in certain real-life spaces), the constant refrain has been that heterosexual male sexuality is bad.

It is very reasonable for a chronically online heterosexual male lemming with little real world experience of sex and the culture of sex to feel like their sexuality is bad, and completely normal feelings and impulses they have are bad.

For example, imagine the community reaction if this post were hetero.

Better raquet tech allows players to hit harder. When you hit harder, the ball goes faster. The faster the ball goes, the further away from the net you need to be to hit it back.

If you try to play close to the net, your opponent will slam the ball to your left or right faster than you can run. So you will lose, and your playing style will be eliminated from top end tennis. If you try to draw your opponent close to the net with a soft shot, they will take the opportinity to line up on a slow target, and then power it to the part of the court where you are not, while you have even less time to react. So you will lose, and your playing style will be eliminated from top end tennis.

The technology drives the playing style

This is also largely due to technology. Less about sport-specific technology, and more about technology in general.

The biggest reason why top-level standards in sport have risen over the past few decades in disciplines as diverse as distance running to powerlifting to ski jumping has less to do with improved training for top end athletes, and more to do with the increased standard of living for the world’s population. You can’t have Kenyans dominating every marathon if they are all starving in famines with no knowledge of the outside world. You can’t become a world champion swimmer if there are no swimming pools. And you can’t get on the figure skating national team if you have to help with farm chores every morning instead of going to the ice rink to practice. Essentially, we have opened the door to those people who are simply preternaturally good at their sport to become top-end athletes. Someone is simply a genetic freak who was designed to dominate at curling, but they might be living in a rural villiage in Pakistan. Drop an ice rink (that gives out free lunches and plays curling highlight reels on the jumbotron) in that villiage, and Muhammad will soon be the talk of every bar in Canada.

As an average person, advances in sports science are more likely to get you lost in the sauce than push your performance to elite levels. Often, a 20 page training pamphlet from the 1950s is the best training advice someone can get, because it tells them the fundamentals of improving at their sport, rather than getting lost in the minutiae.

The big scientific improvements that have raised the standards in sports are things like:

• Improvements in sport-specific equipment, like tennis raquets.
• Anabolic steroids.
• The psycho-social effect of a new standard being set (see: the 4 minute mile).
• The invenion of new, superior techniques for performing the sport (see: the Fosbury Flop in the high jump)
• The invention of high-intensity, sport specific training modalities (eg, futsal for soccer).
• The invention of convenient salty sugar water for long, hot, hard training sessions.
• Acceptance of reasonable amounts, of strength training as a base-building performance enhancer.
• Acceptance of reasonable amounts, of steady state cardio as a base-building performance enhancer.

Everything else was either already known to the athletes of decades past, or else is a marginal performance boost that elite athletes are experimenting with to get an edge on their opponents. Things like supplement stacks, nutrient timing, planning mesocycles, or performance hypnosis techniques are, at best, marginal improvements. They are popular among elite athletes because elite athletes are already maxing out at the fundamentals of their sport and are looking for any edge they can get. And they are popular and talked about among the lay population because it is easier and more interesting than focusing on the fundamentals. Eg, the 37 year old tennis player who wants to improve their game who starts periodizing their tennis training and tracking their macros, rather than simply accepting that they need to make more time in their schedule and widen their social circle so they can play more tennis with people who are just at or above their current skil level.

Also, the hero getting injured, then goes to the hospital, recovers, and goes right back to his super cool action hero activities. Instead, they would at have a permanent limp or funky shoulder for the rest of their lives at the very least.

MWOP

Also ghosts. As far as we know ghosts are not real. Yet there’s an entire genre of movies about ghosts with varying rules.

Yeah, and what’s up with all the flying people with super strength, and talking animals too? So dumb

Everyone in this comic is telling the truth. After all, is not the purpose of art a collaboration between the artist and the viewer?

I mean, as a general rule, you learn better in low pressure, reactive scenarios. High pressure scenarios where you must make descisions tend to be bad for learning intuitive skills. I wouldnt be surprised if mostly following is the best way to improve at dancing.

Anyway, to your point - as a guy, my desire to engage with partner dancing of any sort as a hobby would be driven by a desire to have fun and meet hot girls to sleep with. Competitive dancing might be kind of fun to watch sometime, but I simply don’t have any interest in competing myself. If I can dance well enough to have a good time and flirt with hot girls, my goal is accomplished and I’m not going to put huge amounts of effort into improving. I have rocks to climb and a motorcycle to fix instead.

As a guy - I feel like it would be presumptuous to offer to help someone simply because they gave me a compliment. They would need to express a desire to be helped for me to do that.

Hot take: separate beds are the way to go. You can push them together for more space if you want. But most of the time they are apart to facilitate sleeping.

And I like cuddling. I like falling asleep with someone in my arms. But I do not like 30 minutes later when my arm is asleep and I want to roll over, and then they are taking up 3/4 of the bed the whole night and are stealing the blankets. So: separate beds.

-1

This is an important topic, and I appreciate the work you did compiling this list and starting the conversation.

But oh my fucking god, your emoji use makes me want to punch you

ummmm… financially?

Idk, I retired at 31