What's a bit of good advice that's really bad advice?
You know, like "always split on 18," or "having kids is the most rewarding thing you can do in life."
What's that one bit of advice you got from a trusted friend that you know deep, deep down would just ruin your thing?
"Choose a job you love and you will never have to work a day in your life."
or
"Do what you're passionate about."
Just no. Most things I like don't pay well and I started to resent the others while doing them professionally. Turning your hobby into your job is like setting your favorite song as your alarm. That's my experience at least.
That’s an excellent analogy, I’m going to steal it
I used to love computers and technology. Now I get an idea about something I want to do, regurgitate a bit, shudder, and quickly throw that idea on the shelf.
I can’t even stand looking at the inside of a computer these days. It was 3/4 of my personality when I was younger.
That analogy is perfect.
I love my job, I really do, but I wouldn't do it as a hobby. I don't think it's so much advice about making your hobbies a career, as it is about finding work you enjoy.
Video games, skateboarding, riding a motorcycle, all things I love, but no way I'd try to make a living at any of them.
Same. I used to do something similar to my job as a hobby but now I just don't get on my actual computer outside of work unless I'm playing a game.
I tried building guitars for others but found that I don't like doing things to other people's specs. So I still build for myself. Plus video games, motorcycles, playing guitar, tabletop games, and one rotating flavor of the month hobby.
I think you and I would be friends.
Yeah, I think that a lot of people misinterpret this since "turn hobby into job" seems to be the only way people think about it.
I like cars and work in the automotive industry, and very much enjoy what I do. I also enjoy working on cars and other mechanical things as hobbies, but would absolutely loathe being a professional mechanic or technician. There's enough separation between what I do for fun and what I do for work that it won't sour my hobbies, but also enough overlap that my passion for my hobbies makes work far more enjoyable.
It depends, really. I turned my hobby into a profession and I am mostly happy. I lost a hobby, absolutely. I don't practice my craft much anymore outside of work, but I do have a job I really like. And I found new hobbies over the years. But yes, I did loose a hobby.
Yep.
Doing the thing you love, as your work, is a surefire way to hate the thing you once loved.
cause a lot of that love was born from the freedom to engage with it, and the escapism that it gave you.
Both of which completely disappear if you have to do it 9-5 or starve.
But like everything, theres always the exception. There are people out there, 9-5ing every day for 30 years the thing they love with no burnout.. and they are usually the ones held up as examples, not the 100,000 other people who tried it, burnt out, and hated everything.
I'm doing what I love as my career, but it was a hard road to get here. I started off out of high school as a professional photographer, never charged enough, didn't know how to run a business, got burnt out, didn't touch a camera for a few years, then after some desk jobs, realized photography was the only career for me. I decided to do it right this time, took business courses and prayed I didn't end up hating it again. It's worked out for me so far.
Couldn’t agree more. I decided to become a chef as my career of choice after school, cause I liked cooking. Can’t remember me cooking at home once in the three years of my training and the year I worked the job afterwards. Now I love it again and cook (almost) exclusively for my wife and me.
Liking your job is cool but making your hobby your job and still keeping it as a hobby works out for a very small minority of people. For most it either destroys your hobby or you start resenting yout job.
"Do what you are passionate about"/" Choose a job that you love ..." and
"Turning a hobby into a job"
is two different things for me.
For me anyone should try to find a job they are passionate about if it's a possibility.
I love Space, when I started my engineering degree I did everything I could to orient my career toward aerospace and I loved it. I worked as an aerospace manufacturing engineer and I was good at it because I loved that.
I also love cooking but clearly I'm glad I did not tried to become a chef, I'm very happy that it stayed a hobby.
I don't disagree necessarily, those are two different things in theory. However, my hobbies more or less cover everything I'm passionate about. At least the things I know I'm passionate about. Since most high paying jobs require certain degrees or years of training, and I'm also passionate about not starving, I could not actually try a lot of professions and therefore choosing something I liked recreationally was kinda implied, I thought.
"Just be yourself"
Ask any neurodivergent person how that goes.
We mask because we are often punished for being ourselves most of the time.
Can relate, when I start infodumping or talking in depth about stuff I enjoy I can see their eyes glaze over and they want to leave.
i mean, if its any comfort, my eyes glaze over and I want to leave anytime anyone even starts to talk to me, cause I cant stand social interaction, much less having to look at peoples faces to show i'm "engaged"
Why would this give anyone comfort?
