sarakingdom

I've started swapping hot cocoa for turmeric milk, so I have other hot highly caloric hide-the-butter drink options. (Currently too hot to drink, but insanely delicious. Turmeric, ginger, and chai masala. Sweet and creamy.) (I can't swear that's it, cuz I dont speak Turkish, but it looks about right. I think that's turmeric and ginger roots.) I have decided that maybe I will try to be more organised about some IF for health benefits. I was gonna put it off, cuz my body sometimes seems to freak out in response to intermittent fasting and trigger some anxiety, so I was down with the "no fasting, lower cortisol" advice, but I think a basic 17/7 should be pretty doable, since I'm not far off that many days, and I'm a little more on top of my calories these days. The freaking out may have been coming from being underfed. So I'm going to try a fairly low protein macro during weekdays and higher on weekends, and that should be good enough for both the brain ketone experiment and triggering some autophagy on cleaning up some underlying health issues. Which I wouldn't say are rife, but you rack up some chronic low level shit through the years, and I suspect the weirdness of my weight loss experiments indicates I'd benefit from some damaged cell cleanup in aisle three. I won't be making it a challenge goal yet, because I'm avoiding challenge creep, but it slots in pretty neatly with the general goals I was going for. I did yoga. Sorta by accident. I was there, it came on, I needed the stretch. See, that's why there are timers (when they work). I'm gonna count it for three points, two for being long and one for containing a bridge. God, I needed that. I am so, so stiff and unflexy. Everything hurt. (Except for a few stretches that are the way I sit on the ground, cuz I've been doing that a little more lately.) Yoga wasn't in the original plan, but I really need it, so now it's there. Also dating on Vulcan probably requires flexibility. For throwing around the weapons, if nothing else. I won't make my bedtime tonight, cuz I have a drink to finish, but I'll count midnight for half a point this week. Midnight is pretty good. Not perfect, but not a big problem.

The key is to find a TV series you want to rewatch and make it the walking show.

Unfuck Your Habitat is for Flylady dropouts who found the tone unbearable.

Week 0 Day 2 - Training Montage Tuesday Sometimes you gotta remember why you're running and punching and climbing. Also, maybe there is a tool here, cuz the ADHD brain is very adrenaline-motivated. Even adrenaline-calmed, in some cases. Maybe Mariner in Lower Decks was onto something when she used Cardassian prison break holodeck programs for her weekly cardio. Not enough space battles in my workouts. And I believe I will just say it: Star Trek 3 is actually the best Star Trek movie. ST4 might be the better movie overall, but ST3 is the best Star Trek movie. (And I will not entertain arguments about Khan, which is an overgrown TV episode with an unbelievably charismatic guest villain. It does what it does rather well, but it's not doing much.) Star Trek 3 is the Trek pinnacle. Although kidnapping whales is glorious in its own right. The Needs of the One Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Score Control the emotions 0 Eat the plomik soup 1 Drink the water 4 Sleep at 11 -2 0.5 Train the lirpa 3 Weekly Score 6 Things I need to remember: Lirpa training options Emotional control options Take a walk Yoga Balance exercise Plank Horse stance Bridge Superwomen Rest when I don't wanna Reward incremental progress to make goals feel immediate

Yes, I can hear that as a line of dialogue in Star Trek episode. This truly is the future Gene Roddenberry would have wanted. (What? Space is low humidity, that's all I... okay, it'd start in a perfectly innocent utilitarian way like that, but you know that's not how the episode would end.) Quite... quite a few, in fact. Upon reflection, I think most of the things that are safe there would be unsafe for the nostrils. Honestly, it was the first thing I thought when you said that. And, having given it some thought, I think it'd eventually suffer from the same problem as oil-based moisturisers, so Gene's vision may be outta luck. (The real problem there isn't the nostrils, but aspiration into the lungs - they can't clear out anything, so if oil from the moisturisers gets in, you get some kinda permanent pneumonia.)

Sure thing! We should probably plan for getting around to more than one eventually. What sort of a rate are you interested in going at, so I can invite folks? Given how hard these are to find, one a week might be a bit too fast.

That's understandable, you have a lot going on. There's also the single goal challenge (or even "challenge"), which is sometimes a good option for lightening the mental load while keeping the headspace focused on moving forward. (I've had more than one past challenge where the single goal was to keep showing up.)

In keeping with my pon farr theme, I would like to point out that my latest successful sinus intervention is, in fact, lube. It's entirely logical. You can't use oil-based moisturisers in the nose, and lube is a lot cheaper and easier to find than actual nasal moisturizing gel. I have fewer nosebleeds and sinus blockages, and thus can sleep for more than two hours at a time. Thanks, sexual wellness industry! However, it does mean I'm lubing up my nose every day. Oh well, that's definitely the future Gene Roddenberry would have wanted. Also bodies are stupid.

In the past, we've sometimes stuck a thread in a general chat area of the forum, to let people watch in their own time zone and then chat about it later. We could do that without a ton of scheduling.

Pretty much any seated stretch works well. He shifts really quickly through the one where you bring your foot to the inner thigh of the opposite leg, and I like that one for hanging out in.

