this was my final test in art today
i’m glad students aren’t the only ones who give up at the end of the year
JESUS CHrist,
“Draw a conclusion”
Guessing from the PER at the top it’s for highschool, because if I was paying tuition I would be fuckin’ pissed off tbh.
(Source: snailspit)
No science here, no research nothing, but hopefully a few people can contribute.
One thing I’ve observed about life is that people love to over-estimate their own virtue, and see excessive vice in others.
The rich are always completely self made, and the poor are obviously dumb and don’t work hard enough.
Thin people are thin because they have perfect self control, the fat are fat because they lack said control.
Sane (neurotypical I guess would be more accurate) people can keep their head in a situation because they’re more level headed, issues be damned.
Can anyone else think of other situations where people tend to dismiss the other factors that could predispose or even guarantee certain outcomes for people but are treated as if they were completely under conscious direction of the righteous and the fallen?
Expect to see some sort of original content from me everyday, or at least every weekday. I have no artistic skill so it will be text. I hope my few followers do enjoy, but realize that you can expect some wandering of topics since I have so few followers and this is mostly an attempt to keep myself busy.
This will be short, but one of the new developments that has a lot of potential to bring new types of television shows and movies to light is the increase in the amount of firms and places producing television. We now have Amazon Prime and Netflix Original and I believe Hulu is producing and publishing it’s own television as well.
When you have a change in the production of a good or service you have a change in what’s available. We’ve been stuck with old methods of production for quite some time, the major television networks are beholden to models that are going on 50 years old (at least most shows are live broadcast to the east coast anymore) and worse these old models are extraordinarily expensive.
With great expense comes a higher degree of risk aversion, if you wonder why so much of TV especially on the prime channels is so samey, it’s because with predictably mediocre TV they can expect certain returns. There are exceptions of course, but it isn’t surprising that a lot of the best TV shows have been off of the prime channels.
Places like FX and USA have had great shows, Sci-Fi back in the day had fantastic TV, and the hope is that these new studios with lower costs and less entrenchment in ‘old ways’ can bring new and interesting things to bear.
they’re like mini-island turtles holy shit
I want it
I need four very small turtles.
(Source: denotational)
As an addendum to my last post, I am a big guy, but I’m not freakishly huge where I’m an obvious outlier to ideal weight schemes, the point is that any conception of ideal weight should be individualistic. I have a friend, exact same height who if he weighed what my 0% BF weight is would look like a balloon, assuming the two of us should be the same weight is ridiculous.
I may be a bit odd when it comes to weight things, I’ve been heavy my whole life and I’m currently approaching the leanest I’ve ever been (excluding pre-schooling years) at 6’1” 280lbs 26%BF.
I have a lean body mass over 200 lbs, so when I see things like “ideal weight calculators” I like to play a game. I look at what their max allowed weight is and figure out how much lean mass I would have to lose to get down to the “healthy range”
First lets take the BMI this is the current standard of measurement that drives much of our medical debate about weight and the “obesity epidemic” (we can later discuss the inanity of naming weight gain an epidemic disease) for my height and age (26 years old) my maximum allowable weight would be 189lbs.
So if I got to 0% body fat, I would be about 204lbs. I’d also be dead, but I would be 15lbs over weight, my doctor would tell me to lose weight to get down to the healthy range.
However, the BMI is actually a bit more forgiving than other measures.
According to the Miller formula I would have to be 164lbs to be at my ideal weight.
Now before we discuss the insanity of how much lean mass I would have to lose to get down to there lets address the hubris of this all.
There are statisticians and numerical manipulators who believe they can construct a 1 size fits all formula for the ideal weight of all people based on very few variables.
Height
Age
Gender
Some don’t even use all three, the Met Life Tables which are the most forgiving to me at least account for the size of your frame (barely) and would permit me to be 197lbs.
Most of these are based on correlations and observations, many of them old, and many of them don’t scale up well for height. There is an inherent hubris to think you can tell someone their ideal weight based on a simple formula like:
D. R. Miller Formula (1983)
There’s no accounting for muscle mass, bone structure, varying bone densities, life style etc. We can later address the issues of conflating weight with health, but first let’s consider a better formula.
First of all we should do away with an “ideal” and present something along the lines of “healthy weight range” similar to how the BMI and Met Life tables do.