It may give comfort to someone feeling socially rejected because, knowing that's something that happens, they may now re-evaluate their previous experience as not having been rejected for having themselves especifically, but because the person they were talking to was dying inside out of their own inertia.
As a religious trans person, it's deeply insulting how many anti-trans religious authorities say things like "don't let the world tell you who you are, trust in the voice of God in your own heart" or something, and then go all surprised Pikachu when I'm still trans afterwards.
See also: “Just do (whatever task you’re struggling with).”
As if it’s as easy as that for everyone.
I told my mum once that I hate washing the dishes.
"Just wash up!" was the response. Yeah, cheers, mum. Didn't think of that one.
Growing up I was constantly told to try to be like someone else, because I'm too weird.
It depends with whom you are yourself with. If you're with other neurodivergent people, absolutely just be yourself, that tends to work well a lot of the time, at least in my experience.
I wasnt diagnosed with ADHD until I was in my 30s. By that time, masking had long since been instinctive to protect myself from other people. I have to feel very very safe around someone before I feel comfortable enough to start unmasking a bit because of the heinous things people did to me. That is what 30 years of trauma and abuse does and you do not fix that in an instant.
"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."
No it doesn't. In most cases, you're now weaker.
What doesnt kill you now may still be a contributing factor later down the road.
Right?! What doesn't kill you may almost kill you.
What doesn’t kill you mutates and tries again.
It does make you wiser. You may learn how to better deal with your emotions or feelings. Or how to avoid the situation in the future.
Nah, usually just more trauma after a certain point, if its anywhere near even the hyperbolic description of "Kill."
I've been through enough. A mild to moderate amount of life challenges will be plenty going forward.
Yeah, it's really best to learn by observation than direct pain lol, but some of us are too stubborn for that.
Yeah, Where can I hit the buzzer to denote I'm done.
I've been through enough already, cut it the fuck out. I dont need more. If it made me stronger I'd already beat the hulk in fucking arm wrestling at this point.
Yeah, people forget that it's a very specific type of experience for a specific type of person where this saying actually works. Like overcoming a fear by facing it head-on is great for some people and a source of further trauma for others.
Yeah, that saying is so dumb. Like people never heard about polio or these days long COVID.
Always give 110%, and one day your boss will notice and give you the promotion you deserve.
20% of your effort produces 80% of your results, so giving 40% effort at work should be plenty. Don't even half ass it.
Professionals are consistent and businesses are risk averse. It’s easier and more valued to be reliable. Learning to do enough is an important skill.
A lot of the advice in this thread is situationally good but this... is essentially universally bad advice.
I read some advice that loud work is the only type that is noticed and I can't help but think with my experience in industry that that's 100% right. It really doesn't matter how hard you worked on something or how good it is in most cases, it only matters how many people know you did a thing.
“Bring your authentic self to work”
Was pretty prevalent in tech for a while. Fuck no I’m not doing that.
I have worked in the same office for 22 years, no one knows my birthday, what my hobbies are or where I live other than "downtown". There is work me and then the real me and never the twain shall meet.
You sound like me. Do you want to not hang out sometime?
Sign me up for the not hanging out club!
I won't hang out either.
You guys mind if I don’t tag along?
Can I join too?
I will say I'll be there, but I'm also going to cancel.
Absolutely! ☺
Fair. I do that with most coworkers. I have one maybe two I consider friends and we do stuff outside if work. Those are the people that know me. Everyone else knows the work version of me.
Rosa from Brooklyn 99?
Ha! I love it!
This is sadly very true. Keep most of your coworkers, especially bosses, on a low information diet. It's like dealing with the police. Some of them will try to use anything you say against you in the court of HR.
This is not to say you can't make any friends at work. Just be very careful in who you pick. Make sure the person is trustworthy (and you know as much about them as they know about you).
Hell yeah. I only told my boss about my adhd diagnosis in case I need to use that as leverage some day. Otherwise I’m basically a mystery.
"A George divided against itself cannot stand"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X86mbXhy8ks
If you don't succeed, try and try again.
It leaves out the steps where you figure out why you think you failed the first time so trying again with a different approach has a chance of success instead of just failing over and over again.
There’s also a good quote about repeating the same thing over and over again being the definition of insanity. Some platitudes are useful
Edit: repeating the same thing and expecting a different outcome. Attributed to Einstein, but who knows
I wake up to my alarm every morning, guess I must be insane.
