(Part 2) Best products from r/Destiny

If any of you need to up your memorization game this book is amazing for that, it literally changed my life.

https://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-Einstein-Science-Remembering-Everything/dp/0143120530

the author went from knowing nothing about the techniques he would use, to eventually winning memory competitons

it goes over this concept ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci ) but with extra details from "memory competitors" that helped

An example of this concept in action can be seen with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiKg08WoKPM

A version of teaching the techniques by guy I know of (a med school who also won 2 memory world competitions) can be found here https://mullenmemory.com/memory-palace-basics. The author can memorize 80 digits in 17.65 seconds.

Other than that, teaching/explaining concepts in your own words and integrating information into previously acquired knowledge will help you remember things better as well.

From Destiny.gg
>Microphone – Blue Microphones Baby Bottle
I used to use a Rode NT1-A, but I recently picked up a sponsorship from Blue. I told them that I’d consider switching to one of their microphones if they could offer me an equivalent so I requested a Baby Bottle. After trying it, it was pretty easy to accept the switch. The microphone sounds great on stream.

Probably just kept the pop-shield.

I have a small gym at my house that i use for working out in the holidays when im bk home so ill share with you my personal experience and lay down some advise.

1 - Make sure u either buy good quality metal weights or go for rubber protected ones. Reason beeing if u invest in sht quality metal weights they will start degrading super fast and will stain ur shirts and floor.

2 - You will want to always do that last bench press repetition, so get a self spoting bench since u dont wana rely all the time on Erisan or someone else to help u. I prefer the type of power rack that has the bar fixed to the cage, the ones that only let you move the bar in a vertical axis wich makes ur movement for either squats, sholders, arms and chest super clean. The same cage contains 2 security pistons that you can set for self spoting. Not neceraly this model or price but jsut to give you an ideia of wat im talking http://www.amazon.com/Marcy-Diamond-System-Linear-Bearings/dp/B001D78PCE/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1453428177&sr=8-3&keywords=gym+cage

3 - You can try these weights wich will save you some space and time, i have worked with them before and personly they fell a bit wierd in the begining but once you get used to them your set.http://www.amazon.com/Bowflex-SelectTech-Adjustable-Dumbbells-Pair/dp/B001ARYU58/ref=pd_sim_200_2?ie=UTF8&dpID=51nnMxox1bL&dpSrc=sims&preST=_AC_UL160_SR160%2C160_&refRID=0H7KD5QGQ6XDAG37ANR2

>The fact that we don't see this happening nearly as much means that there's something preventing it.

There are tons of systemic issues. I'm frustrated at this whole thing now because literally you, destiny, and all other people like you could pick up fucking books on the subject and learn. You aren't going to get the whole picture in a single tweet. Stop being dumbasses. Seriously.

Literally anything here - https://institute.coop/publications/research - will give you some bigger picture understanding of coops, some real data combined with interpretations.

For a perspective, that doesn't support Coops, alternatively as an explanation for why they don't pop up as frequently.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w6118.pdf

Basically they say, there is an overlap of the phenomenon that happens with unions, they flatten wage distribution, median ability is less than average ability, and this can lead to feelings of discontent on average relative to talent. It's a mindset thing. They also go over shareholder interests, which is a factor, however all Coops are literally employee owned, the shareholders are the employees ONLY, so these are still kind speculative.

There is speculation from a more leftist perspective that western capitalism is still rooted in some kind of Monarchistic vision, that we all have been sold the grift of the bootstraps and innovation rhetoric where we believe we too can be kings. Coops are counter to this narrative entirely, the goal isn't to be kings, it's to be equals. 1 employee, 1 vote, equal profit sharing, equal shares (in some, in others the shares accumulate like Mondragon, and this leads to hierarchies that I consider unfavorable and not in line with the principle of cooperatives).

I personally think that it's systemic in a multi-variable way. The systems are setup to favor private ownership and public shareholder'd companies. It's harder to get a business laon for a cooperative. Cooperatives are rare therefore the public opinion of them is either "what?" or just submitting to the status quo by default.

There's also legal protections that favor corporations that are privately owned or publically shareholder'd in the typical way. Thom Hartmann has outlined them, but I love how you pursuers of truth and being skeptics are averse to actually learning about something you don't agree with.

https://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Protection-Corporate-Dominance-Rights/dp/1579549551

You can pick one up used for 2 dollars or rent one from your library. He basically argues that there are multiple laws that have been put in place over the years to give tax incentives, legal protections, etc... to these more exploitative corporate structures to give them an "artificial" advantage over something like a coop, or even a small business (like a painting contractor with 2 employees) that is more "working class" than it is "capitalist".

