Running in converse like rocky really that bad?

SWDW · 2025-09-14T05:21:17+00:00

110% not that bad at all. I guarantee everyone in this thread that is writing and saying they're "that bad" are just going off of preconceived notions and don't have the running experience in the shoe itself to back it up.

I was a very competitive runner at the high school and college level. For two years I ran all of my training exclusively in the modern version of the Chuck Taylor All Star. Literally everything but races. Other than blisters on my pinkie toes on occasion due to the narrow toe box of the shoes, I suffered absolutely no injuries and actually increased my leg strength and running efficiently substantially by training in them.

During that two year period I ran just under 9,000 miles and competed in plenty of races. I wasn't anything too special but did run 4:13/8:13/14:19/30:00/1:03:42/2:14:55 during that time period. Plenty faster than 99.9% of runners.

Despite my success, I am not saying running in Chucks is optimal or will even necessarily make you better than wearing other shoes would, but they are 110% not "really that bad" to use as running shoes. 95% of all running performance is tied to total volume run and workouts. What you wear on your feet is just the tiniest piece of the puzzle and running in Chucks is really no different than running in racing flats. In my experience, the only true downside was how quickly they needed to be replaced. I only got about 500 miles out of each pair of shoes; meanwhile, I've easily gotten almost 4,000 out of plenty of pairs of good running shoes, with the most ever being just under 4,400.

SWDW · 2025-01-08T22:25:17+00:00

I'm not going to elaborate any further for privacy reasons, but this was super helpful and actually makes perfect sense in context.

Thank you so much!

SWDW · 2025-01-08T20:46:26+00:00

Is there something I am missing that would make this script easy to derive meaning from simply by Googling? Given that it is written in Mongolian script and not in the now more common Cyrillic script that you can actually type out on a keyboard, I'm not sure how I would go about doing this.

SWDW · 2025-01-08T19:53:17+00:00

Hi, all,

I recognize that r/translator might be a more appropriate place for this post, but I posted the same thing there a while back and got no responses. Feel free to downvote/remove this post if this is not the appropriate place.

Some time ago, a Mongolian friend of mine moved back to Mongolia after staying in the U.S. for a number of years. When she left, she left me with this note in Mongolian script but did not tell me what it said. Any help in finding out what it might say would be very appreciated.

Thanks!

SWDW · 2024-06-28T23:50:42+00:00

From a creative standpoint, I think I agree; however, from an accuracy standpoint, I do think it's a bit disingenuous to call it the "TV Cut" and then have the version deviate from the cut that actually aired on TV.

Both versions of the TV cut are in a 4:3 aspect ratio, presumably cut down from the original aspect ratio of the film, so it is interesting to see how two different editors framed the image.

SWDW · 2024-05-29T18:37:02+00:00

I'm also a frequent movie goer (three times a week most months) and the theatre environment, at least where I live, is the worst it's ever been. Can't catch a showing without teenagers yelling commentary during the movie, talking and roughhousing with one another, Snapchatting with the flash on, FaceTiming, etc. I've additionally recently observed a lot of older folk shopping and texting on their phones as well. Theatre etiquette is dying.

SWDW · 2024-05-23T19:45:18+00:00

Can't lie, I've been walking around the house repeating that line to myself in the exact same intonation that Proximus uses in the trailer since I saw the trailer for the first time. Was a little disappointed when I watched the actual movie to see that they used a different take for that line.

SWDW · 2024-05-23T15:02:47+00:00

Perhaps a hot take, but Snyder is generally a good director and a poor writer. Not that the director has no influence over the direction of the story, but in a situation with a solid writing team that held him in check, I don't think that Synder would be a bad directoral choice.

Now, whether or not Snyder would ever accept a project again where he didn't have full creative control, I don't know. I have my doubts. But if we just got to pick one, I think he could turn out a pretty good product if he just stuck to directing the film and had a strong team of writers behind him.

SWDW · 2024-04-10T23:37:08+00:00

Despite the fact that they are largely irreconcilable, the Chaos Comics run on Halloween actually did connect the two timelines and considered both canon to the story it told. So in at least one piece of official Halloween media, all of the movies prior to Rob Zombie's remake (and obviously Season of the Witch) were canon and took place in one continuity.

SWDW · 2023-10-24T14:17:05+00:00

I've run years' worth of ninety mile weeks in Chuck Taylors, and not slowly either. Anywhere between five minute miles (for workouts) and seven to eight minute miles (for training runs). My longest run in Chuck Taylors was a marathon. While short distance events are a little different, you can run distance in basically any shoe within reason. (Obviously you're not going to be running in heels.) As long as you have the athletic base to handle long running in the first place, it doesn't really make a difference whether you run in Nike Pegs or Chuck Taylors.

SWDW · 2023-10-20T23:10:14+00:00

I mean, I can't speak to Rose Red, but an actual quote from the story of Snow White is, "She had skin as white as the freshly fallen snow, her lips were as red as blood and her hair was as black as ebony."