Edit: wake up every morning hoping to be rested. When I worked evenings and woke up midmorning I did feel rested, but the decent paying jobs around here are 8-5. People.keep telling me I will get used to it, but it has been a couple decades without success.
You expect a different outcome every morning?
I definitely do. This time I will be well rested.
Maybe I should change something...
No. This time will just be different.
Hoping to feel rested, and clearly I don't since I didn't include all the words!
You been checked for sleep apnea?
I have sleep apnea and a breathing machine, which helps, but doesn't solve the issue that trying to adjust my sleep schedule to the normal 8-5 routine on a daily basis results in poor sleep outcomes for me.
My problem is that falling asleep earlier results in poor sleep, if I can even fall asleep.
Think of it as the reverse of someone who always rises early and can't sleep in or gets terrible sleep when they stay up too late.
I am empathic to your situation. Good luck getting into your rhythm!
The only solution is to get a job that isn't 8-5, but finding one that pays the 8-5 rate is really difficult.
Or society treating late risers the same as early risers instead of as second class citizens.
This is actually a major reason I'm glad to work in software. The culture in the industry usually tends not to care about specific working hours as much, as long as you're around consistently and do good work.
That doesn’t mean to do it the exact same way over and over again.
Thats what it literally says, so if you don't know the context...
Sometimes it is used for changing habits through repetition of the exact same steps when it isn't possible. Like someone who has trouble falling asleep being told that going to bed the same time every night will just work to fix sleep issues when that doesn't work for everyone.
As an autistic person who struggles with reading things too literal even I know it just means to not give up. It doesn’t mean to do it the exact same way and expect a difference. People who are reading that way are just being obtuse.
I have no idea how you’d take it so literally, you are just being uncharitable with its meaning. It could mean , oh you struggle sleeping. Have you tried melatonin, have you gone to the doctor, do you shut everything off before bed. Try that, don’t give up! You have to be looking to twist that saying to see it that way.
As someone who has trouble sleeping, I have literally been told by dozens of people that changing a sleep schedule is as simple as setting an alarm to wake up each moring and going to bed at the same time. They have even used this specific saying.
I am not saying that is what I think it means. I am saying that is how a lot of people use and understand it, which is why it is bad advice.
Also, yes I have tried all of those things and they don't work for me. My body wants to wake up midmorning and decades of trying different approaches hasn't worked. I am tired all the time except when I take a vacation and get up when I want, which is about 9 a.m. That is also the only time I ever feel rested.
I mean I sometimes take sleeping pills to get some sleep, I’m not arguing about the frustrations of things not working. You having a sleeping disorder or some other issue.
that line is more about. If you fall get back up. If your first painting sucks, that’s okay your next one will be a little bit better.
Some idiots may use it the way but it’s not how it should be used. Though I understand it would be irritating to hear for something like that.
Having a non-sterotypical sleeping pattern is not a disorder, that is insulting and a perpetuation of people who naturally rise earlier being seen as better than those with different sleep patterns.
If a lot of people are using it wrong because they take it literally, then it is bad advice. Better advice would be "If you don't succeed, consider another approach".
I said or something else though if you want to be argumentative, insomnia is in-fact a disorder you dork. Why are we talking about sleep for fucks sake. It was used as a broad example and now we are suddenly on this topic? I now see why you take the quote so literally.
This isn't insomnia, it is just having a natural variance in sleep cycles.
I don't take the quote literally, which you would understand if you could read.
Kettle meet black. My god.
"Der klügere gibt nach" which directly translates to "the wiser one gives in" or more or less matches the idiom "it's better to bend than to break".
Growing up I heard this a lot and it's mostly use to silence those who have (well-founded) objections. Took me a while to realize that this leads to us following the stupid because they don't give in which subsequently makes the wise one the stupid one.
The Idiom is regularly abused and misunderstood. Its about being smart what fights are worth fighting. Often heard by kids from their Patents when they fight over "nothing"
Similarly, if you have kids, being completely authoritarian is a losing strategy.
Yeah, having kids made me realize how important it is to choose my battle.
I prefer being strict on a limited set of important rules and more lenient on the rest rather than trying to do too much and just giving up on everything when i'm exhausted.
Like it's fine if my two years old is a bit messy on the table and does not finish his plate as long as he's trying the food and let us have our dinner too in a relative peace.
It’s basically “choose your battles.” Some battles can be won, but only for minimal gain and a lot of effort. So is it really worth fighting, or do you simply concede the loss so you can better spend your limited time and effort elsewhere?
