I love them! Generally find that once you get one it’s a lot easier. I find that if I’ve not looked at one for a while, and 8k kit getting it, and I go back to the first one I got (some boxing kangaroos) and normally it just clicks again.
My partner can’t see them, and is convinced it’s just a dumb hoax that people on the Internet play pretending they can see them.
I see a bunch of people posting civil and reasonable issues with the thinking behind your shower thought, and then you replying in an immature and disingenuous manner. I think the contrasting upvotes / downvotes in your comments vs everyone elses suggests that my interpretation is shared by the wider community.
I almost didn’t comment because I thought from your behaviour it was obvious trolling, and there’s no point reasoning with trolls. But looking through your post history, you seem like you’re generally posting on good faith, so I thought I’d try and explain that you do not need to react so defensively to legitamate discussion and disagreement.
A shower thought doesn’t need to be factually correct to be interesting, but when you post a pretty extreme take on a serious and sensitive subject, it isn’t surprising that people are going to clarify where you’ve gone wrong.
This isn’t debate club.
If people aren’t suppose to discuss and possibly disagree, why post? What do you think is the purpose of the showerthoughts community?
You could try doing some searches for companies in your area that do the sort of work your interested. Most of them will have some public facing site for attracting customers or just for corporate image. Then you can normally find an email or social media details to get in touch and explain what you can offer.
And if the way you have to contact them is LinkedIn you might have to just suck it up. Almost no one who uses LinkedIn likes it. Like most things about employment, people just figure out how to give the right image for the industry they want to work in, and put on that professional front whenever they have to deal with the constant stream of bullshit. So if that means writing an upbeat “I think I could offer a lot of skills and passion to contribute to your organisation inspiring mission” type message to a 50yo self-centered ceo then, well, that’s how you get jobs sometimes.
I think you are completely misrepresenting the literature in the field. There has been decades of research on inner monologues, but whether anyone truly has no inner monologue is still a matter of debate, and suggesting that it could be as much as 50% is absolutely wild.
One recent example is Nedergaard and Lupyan (2024), who used questionnaires on 1,037 participants and found no one who reported a complete lack of inner speech. They did show a link between lower frequency of internal speech and lower performance on sole verbal cognitive tasks.
But this was frequently misreported in popular science news, which may be where you got the idea. For example, Science Daily’s headline “People without an inner voice have poorer verbal memory” and subheading “Between 5-10 per cent of the population do not experience an inner voice” certainly make some bold claims (although still well below your “up to 50%” statistic). But just a few lines into the article it’s been rephrase as “between 5-10 per cent of the population do not have the same experience of an inner voice”. This is more accurate, as all studies agree that there is a variety of experiences of inner voices / monologues, but a different experience is not the same as an absence.
In another comment you make reference to the experience sampling study (where a buzzer would sound and participants would record whether they were experiencing an inner monologue) which I assume is the work of Heavey and Hurlburt. It’s true that they claim that 5 of their 30 participants recorded no instances of inner voice, but let’s be clear about what the experimental procedure was: the participant would turn on the buzzer, which would buzz at a random time (an average of every 30 minutes) and the study was based on two periods of five samples. So, ten data points collected over approx five hours.
Even people with strong inner monologues report different frequencies of inner speech depending on their activities. Many people do not experience inner speech when actively engaging in other verbal activity - talking with friends, watching a video; while quiet focused activities such as golf show much higher reporting of inner speech. So the absence for five individuals of any inner speech during those ten particular samples is in no sense equievlant to “16% of peole have no inner monologue”. Indeed even the study’s authors acknowledge “it is possible that these participants may all have actually had quite similar inner experiences; it is merely the reports of those experiences that differed.”
Tldr: I think you’re making some very wild claims about this subject, without posting sources. No significant study I know of claims that any sizable percentage of the population have no inner voice, (although there certainly is an interesting variety in how frequent and clearly it is experienced.)
An Internet without privacy and encryption sounds awful. But one where it’s illegal to talk about politics and religion sounds pretty tempting at times…
I think it’s been a very long time (if ever) that YouTube searches weren’t somewhat localised. If you live in an anglophone country you might not notice it, but YouTube wouldn’t have got very far if Germans got rodents instead of advice when searching “rat”.
Most salad dressings are just savoury cocktails
Check if you’ve actually got a mild fungal infection, that’s often the cause. Or you’re allergic to something.
Are you having rest days? Rest and recovery are a pretty vital part of actually seeing any benefits from exercise. Especially since you’ve got a physically demanding job, your body might be crying out for some recovery time. If you really want to keep the habit of daily exercise, you could try splitting some of the activities out to alternating days, so you could still do some gentle yoga and stretching on ‘rest’ days, but only do the cardio and core on alternating days.
If its important to you, and you’re capable of having grown-up conversations as a couple, then there’re probably lots of ways to figure it out. Start by taking the pressure completely off by telling him that you understand that it makes him uncomfortable and you’d never want to pressure him into something he’s not fully consenting to (can you imagine if it was a 20F posting that her older boyfriend keeps trying to push her to have sex in a situation she feels uncomfortable in?)
Then try and find out what is actually the source of the issue for him, and if he wants to, work on that. If he deep down struggles to believe that your parents are cool with this guy banging their can’t-even-drink-in-a-bar* aged daughter then maybe your parents have to be more direct about giving their approval. I had a gf who’s parents had noisy sex when we were staying over and whose dad made super weird jokes like “we want her back in one piece <wink>” when we said goodnight. It was deeply awkward, but I certainly didn’t worry about them judging us for having sex.