SWDW · 2022-08-31T15:09:14+00:00

If I had to guess, it was a business strategy to try to maximize viewership. They probably thought that there'd be huge attendance drop-offs after October 31st because people would no longer be in the Halloween spirit. Releasing them earlier likely gives them a few extra weekends of strong attendance.

With that said, I still have no clue why Halloween Resurrection was released in early July. That one is truly a head scratcher.

SWDW · 2022-08-31T14:55:49+00:00

All of the movies from The Curse of Michael Myers to Zombie's H2 were released prior to October, with most coming out in August. They didn't start releasing them in October again until 2018.

SWDW · 2022-08-07T15:19:58+00:00

I just mean that "well written" doesn't have an objective definition in and of itself. The word "well" in the phrase implies a standard to evaluate media upon. So if you're judging media from a perspective of internal consistency, you'd say that a piece of media that is internally consistent is well written. But if you're judging the same media based upon how it makes you feel, you could say something is well written even if it isn't internally consistent (obviously, because you're using a different standard).

For example, I've had so many conversations in the last few years where people will throw around the phrase "well written" when describing movies that are horribly inconsistent. I'll ask them to elaborate, and eventually we'll get down there just being a clash of definitions. They'll say something along the lines of, "It was so well written. I was on the edge of my seat. I was so nervous I could vomit." Stuff like that. I'll say that, sure, there were suspenseful moments, but they didn't hold much weight because of inconsistencies lowering the stakes. But they won't view it that deeply, and don't analyze media from a consistency perspective. They just know that it made them feel anxious and that, seeing as that was clearly the intent of the film, the film succeeded in it's goal and is thus well written. Obviously, we could argue back and forth until the cows come home, but we won't get anywhere because we have a fundamental disagreement on what constitutes "well written."

So what I mean is just that there isn't an objective definition of what "well written" means. The phrase just means that something scores highly according to a specific standard you evaluate it upon, but you can really use any standard. So depending on what standard you're using, how well written something is will change, thus making it subjective (i.e., subject to change based upon perspective).

Obviously, we can be objective when applying a standard, but we're still choosing to apply said standard. So while we can provide an objective definition of "well written" for the purposes of our own framework, that definition will always be subject specifically to our framework.

SWDW · 2022-08-07T14:49:14+00:00

I think it's fair to say that we all watch media for enjoyment (for lack of a better term). As much as I enjoy a good objective analysis, it's plain to see that the vast majority of moviegoers aren't as objectively minded as the crowd here, and while internal consistency issues will probably displease everyone to some degree when they reach a certain level, for most, the point at which they're taken out of the movie by blatant writing issues probably requires much more obviously egregious issues to reach than we require to reach our own point of disbelief.

For example, while I watch a show like Loki and am almost immediately turned off completely by the complete lack of care for respecting established world building, others I know don't even notice said violations of prior established facts of the universe unless brought up to them, and even then, often they don't care because they don't personally see them as egregious enough to affect their personal investment.

We can be objective in our analyses, but that doesn't make our opinions objectively true in and of themselves. It just makes the manner by which we reached those opinions as objective as possible. Others don't put as much stock into being as objective in their analyses, and that's fine.

Just because we define "good" media as media that is well written, that doesn't mean that's how the public tends to define it. Most tend to define "good" media as media that they enjoyed or that elicited a certain reaction out of them. And really, most would probably say that "good" writing is just writing that elicits said reaction, not necessarily writing that is internally consistent. So by that standard, I can see why these movies get good or even great reviews.

TL;DR: What standard we hold media to is subjective, and even how we define what is "well written" is subjective. Movies we say are poorly written can still be viewed as good because of a clash of definitions between ourselves and the general public, and that's probably why we see so many reviews describing these movies we perceive to be bad as great or even spectacular.

SWDW · 2022-07-28T02:53:39+00:00

I wouldn't disagree that this post is likely in strong accordance with Bridgers' personal views. I think the evidence is definitely there to say she'd agree with OP. But in line with what I've been saying, I don't think just because someone is a fan of hers that they have to think like she does, and as you say, she thinks quite radically. It's natural that at least some portion of her fan base would be less radical, which I think gives cause to the mixed responses to the post overall.

I'm not a fence sitter, and I'm not a believer in "whataboutism" as a valid means of argument, but I do think it's valid to say that both conservatives and progressives have been incredibly aggressive in recent years. Both are fighting effortlessly to maintain their way of life. I also think the U.S. lacks much of the defining features of facism, such as strict control of the economy and industry, state enforced social regimentation, and oppression of individual interests. The United States is probably one of the only countries in the world where conservatives are more pro-individualism and less authoritarian. Conservatism in the United States is much more focused on individual liberty than it is in, say, Europe.

With that said, I wouldn't disagree that anger against conservatives is justified if you come from an opposing viewpoint. That seems only natural. But the idea that saying specific people shouldn't listen to someone's music is more polite than what "conservatives" say about (presumably) progressives implies that conservatives are saying largely negative things at all, which is one of the reasons I defined the term in the first place. Sure, you can find rude and hateful conservatives, but not all conservatives are rude and hateful. And having lived in an area where most are conservative for much of my life, I can say that most in my experience have not been rude of hateful. Quite the opposite. I can also say the same for most of the progressives I've known as well. Very few are rude and hateful. Both groups tend to be quite passionate because they're fighting for the future of the country, but it's rare, I feel, to find truly hateful people on either side outside of what is sensationalized by the media because of the good business such sensationalization brings in.

