Comment sections bad - well, it should please you then that these have been removed from all the newspapers online. In the beginning of the internet, comment sections were praised. Finally the readers could have their say. This was democratic, and it would add input to the story. Well, the media learned that the input was bad for the establishment, as people pointed out who committed the crimes and why the journalist hid it. They posted racial crime statistics and statistics for nations. They pointed out who the neocons were and what their motivation was. They wrote about how the Left depends entirely on mass immigration to win elections in the West. All of this was anathema, it must never be said because it rings so true.
Few remember it now, but there was no censorship at first. But after a few years the media started censoring comments. They also sought to direct the discussion: The New York Times added "likes," knowing that most of their readers were leftists and likes would push their comments to the top. But that wasn't enough, so they picked the most-liked post and featured it more prominently. That STILL wasn't enough, so they started an "Editor's Pick" operation where they put their favored post (probably written by themselves) next to the most-liked post. And naturally this post, being at the top, would then get the most likes. But this STILL wasn't enough, so in the end they abolished comments altogether.
You won't hear the media talk about comment sections anymore. There was no explanation for why they disappeared, as it's too obvious. The people thought wrong. The media don't include this as part of their history.
But the manipulation of comment sections was interesting. A continuation of their "man in the street" interviews, which have been revealed to be fake; they'd interview newspaper staff or their friends and family. They'd add three people who agreed and one who disagreed with the Left. If it was about something like immigration, they'd make sure the disagreeing quote wouldn't be about crime or about Whites having a right to their own country, but would make it "they are taking our jobs" or something religious. (As everyone always have their own religious version as a counter.)
"protein within exactly 30 minutes of the workout"
Eating protein after working out is good, but people get the time frame wrong. They say within 30 minutes or maybe an hour, this is just made up. The time frame for maximum effect is five hours.
As for reps and sets, there is research on this. You need to work out "until failure," the point where you can't do another repetition. Your muscles are then broken down fully, and you can't get anything else out of the workout that day. You can do this in just one set, but to be sure maybe you'll do two sets, just so you feel that final point clearly. Reaching the maximum point could be done with as few as six reps - or as many as twenty, even twenty-five, for every exercise studied except bench press. But you'll get bored, so you should probably set the weights so that you get tired with fewer reps for all exercises, not just bench press.
Furthermore: It is counter-intuitive, but the downward, "negative," movement is more important for the muscles than the upward movement. A group of men were given dumbbells to raise with one hand and lower with the other, and after the end of this study the arm that did the "negative" movement had gained more strength. And the negative movement should last for maybe five seconds.
You should also ignore anyone who talks about "leg day". (And note how they never say arm day. Because everyone wants strong arms, so mentioning that means you are too primitive. Leg day sounds like you're more advanced and serious.) Do all your exercises at the same time - without lots of sets, you'll be finished in forty minutes. Then you should wait two days, or if you're older three days.
But I digress! I know these two issues weren't the main point of the essay.
Great post! Yes, it's definitely important to have a realistic sense of priorities, which can get out of whack in a social media-driven environment.
Comment sections bad - well, it should please you then that these have been removed from all the newspapers online. In the beginning of the internet, comment sections were praised. Finally the readers could have their say. This was democratic, and it would add input to the story. Well, the media learned that the input was bad for the establishment, as people pointed out who committed the crimes and why the journalist hid it. They posted racial crime statistics and statistics for nations. They pointed out who the neocons were and what their motivation was. They wrote about how the Left depends entirely on mass immigration to win elections in the West. All of this was anathema, it must never be said because it rings so true.
Few remember it now, but there was no censorship at first. But after a few years the media started censoring comments. They also sought to direct the discussion: The New York Times added "likes," knowing that most of their readers were leftists and likes would push their comments to the top. But that wasn't enough, so they picked the most-liked post and featured it more prominently. That STILL wasn't enough, so they started an "Editor's Pick" operation where they put their favored post (probably written by themselves) next to the most-liked post. And naturally this post, being at the top, would then get the most likes. But this STILL wasn't enough, so in the end they abolished comments altogether.
You won't hear the media talk about comment sections anymore. There was no explanation for why they disappeared, as it's too obvious. The people thought wrong. The media don't include this as part of their history.
But the manipulation of comment sections was interesting. A continuation of their "man in the street" interviews, which have been revealed to be fake; they'd interview newspaper staff or their friends and family. They'd add three people who agreed and one who disagreed with the Left. If it was about something like immigration, they'd make sure the disagreeing quote wouldn't be about crime or about Whites having a right to their own country, but would make it "they are taking our jobs" or something religious. (As everyone always have their own religious version as a counter.)
-----------------------------------------------------------
"protein within exactly 30 minutes of the workout"
Eating protein after working out is good, but people get the time frame wrong. They say within 30 minutes or maybe an hour, this is just made up. The time frame for maximum effect is five hours.
As for reps and sets, there is research on this. You need to work out "until failure," the point where you can't do another repetition. Your muscles are then broken down fully, and you can't get anything else out of the workout that day. You can do this in just one set, but to be sure maybe you'll do two sets, just so you feel that final point clearly. Reaching the maximum point could be done with as few as six reps - or as many as twenty, even twenty-five, for every exercise studied except bench press. But you'll get bored, so you should probably set the weights so that you get tired with fewer reps for all exercises, not just bench press.
Furthermore: It is counter-intuitive, but the downward, "negative," movement is more important for the muscles than the upward movement. A group of men were given dumbbells to raise with one hand and lower with the other, and after the end of this study the arm that did the "negative" movement had gained more strength. And the negative movement should last for maybe five seconds.
You should also ignore anyone who talks about "leg day". (And note how they never say arm day. Because everyone wants strong arms, so mentioning that means you are too primitive. Leg day sounds like you're more advanced and serious.) Do all your exercises at the same time - without lots of sets, you'll be finished in forty minutes. Then you should wait two days, or if you're older three days.
But I digress! I know these two issues weren't the main point of the essay.