Though the grass may kneel before the slightest breeze, the mighty oak does not bow even to the strongest gale.
"Never give up".
Sometimes you're wasting your time and should give up. Better advice would be "decide how much you're willing to give to this before you start".
Also see: sunk cost fallacy
"All kids think they are smarter than their parents." - my father, constantly growing up
What I learned: Never tell anyone else how to think or feel about anything. Anyone that tries to shape your thinking directly is a fool.
Intelligence is like beauty, we don't have a very good frame of reference to perceive ourselves. Physical beauty is largely measured by the reactions of others. Like beauty, intelligence has many facets. However my favorite measuring stick is curiosity. This is how I overcame my father's admonition; while curiosity does not guarantee intelligence, an intelligent person is always curious.
Nah... if someone keeps trying to stick a fork in the light socket or tries to hurt other people, I think its pretty justified to try to change the thinking that leads to that behavior.
If someone doesn't know what a fork and a light socket are and can't otherwise deduce what they are based on context, maybe it makes sense to stick a fork in a light socket.
Once.
Being curious doesn’t some how prevent you from having common sense
The fact that you dont seem to understand why trying to stop someone from "sticking a fork in a light socket" might be a good idea is concerning.
The concerning part is your idiotic assertions
The response is a purposeful obtuse way to make a binary snide comment. These one comment judgments are tired and just not a good way to grade much. Be more creative at least.
Just be yourself.
There is a reason people hide who they really are until you get to know them.
Just be yourself! Eww, not like that!
"Ground yourself to be safe with electricity".
Some people out there seem to treat grounding as a magical means for controlling electricity. Even in so far as it's true at all, you have to consider the situation and how it might move across your body.
Telling a teenager "enjoy these years, they're the best ones of your life".
First, tell that to a teenager undergoing severe depression is the opposite of helpful. Second, you just admitted to leading a shitty life. You got to 20 and the next 50 years were garbage?
Enjoy all of your years. I feel like each decade of my life has had amazing parts, and also shitty parts. They have all been objectively different though. Try to focus on the amazing parts and enjoy them, but also make sure to learn from the shitty parts.
The teenage years have the least responsibility with the most freedom. As you get older and have more responsibilities, it's normal to look back at the time when you could spend 16 hours straight doing whatever the fuck you wanted as something great.
For a huge amount of people, the teenage years are the years with the most responsibility and the least freedom. You don't control your health care, your income, your time, or your opportunities in the same way that adults can. Your needs can be neglected and there's nothing you can do as a teenager.
Other older years aren't garbage, you just realize the older you get the more the difficulty is turned up. More responsibilities, slower metabolism, less grace for making mistakes or general stupid behavior, and of course sleep injuries. The best thing about getting old is having kids, being exhausted, and sleeping in a weird way one night that causes pain for 7 to 10 days.
I miss when I could eat a box of donuts every day, bench press a cow, and try to flirt with like 10 different girls in the same day. I wouldn't trade those days for days with my kids and my wife now, but they were objectively great.
All those who say [insert random hardship here] "builds character". It's not uncommon for me to respond with "what's in it for me?"
"be yourself" doesn't work if your natural self is bad.
You mean the person that got me into this mess in the first place?
I don't mean to sabotage anything but you can have just one taco
Ehhh it depends. For a work interview or anything professional, you can take it until you make it. But when socializing however you should be yourself.
People can tell when you are trying to be somebody you aren't, and people are most comfortable around those who are open about who they are.
Anything about god taking you to and through things, or prayer. How's that working for Ukraine or Gaza or a ton of other places with war, famine, violence, trafficking, etc.? Also, anything that refers to "fighting" cancer or other diseases - too bad your person is gone because they didn't fight harder.
This reminds me of this story about the concentration camps. "If there is a god they will have to beg for our forgiveness"
They did.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=zrFI2gJSuwA&pp=ygUGYmVnZ2lu
Divinity works in mysterious ways...
https://youtu.be/gLuoEH0QOZg?feature=shared
That isn't even "good advice that is really bad advice", that's just plain bad advice.
Don't do drugs
Unless they help you
The Venn diagram for "advice" and "bad advice" is almost a perfect circle. In general, advice is only good if three conditions are met:
Those sayings - like in the OP - almost always violate #2 and #3. And usually #1, as it's that sort of thing that people vomit on your face when they're really, really eager to treat you like cattle to be herded.