Second of all we should base it around body fat percentage, as the villain in most of these stories is adipose tissue, not muscle or a large frame.
Essentially a better approach would be more individualistic and not create a good looking chart you’d have something along the lines of:
Current weight
Current Body fat percentage
Age
Gender
From that you find lean tissue and prescribe the healthy range based on what the weight would be for that percentage of body fat.
In my case:
Current Weight: 286 lbs
Current BF%: 26 (I use a handheld detector so not the most accurate thing ever)
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Lean Mass is 204lbs
Healthy range is 222 lbs (8% body fat) - 253lbs (19% body fat)
As I said this wouldn’t fit on a simple chart that you can put up to give people something to starve themselves to. On the other hand it’s also a more realistic appraisal of your healthy weight range, there are no doubt faults, we can pick different ranges etc and the healthy fat range for people is individualistic, but it gives us a better idea than a simple linear relationship between height and ideal weight.
P.S. just to give some reference I added a few pics, point is I’m big but I’m not some hulking behemoth or power lifter who would make up an obvious outlier.
http://unemployedacademic.tumblr.com/post/50112151508/as-an-addendum-to-my-last-post-i-am-a-big-guy
Look at my legs, I’ve only been weight lifting for 7-8 weeks now, I’ve weight lifted before but not with any regularity for 2-3 years. I have big strong legs though because they used to carry around what was recently a 350lb frame, by being heavy for a long time I will have a higher lean weight than other people.
I really like Amazon a lot, they make shopping much better for me by removing the worst parts, namely, you know.
PEOPLE
But, this serves as a perfect example of how regulation often serves not to protect the public against the market, or to protect the small guy against the evil large corporations, but instead to help them push people out of the market and control more of it.
These days, millennials are growing less gullible.
I for on welcome the growing cynicism towards governmental overreach from my generation with open arms.
We sit and watch as the old media descends quickly into obsolescence while at the same time maintaining that the consumer is at fault for the shoddy, flawed reporting of actual world events. What should strike people as curious is that while the old media is using the Lohan excuse (which I will explicate shortly) to explain why their coverage of important news stories etc is frankly horrible.
The Lohan excuse in it’s short form can be seen in the un-esteemed Omar Kelly (sports reporter for the Dolphins)
It is the role of a journalist to look up & report where that money goes. But the truth is you care too much about Lindsay Lohan to read it
While this argument has hints of an economic basis it is at its core economic-ism, much as many spurious claims are put into false scientific certainty and are science-ism. The law of supply and demand states that the price of something is a function of the demand curve and the supply curve. Supply and demand explains why you pay X for a news paper.
What it covers is based on their own metrics and an attempt to figure out what people read. The flaw in assuming that people don’t read the Miami Herald’s coverage of business and politics is because people only care about Lohan and other “smut” conveys a few fatal conceits.
- The old media does these things well, therefore any inability to sell the product is the fault of the consumers for not wanting it.
- The old media has not distorted what people expect of them to the point where we only buy a news paper for a few small local updates, coverage of tabloid news and the weather. We may not expect anything better from them.
- The media has a good idea of what sells, therefore if a newspaper in Miami doesn’t cover a story it’s actually to the benefit of the paper. This would imply that these institutions haven’t descended completely in to obsolescence once they lost their relative monopolies.
- No institiution that sells real news/culture etc could do well.
I think we can see that this argument is built on faulty economic grounds, an assumption of perfect information, and a foolish delusion of competence.
If people didn’t care about politics, buisiness, culture and world events then we wouldn’t have places like Slate, (which I am no fan of but is certaintly a better source for most of this than the old media) Reason, or the literally thousands of serious political and other blogs.
You know why I don’t read the Herald (Boston or Miami) for business news?
It’s because the news will be covered by someone with a journalism major and no experience in business. I won’t learn something. Whereas now thanks to the internet I can get business reporting done for free by people who understand the marketplace or the specific business in question. I can get better political news (even for the US) from the BBC, I can get more educated analysis off of the internet from legitimately intelligent sources.
The reason why what sells in most old news papers is Lohan and smut, is that these crap stories that the writers hold in such contempt are the only stories they are intellectually equal to and can write.
