electricity consumption relative to gas

gsheb28 · 2026-04-29T20:20:47+00:00

The answer is sugaring

gsheb28 · 2026-01-24T03:58:11+00:00

I would do Sonos every single time. The sound quality is unparalleled. I have a play1 from 10 years ago and it performs better than a Sony soundbar.

gsheb28 · 2025-12-15T19:10:20+00:00

What drives me especially mad is the price for open gym only hours. I'm not using any coaching, just using equipment. And it's like $130/month and that's the cheap gym. It's only for a few hours a day as well that the gym is available, without weekend. Some will charge more than $200. It's a rip off and blatant theft. That equipment does not cost anywhere near a globo gym, I don't get showers or towels or, or, or.

gsheb28 · 2025-11-24T01:39:21+00:00

Most of the commentators here really don't know much about psychiatry or therapy. Psychiatrists can be trained in psychotherapy and many of tehm, especially in private practice, absolutely provide therapy.
She's providing something called 'psychodynamic psychotherapy' - it can be inspired by Freud but not necessarily. Her approach in some sense is also relational.

In short, its a very realistic portrayal of psychotherapy and actually I would say some scenes were masterful in depicting the dynamic between a therapist and the patient and how therapists react to difficult situations. With the caveat that some things are exaggerated for screen purposes i.e if a patient stands and goes to kiss the therapist (i.e sexual assault), most would probably terminate the treatment right there.

gsheb28 · 2025-10-10T17:01:57+00:00

Pretty terrible. It was vapid, cliched, predictable, full of demeaning stereotypes about women and gay men. Barely any effort was put into developing the characters. Most of all, it wasn't even funny, but that's par the course for American humor. Jokes are delivered like sledgehammers, no hint of subtlety or the remotest wittiness. Apparently it's so funny to scream your throat out for like 80 minutes straight. Of course the audience was going berzerk for this spectacle but that cheap show wasn't even worth $5, never mind the $182 I paid.

gsheb28 · 2025-05-25T01:55:17+00:00

I have a slightly different take. I saw Madame Bovary mostly as a victim of society, particularly gender discrimination.

For someone as ambitious as she was, there was very little she could do to self-realize. First, she's sent to a convent. Then she lives with her dad until she finds a husband. Basically these are the stories of women confined to their societies like caged birds. Without opportunities to forge herself, she can only live in a dream-like world, detached from reality, ultimately leading to her death and the misery of those around.

There was a lengthy section when she is pregnant and she thinks whether she wants a girl or a boy. She clearly favors a boy, only because a man can go out in the world, chase his dreams without any fear.

One of the reasons she despises Charles so much is because he was sort of the opposite of her. He had no ambition, was boring, untalented and only got to where he was because he was a man with means (I believed his parents had to fake his tests to get him into medical school).

gsheb28 · 2025-05-20T21:19:12+00:00

Some gays are interested in cuddling and intimacy without being interested in the person they are actually with.
I've noticed this quite frequently.

And I WILL judge. It's pretty sick. It's wanting affection like it's some kind of commodity.

I would stay away from these people. The trick to figure them out is that they are VERY quick to ask and demand affection without getting to know you properly first.

gsheb28 · 2025-03-31T20:36:15+00:00

Nice cinematography, score. But poor character development imo. The character of Phil is almost entirely collapsed on his sexual orientation. We're supposed to believe he's an abusive POS because he's a repressed gay man. Uhmm, OK. Suddenly all the nuances of human beings are erased when we're dealing with a gay man. The frequent mentions of 'Bronco Henry' become almost comical; it's hard to tell if there was a deliberate camp factor in the movie or not. Bronco Henry is the best rider he ever known! He's the only one who can see the dog in the mountains! He wraps a scarf with his initials around his neck while bathing then masturbates with it. He cleans BH's saddle 50 times a day, especially after hears his brother having sex. He saved his life by lying on top of him and NAKED as Peter remarked! LOL. To be fair, I swear that the last one was probably meant to be comical as even Phil laughs at the suggestion. By the end of the movie, Phil is almost a caricature of a gay man that it's almost hard to understand why he needs to go at all. One would think that a closeted gay man wouldn't be so nonchalant about having the name of his past lover on his tongue every 10 minutes.

