“A 70 percent solution now is better than a 100 percent solution later” ~USMC
(You may disagree, depending on your field).
Brigid
Karma: 146
Such as?
As a former Marine, in addition to the difference pointed out by jsteinhardt, the flexed arm hang works your arms only, not your back. Pullups require an overhand grip, whereas the flexed arm hang (and chinup) focus on your biceps.
I also advise that between jumping pullups, you return to a faux-deadhang position (even if this requires you to bend your knees to fit under the bar). Again, you will get tired of jumping pretty quickly and then will start to rely on your arms and back.
There are numerous serious lifting forums on the web that will critique your beginner cleans (for free) out of the goodness their hearts. You just need to film it and upload the video. So do this with lighter weights and see what people say., make the adjustments and ask again. Also, definitely start with cleans—they are a lot safer than snatches and much easier to master.
As someone who has been in this situation, pullup negatives have worked for me. I would also add regular jumping pullups, without the negatives. As you do more, your jumping abilities will decrease and youll start to rely more on your arms/back, thus building those muscles. Most gyms also have an assisted pullup machine.
If you don’t care about walking on ice, get a nice pair of some lined duck boots (Sorbel, LL Bean). Expensive but totally worth it I think.
I recently found out about the disposable hand and foot warmers. Not perfect but they do a decent job for being so inexpensive (around $1-2).
On a related note, am I the only person who struggles with the search system on Less Wrong? There have been a few times where it takes me unusually long to find the article I am looking for, even if I remember a direct quote or concept from that article and use that in my search.
Is there a way to only search for articles, or only search for comments, or only search for articles written by a specific person? This might help solve my problem.
Is it possible that she could suggest to the Cryonics Institute that they could set up an account in her name and we could donate directly to that account, cutting out the middleman but still directly contributing to this girl?
Also, I think that if it was a scam choosing cryonics is probably a bad choice since plenty of people even in an atheist forum seem to be against it, and thus its not as likely to generate as much sympathy. I think she could have said “I want to go on a safari in Africa” or some sort of trip that is moderately expensive (just like the skydiving comments claim) and received more funding.
Fair enough. :)
That’s a great point that I didn’t consider.
While Planned Parenthood clearly could be biased, they state (noteably without a reference) that ” Women typically pay between $15 and $50 a month in co-pays for birth control pills — $180 to $600 a year.” Even $180 is pretty expensive.
They also claim that ” More than one-third of all women voters have struggled to pay for prescription birth control at some point in their lives, and have as a result used birth control inconsistently.”
Finally, “On average, a woman spends 30 years of her life trying to avoid pregnancy. That means 30 years of paying for birth control.”
People who are pro-life in the abortion debate should also be pro- free birth control pills (those not requiring a co-pay).
If pro-lifers were more pragmatic, they would rank the issues that they care about from least-bad to worst. Most would agree that abortion is worse than pre-marital sex. Therefore, they should support efforts to eliminate the need for abortions (not just seek to eliminate the ability to have an abortion). As access to birth control reduces the likelihood of the need to have an abortion, free birth control pills would reduce the overall number of abortions, thus supporting the pro-life stance.
Also, if you agree with the analysis done by Steven Levitt in the book Freakonomics (availability of abortion services led to a drastic decrease in crime), by the same logic, free birth control should lead to a decrease in the crime rate as well.
The catch: That pro-lifers have to believe that they will not be able to get everything that they want politically, and must prioritize their goals.
I would make a list of specific fears; even though you said your fears were general, I’d bet that you probably have some fears that pop into your head. For example, list of all the fears you have about applying for a job. Then, if you have a close friend or family member, show them the list and ask them to evaluate the fears for you. That might help you to identify the unlikelyhood of something terrible happening; their advice might help you realize that a lot of your fears are unfounded or highly unlikely. And it might help you to figure out which fears wouldn’t really be that bad if they happened to you; for example, while a car accident would be bad, people gossiping about you is not nearly quite so.
Finally, maybe make a pro list (since you already identified the cons) of the good things that can happen if you go out into the world. You could compare the lists and decide if the stuff you can do if you overcome your fears outweighs how you feel now.
You don’t have to overcome all your fears at once, just make one slow babystep each day. The more times you make a small change, the greater your likelyhood of realizing that your fears are all in your head. So, think of something you really want to do (go to the beach? drive a car? attend a LessWrong event?), and start there to gain some momentum and have some positive experiences that you can’t have if you don’t get out in the world.
Then, you can approach something that is mroe challenging but could be extremely beneficial in your life (getting a job) with the confidence you gained from the positive experiences. Also, I am certain there are free mental health services available. I would look up your state’s Department of Human Services and see what they have to offer. That could help you get some control over your anxiety and fear.
This reminds me of an episode of The West Wing, where President Bartlett is inspired by Kennedy’s To the Moon speech, and decides that he wants to make a similar dramatic statement. In his case, it was to have a cure cancer in ten years. In my mind, curing cancer is similar, in intent at least, to universal healthcare—essentially, using medicine to help more people live longer, healthier lives. However, I think that curing a disease a disease or providing everyone with basic healthcare, while extremely beneficial to society, is not quite as inspirational as it was to send someone to the moon in the 1960s.