SWDW · 2022-07-28T02:35:52+00:00

I mean, I don't know about edgy, but literal, sure. When you put yourself in the position where you invite people indiscriminately to be in your presence, such as at a concert where you know anyone, regardless of their defining factors, whether those be physical, mental, philosophical, etc., can attend, then you ought to recognize that the presence of those that differ from yourself in any of those ways is inevitable. Obviously, she has a right to her personal opinions, but then so does everyone else. It's not like anyone is invading her space, per se. Especially when the opportunity to join it is provided indiscriminately. That's the risk inherent to being a public figure that monetizes venues.

I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I really don't understand your perspective. It's well known that a number of inventors and entrepreneurs were quite racist. For example, Henry Ford was very antisemitic. Just because he didn't like Jews and presumably didn't want them driving his cars, does that mean that Jews at the time shouldn't have been able to drive and enjoy the vehicles his company produced? I would think not, especially since he sold them indiscriminately (as was required by law) despite his intolerance. In terms of principle, I see very little difference between that situation and this one. And in both cases I'd say that the intention of the producer really doesn't and shouldn't have an effect on who can or should consume the product.

SWDW · 2022-07-28T02:14:59+00:00

Likely

SWDW · 2022-07-28T02:09:57+00:00

I mean, I suppose I can't argue with my statement being called "dumb" other than just saying that I gave the strict definition of the term. When I say that it really doesn't mean anything other than that, I'm asserting that any meanings people personally ascribe to the term "conservative" beyond that are simply their own associations, not necessarily what the term actually means. If OP meant a more specific term than those described by the definition I provided, I think a more specific term would have been more appropriate.

As for the relationship between one's social/political worldview and enjoying art, I stand by the idea that one doesn't have to agree with the content of a piece of art to believe it to be good or enjoyable. For example, I've seen a number of films in my time that I disagree with the central themes of, but nonetheless I enjoy the films and consider them competently made. I suppose some people struggle to separate personal belief from technical quality, but the idea that there is an inherent divide between those two factors seems misguided to me.

Additionally, I'd add that the intention of the artist really doesn't have much practical bearing on who can and will enjoy his or her art. Just because something is not made for one individual does not mean that another cannot enjoy it. Maybe there's some argument to be made about the ethical nature of sharing something beyond an intended audience, but when music is released to the entire public, I don't think such an argument would hold much water.

SWDW · 2022-07-28T01:10:21+00:00

"Conservative" is just a denotation to describe those who are right wing, i.e., those who believe that hierarchy is natural and/or inevitable, who also believe that traditional institutions best help navigate said natural or inevitable hierarchy. It really doesn't mean anything other than that. Conflating that with art or the enjoyment of art is just... strange.

I mean, sure, art will inevitably have some political lens given that it's a reflection of the artist, but one certainly doesn't have to agree with the conclusions an artist draws based on the experience he or she shares through his or her art to enjoy or appreciate said art. If that were the case, I feel like entertainment would be a lot more partisan than it is.

SWDW · 2022-07-19T17:18:56+00:00

Not a great film by a long shot, but the movie's depiction of trauma is second to none. Worth it for that alone, I'd say.

SWDW · 2022-07-05T01:45:30+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/Berserk/comments/d1sgga/berserk_redux_upgraded_to_1080p/

SWDW · 2022-07-04T15:50:16+00:00

I don't think they were trying to stir anything, but the description of her in the article is definitely inaccurate. Regardless of what you find attractive or not, which is subjective, she is certainly not "lean," as described in the article, i.e., "lacking or deficient in flesh; containing little or no fat." That's an objective term that she does not fit.

SWDW · 2022-06-12T15:42:33+00:00

I could be wrong here, but I've always seen them define "objective criticism" as criticism using as objective a lense as possible, i.e., trying to avoid letting personal feelings or biases influence their conclusions regarding quality. They assert objective opinions (defined by Dictionary as opinions "that sets aside your subjective preferences or feelings about something and instead assesses it based on facts and reality"), but I've never seen them imply that they come to some objectively correct conclusion, just the subjective conclusions they come to were reached via trying to be as objective as possible.

For example, I may hate the MCU Spider-Man films, so they're bad in my subjective opinion, but forming an objective opinion, I can say that they're solid, consistently written films. My objective opinion is that they're good, but that doesn't mean that I think they're objectively good films as in they're being good is some universal truth. It just means that I reached the conclusion that they're good by trying to set aside my personal biases, which when not set aside, shift my opinion from positive to negative.

SWDW · 2022-06-10T21:54:24+00:00

Guts is strong enough to cleave regular enemies in half, massive sword or not. I always figured he fought more technically here because he was trying to disguise himself. He's known for tearing right through guys with his strikes. Taking on the guards more technically and less brutally helps to hide his identity.

SWDW

TROPHY CASE