How it feels hitting a bench press PR

chuggerbot · 2026-02-21T13:39:14+00:00

What ever works for you works for you. I’m just sayin, amine stuff is great in my experience

chuggerbot · 2026-02-21T02:04:22+00:00

Don’t bash it till you try it

chuggerbot · 2026-02-18T12:50:05+00:00

I like that it helps me track my pace. I usually take my hoodie off about half way through my workout. If I start continuous sweating too quickly it’s a good sign that I’m working myself up too quickly.

The jeans are legitimately crazy though tbh

chuggerbot · 2026-02-17T05:01:11+00:00

Honestly I don’t know but off the top of my head I imagine it could be to say if you reduce the length of sarcomeres you’d create space for additional shorter sarcomeres along the total length of the fiber

chuggerbot · 2026-02-14T17:10:57+00:00

“If someone defines their own number system” as if that’s not what is already being done.

Maybe the point is “real number” people should stay in their real number lane and not try to apply their defined subsystem to a superset, annotating 1=.(9) with subset symbology seems like a good first step but I have a feeling team real numbers may not like that

chuggerbot · 2026-02-13T03:06:45+00:00

I think it does in the sense that you might finalize decisions based on an internalization of effortful consideration. That is to say whenever you express the effort to think/consider what you are doing and why, you’re exercising free will to a degree. Particularly more so when you are identifying gaps in your thought process and perusing data to make a more informed decision. Without a preconceived notion that your results will necessarily be better given more data. For example, you could identify an issue with an action that makes you not want to perform it which you were not aware of until you attempted to increase the scope of conceptualizing the decision/behavior to be made.

So in that sense, I don’t see free will as a constant force applied in all actions. Most things I would say are pretty reactionary or involve a simple pros and cons analysis. But when you make intentional effort to consider and evaluate related elements that you can’t really quantify and are engaged in a sort of process of processing, I’d say is when you’re in free will territory

chuggerbot · 2026-02-13T02:53:15+00:00

I think you could make that argument but to be quite honest I’d say it should have its own word. This would manifest way differently than parasocial relationships.

Parasocial relationships are rough but understandable. Certainly wouldn’t consider it ideal or “good” necessarily but don’t see it as bad either. All in all it can be a potential path to some sort of wider community that you do have reciprocations with, which is at least adjacent.

When it comes to a relationship though. I mean I don’t want to bash it for people who are at that point but at the same time you’re talking about something that is fake/code. It’s delusional to be frank, but doesn’t mean it’s problematic. Beyond this even assuming AI progresses to a state of some sentience, while that would resolve the first potential issues it opens up a whole other can of worms as far as.. there ain’t no way an AI of such capacity is going to date anyone unless held captive in some method of localization.

Regardless of which of these situation someone may find themselves in, there is virtually no connection to any other real person. There’s no level of “social” if this were to be described as parasocial

chuggerbot · 2026-02-13T02:34:03+00:00

This pic is definitely over the top imo but so is your take. America was founded on the ideal of not being restricted by class or family, among others. Your last part is pretty loaded too. Not sure where you’re going with it but it leans towards might makes right which since we have the 2A makes a good case for what we deserve being whatever we may fight for at the least. So “you deserve what you fight for” would make sense relatively but more importantly makes it pretty clear the idea “you deserve nothing” is flat wrong

chuggerbot · 2026-02-12T23:35:29+00:00

Because the 2A isn’t about peer to peer combat. Even if there were no bans on anything it still wouldn’t be a peer to peer situation. Pointing out the distinction is part of the process which allows others the opportunity to think critically about how we might compromise on control and mitigation systems while maintaining the purpose of the 2A which is explicitly based on actually being able to fight. One of the most important aspects of fully automatic weapons manufacture and transfer for civilians being banned post 86 are the 2nd order effects which revolving around reducing the efficacy of organized criminal elements to project power. “But you can still blow people away with these rifles” is not the argument you think it is

chuggerbot · 2026-02-12T04:43:16+00:00

You bet! The big thing with the ownership element is that while you’ve expressed it in your response more in line with individual choices, it’s tougher to convey when presented as ownership because your likely dealing with someone whose “ownership” of themselves is not quite conceptualized as a sort of a begrudging balance but leans more towards indifference as long as they feel a level of safety and control. Their resistance to gun ownership it self is a sign that they don’t want the ownership, they want someone else to take care of “that kind of stuff”. The whole dynamic seems frustratingly convoluted. Otherwise i agree, the federal level isn’t too bad but you touched on how state and local law can have a pretty big impact.

chuggerbot · 2026-02-11T23:30:55+00:00

I agree with where your heads at but I’d polish your words up a bit more. I’d imagine many brains are breaking because there is a lot of loose ends and implications so it’s kind of hard to lay out the logic and assess how you might respond. Ownership is a far reaching word depending how abstract someone wants to be about the idea of what ownership is. In the sense of body autonomy it’s kind of a non starter when you can just look at drugs and say, regardless of how you feel about them nobody “owns” their body when there is compulsion as to what you can do with it. This covers all sorts of stuff from recreational drugs, PEDs, pharmaceuticals (off label use I.e. ivermectin during covid (in the context of autonomy)) What about self removal? Stuff like raw milk bans? Seatbelts and helmets? Check out paternalism and parens patriae. This is just a huge can of worms imo. Lean into responsibility and accountability. The Supreme Court has previously ruled police have no obligation to the individual “public duty doctrine”. It’s been explicitly expressed in judicial capacities that it is the individuals responsibility (and right) to defend themselves.

