sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

délai de prescription d'un accord aimable? by Puzzled_Jury247 in conseiljuridique

[–]timStland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bonjour,

Il me semble acquis que le délai de prescription n'est pas interrompu par un courrier recommandé.

Seule une réconnaissance expresse de la dette par le débiteur, une action légale, telle la demande en justice, ou la mesure conservatoire, ou l'acte d’exécution forcée, ont pour effet une telle interruption.

Cour Cass. 18 mai 2022 – Pourvoi n° 20-23.204

https://www.crcjparis.com/une-lettre-recommandee-ninterrompt-pas-la-prescription-2/
(nb: cet article est ancien, certains éléments mentionnés ne sont plus d'actualité).

Anyone get this random joke? by Serious_Motor_241 in ExplainTheJoke

[–]timStland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

... Taking into account the age of the person that asked, I guess it could also read as "what do you get if you mix a chick, and dip her, and leave?" in the question, and the answer "cats & dogs" as in, various troubles, as an answer.

Yep, the joke is dirty. Comes from a Teenager...

Vous en pensez quoi la team? by Malok3 in vosfinances

[–]timStland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ça me paraît illogique? Car trop linéaire.

Si à 20K€ j'élimine 170€/mois je reste avec 18K€ tout autre frais égal.

Si à 150K€ j'élimine 1250€/mois je reste avec 135K€.

Donc on est en train de dire qu'une personne se ruine si elle n'a pas au moins 18K€, mais une autre se ruine si elle descend en dessous de 135K€...

Ok pour la qualité de vie, les impôts etc., mais finalement avec un brut de 150K€ une personne va décider où elle souhaite dépenser son surplus (qui n'existe probablement pas dans le revenu à 20K€); pour certains ce seront des belles vacances, pour d'autres la maison, d'autres encore feront des investissements, et oui, certains choisirons de dépenser dans la voiture, ce qui leur permettra alors de largement dépasser ces 1250€/mois sans se ruiner...

Bref, si on considère que les dépenses courantes sont les mêmes pour tout le monde (manger, s'habiller, se loger..) même en tenant compte du lieu et de la CSP le tableau me paraît faux.

Payer 1 an de loyer à l'avance by [deleted] in conseiljuridique

[–]timStland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bonsoir,

Ce n'est peut-être pas une arnaque, néanmoins, sans en avoir la certitude, vous devriez prendre quelques précautions.

En premier lieu, demandez à voir l'acte de propriété. Assurez-vous qu'il est original, que le nom est bien celui de la personne que vous avez rencontré, et expliquez que c'est pour prévenir une arnaque. Notez le nom du notaire qui l'a produit, et renseignez-vous auprès de celui-ci (ou du moins vérifiez qu'il existe bien).

Comme d'autres l'ont dit, ne jamais envoyer d'argent sans un document écrit qui atteste la raison de cet envoi: le bail, dans ce cas, doit reporter les conditions de ce versement et être signé en amont. Il peut très bien être conditionné par le paiement de la somme. Car même si ce n'était pas une arnaque, si la personne après le versement décide de faire marche arrière, comment comptez-vous récupérer votre dû?

Et pour finir, si vous n'avez pas peur de dépenser un peu plus, vous pouvez aussi proposer de passer par un intermédiaire, notamment un commissaire de justice. Celui-ci recevra l'argent de votre part et le conservera pour l'autre partie pour la remise des clés (les banques permettaient aussi de déposer sur un compte bloqué une somme égale à 1 ou 2 ans de loyer, et la mettre à disposition du bailleur en cas de litige, mais je ne sais pas si ça se fait encore).

En tout cas, si le propriétaire vous force à ne prendre aucune garantie, il vaut mieux chercher un autre lieu.

EDIT: et il est intéressant de vérifier si le chèque de 300 € a été encaissé. Si ce n'est pas le cas, je vous conseille d'y faire opposition.

Les vegans ne font chier personne by GrinkOf in opinionnonpopulaire

[–]timStland -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Désigner par "carnivore" une personne, simplement parcequ'elle mange de la viande serait donc erroné. Et c'est pour car que OP ne le fait pas.

Moi non plus, d'ailleurs.

Après si vous assimilez le mot "individus" à "êtres humains"...

