andrewducker: (Default)
[personal profile] andrewducker

Date: 2019-07-05 09:35 am (UTC)
jack: (Default)
From: [personal profile] jack
"The participants’ mistake was one of “affective forecasting,” guessing how they’d feel in a hypothetical situation"

That's really interesting. I hadn't thought of that as a separate phenomenon, but now it's pointed out, I can see how it's a problem all the time. Gathering this kind of data is HARD because you always need to make this sort of approximation, and it's so easy not to notice when you've conflated, say, "did people like it" and "did people say they liked it" when it matters.

"The problems with a bridge from Northern Ireland to Scotland"

I'm going to guess "it's really stupid" based mostly on Johnson proposing it. Apparently that's basically right. Nice if anyone proposed more infrastructure funding for NI or Scotland in any other circumstance than giant vanity projects.

But I suppose, it's good to keep an eye on this kind of idea. I don't think I'd have considered the channel tunnel realistic if I'd been asked in advance, but that worked which is kind of amazing!

Date: 2019-07-05 10:17 am (UTC)
rhythmaning: (Default)
From: [personal profile] rhythmaning
The details of the Withdrawal Act are crucial. I had no idea.

For the benefit of others, here's the text (included as an image in a reply to the tweet, this is from the govt website):

"10. (2)Nothing in section 8, 9 or 23(1) or (6) of this Act authorises regulations which ...
(b)create or facilitate border arrangements between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland after exit day which feature physical infrastructure, including border posts, or checks and controls, that did not exist before exit day and are not in accordance with an agreement between the United Kingdom and the EU."

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2018/16/section/10/enacted

Wow. It actually prohibits a hard border (as this non-lawyer reads it).

Anti-obesity campaigns

Date: 2019-07-05 11:04 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] anna_wing
A fad diet that you abandon because it's too difficult to sustain, or once you have reached the weight you want, will definitely not work. Going back to the habits that made you fat in the first place will definitely make you fat again.

A permanent lifestyle change that includes long-term changes to dietary and exercise habits (not "a diet") will always work if you commit to it. How easy or hard that is depends on the individual and their circumstances, including of course their general medical condition, cultural attitude towards obesity, and the level of support they get from their society when trying to lose weight. Ultimately, it's not physically possible to put on more fat than you eat; there is no such thing as a perpetual motion machine.

Re: Anti-obesity campaigns

Date: 2019-07-05 11:19 am (UTC)
naath: (Default)
From: [personal profile] naath
I became not-fat by taking up running, at nearly 50 miles a week. Now I have MS, I can barely walk 1 mile; now I'm fat again. Sure I could eat less; and be hungry all the time and incapable of doing my thinking-heavy job... but no, don't wanna. And so chronic disease --> inactivity --> fatness --> cancer may be my future.

Maybe if the world were different and food availability was different, but more people being more rude is not going to help.

Long term sustained weight loss is rare, and the CRUK pretending it is an easy matter of taking short walks isn't helping one bit.

Re: Anti-obesity campaigns

Date: 2019-07-08 10:56 am (UTC)
From: [personal profile] anna_wing
I am not certain why stating that obesity is a cancer risk would be considered rude, but different cultures of course have different attitudes to health maintenance, and different preferred approaches to the situation.



Date: 2019-07-05 12:24 pm (UTC)
cmcmck: (Default)
From: [personal profile] cmcmck
Yeah!

I'm allowed to like big bikes, but the guys aren't allowed to like my teddy bears.

Weird!

Date: 2019-07-05 12:41 pm (UTC)
annie_r: (Default)
From: [personal profile] annie_r
Another stress response is fawning, which may be a bit like befriending, but less positive when you befriend what or who is causing the stress. I've only seen it talked about in the context of abuse/trauma, where fawning in the presence of the abuser (or person/institution with power over you) can help diffuse the situation, but doesn't really help anyone more than temporarily. More like flight or freeze in that sense, but in situations where flight is not possible (and freezing may come across as hostile), and there is no support to turn to.

I've always been more into flight/freeze/mental shutdown, but that may partly be my corner of neuroatypicality and the stresses I experienced in childhood.

Date: 2019-07-05 05:30 pm (UTC)
calimac: (Default)
From: [personal profile] calimac
"being able to rile up senescent racists with glowsticks"

Is this a thing?

Date: 2019-07-05 05:43 pm (UTC)
calimac: (Default)
From: [personal profile] calimac
Ah, thanks. I knew about the Brexit Party's goal of flooding all the Westminster constituencies with candidates, but I hadn't read about this rally.

The satire had a line about people who couldn't spell "Brussels." Looks like there are people who can't spell "Oswald Mosley" either.

June 2025

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
2930     

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 7th, 2025 02:15 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios