In any case, reading summaries (and occasionally following up by reading the full article) is more enjoyable and you learn more per unit of time. Most articles are mostly garbage. And even insightful and informative articles can often be compressed with minimal loss of conveyed insight and information. Typical example is some of Paul Graham essays (I say some because only some are worth reading).
> Bay area but the guess "small negative experience" - the idea of we are going around experiencing things and our life is a product of these experiences we consume and interpersonal politics - that's very california "the personal is the political" or that it's some how a consumption experience we "have" and who we "are" is coloured by these "experiences" etc (a fish in the water "what is water?")
you might be giving them another small negative experience. you've certainly given me one.
Not sure anyone responsible for how you feel, but I accept you feel that way, and that is regretable! Please forgive (if something I said affected negatively), and perhaps (well ... certainly) I could be better expressing. I just typed it out in haste
No I agree with that, but if it's "activists" I would expect them to claim credit otherwise it's all pointless. The same doesn't follow for Russian fuckery, IMO.
my reflex was to think that sounds like a lie israel would tell to get trump to go to war with iran, but i realize my reflexes aren't always right, so i looked it up and it turns out, yes, it's obviously an israeli lie and the only reason you'd believe it is because you really want to.
> As a pretty avid Star Trek watcher from childhood, I found most of the things there technologically plausible other than the conversational nature of the ship's computer.
what if your baseline was not so much training? i assume it works by improving recovery, if not someone will need to explain what it's supposed to do to make you stronger. so, given that, your anrcdote indicates you were overtraining before t, and t reduced your recover times so that you were no longer overtraining.
but if you're working well within your ability to recover and you add t and change nothing else, how do you get stronger?
> You're arguing against something that's been known for decades
oh, no i'm not. *you're* telling me what i'm saying because you don't have the attention span to read, but have unlimited patience for hearing yourself talk.
> i assume it works by improving recovery, if not someone will need to explain what it's supposed to do to make you stronger
>> RESULTS Among the men in the no-exercise groups, those given testosterone had greater increases than those given placebo in muscle size in their arms (mean [±SE] change in triceps area, 424±104 vs. -81±109 mm2; P<0.05) and legs (change in quadriceps area, 607±123 vs. -131±111 mm2; P<0.05) and greater increases in strength in the bench-press (9±4 vs. -1±1 kg, P<0.05) and squatting exercises (16±4 vs. 3±1 kg, P<0.05).
Do teenagers need to work out to get stronger than when they were little children, or are their hormones making them grow regardless? This should be self-explanatory to a good degree.
Realistically this is what the Constitutional convention mechanism is for, but for the last several decades the Democrats have viewed any suggestion of employing it as a Republican plot and have opted instead for not having a plan and trying to prop up a creaky status quo.
him eating apples when in season seemed to me at first like an anachronism, but actually, i do that. years ago i got fed up with apples that were whatever, so i decided to only have apples when i could find mcintosh (my favorite apple), and eat loads of them.
reply