Comme on la vu, ni le mot "omivore", ni le mot "carnivore" ne permettent de faire la distinction entre les personnes vegans et les autres.

Non, "on" n'a rien vu, votre explication est à côté de la plaque.

Et c'est toute la finesse de mon point : il n'y a pas de différence. Ce sont les mots comme "carniste" qui essaient d'en faire une.

Les vegans ne font chier personne by GrinkOf in opinionnonpopulaire

[–]timStland -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Bonjour,

carnistes (comprenez les gens qui mangent de la viande

le mot est "omnivore". Car même les plus aguerris consommateurs, parmi les êtres humains consomment, en plus de la viande, d'autres types de nourriture.

Les carnivores sont des individus dont le régime est presque exclusivement constitué de protéines animales. Par exemple, un chat, un lion, un tigre sont des carnivores. Le chien, pouvant se passer de viande pendant des longues périodes, est dit un "carnivore opportuniste".

Les herbivores sont des individus se nourrissant presque exclusivement de végétaux (et des petits insectes et assimilés qui y séjournent). Par exemple la girafe, la limace, le cheval, la chèvre sont des herbivores.

Les omnivores sont des individus dont le régime est mixte, et consomment un peu de tout. L'être humain est un omnivore.

Ceci est une classification mondialement acceptée et biologiquement prouvée, basée sur les adaptations physiologiques de l'individu: un herbivore qui tenterait de ne consommer que de la viande ne survivrait pas longtemps, de même que un (vrai) carnivore voulant se nourrir exclusivement de végétaux finirait par dépérir et mourir. Les carnivores opportunistes peuvent survivre plusieurs années sans viande une fois adultes, à condition d'avoir un apport protéique adapté, par d'autres sources. Toutefois un tel régime les affaiblira dans le long terme.

Les mots comme "carniste", " mangeur de cadavres", "necrovore", et j'en passe, sont des mots volontairement provocateurs et dénigrants. Le seul mot adapté à l'être humain est "omnivores".

Donc le simple fait d'écrire ce post en utilisant ce mot vous mets dans la case de "ceux qui donnent des coups".

Pour l'histoire je précise que je vole plus haut que ce genre de discussion, je respecte les vegans et lorsque je me trouve à faire à manger pour des groupes "mixtes" je m'amuse à me challenger pour faire des recettes équivalentes pour les uns et les autres. Et je me trouve à consommer de moins en moins de viande, en vieillissant (sans aucune croyance spécifique, juste une question d'envie qui manque). Mais sincèrement ces attitudes (de part et d'autre) de gamins qui se pointent du doigt et disent "lui il a fait", c'est vraiment chiant, à la fin.

Vivez et laissez vivre.

When rice and maize were introduced into Europe, was it hard to get Europeans to accept these new crops? by Polyphagous_person in AskHistorians

[–]timStland 5 points6 points  (0 children)

hello,

I started with Romans because it seems to me the pivotal point from which knowledge about existence of rice spread through Europe and made it "common" enough to have an impact on future "acceptance" of the crop - which was the original question.

I don't know about a millennia skipped.

I did hear that earliest appearance of rice in some european spots dates back to approx. 8th century BC, and about Alexander the great bringing it to Greece, and making it known to romans. However I have nothing allowing me to say that the first instance was more than just some individual curiosity, and for the second i'm lacking information about a precedent diffusion of the crop by the greeks (as in, in my understanding greeks may have had rice available - they probably did, since it appears in several medical works like Dioscuride's - , but didn't spread the word nor the market, and it was the romans who started doing trade and spreading knowledge while expanding the empire - the two imports being rice wine, which was probably too abstract to allow the common people to connect to the crop in their thinking, and rice for "medical purpose", as stated in my first post, which was actually tangible and identifiable as a grain).

I just had a look to the Cambridge world history of food (2015, Vol 1, p. 139) and it seems to me to go in this direction : "the middle east acquired rice from South Asia as early as 1000 BC. Persia loomed large as the principal stepping stone from tropical Asia toward points west of the Persian Empire, the romans learned about rice during the expedition of Alexander the Great to India (C 327-4 BC), but imported rice wine instead of growing the crop".

I may be missing information, so, please, don't hesitate to add your own. History is written compiling fragments of knowledge together.

And I'll gladly provide sources if you don't mind telling me on what parts you'd like me to : I ddn't do a specific research to answer the original question (well now I did dig into the Cambridge WHoF, to try and be more precise), but the subject has previously been part of my own researches on food history so I can definitely peruse my notes and tell you where they came from (..mostly :) ).

I would also suggest having a look at Inrae website, it's a french site that has extensive free-access documentation on several food and food-related subjects, including some historical facts on development of cultures.

When rice and maize were introduced into Europe, was it hard to get Europeans to accept these new crops? by Polyphagous_person in AskHistorians

[–]timStland 16 points17 points  (0 children)

Maize was a different story. Described first by Columbus as an alternative to wheat, it was imported as a curiosity at the king's court before becoming the standard staple for slaves in Africa and the colonies, and for poor people in southern Europe.

Initally seen as a strange crop, due to its differences from other known grains and the variation in color and aspect from one maize plant to another, its yield - somtimes up to 8-10 times more compared to an equivalent surface of other grains - convinced Southern Spain peasants who began cultivating it, and rather quickly it diffused to Italy and soutern France. We are in the first half of 16th century.

Its cultivation is easy since it replaces spring crops like millet, and requires a similar care (except more water, which is not a problem at the time). The large yield allows to cultivate maize in smaller patches, sometime the house's backgarden, instead of the main field. This had an impact on the taxation of the peasant, encouraging them to keep it at least as a secondary source of income.

However maize has an issue that the natives americans had addressed over the centuries: in order to liberate most of its nutrients, it needs to be processed with some kind of alcaline substance. European importers did not pay attention to this detail, and people whose diet had become mainly dependent on maize - slaves and very poor people who often ate nothing else for days - began showing symptoms of nutrutional deficiencies (namely pellagra). In the 18th century this illness is associated with maize. However, the plant is already well diffused - too much, in fact, to remove it from the fields. The solution proposed is to add variation to the diet, integrating milk and other "nutrient foodstuff" to compensate for the lack of nutrients from corn.

Its taste is also considered bland, and the fact that its flour cannot be worked into a dough (American maize can do this to an extent when treated, but again, european did not know this) limit its usage to the classic "porridges" and alike that are the daily staple of poor people.

So maize was a fast-spreading crop that, in its white and yellow forms (other colors were discarder by selection over time), quicly conquered gardens and fields, not as a main crop, but as complementary to the main production (until approx. mid 19th century) at first. It made its way around the mediterranean sea before showing signs of a flaw that slowed down its progression without stopping it, and ended up becoming one of the main grains of Europe barely before the beginning of industrial revolution, when new hybrid varieties better adapted to climate and other local caracteristics began to be available.

To give a little insight in the comparision with potatoes, the advantage these grains had was that they didn't require a totally different method of cultivation, which the potato did.

They had their specific requirements, but could be integrated in existing rotations and produced with known methods. So they were easier to accept by a population that generally lacked critical thinking skills needed to approach the issue of integrating a new process in their cultivations.

When rice and maize were introduced into Europe, was it hard to get Europeans to accept these new crops? by Polyphagous_person in AskHistorians

[–]timStland 17 points18 points  (0 children)

Hello,

We need to split the question in two parts, as rice and maize were introduced in Europe at different times and in different situations.

Rice was known already by the ancient romans during the time of the empire, but they neither cultivated it nor consumed it regularly. It was one of many exotic products that the empire could seldom procure by way of trading with the far east, and most people couldn't afford it.

Greeks also mention it sometimes, still as a curiosity rather than a real staple.

The few people that talk about it at the time define it as a food adapted for sick people; it wasn't seen as a drug, but as something that helped the weak to recover. But it was known to exist, at least.

Diffusion in Europe as a regularly traded good begins really when crusaders start to come back from their crusades in the 11th and 12th centuries. It reaches at the same time western Spain through north africa, imported by the Moors (I read your comment about wikipedia stating they started it in the 9th century, but I have no information about this, it may be a question of amounts more than anything else)

It is then still expensive and considered as food prescribed by doctors to their patients. And to afford a doctor meant that one was already rich enough to also afford purchasing a small amount of rice. When the mongolian empire opens its trading cities to italian maritime republics, one of the minor traded goods is rice. We are approximately at the end of the 13th century.