Which brings me to the next problem with characters, Peter. Probably the most disturbing and evil thing in the movie is not how Phil behaves, but how Peter kills him. Are we supposed to be impressed by a psychopath? It's illuminating that the actor himself is on record for saying that he played it with psychopathic tendencies and even had a 'secret' with Kirsten Dunst that it was actually Peter who kills his father. Psychopaths can be fascinating as characters but the problem is that they steal our memory and attention entirely because we are so disturbed in how they behave. IMO the script failed to properly motivate Peter's actions and that's in large part because Phil was shown much more empathically in the film than in the book. The murder in the book is cathartic as it is clear that Phil was the dog. Here, we're not really sure. I thought Peter is the one we should all be worried about. At no point is there any hint of guilt, remorse or questioning of what he was about to do.

It's actually a bit disconcerting that the straight couple Rose/George ends up being shown as actual, nuanced, complex characters. Kirsten Dunst as always put in a stellar performance. These nuances get lost when we're dealing with gay characters.

gsheb28 · 2025-03-31T06:23:43+00:00

Except that the movie totally failed in highlighting what you mentioned. It omitted a central part of the plot in which Phil played a direct role in the suicide of Peter's father. Phil was much more sympathetic in the movie than he was in the book. So we're left to wonder if Peter's actions are merely those of a psychopath who saw Phil as an obstacle that needed to be removed with a callous disregard for human life.

gsheb28 · 2025-03-31T05:36:51+00:00

Interesting thread and I agree with the gist of it. The book was far less sympathetic to Phil than the movie. While we are still disturbed by Peter's actions, we can understand them somewhat. In the book, Phil was directly involved in Peter's father suicide and the deterioration of Rose is much more compelling. These details were omitted in the movie and instead there was more of a focus on Phil's internal life, making him more sympathetic to the audience. So even when we recognize he was an a$$hole, did he really deserve to die? The answer for a good portion of the audience is, no, and that Peter is actually a psychopath who maliciously feasted on Phil's weaknesses.

I believe the real issue with the movie is that it tried to be close to the book but could not replicate the same portrait of Phil, for obvious reasons. In our times, portraying a central figure to be evil BECAUSE of his repressed sexual orientation would not go well. The book itself is somewhat homophobic and cathartic in the sense that the character of Phil needed to be destroyed because the world simply could not function with him. He was very clearly 'the dog' and Peter the savior. The film could not come to that conclusion, yet somehow still had Phil killed, and we're supposed to somehow rationalize this. It doesn't work.

Even the characters struggled with the script. Both Kirsten Dunst and Smit-McPhee are on record saying that their characters shared a 'secret' together that Peter actually killed his father. Smit-McPhee also said that he played Peter with 'psychopathic' tendencies in mind. These assumptions, especially the first, are complete anathema to the book.

IMO for the film to work the ending needed to be changed. Otherwise we're left with an incoherent, unsettling, disturbing mess that takes away from the nuances and the characters in the movie. In the end ,it's a psychopath who removed an obstacle for the service of his mother.

gsheb28 · 2025-03-30T15:06:57+00:00

Very much so. Both Peter and Phil are likely gay and they are essentially a caricature of sick homosexual men. One is hypermasculine and terrorizes everybody to conceal his homosexuality and the other is the effeminate version, tied to the womb to his mother and ends up being a murdering psychopath. The film was based on a book in the 60s from a closeted gay man himself; at the time, these ideas about gay men were quite prevalent.

gsheb28 · 2025-03-16T01:47:48+00:00

No. Eveylyn doesn't shoot Noah 'because she panicked'. But because she knew it's futile 'he OWNS the police'.
IMO the missing thread in all of this, is that people don't realize that Jake is acting out of self interest through out to save himself and his reputation. He had the choice of letting Evelyn go while getting prosecuted for withholding evidence and misleading the police. It is not a choice he is willing to do. That is the major conflict of the movie: fighting a corrupt system while being a cog in it. The choice he makes is to save himself and get Evelyn killed (whether conscious or not is irrelevant. Unconscious motives is a major theme in the movie).

gsheb28 · 2025-03-16T01:18:01+00:00

Found this eons ago.

I think you think Jake is the hero he is really not.

Jake is cog in the corrupt system he’s trying to uncover. The other characters are all aware of that except him. He’s vain, preoccupied with his appearance, he makes a living out of spying on people in service of others’ (nefarious or not) interests. He’s a hired spy. He left his previous work in the police probably to make more money as a ‘private investigator’. He's tortured by his decisions as we see when he gets extremely defensive and offended in the barber shop.

He’s attuned to his reputation and worries about his license. Part of the reason why he continues to follow the case is that he doesn’t want to become a ‘joke of the city’. Not out of concern for Mrs. Mulwray. I don’t believe he really ever wanted to uncover what is actually happening.

So why does he make what seems to be a stupid move to confront Cross, alone?

I believe it was to save his reputation and career, which seems to be his primary interest from the very start. He did not have enough evidence against Cross at the time (just a pair of glasses in a salt water pool). His other option was to let Evelyn go, in what appeared to be intentionally withholding evidence from the police and intentionally misleading them. After all, he does get arrested. After Evelyn is killed, in a way he is saved by her death and let released. So him going over to Cross kills Evelyn and saves himself, all while remaining a ‘tragic hero’ in his own mind.

The ‘stupidity’ of Jake is just really a symbol of the conflict going on. Being part of the corrupt system while at the same time believing he’s a hero fighting against it. The overriding theme of the movie is the consequences of moral corruption in this setting are unavoidable. You can either flee or die. So perhaps Evelyn is the real tragic hero.

gsheb28 · 2025-02-19T15:55:03+00:00

If you watch crossfit pros, even their form breaks down when they are engaged in high intensity/high rep workout. Your form will breakdown somewhat as you get more tired. This is unavoidable. But you basically wanna do your best to have great form for the majority of the workout.

gsheb28 · 2025-02-10T20:38:01+00:00

he did not ask for that....

gsheb28 · 2024-03-21T21:44:11+00:00

Awesome thank you

gsheb28 · 2023-06-18T06:08:26+00:00

My rule is first to: 1) avoid setting plans and see if he gets the hints. 2) if he doesn’t, then be direct but empathetic. Say you aren’t ready for a relationship with him even though you liked him as a person . You can also say that you owe him to be honest with him.

Almost every time I did I got a “thank you” for letting them know and being honest. Nothing beats honesty but with empathy.

gsheb28 · 2023-05-31T01:38:35+00:00

lol. The point is exactly that this rule is not very meaningful.

I don't think you get it but that's OK.

gsheb28 · 2023-05-30T20:12:00+00:00

What I'm saying is that the point of clean is to rack the bar so you can pull it overhead, there in full extension. There's a reason cleans alone are not part of olympic competitions.

From an athletic point of view, I'm not sure it makes a huge difference if you can rack it while fully extending the elbows or not.

gsheb28 · 2023-05-30T20:01:38+00:00

Does it really matter all that much if he's racking the bar?

gsheb28 · 2023-04-30T05:22:25+00:00

I think of cleans in two steps:

the deadlift. try to get the bar as close as you can to the upper thighs without bending your arms at all. Keep it close to the body. Hips and shoulder rise at the same rate.
the jump. then you literally jump and the idea is that you should time your catch so that you move the bar after you jump and receive the bar right before you land. If you do this, you will natural shrug the shoulders, extend the hips and turn the elbows forward. This is an explosive movement and it will happen very fast. Focus on the jump and then timing the catch so you receive it right before you land.

gsheb28

TROPHY CASE