There's also this weird focus that reinforces the system of the news to focus on failures:

https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/no-bosses-worker-owned-cooperatives/397007/

I'm not sure why they chose one of the coops that failed at the reportedly lower rate than typical companies fail. Well I am sure, it's more interesting to mention. And the conversation is always framed as a way to address income inequality. This is merely quantitative, the qualitative benefits are more far-reaching.

The discussion surrounding them is already fundamentally flawed, tradcorps have an artificial advantage that they regularly lobby for, and people's perception is unfairly skewed, so how can something like this succeed in the first place?

No it must be that the magical marketplace just always does what's right. Market failures don't exist, right? /s

So... Given that you are clearly not engaging in good faith, can I ask, have you ever actually read anything on macroeconomics, and specifically MMT before this discussion?

Before I take the time to explain the points that will quickly be ignored by you like they were previously, id love if you could first give me an answer.

> (they should have some good data/theories from South Korea, China, Japan, right? :)), backing? If you're short on time or whatever, please answer this question at least!

Sure, here you go;

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_821.pdf

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=6624

https://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-William-Mitchell/dp/1137610662

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/4/16/18251646/modern-monetary-theory-new-moment-explained <- Very, very simple article, but I link it anyways because some of the hyper links and sources were quite good

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/04/mmt-scholars-predictive-and-policy-successes-part-a.html

https://heterodox.economicblogs.org/bill-mitchell/2019/mitchell-madame-lagarde-mmt

...or you could just start where everyone else starts. I really liked The Armchair Economist. I followed it with Cowen/Tabbarok and it was a great read, I can't recommend it enough. Very clear and intuitive writing, cool exercises and interesting, modern topics.

i didn’t say it was defunct, that’s your own reading. i don’t think political systems are right or wrong, they are different principles for organising the state. for example, neo-liberalism is trying to take liberal principles to their logical end, a part of this end is getting rid of as much bureaucracy as possible because bureaucracy often impedes on the individuals freedom and right to choose for themselves. ofc there is nothing wrong with that principle but the result has been that this principle organises a society in a way that overloads poorer citizens with stress as opposed to rich citizens who have the capital to farm out their labour, think of nannies and au pairs as examples. so there’s a result of that organisation and it’s rightness or wrongness is up to the principles of the person evaluating that outcome.

liberals don’t challenge their beliefs, that’s the entire point. destiny will never challenge steven pinker’s “best timeline ever” theory for example. a part of that is because it’s an ideological pillar of liberalism just like fukuyama‘s “end of history”.

i also didn’t say that he’s an ideologue for promoting rational discussion, i said he’s an ideologue because a part of the liberal project is thinking your political system, even when it’s emprically shaky like rational choice theory or neoclassical economics as I said before, is based on reason and that other political systems are irrational. here I’ll get you started: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/enlightenment/#

you’ll notice that neoclassical economics is mathematically consistent and not empirically consistent, see laffer curve etc. liberals are okay with this because according to rationalism math has the deeper truth embedded in it. sabine hossenfelder touches on this in her “beauty leads physics astray” book: https://www.amazon.com/Lost-Math-Beauty-Physics-Astray/dp/0465094252

so the point stands, a part of liberal ideology is thinking you are rational/truth seeker/a political (i realise now I should have said “anti-ideology” instead of “apolitical, my bad) and those of other ideologies are irrational. you’re doing it right now, you’ve taken “ideology” as a slur because liberals are supposed to be anti-ideology by definition. im not using ideologue in the way you are using it.

im not making a value judgement on whether or not hussan’s principles are better than destiny’s or vice versa, I’m saying that both are ideological and pointing out the ways in which destiny’s displays his ideology.

if you’d like me to critique soclaism and hasan’s idealogical bent i can but maybe dm me as it has nothing to do with this discussion.

sorry for all the edits, I’m trying to use as many examples as I can so I’m not jargoning past you

Oh nice, sounds like the zero marginal cost society. https://www.amazon.com/Zero-Marginal-Cost-Society-Collaborative/dp/1137280115

You might be interested in it, talks about similar things.

I found it to be a good companion to Bregman's Utopia for Realists.
https://www.amazon.com/Utopia-Realists-Build-Ideal-World/dp/0316471895

Either way, thanks for naming the book. Gonna check that one out.

This isn't an audiophile subreddit

I don't know what your budget is (kill yourself for not telling us what "low" means for you), but I'll guess. Also, don't get a headset. You want to purchase two products that you know are each high quality.