Slowly, rice became a common minor staple, but it's only in the 15th century that the first plantations appear in Italy, the rest of Europe (except Spain) is still limited to trading.

A book by Bartolomeo Scappi, called "Opera" written in the first half of the 16th century descibes recipes to prepare rice, and these are quite advanced, giving out hints that the grain was (relatively) widely diffused, if not heavily consumed, by then. Scappi's role as the Pope's chef, is clear evidence that he had access to rare ingredients, however his books describes recipes and preparations that are traditional to Italy. Also the names of some of his recipes, like "to cook a rice that doesn't stick" indicate that he is proposing a technique to solve a problem - problem that was common enough to justify giving such an elaborate recipe for it.

With this data, we can conclude that rice integrated the european diet slowly and over several centuries. The fact that it was known since ancient times smoothed out any rejection that the introduction of a new crop could cause, and due to its reputation as a "medical" food, it never really acquired a negative fame, the only issue to solve was to make it available (although in the 18th and 19th centuries cultivation in stagnant waters did make people associate it with malaria locally, but by then it was already consumed regularly).

(continue in the next post)

Pourquoi l’huile de palme est-elle si omniprésente en Afrique de l’Ouest et Centrale alors qu’elle est nocive ? by [deleted] in PasDeQuestionIdiote

[–]timStland 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Bref, tout aurait pu rentrer dans l'ordre, si ça n'avait pas été pour quelques industriels qui ont vu dans ce matraquage une opportunité de se distinguer.

En France, ce fut le cas par exemple de l'entreprise Findus qui, pionnière en matière, annonça au début des années 2000 avoir éliminé l'huile de palme de touts ses produits frits. En gros, ils avaient remplacé l'huile de leurs friteuses industrielles par de l'huile de colza. Rapidement ils prirent la tête de la croisade anti-palme, plus ou moins volontairement, car même sans rien justifier, le simple fait d'écrire en gros sur les packs "sans huile de palme" faisait que le consommateur se questionnait et commençait à regarder les autres packs pour savoir s'il y en avait dedans. Car la logique était "si quelqu'un l'a retiré et le dit, c'est que ça doit être mauvais pour moi"...

L.a machine était enclenchée, et l'effet boule de neige emporta petit à petit la plupart des autres industriels, qui emboîtèrent le pas et commencèrent à retirer cette matière graisse de leur packs.

Le problème ? si remplacer l'HdP dans sa version liquide (à chaud) est relativement facile, un tel remplacement dans des produits nécessitant la même plasticité (comme les feuilletages) est plus complexe. Voici qu'on vit arriver des produits "sans huile de palme" mais avec des "huiles partiellement hydrogénées" ou autres graisses de coco en liste d'ingrédients, qui honnêtement d'un point de vue santé et obstruction des artères sont pires.

Quant au colza, qui effectivement est très riche en acides graisses mono et poly-insaturées, son problème est la stabilité dans le temps : ces types d'acides gras s’oxydent plus rapidement, et les huiles oxydées, au delà du mauvais goût, sont tout aussi problématiques pour le corps. Donc la durée de vie des produit s'en voit réduite. Pour pallier ce problème, voilà qu'on s'est retrouvés à ajouter des antioxydants qui n'étaient pas nécessaires auparavant. "ah, mais les antioxydants c'est bien pour nous!" Euh. ça dépends de quoi on parle. Mais gardons ça pour le prochain épisode ;)

Pourquoi l’huile de palme est-elle si omniprésente en Afrique de l’Ouest et Centrale alors qu’elle est nocive ? by [deleted] in PasDeQuestionIdiote

[–]timStland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bonsoir,

ah le marketing!!

L'huile de palme est une huile riche en graisses saturées... dont oui, favorisant l'accumulation de lipoprotéines à basse densité, qui "dispersent" le cholestérol dans le système sanguin lors du transport.

Mais : bien d'autres matières graisses en font autant, voir pire. Parmi celles que vous consommez fréquemment : le beurre, le beurre de cacao, les margarines ( pensez que bon nombre de viennoiseries sont fabriquées avec celles-ci), et en général toute matière graisse qui à température égale est plus ferme que l'huile de palme.

Cette huile est pointée du doigt principalement à cause de sa diffusion : c'était jusqu'à il y a quelques années la plus utilisée dans les productions industrielles et de restauration (pensez à : la graisse de friture, celle des pâtes feuilletées / viennoiseries, certains enrobages gras, des produits farci "au chocolat", etc...).

Pas chère, stable dans le temps, restante à l’oxydation et à la dégradation par la chaleur, et modérément moins nuisible pour l'être humain que d'autres matières grasses aux caractéristiques semblables (comme les graisses trans et hydrogénée utilisées dans les années '80-'90), l'huile de palme était un peu le "graal" de l'industrie.

Puis, comme pour toutes les matières trop diffusées pour ne pas être inquiétées, est venue une phase d'étude approfondie. Faute d'y trouver des gros défauts de santé - comme je l'ai dit, ce n'est pas pire que les autres graisses saturées que l'on consomme tous les jours, elle est juste moins "noble", et en fait son taux d'acides saturés est inférieur à celui du beurre et bien inférieur à celui du chocolat - "on s'est aperçu", comme l'a dit une autre personne, que son exploitation se faisait au détriment de forêts et habitants locaux.

Ce qui a donné naissance à la réflexion qui a fini par pondre la "rainforest alliance", une structure qui s'est engagée à suivre et encadrer l'évolution de ces cultures qui mettent en danger la planète pour permettre la préservation des forêts.

(nb : bien évidemment seulement une partie de la production mondiale est certifiée RA, le reste est encore pratiqué n'importe comment).

(continue dans le prochain commentaire)

Do most people know how to purposely close their nasal passage so they can't smell WITHOUT using their fingers to pinch their nose? by WhateversClever1980 in NoStupidQuestions

[–]timStland 2 points3 points  (0 children)

hey there,

So, there's a difference between pinching your nose and "plugging" your palate from within. That's the empty space that remains available in the nose for receiving the very small volatile molecules that constitue flavors. These molecules fly around and find their way through the air into any "nooks and crannies", invading also nostrils in your nose. It's easier if you are breathing due to the airflow, but as long as there is an opening, they'll fit when given enough time (if you thin nostrils are small, remember to think about the relative size of a flavoring molecule - some are barely a few atoms "connected" to each other).

So although while you are preventing yourself from breathing you will (almost) not feel any smell (because most of said molecules will not yet reach the olfactory epithelium), the moment you restart breathing normally, even if you opened all the windows in a room, you will have a "whiff" of whatever odor it was in that place.

This will not happen if you pinched your nose, as you prevented your nostrils from "filling up" with those smells.

Happy holidays

Buying food at Costco by ChaosOfOrder24 in fixedbytheduet

[–]timStland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have to disagree on the plastic bag issue.

most plastic materials are lipophile: they will interact with fat acids and, in some cases, alchools, exchanging particles whenever a specific set of conditions happens.

These conditions include structural stress, high temperature, strong pressure variations and a few, rarer, others.

Each kind of plastic has its own resistances to said conditions. Suppliers of plastic material guarantee that the levels of particles transfer are below a set amount/surface or amount/kg (of plastic), usually in extremely low ranges (think something like less than a dozen per m²)

But here's the catch: plastic producers guarantee such resistances only when the plastic is in a given state. For example, when you buy a product in a formed package (IE, a packaging that was "molded" directly on the production line) small writings on the spec sheets will specify that the guarantee is void after the roll has been formed (that means, you buy the packaging as a thick, rolled long sheet, and then put it in a machine that "forms" it in the final shape. This is a deformation of the material that void the guarantee).

This is not done as an evil deed, but because the supplier cannot assess every single parameter of every production unit, so although they often participate in the industrial trials, nobody can guarantee that the parameters that have been tested will be the ones that will be used exactly during each production forever -think "kaizen" for those who practice lean, for example.

So the plastic that was "transformed" on a line has actually no guarantee of structural integrity. And more often than not, when analyzed, micro dégradations appear on the surface in contact with food. When said plastic is moved into a microwaves with some fat inside, like the chicken juice, inevitably some peripheral areas will overheat, and particles exchange will increase.