Okay... example. Right. Acquaintance of mine saying that I should work with computers - because I use Linux, because I can recover a password, because I can spend ten minutes (I'm not exaggerating) trying to parse what he's asking help with. Under that "if u like it than make it you're job! lol" approach.
Yeah... nah.
But trust me on the sunscreen.
Neither of these is dead wrong but were rules of thumb that oversimplify changing and complex issues in the US:
"stay away from credit cards" - often prevents people from actually learning about how underlying mechanisms of loans, interest, credit ratings, and budgeting work. There are definitely people incapable of having access to credit and not spending it, so the saying may be true for a subset but if you always pay your bill in full on time and just use autopay so you don't forget, you're leaving 1-5% annual rebate for almost all your spend on the table. If you play credit card churning games, much more.
"The only things worth going into debt for are a home and education." - while accurate in the US for decades, the applicability or even accuracy of this statement is now dubious depending on many factors: career field and interests for education; interest rates, geography and housing prices for homes.
The entire "credit rating" system is totally insane and dystopian for people outside the US. Where I am from, we only ever register bad credit, not good credit. If you want to buy a house and need to get a mortgage they can ask for your credit rating. But that only shows how much your current obligations to other creditors are, and whether you have had trouble paying them. And you only cartain obligations are allowed to be shown on such a report.
In my country, someone with no credit card history whatsoever is in a better position to get a mortgage than someone who has a credit card and pays it off every month. The fact that the US is the reverse is just mad.
The test is to see if you can handle having access to credit you don't use. Can you operate within the current financial system without going bankrupt?
It is also the reason why recent inquiries on credit can also tank a credit score. You're riskier to lend to because you are trying to get more debt than you were used to.
There’s probably a healthy middle ground. We shouldn’t be handing major loans to people with no experience with credit either
We absolutely should. As long as they have enough stable income to support it. Rough guidelines in The Netherlands is that you can get a mortgage for about 4-5x your yearly income (subtract any other loans like credit cards, phone contracts or cars), and for no more than the house is actually valuated at (unless you're going to remodel, then you can borrow for the estimated value after it is done).
Why not? The concept is fairly easy to grasp and if I want a loan for a house, the bank can ask me to prove that I was able to put aside enough money beforehand to be able to chip away at a credit from now on.
What about people who have good-paying jobs, but lots of other debt? Or a history of defaulting on debt (maybe they can’t hold jobs very long)
Usually you’d go to the bank with the project and they ask you for securities, oftentimes the house your building or the ability to garnish your wages. Also they demand to know how much you’ve saved so far. Can’t give loans to everyone?
I followed this advice in my youth. Never applied for a credit card, never took out a loan, never bought anything I couldn't afford to drop cash on. I thought it would show I'm fiscally responsible because I'm not accruing debt.
Then I got an opportunity to work a govt job providing communications for the White House; basically, following the president around and ensuring he's able to communicate at press events, etc. I applied for the job and was told I was their #1 candidate...
...But they ran a credit check on me and was surprised when they got zero results. I proudly stated that I've never been in debt before, so my credit risk is zero. But according to them, zero credit history is shady as fuck. They said they couldn't tell how well I manage money because there's no history showing regular, on-time payments on credit cards, loans, etc.
They couldn't tell if I had trouble managing money or not. That made me a potential bribe risk. Someone could offer me tons of money to slip a bomb into the president's podium, or let a suspicious character into the White House, and if I'm hurting enough for money, they suspect I might be willing to do it.
Literally, my entire history of service in the govt had no bearing on my loyalty. Only my credit score. I lost that job opportunity because I was fiscally responsible.
I went out and got a credit card that same day. I now have an extremely high credit score, which I keep up by paying all my bills and utilities on credit, then paying off almost all of it at the end of the month. I think it's stupid that I need to put myself in debt, then pay my way out of it over time, spending even more money in the long run, just to prove I'm fiscally responsible. That should prove that I suck at managing money, not the other way around. But that's the broken system we have today.
I'm confused - you pay off almost all of your credit card and you're "spending even more money in the long run". Why not just pay off all of it? Surely if you were able to afford your bills with cash, you'd be able to pay off your credit card in full every month since the bills would be the same?
Yeah. It works if you pay everything off.
If you want good credit, you don't pay it all off. You need recurring payments over time. If I pay it all off at once, then my credit score doesn't go up much at all. But if there's a constant debt on my card and I'm never late in paying at least the minimum required each month, then my credit score skyrockets quickly.
