how's your week going, Beehaw
Gaywallet (they/it) @ Gaywallet @beehaw.org Posts 214Comments 768Joined 3 yr. ago
Gaywallet (they/it) @ Gaywallet @beehaw.org
Posts
214
Comments
768
Joined
3 yr. ago
you cannot expect someone to sustain a relationship with you, and satisfy your desires/need if you’re not the only person they’re dating
You're welcome to feel however you wish about relationships, but please don't assume how it works for you is how it works for everyone else. Being able to satisfy desires and needs has nothing to do with how many people you are dating, it has to do with matching needs/desires and willingness to fulfill them. Even in relationships which are monogamous, there are many folks who do not get all their needs and desires satisfied by their singular partner and are left wanting or find ways to get those needs filled elsewhere.
I also do not expect to get all of my needs met by one person. No one can do this. In many cases where people believe that they are doing this, they are often in codependent relationships. Humans are meant to be social, with many people, and to get their needs met by many. For example, you may have a friend or partner who is deeply supportive, but does not challenge you and a friend or partner who challenges you but may at times feel a bit less supportive because they challenge you - I would argue both of these are needs at different times for different situations, but it is extremely unlikely that you will find someone who is flexible enough to do both at the right times. In the same way, there are many needs that humans have that we get through our social support networks, and relying on a single person is, in my mind at least, either folly or cognitive dissonance.
try monogamy
I did a single 10 year long monogamous relationship, I was poly before it and poly after. There were many great things about that relationship and I still love her a lot, but monogamy just isn't right for me.
Yes. I'm poly and have partners, including one that I live with, but she lives in the other room with her two partners. So it's a nesting partner and we are building things together (the space we both co-habitate) but it feels kinda surface level because while we do talk a lot about what happens in her life, there's also a lot that I don't hear about until it's already gone through her two partners. There's a distance between us which I'm fine with, but it's not what people often think when you say you have a nesting partner. Also, she really only has sex with those two girls and not with me. We do some kink stuff from time to time, but it's mostly a dead bedroom situation and our relationship is maybe more of a QPR nowadays than it used to be.
I don't want to be monogamous because I don't believe it's a particularly useful framework and I don't want to be hierarchical because I think that's inflexible to the realities of life and I don't like power imbalances, but I do want something more akin to an anchor partner. I want someone that I can see regularly, someone which I can build something together with. Someone who isn't just there if I come calling, but actively reaches out to me as well. It would be nice if they have a high sex drive like I do, but ultimately I'm poly and could theoretically find that somewhere else. A lot of my poly relationships today are people I see on average one or two times a month, outside of the girl I live with, and while I know all of them are committed, they spend the majority of their time with their other partners and when I feel like some of my needs are not getting met, it's hard not to be left feeling want.
Lately I've been feeling rather lonely. It's probably at least in part because I've had far too much time on my hands and not enough to do with that time, partly because I've been sick for the last few days and isolating and had to cancel some plans, and partly because I've been reading up a bit more about the aro experience. Oh and maybe a dash of watching my nesting partners relationship with her two wives slowly degrade in real time.
I know I'm loved. There's no shortage of people who find me interesting and compassionate and a lovely person, but very few of these people want more than a basic friendship and that feels rather isolating. It also doesn't help that I am often reminded of how little I truly understand other humans and how they approach relationships, attraction, etc. I want a deeper connection with someone, someone to build something together with, someone who I know will be there for me in the ways I'm there for others but as time goes on it just seems like more and more like a fantasy. I feel like I'm often just treated like a helpful tool that's well liked but never anyone's first choice.
On the other hand I know in ways I'm catastrophizing and things really aren't all that bad, I'm living a healthy life in a beautiful city surrounded by people I love and I have healthy relationships. I just wish I could be content with what I have because the search for something more is so exhausting at times.
The comments on this post have gone completely off the rails for the jokes and humor community, so I'm locking them.
You need more distance between yourself and the job. If you're burning out it means you're overly engaged. You can't burn out over something you don't care about, and it's really easy to burn out over something that means the world to you. The key is to find a healthy medium, which for neurodivergent folks can be difficult. Many of us find jobs because when we're on, we're really on, and we get a fuck ton more done because that's our natural state about things we enjoy. This will get you positions and money and raises but it will also consume your life your free time and your mental health.