While I wasn’t alive then, I think it would be the equivalent of a president saying “we will be able to cure death in 10 years!” or “we will be able to send humans to another solar system in ten years!” Those are both dramatic visions that people think are either impossible or will occur in the distant future. And having the president say that they are achievable makes people believe that it is so.
As much as you don’t think school size matters, from personal experience, it can matter a lot. As you are interested in the sciences, I would recommend not attending one of the smaller colleges, even if they are top ranked (Haverford, Swarthmore, Amherst etc). If you look at their course curriculum, they don’t have the number of students or resources to have a wide variety of upper level courses.
A larger research university, while it might have lower admissions standards, would have a much more diverse set of classes to choose from and more research opportunities. I went to a large research university and did not have any problem getting paid (10$/hour) to work as a research assistant in the physics department, the chemistry department, and the ceramic engineering department (I was un-focused at the time). I definitely recommend taking the time to look at the department course offerings for each school you are thinking of applying to. Don’t just look at the course catalog because that just lists all the possible courses available. Most departments post all the courses they are offering each semester, so view those to see what is actually being offered.
What do you plan to do with a biology major? PhD? Pre-med? If you are interested in pre-med, it would be wiser to go to a school that has that as an actual major if you are certain you want to become a doctor. If you want to go the PhD route, it might be wise to pick a school that encourages you to do a research paper/thesis in your junior or senior year, in addition to working as a research assistant for a couple of years. If you are looking to get a job right after getting your bachelors, certain schools (Drexel is one I can think of off the top of my head) require you to do a full time internship your last year; often the students are hired right out of the internship.
You should care about location as well. If you are an international student, you will likely not have a car available when you arrive. If you attend a school outside of a big city, you will probably need to buy a car and also pay for insurance. So that needs to be factored into your cost.
I also recommend looking into each schools extra curricular activities. Do they have programs you would be interested in joining? For example, are you comfortable attending a school with religious affiliations (Notre Dame, Villanova) or would you feel out of place? Does the school have an active club associated with whatever major you are interested in? Does that department offer lectures on topics you are interested in? Different departments have different focuses; don’t assume that just because a school has a certain major it will have the focus you want. For example, if you were interested in politics, but specifically women in politics, it would be helpful to attend a school that has a center for women in politics, versus one that focuses more on international relations, European politics, diplomacy, etc. I don’t know enough about biology to make a similar comparison.
Also, is there a program available at the school that would allow you to get your masters in addition to your bachelors in 5 years? That might be an easy way to weed out schools, especially since a masters is quickly becoming a standard for higher levels of employment.
If you don’t get a free ride, one of the ways that I used to cut cost is to become a Resident Assistant. Schools typically pay you for your work in free room and a meal plan, which saves at least 10,000 a year, if not more. When that is supplemented with working as a tutor or some other on campus job, especially if you have scholarships of some kind, you can pay off a good chunk of student loans.
All of this is very time consuming of course, but most of the answers can be found somewhere online.
It is encouraging avoidant behavior, which is not necessarily a bad thing. Given a job you don’t want to do at work? See if someone will trade with you; they might not mind it so much. Assigned a task for what you consider a bad reason, like covering someone’s a**? Come up with a more productive solution and try to convince your boss. Trying to “get out of something” isn’t negative; sometimes it just means convinving others to use common sense or pooling your resources (time, effort) with someone else.
The Marine Corps has two maxims that I find useful in beating akrasia:
-If you can’t get out of it, get into it.
-False motivation is still motivation.
If you have to do something, you might as well find a way to make it fun (even if its a stupid way). Being ridiculously overenthusiastic about whatever it is you don’t want to do is often enough to make the activity enjoyable. In the Marine Corps, this usually amounts to Marines yelling silly sounds at the top of their lungs or doing things as fast as they can or in a overly exaggerated manner, but I can attest to the fact that the maxims work well in the my rest of life too.
You are correct in that my number was wrong . I think the percentage of males increased (or females decreased) because 52% was the number that was always thrown around when I was in college (I went to a women’s college so yes, it was thrown around quite a lot).
My number was about females in the US, not worldwide.
Removing the less competent officers is obviously a good call, but how does that call get made? How is it different than what is currently being done?
I disagree with the logic that being given stronger incentives will help senior officers win wars. What kind of incentives/disincentives could be offered? Increasing monetary rewards or job promotions could lead to ethical violations, while at the same time not necessarily helping our performance.
Fear of losing their job? I would guess that the most common reason for a senior officer gets kicked out is sexual harassment and/or adultery and/or fraternization. Namely, all the sexual violations. Somehow, knowledge that if they get caught they will get kicked out (or thrown in the brig) has not seemed to affect people’s actions very much.
I agree with Yingling’s quote, although losing a rifle is almost always your fault; losing a war, however, is a much more complex issue than “I left it outside while I was using the head...”