This is why the system is garbage. You need to spend more money to show you're excellent at managing money. It's a dumb system that makes no sense.
I pay almost everything off because it minimizes the interest I have to pay while keeping a line of credit running on the card. But it's important to keep that line of credit active, or else your credit score stagnates.
Isn't that just not true?
https://www.capitalone.com/learn-grow/money-management/credit-myths/
I pay my credit cards in full every month and accrue zero interest and have excellent credit...
I’ve got a high credit score and I’ve never not paid it off in full. It's only really ever went up over the years, with the occasional tiny 1-3 digit drop. I'd never pay interest I don't need to in exchange for a higher rating; they've got enough money.
Yeah no. Pay the entire statement balance every month, that's the whole point. If you want to do debt stuff I guess you can get a mortgage or a car loan or a school loan, but these are not requirements for good credit. You use the card, you pay the card, you now have 100% on time payments and probably low credit utilization. Get a card early so average account age high if you can, and don't get lots of hard credit checks in a row.
You can literally get free credit checks through most banks or directly from places like Experian and see what it is that affects your particular score.
Don't pay 18 or 25% interest on anything, that's nutty.
Only pay off what is due, not the full balance. So if I spent 100 on my cc last month and then 100 this month. My bill is for 100, but my balance is 200. Pay the 100, incur no interest.
Edit: by “what is due” I mean the full balance from the previous month, not the minimum payment.
You can just pay it all off unless you plan on making some I interest money from the second 100.
Every month on the same day I drive all the card balances to zero. 800+ credit score
Absolutely you can, but not paying it all off doesn’t negatively affect your score. Also 800+ here.
I'd say most of single-sentence advice falls under "dubious" advice, as it really lacks any kind of nuance. It can be a guideline and perhaps words to live by, but it will rarely help in concrete situations where more specific context should be considered.
My mum always used to say "Everything works out in the end" or something else equally trite until the day I snapped "Yeah thats why theres a suicide help line, because everything always works out in the end for everybody."
They are supposed to be single sentence reminders of complex and nuanced advice, but along the way people forget to pass along the nuance.
Most chess advice. It teaches you to think in simple terms without actually thinking about a position. It’s good if you want to get passably good, but it’s a handicap once you improve.
That applies to most fields, doesn't it? Any heuristic will be a simplification and becoming an expert in any domain involves knowing when you can apply a heuristic or approximation or model and when you cannot.
"Look before you leap" vs "He who hesitates is lost"
"Many hands make light work" vs "Too many cooks spoil the broth"
"If you ain't doin' shots get the fuck out the club"
That's legit good advice
Most one sentance advice is just a deepity
Generally, a deepity has (at least) two meanings: one that is true but trivial, and another that sounds profound, but is essentially false or meaningless and would be "earth-shattering" if true. To the extent that it's true, it doesn't have to matter. To the extent that it has to matter, it isn't true (if it actually means anything). This second meaning has also been called "pseudo-profound bullshit".
USE LINUX.
But you should do that one. Just don't expect it to be windows with a different coat of paint and you will be fine.
Not always an option, nor always a good idea.
But it's objectively bad advice for plenty of people. Depending on the career or hobby, Linux software is not as good (performance, support, or feature wise) as software running on Windows or Mac.
I understand why people evangelize Linux (and I use it plenty at home), but it's far from acceptable for plenty of use cases.
And you can make exactly the same argument for windows or mac depending on career or hobby or performance/support.
He wasn't saying that "use Windows/Mac" was good advice, and tbh I've heard those far less than "just use linux lmao"
when can it be bad?
When we already know linux is available (as everybody on these forums knows) but for valid reasons it is not an option in our particular situation.
"Treat others the way you want to be treated".
Why's that bad advice?
Spank me harder, Daddy!
You should treat people as they want to be treated.
Right, by listening to your desires and only hitting with consent.
Disagree only in that people are idiots and using work as an example someone would happily hit themselves in the face with a hammer because "this is how we do things". I'm not going to hit you in the face with a hammer because you're a moron and don't know better.
There’s a lot of people I n here who read things way to literal just so they can make a point
Agreed. All this stuff is highly context dependent or at least technically true but not wholly true
Work smart, Not hard.
Whilst on the face of it, this is sensible message in a specific context, the way it is interpreted these days is so frustrating. Get so many people using this to avoid hard work.
You achieve nothing in life without hard work.