For some ND folks I've found they do best when blocking time- time for really in the zone, hyper focused, work work. They get the sense of accomplishment from finishing things and enjoy that feeling, but need to realize that this can't be 8 hours every day. They need to block time to do other things. It could be literally stepping away from work, mentally checking out, blocking time to build connections or chat with coworkers, take a walk, or whatever. Adjust the blocks as necessary to ensure you're not drained after work or feel like you're burning out. For other ND folks it's enough to simply say that they need to spend less time working each day. It depends a bit on the field and the position but most people are lucky if they get one or two hours of productive in the zone work per day. Most of the time people are on autopilot or avoiding work by chatting by the water cooler or browsing their website of choice.
The next step is setting boundaries. Work has a start and stop time. Don't answer emails, phone calls, or do work outside of those boundaries. Unless you actually want to go to the work social events, you don't have to, and if you decide you need to do it in order to maintain your social status you should treat it like work and do less other work less during the next time you're at work. The more you allow work and life to comingle, the more you're opening the door to burnout because you're eliminating a space you have to retreat from work and recover.
Once those are under control, you can work on creating a healthy distance from the outcome of your work. What I mean by that is that you're there because someone is paying you. You may have an interest in what you're doing (and for many fields I deeply hope you do) but ultimately you're not in charge and you have to be okay with things happening not exactly to plan or the way you want them to. I will absolutely tell my boss the best way to do something if they ask, but I also have to be completely okay with it happening a different way and this requires a certain distance from my work. This same distance will help protect you when new management comes in and flips the entire script. You're not there to ensure the company puts out the best product, you're there to do things the way the person above you decides to do them. You can tell them they're doing it wrong, why it has always been done this way, and all of the reasons why the new way will be worse (and even remind them of such when it fails and they reverse course), but you should only be doing this while being completely willing to do it the new way they're proposing and that's a lot easier when you care a little less about the outcome. If you're unwilling to make that compromise, which is a perfectly valid way to want to work, you're going to burn out from time to time unless you get lucky and land a job at one of the very few places that gets you.
Jews are technically not the only Semites, but get the distinction through many decades of nationalistic propaganda to continue colonization and genocide.
That's not particularly generous to the millions of Jews which aren't a part of the Israeli state, not to mention the ones who aren't on team Netanyahu.
This is a reminder to be nice on our instance. Bickering over what definition of a word is most correct isn't particularly nice behavior. Give people the benefit of the doubt and ask questions if you're unsure what they're saying.
I don't think I've heard a single bit of positive news about the 5th circuit of appeals in at least a decade. This just drives home, in stunning detail, how utterly corrupt the justice system in the US has become.
A minor quibble about the original title:
The title of the article on arstechnica comes from the following quote, a few paragraphs in
Though few patients appeal coverage denials generally, when UnitedHealth members appeal denials based on nH Predict estimates—through internal appeals processes or through the federal Administrative Law Judge proceedings—over 90 percent of the denials are reversed, the lawsuit claims. This makes it obvious that the algorithm is wrongly denying coverage, it argues.
While they are correct that error rate applies to the number of misclassified cases (denied when it should not have been), it's only 90 percent of the denials which are appealed which are overturned. As stated in the quote above, few patients appeal their coverage denials, so it is possible the error rate is much lower as presumably the denials which are not appealed would not be overturned at the same rate.
You have a point that jobs should match the employees and generally speaking men are larger and more muscular than women, but you do know power tools exist, right? You also realize that output is not purely about physical capacity but also mental and emotional buy in? And that construction isn't purely about nailing boards in place but doing things in the right order at the right time with the right tools and planning appropriately?
I think you're making too many broad generalizations here and over stating the importance of gender on job performance. I think there are more salient points to be made about job seeking strategies between men and women and how that should affect hiring strategies and gender disparities in certain fields. Women tend to prefer more work flexibility (malleable hours, flexible vacation time, ability to make time to pick up kids from school etc) than men and women tend to be more risk averse than men and this is reflected in the jobs they choose and are recruited for.
Things are slowly getting back to normal. Not really sure what to report here, life is currently pretty slow.
lol if you get hired and he ever complains of anything you should tell him that you already informed him all of the relevant details he just wasn't reading between the lines 🙄
If you are curious on a proper source examining ideal protein intake, this link should give you plenty of reading.