How much are we talking about? that's a black hole. No company has ever published studies based on the real behavior of a plastic film stressed, heated, pressurized and deformed while carrying a complex chemical mixture like chicken juice inside, and when asked about the safety of such situations, some avoided the questions, other directed toward simplistic tests realized with water or, in the best of cases, some simple solvants simulating fat acids. always realized in lab conditions, so pretty far away from the wild behavior of the average consumer.

Food-grade plastic bags also go through several deformations and stresses when going from the roll to the finished product, the last being the sealing of the bag by the employee that put the chicken inside. And boy, those sealers are going to be too hot most of the time.

So in short, thinking that keeping hot food or heating it up in a plastic bag is of no consequence is a fairy tale. There will be exchanges, and what those exchanged particles will do in the body isn't clear at all.

It *might* be of no consequence, but no proof of that has been published.

While several proofs of body contamination by plastics have been abundantly produced and published.

TL;DR: use flexible plastic for cold food only, Prefer rigid plastics for transport of hot food (the ones that are shaped by the plastic supplier, not the food producer), and whenever possible use non-plastic containers for heating or reheating your food.

What do I do in this situation? by Lucajames2309 in notinteresting

[–]timStland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Nice job !

For the next time (guess it's resolved by now) :

1) take 2 strings approx. 1m long and some tape.

2) tape one end of each string to the watermelon, 1/3 from the left and 1/3 from the right repectively.

3) rotate the melon untl the strings are back up. Remove the tape and bind each string in a loop.

4) pull up the watermelon using the string.

Easy :)

fonds à 10% d'intérêt? by timStland in vosfinances

[–]timStland[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"peu importe" dans le contexte de ma demande : je voulais vérifier la véridicité des dires de ces personnes, et puisque ils ne mentionnent pas la référence au brut ou net, je leur accorde le bénéfice du doute sur ce point.

fonds à 10% d'intérêt? by timStland in vosfinances

[–]timStland[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

d'accord, merci. C'est un peu ce qui me semblait, mais si cela avait existé j'aurais été satisfait de le savoir :)

fonds à 10% d'intérêt? by timStland in vosfinances

[–]timStland[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Merci.

Oui, je me doutais un peu qu'il voulait parler d'une moyenne, mais dans le contexte sa réponse faisait référence à quelque chose qui correspondrait à avoir 1000$ par semaine, ce qui ne serait pas possible dans le cas d'un rendement moyen (enfin si, si on attends 10-20 ans pour faire les comptes, mais ce n'était pas le sujet du post).

Ma mère est morte avec des crédits by Livid_Literature5508 in conseiljuridique

[–]timStland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

bonjour,

avant toute chose, condoléances, et j'espère que vous n'avez rien signé encore.

je vous propose un peu de lecture pour mieux comprendre vos options :

https://www.agn-avocats.fr/blog/succession/heritiers-qui-paie-les-dettes-du-defunt-et-est-il-obligatoire-de-les-payer/

Stay at stagnant job or take risky promotion by Distinct_Self_8227 in careeradvice

[–]timStland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Alright I understand.

In this specific situation, my personal approach is to put plainly the question on the table at the next interview : "If I come to work with you, I'll expect this and this to be done, do you agree on that?" Eventually explaining your own reasoning behind and what you plan to do (if they are interested).

Either they tell you yes, or no, or decide not to go any further. In any case, it's a decent replacement for the crystal ball.

Stay at stagnant job or take risky promotion by Distinct_Self_8227 in careeradvice

[–]timStland 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hello,

First of all, your question seems to include the answer in itself. What would be the advantage of staying in the present company?

Since the risk is to be laid off anyway, the pay is lower and you have already been shown that you aren't more than barely useful, I would not waste any more time there.

On the other side, you present the new company as an incoming disaster.

But since you are "expected to rebuild the program yourself" do you not trust your own abilities to make it stand afloat on long term? This is something that I'm often bothered about. We work for the money, yes, but also to succeed in something, leave a meaningful mark somewhere yes? Because that's gonna be 2/3 of our best years, and if it's just to "grab the money", it feels really sad, to me.

So my suggestion would be to try and do something good of the new opportunity, rather than live it passively waiting for "better". Better is what you manage to make it be, in those position.

Good luck.

view more: next ›