That is not quite the quote, and its meaning changes significantly.
“Worker smarter, not harder”. Means that when a challenge increases or you are wanting to do better/faster/more to step back and think about your methods instead of just brute forcing the problem.
No one that says should mean “do not work hard”. That is the complete wrong meaning to take from this statement.
Yeah, when I worked in factories, I wanted to do better, just increase my numbers because I like improving. I looked up to the people who would be casually doing their job while doing way more output than I could and from that I could easily tell that there were better ways than what I was doing.
I got the best results from things like optimizing my foot positions to reduce steps, thinking about how objects needed to be oriented before I picked them up, finding areas where things could be parallelized (like only pack a part while the machine is building the next one), reducing context switches (like if there's 5 stages, do a bunch in stage 1 before moving on to stage 2 so you spend less time picking up and putting down tools).
Once you've optimized the way you're doing the work (work smarter), then you can add speed to it if you want it even faster (work harder). If you skip that first step, you can end up working your ass off only to still be embarrassed by the guy that looks like he's half asleep.
Perfect example. Thank you!
This. I used to do assembly, the reason I was great at it wasn't that I pushed myself to the limit to make each thing as fast as possible, it's that I built everything in batches so I didn't have to transition between steps on each individual part. If something slowed me down, I'd make a tool specifically for that tedious task. Don't waste energy trying to make a bad system work.
Ever since the US Department of Agriculture (not health) started their nutritional recommendations, once-rare diseases like cardiovascular disease, Diabetes II, obesity, and a whole host of mental illnesses have become extremely common.
People are only recently discovering that we can reverse/improve Diabetes I & II, arthritis, obesity, PCOS, psoriasis, depression, autism, anxiety, bipolar disorder, etc. by eating what humans have been primarily eating since becoming human ~2 million years ago when we left the trees, lost the ability to digest fiber, and evolved distinctly human traits for hunting (e.g. a skeletal composition that allows humans to throw heavy things accurately further than any other species, the ability to out-run every other land animal long-distance, and a large brain and complex communication for coordinated attacks on much larger animals).
Humans are still biologically evolved to be persistence pack hunters subsisting on fatty meat, a hyper-apex species that all other animals we evolved alongside (including other apex predators) fear just from the sound of our voices. We've lost sight of who we are as a species.
What..?!
From the studies I've seen, meat does indeed carry higher endemic carcinogen and cardio-disease risks, particularly when processed, particularly when fried, compared to other foods.
And yes, too much fruit can lead to glycemic issues, but assuming properly washed and/or cooked, fruits & veggies are indeed an extremely important part of a healthy diet.
A purely vegan diet means one needs to be careful about getting a full range of amino acids and IIRC some vitamins, but besides that, yes-- a core vegan diet (assuming properly varied) is indeed arguably one of the healthiest diets for most people.
Personally I don't think one needs to be super-strict with it, but the point is that it's a great base to build on.
The major problem with most studies in the field of nutrition is that most of them are correlation studies, which are useful in creating hypotheses but are not sufficient in determining causation.
I won't argue that as a layman, but I feel that there are nutritional meta-studies, plus evidence from inter-disciplines (such as physiology of the colon, how the body processes food at the micro & molecular level, and what H.s.s's typical diet was across many centuries) to suggest that what I posited above is true.
AFAIK the body of nutritionists and the national academies have to take all of this in to account (including the limitations of correlational studies) when making hypotheses about best diet, making for a reasonably clear picture that the human body (outside of people like the Inuit I guess) typically doesn't handle excess meat well, and that we likely evolved as omnivores who didn't eat processed foods, and who mainly ate vegetables & some fruit with opportunistic protein supplementing such.
If this is indeed what our bodies evolved to handle, it shouldn't really be a surprise that we do best health-wise maintaining that approach. Not to mention, there are plenty of studies to suggest the various ways we can get in to health problems straying from that baseline.
Nutritional meta-studies are based on individual studies. If the foundation is composed of correlation studies, such a meta-study would still not be able to show causation.
I was disappointed in the science of nutrition compared to other disciplines, which is why I looked to adjacent fields of study, like anatomy, evolution, biology, psychology, anthropology, archeology, and the history of the study of nutrition itself.
Modern humans have been around for ~300,000 years, and humans have been around for ~2 million years. Looking at our diets across the last several centuries isn't enough to get a clear understanding as we haven't significantly changed anatomically for hundreds of thousands of years. Humans have become apex predators not from scavenging for vegetables and fruits.