The absolute best headphones you will ever find anywhere near $20 are the Monoprice 8323. Do a google search and you will see nothing but positive reviews on any audiophile forum.

If $50-75 is low budget for you, I'd go with a Sennheiser HD280. It can be had on ebay for $50 pretty easily.

Microphone, I don't know. If you can spend $40 I 100% recommend a Blue snowball. If not, get some bullshit like the Zalman headset mic and 420blazeit until you have the money to afford a real one.

>it's retarded to the point of being a meme.

How on earth is it retarded? It's fine if your argument is it's nothing new, as your second statement suggests, but pragmatism isn't retarded to the point of being a meme.

Assuming your position is the latter, I'd certainly argue a wholesale rejection of partisan politics is pretty damn radical. The Radical Center: The Future of American Politics is a thought provoking and influential read on the topic:

>Record numbers of Americans describe themselves as “independents” and reject the conventional agendas of Left and Right. In this widely acclaimed book, Ted Halstead and Michael Lind explain why today’s ideologies and institutions are so ill-suited to the Information Age, and offer a groundbreaking blueprint for updating all sectors of America society. Taking on partisans and experts on both sides of the political divide, they propose far-reaching reforms for the way we provide health and retirement security, collect taxes, organize elections, enforce civil rights, and educate our children.

>Twice before the United States has dramatically reconfigured itself, shifting from an agrarian to an industrial society after the Civil War and successfully adapting to the massive technological and demographic changes of the early twentieth century during the New Deal era. Uniting a sweeping historical vision with bold policy proposals, The Radical Center shows us how to reinvent our nation once again so that all Americans can reap the benefits of the Information Age.

One of the authors, Ted Halstead has done a ton of good work toward bridging political divides, especially on climate change.

Do you think the way american politics currently functions is "just pragmatic"? Do you not agree that changing the system to a degree that enables the suppression or elimination of partisan bullshit would be pretty damn radical? For example, banning political parties and requiring everyone to run as independents with their own ideas rather than party talking points is radical IMO.

> gishgallop me

"Bro you gave me so many alternatives to my stemlord hyperdeterminism wtf gish gallop"

Amazing take

> mutually exclusive

If you read the first 10 pages of Tse's book he literally says that Robert Kane's model of Ultimate Responsiblity and Self Forming Actions are compatible with his criterial causation model, so no, they aren't mutually exclusive, he explains a different physical method of it occurring though the primary requirements for both forms of free will are the same.

> I'll start challenging them one by one.

Or you could just... read a fucking book :)

Harris's doesn't count btw.

> Pretending that Kane's position is not ridiculous is the opposite of being serious about the conversation.

I guess if i only read one page critiques and none of Kane's responses or none of the alternative formulations and explanations done by Mele like you did this conversation, then sure, I can see that being your take.

Whatever brother, I'll let you go back to complaining about Jordan Peterson and incels, you really are doing God's work, or just work once you finish that little endeavor of yours.

It's worth noting that there are some newer approaches that are, in my opinion, an improvement over CBT. Best examples would be ACT (acceptance and commitment therapy; book: The Happiness Trap) and schema therapy (book: Breaking Negative Thinking Patterns). There's also functional analytic psychotherapy ("FAP"), which makes for quite the meme.

I think the key is realizing that this isn't any different than any other reason why you'd break up a relationship, though.

We have this general notion that it would be bad to break up because you couldn't handle feelings of jealousy, so therefor we must try to prevent those feelings from occurring in the first place by practicing monogamy. At the same time, most people are fine with breaking up for other "more practical" reasons, such as jobs, distance, not liking their partner's lifestyle, not getting along with family, etc.

I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, but I'd suggest that most polyamorous people view jealousy as on more equal footing with other concerns. If you have a partner that either a) doesn't modify their behavior to take your feelings into account (note: that does not mean not having other partners - it could just mean reassuring you before they go out on a date, or making sure they carve out time for you instead of spending time exclusively with another partner) or b) makes you inherently jealous for some reason, then maybe you just shouldn't be with that person (rather than try to force them to be with only you). It could just be a point of incompatibility between you, or maybe one or the other of you needs to do some personal growth.

There's more to it than just this. Polyamorous people tend to just view jealousy very very differently than monogamous people in a variety of other ways as well. If you want a more in-depth treatment, you should try reading what is probably the most popular work on polyamory and open relationships: The Ethical Slut.

https://www.amazon.com/Macroeconomics-William-Mitchell/dp/1137610662/

https://www.amazon.com/Modern-Money-Theory-Macroeconomics-Sovereign/dp/1137539917/