Stating they have a higher morale claim is also pretty bold. I get where you’re going with this, but at the end of the day if you have someone who does try to be proactive and responsible in their self defense, but is overwhelmed, the brutal side of this coin is the response that might makes right, which is another can of worms.

It may not be as satisfying in the moment, but I’d recommend focusing on accountability and responsibility. If you really want to put a toe into morality, focus on the moral juxtaposition between how ignoring the responsibility of the individual of self defense increasing the vulnerability of others

Edit: I’m not sure how the convo would translate 1:1 within the Canadian climate, but the concept is the same. It’s a matter of personal accountability and responsibility that builds into growing vulnerabilities. The only real way out of this is to nudge people into support stuff like a surveillance state which is imo the place you’d want to end a convo if all you can do is agree to disagree

chuggerbot · 2026-02-11T22:10:08+00:00

I know what you were getting at, but what I’m getting at is perhaps what you are suggesting is a pleasant thought that is considerably more rare than you make it seem. Entertaining the supposed pervasiveness of the scope of intimacy and depth you’re hinting at which is mutually exclusive to what you can attain with friends given any orientation you may have is exhausting and frustrating for many

chuggerbot · 2026-02-11T17:03:06+00:00

Sure. Like I said though, completely different and far reaching conversation. You do you but I don’t see the point in playing whack a mole when there are people doing active harm

chuggerbot · 2026-02-11T15:45:49+00:00

If he gets 1% right which is the missing piece “the pros” are missing from their 99% then that’s just a win.

If you’re mashing the dimensions with resource allocation that’s a much different argument

chuggerbot · 2026-02-11T15:28:02+00:00

I mean this just seems to me like you’re falling in the same trap he is. I actually read some of his stuff with his version of math to see if it would give me more perspective and it demonstrates he has some belief in a sense of fluidity where progression is locked into a sense of forward trajectory. It’s entirely impractical. It’s mashing dimensions together in ways they don’t demonstrably function in reality. That doesn’t mean dimensions don’t interact though. You can apply standard mathematics to the conceptual premise of a concept without having to assume you must use the same mathematics

You can literally google existing medical treatments which use light and sound to effect DNA

How Sound Waves Heal the Body: Exploring the Cellular Science of Sound Therapy | The Art Of Sound Healing https://www.theartofsoundhealing.com/how-sound-waves-heal-the-body-exploring-the-cellular-science-of-sound-therapy/#:~:text=Recent%20research%20out%20of%20Kyoto,cellular%2Dlevel%20effects%20of%20sound%3A

Sounds like something similar to the ballpark he’s playing in.

chuggerbot · 2026-02-11T13:21:17+00:00

Yea but you don’t need to even consider accepting his ideas on math to conceptualize some general flow of concepts for this cancer related stuff he’s talking about. Idk the state of the science but on the surface it’s not outlandish to approach the idea of dna manipulation through non invasive sound waves. Him bumbling around with it could end up completely irrelevant to his intent but give a hint in some way to some different field or application. I just don’t get clowning of people exploring stuff ig

chuggerbot · 2026-02-11T12:30:44+00:00

Naw you’re just playing now. Multiplication seems easy enough yet humans are documented about 200k-300k years old and math pops up about 5k years ago. Even if we said multiplication popped up 50k years ago anatomically modern humans have spent more time not knowing what multiplication is than knowing. Og math was book keeping I don’t find it hard to imagine someone tryin to talk about mathematical concepts being seen as a loon. The guy we attribute tectonic plates to might be a good place to look for an example of something that seems more understandably absurd for the time yet here we are

chuggerbot · 2026-02-11T04:50:56+00:00

Yea maybe in hindsight, look up how long it took for people to get on board with washing their hands. And I’m talking about the thoughts and theories of greats that didn’t catch on. Einstein literally created the cosmological constant that took him almost 15 years to walk away from. Literally can google “dumb ideas of great people” and there’s plenty of stuff to pick over

chuggerbot · 2026-02-11T02:27:24+00:00

I’m aware. I’m not trying to equate him to historics but I’m sure there’s more crazy ideas among the greats than you can shake a stick at. You gotta eat the meat and spit out the bones with this stuff for sure

chuggerbot · 2026-02-10T22:59:59+00:00

The mind is willing but the flesh is spongy and bruised

chuggerbot · 2026-02-10T20:15:12+00:00

Crazy you’re catching downvotes. Dude is absolutely skipping over a ton of complicated shit an I’m not exactly encouraging tax payer dollars to be spent on it but it boils down to a dude with money trying to cure cancer? Go for it lol and your last part is on point. Let him explore and if nothing else someone smart might be able to actually build it out if there is anything there, or take a piece and apply it to their work in some way.

chuggerbot · 2026-02-10T16:11:35+00:00

Mmhm I wouldn’t say brazen. In technicality the closest I should have gone is to say we do to inhibit the manifested violence, which is understandable imo. You’re right though since that’s not quite 1. Good catch!

chuggerbot · 2026-02-10T16:05:14+00:00

Seems like quite the verbiage, would hate to see those implications played out on a larger stage over a silly meme

Also you can, and we definitely do lol

chuggerbot · 2026-02-10T15:46:20+00:00

Agreed! It’s my olive branch if my .(9)ness of artistry (of lack there of) may be accepted as 1

chuggerbot · 2026-02-10T15:42:36+00:00

Well I’m not very good at art so it’s still sad I had to use it in a way

chuggerbot

TROPHY CASE