Humans have thrived through multiple ice ages where vegetables and fruit were scarce as hunters of megafauna. Our anatomy and unique adaptations suggest that there were strong evolutionary pressures that shaped us into the apex predators we are, despite not having large claws, horns, teeth, jaws, etc. that are typical of other apex predators.
Humans handle fatty meat very well. The growing popularity of the carnivore diet is a testament to this, with several practicing medical doctors starting to speak out in support of it. On the other hand, various populations handle different vegetation with mixed results. For example, a large minority of many populations still can't handle bread, of all things, very well.
You should double-check those studies, as they are likely to be correlation studies that do not prove causation and are riddled with confounding factors.
What's your basis of conceiving of humans as apex predators? I haven't heard them described that way before, moreso that we're fantastic opportunists who can indeed hunt successfully when such is called for. But historically, based on the findings, I don't know of any evidence that suggests we were universally 'apex predators' for any significant amount of time.
This is starting to sound pretty disingenuous or poorly-informed based on my impressions of the science.
Feel free to have the last reply, and if there's something to learn from it, I'll try.
Going off memory:
I'm not sure what science you're referring to, but from what I've learned, nutrition science is very much not a mature field of study, especially compared to adjacent disciplines. If you immediately discount the carnivore diet, I would ask you to ask yourself why (for example, is it because "everyone just knows that fruit, vegetables, and grains are healthy for you"?), and approach the question of what humanity's species-appropriate diet is from first principles.
can you cite your source for “fruits and vegetables are bad for you”?
From evolution.
Plants are living organisms, and they do not want to be eaten, so they have evolved many defences to that end. They cannot run away nor physically fight back, yet they are one of the most successful kingdoms on Earth.
How do plants protect themselves? Their primary form of defence is chemical warfare. Plants produce chemicals like oxalates, lectins, phytates, cyanide, hormone disruptors, nutrient blockers, and carcinogens to discourage animals from eating them.
Animals and plants have been evolving together in a never-ending evolutionary arms race for millions of years, wherein animals develop adaptations to be able to break down the plants' defence chemicals safely, and plants evolve stronger defence chemicals. In nature, we see this manifest in herbivores being very specialised in the types of plants they can eat without getting sick. This is why we don't see every animal desolating entire swaths of forests, marshes, grasslands, etc.
Humans, too, are animals, and it was only in the last 12,000 years or so when we invented agriculture and settled down, thus entering a new age of heavy plant intake. Almost immediately, we experienced negative effects such as a shrinkage of brain size, a shorter stature, and poor teeth health. However, while relying on plants at the individual level resulted in health sacrifices, especially later on in life, at the societal level, agriculture provided a means to dramatically increase a settlement's population size and strength.
Humans still instinctively know to not eat plants unless necessary to survive. For example, if you were thrown into the middle of a forest, you would know that eating most of the plants around you will immediately make you sick. Parents also frequently see this when they force their kids to eat so-called healthy foods such as broccoli, spinach, and Brussels sprouts, which the kids will intuitively avoid, but are forced to accept in the name of health.
Essentially, each species has a species-appropriate diet, and humans are not special. We have specific adaptations for specific foods for optimum health, just like every other species — we've just forgotten what that is.
I think 95% or more of the problem with American diets is just excess calories. Or 50% inactivity 50% overeating. Eating more fat is great if you are walking around all day gathering leaves and berries and chasing after (and running away from) animals. If you are sitting at a desk eating more leaves and less meat will probably work better.
It's not just Americans — the world is becoming increasingly obese and sick — and I highly doubt it's because humanity has collectively lost our willpower and health-consiousness within 50 years.
Saturated fat has become so demonised that people can't comprehend how I've lost so much body fat by eating mostly fat while doing minimal exercise. My mental clarity, focus, and energy have also noticeably improved by eating a mostly fatty-meat diet.
"always split on 18"? What is that supposed to mean?
Also please delete the second one, we need to trick people into having kids to keep the line going up.
Thanks for asking about split on 18! I assumed it was about not trying to marry your highschool sweetheart or something!
Sit on 18(or 17+).
The saying is actually "always split eights"
2 eights are 16, splitting increases your chance of getting above 16 on at least one hand.
I really hope you're being sarcastic about this. It's so hard to tell on the Internet.
I have kids and definitely like them most of them time.
Well kid #2 is an asshole but he's the smart one so I'll be nice in the event he becomes a doctor.