It's been a while since I've worked on the floor, and I'm feeling it.

(Also a fan of the butterfly stretch for this. You can balance laptops or notebooks on your heels as a stable platform..

Right. I'm going to portion out snacks for the week, then go make some hot cocoa and go for a walk, then go to bed. This is the best thing I can do to get ready for tomorrow.

Week 0 Day 0 As a woman on Vulcan, it is my right to declare a challenge. It is day zero of week zero, and the previous challenge is done. I hereby declare this a challenge. Normally one gets a respected Vulcan matriarch to preside over important ceremonies, so we shall call on T'Pau. As she has said at the start of many ceremonies, "This is the Vulcan heart, this is the Vulcan soul. This is our way." Or in other words:

POUND IRON ON THE DRIVEWAY SPEZZY. NO BAD WEATHER ONLY BAD CLOTHING AND BAD ASSES. (Dude maybe needs some cable-knit arm warmers, tho.)

So what's your next challenge gonna be, and how many Feegles will it contain?

Well, yes. I did just argue for the long process view of science working out the kinks of human scientist bias, and called it a scientist problem a sentence before, so I figured I could leave it there, and not go into more tldr about how that's starting to get worked out of the system these days by the slow filter of the scientific method. I mean, twenty paragraphs is enough, surely. Harriet probably got tired of people talking about science at fifteen. A science problem in the sense of "that is the professional field where the problem originates, as opposed to medical practice, insurance, regulatory policy, or financing", which are major sources of bias; it's a problem for people in science to correct. Medical practitioners can't correct a problem in another profession even if they can see it, any more than scientists can correct dismissal of women's symptoms in the office visit, even if they can spot the problem. The nature of the science problem is clearly with the scientists; it's biased experiment design.

Soooo did this challenge go to plan? No. I am bad at fun. And rest. But did it basically do what it was meant to accomplish? I think so. Several of my batteries recharged anyway. Probably this was to be expected from my choice of theme. Christmas specials never go to plan, but they sort of come around in the end.

The process may simply lack it, but the results conflict. They haven't shown any of the process on either side, which means no one can make claims about the process, simply the results. I'm perfectly content with "irrational" as a semantic choice there. It occurred to me that what they're doing is a logical proof by negation. Given hypothesis p, assume the opposite, and disprove the opposite to prove p. (This is usually taught to freshman or sophomore with claims about prime numbers or infinities, to train the basic process.) The core claim seems to be "unreliable". Hypothesis: instinct is an unreliable substitute for reason. Proof: Assume instinct is a reliable substitute for reason. If instinct is reliable, it will produce the same results as reason under the same conditions. There exists at least one case where it is not consistent with reason. Result: instinct is not a reliable substitute for reason. They're echoing a basic undergraduate proof structure here. Medicine is not science. Medicine is a consumer of science, like a lot of technical industries, including manufacturing and cinematography. Practitioners of medicine by and large (not universally) believe in science and aspire to be guided by it, but the field and profession of medicine is not a science and does not contain scientists. (Unless they double as medical scientists, but that's a double-track career choice rather than part of being a doctor. Medical science is science, but is not medicine. It's a specialised interdisciplinary scientific research field of biology, chem, etc., that supports the medical industry.) Doctors and nurses are a little more educated about science than the average person, and hopefully have some scientific thinking in their working diagnostic skills, but they don't do any more science than the average person does. It's the same for manufacturing engineers and film cinematographers, who had a surprisingly good working knowledge of physics and chemistry as it pertained to optics, light, and chemical reactions in solutions and substrates. They're all technical professions, they're all trained in some scientific thinking for diagnostic purposes, they probably all have some training in reading scientific professional writing. They're not scientists, or doing any science, or particularly trained in doing science. So observations about the history of medicine and bias regarding women are completely true, but it's like saying you don't trust scientists because film cinematography units have a track record of racist bias, filming black skin badly using principles for filming white people. It's equally true, and also a technical field that uses a lot of science under the hood, but it's not super relevant to the fundamental quality or practice of a completely different profession. (Far from being the source of most bias in medicine, it was science that discovered and outed the bias problems in medicine. Without studies designed to detect bias, we'd all be individually annoyed without knowing it wasn't just bad luck or one bad doctor. Most, because some bias is on scientists: the one piece of medical bias that scientists are super responsible for was experiment design that excluded women because their hormones were "too hard". That one's plainly not on doctors or industry, that's a science problem.)

They may well be! That may indeed have been the editorializing they were doing in the margins, who knows. Scientists can get awfully romantic about eulogizing Logic and Pure Reason. But it doesn't seem to be the factual claim they were making. They have no idea what sort of reasoning process produced that result. They simply know what result the act of reasoning produced, and that it differs from the result when reasoning is not used. Instinct is therefore not consistent with reason. (Personally, I think I'd phrase it as "instinct is irrational" rather than "instinct is illogical", if I were writing it up. They haven't shown logic is adhered to on either side, and scientists are usually pretty mathematically formal about logic. They'd never take it on faith that a sample of the general public thinks logically, without proof of the steps of the process. But they have demonstrated it's in conflict with rational thinking, because the two demonstrably produce different results under at least some conditions.)