Unfortunately there are a lot of incentives for various organizations and companies to put out literature in support of what makes them profit, not to mention many researchers who enter the field with a significant bias, conducting poorly controlled studies to provide evidence towards their biased opinion. Any summary articles on the internet, including ones from prestigious universities, should not be taken at face value when they do not cite their sources. Even when they do cite their sources, there's endless conflicting evidence out there because there are so many biased studies conducted by companies attempting to push their product (dairy industry is a good example of this), endless poorly controlled studies, endless studies based in science twenty years old and not accounting for more a more modern view of human health/biology and endless studies with other problems. A thorough review of the cited literature is often necessary to parse whether the source is tainted.
Often times stress is at the heart of many of these problems and self care can provide solutions. Simply believing that something will work (placebo effect) can be enough to solve many problems. In many cases these therapies are secretly outlets for various forms of therapy and we know well that improving mental health improves many symptoms. I think the article does a good job pointing out that there are many snake oil salesmen out there, peddling often stolen goods (non-western medicine has been around for ages and with enough jargon and basis in the actual traditional medicines, it's easy to mislead someone with no experience) at a demographic that is searching for answers when they are being dismissed and discounted by existing systems.
Ultimately its a question of balance - these medicines can be good, and in fact many of them are rooted in a scientific process of sorts (anecdotal evidence passed down among healers for hundreds or thousands of years, often including a good deal of experimentation). Traditional medicine should not be so easily discounted as less than western medicine, or unable to provide relief and results for many people. However, just as in western medicine, there are those who would take advantage of the system to proselytize their own beliefs or to make a quick buck off others. We need to be cautious, as with all medicine, and we need to listen to our own bodies. When western medicine fails to come up with a diagnosis or prognosis, traditional medicine may offer relief. The same is true for those who prefer traditional medicine. Traditional and western medicine should both be seen as tools - a hammer won't solve every problem and nor will a screw driver, and we need to be able to recognize when treatments are working or not, and when to seek knowledge elsewhere and when to realize that we may be dealing with a problem which needs a different tool.
It's almost impossible to consume unhealthy amounts of protein - you have to be supplementing protein pretty excessively or eating exclusively meat to get to the point that it's damaging to you. Most Americans do not follow dietary recommendations or even hit the .8g/kg per day. From an ethical perspective, it can be good to reduce animal-based proteins, but the idea that Americans are eating too much protein is absurd and not based in fact. 1 2
Yeah I remember that story. Some people have no empathy or emotional intelligence 😩
Quite a compelling story. Unfortunately this kind of abuse is likely to only grow and continue, especially as law is slow to catch up.
Apologies I meant the application of game theory as an explanation for optimization of behavior or evolution. Not as like, a mathematical model or it's potential applications. To be fair I'm also simplifying to what people think of as game theory which is more aspects of it, namely hypotheticals like the prisoners dilemma being used as an explanation for human behavior on a broad scale rather than on an individual level
What I probably should have said is that many applications of game theory are deeply flawed for the reasons I listen above
This is interesting, since my perspective on be tragedy has always been from the perspective of game theory. Often the optimal outcome isn’t a stable one because in many circumstances a totally altruistic system can be taken advantage of.
Game theory is deeply flawed because it plays out on too small of a scale. Both in scope (individual games between too few actors) and in measure (doesn't play out over tens or hundreds of thousands of repetitions in a system which can adapt/evolve). It has always stuck me as people who think they're smart measuring what they think being smart should be.
A recent study on large scale cooperation shows that the creation of societal norms which help to promote cooperation naturally occurs and that working for the benefit of many is actually more advantageous.
I think it's important to note the author's biases. While much of what they state is important history to state - they are a bit reductionist and throw out the entire concept of the common resource management because of its tainted association with Hardin. In the article they link another article, which felt a bit less biased and more nuanced and goes into the details of the work of Ostrom, namely that of collaborative management, or healthy systems for managing the commons so as to avoid the 'tragedy'. Her work was proof that it is not an inevitable outcome, and while the author correctly recognizes that capitalistic societies heavily weigh the scale to result in tragedy, it overlooks the situations in which it is not - examples such as community fiber internet, groundwater usage in los angeles, national parks and other environmental protection agencies, and more.
I appreciate the sentiment and sending love. Sorry if I came off a bit bristly.
A few bits of clarification:
I'm never opposed to recommendations. What books have captured your interest as of late?