Similarly, if it just makes him feel self-conscious and that doesn’t make him feel very sexy, maybe you can start doing (consensual) minor sex stuff during the day while he’s visiting. Or spend time during the day watching TV or chatting in your bedroom with the door shut. And once he’s confortable spending time in your bed and in private, and he sees that your parents don’t judge him even though you could have been having sex, it’ll be easier to accept an overnight. And tbh, when staying in someone else’s house it’s much easier it have sex during the day when people are busy and there’s noise from TVs and stuff, than at night when any noise feels very obvious.
But the main thing is to respect each other’s boundaries, and realise that some things take time.
Do you know what part is “too intimate”? Is it sleeping over in general, do you stay at his? Is it the awkwardness of your parents being around? Or, with intimate / all adults / private lives are you really talking about him not being comfortable having sex with his girlfriend in her parents house?
All of those are pretty normal, but can probably be resolved in different ways. E.g if he just likes his own space, maybe starting with a single night staying over makes more sense than a few days, and at the weekend so it’s not disrupting his schedule or whatever he worries about.
If it’s the sex one, I’d recommend a bit of empathy. Some people are really relaxed about sex and others are not. And as a guy, if I’m worrying about someone hearing us, how much noise the bed is making, etc it can be pretty hard to get in the mood and some guys can be worried about not being able ‘to perform’ especially when you’re both young and only been dating a short time. And it’s not as easily brushed aside as “don’t worry about it, they don’t care” once my mind is focused on what someone downstairs might be hearing and thinking, I’m not in the moment any more.
I don’t see flirting as very different from making friends. The two biggest differences would be speed and boundaries.
If I’m trying to make friends, I’d be mindful to not seem too keen and obvious, which is also generally good flirting advice, but sometimes you can be extremely obvious with flirting (the “nice boots, wanna fuck?” approach). I’m sure there are situations where saying “I want to be your friend!” is a good strategy but they’re pretty damn rare (and probably involve been on mdma).
When you’re building any relationship or connection, one of the necessary steps is breaching boundaries. By sharing personal information (whether it’s hobbies, or a personal tragedy) or making jokes or teasing (if appropriate and appreciated) helps move a relationship from “stranger” to “friend”, similarly eating together, inviting someone into your home, or physical contact all represent breaking down boundaries and closer and more personal relationships.
Different social groups have different ideas about appropriate behaviour at specific levels of relationship. I have social groups where being ‘cheeky’ and even outright mean to a new person is how they show they’re one of the gang. Similarly, there groups of people who can be lifelong friends, but still wouldn’t be comfortable hugging. For many people, flirting, especially if you’re aiming for a sexual relationship, often involves more physical boundary testing than with platonic friends (letting your hands touch, flicking dust off their clothes - and just FYI, if you’re not sure what you’re doing, it’s almost always better to let the other person be the first to initiate physical contact, especially if they’re a woman). But saying that, some straight guys I’ve known are very physical with male friends both with hugs and friendly punches, so it’s not a strict line.
The original Pride flag was designed with eight colours, but quickly moved to six and seven stripes because of issues with sourcing dyes and mass production. As others have said, each colour did have a specific meaning like Sex, Life, Harmony, Art, Sunlight. These were aspects of the queer community, but they did not mean specific or narrow identities, and did not only describe ‘gay’ or ‘lesbian’ people.
In the words of Gilbert Baker (who designed the initial flag) “We needed something beautiful – something from us, and the rainbow is so perfect because it really fits our diversity in the sense of our race, our gender, all of those things.” Since then people have added specific colours and extra features to draw attention to identities that they felt were undervalued or overlooked, which is laudable goal, but not because the original did not include everyone.
You’re throwing around a lot of strong negative claims about the discussion here, if you really want to make a case that the meaning of original flag did not include queer people who were black or whatever, please bring some sources. And just to note, personally I actually like the chevrons of the Progress flag, but that doesn’t invalidate people claiming that the original flag included everyone.
Fully sympathise. People are giving general advice, and there’s good evidence that it works for most people. I have adhd, and even I know that multi-tasking is distracting and that if I can focus entirely on something I will perform better. But I also know from decades of daily experience that if I try and completely focus on something when my brain is not compliant, then I will do much much worse.
I will learn a lot more by listening to an audiobook while I do chores for an hour, even if sometimes the chores distract me from the content, compared with trying to read a book. Because if I sit and try and read, I will manage one minute, get up and get a drink, reread the same page, want some music to cover up some distracting noise, then rememeber that I’m avoiding distractions so turn the music off… And so on, until after ten minutes I’m only in page 2 and I give up in frustration, drained and demotivated.
As an ever more aged adult, I think the one piece advice I’d give my younger self is “trust yourself”. I’ve wasted so much time trying to follow advice and rules that just never worked for me, and eventually I realise that my instincts were right and I should have just improved my own strategies instead of trying to become something I’m not. That’s not to say you know everything already. Listen to people, try their ideas out, experiment and all that, but don’t feel pressure to do what works for “most people” if it doesn’t work for you.
You’re doing the Lord’s work. As someone who lives in a country where I can barely speak the language this is a constant frustration.
I also hate how hard it is to override location for other searches. I travel back and forth to my native country regularly, and so I’m often trying to search stuff or buy things for a different country than the one I’m literally in. If Google is so keen on making money from me, why can’t I tell it to do a Product search in a specific country, instead of forcing me to use a vpn to trick it?
This is something that I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about. I think there’s a danger to doomscrolling and upsetting yourself about things you can’t change, and it can be really unhealthy. But there’s also a real danger from turning away from the bad things that happen. And in my experience, the people who know least about the world, who “don’t follow politics”, etc are often the people responsible for the problems.
Although wallowing in tragedy doesn’t help anyone, being aware that bad things happen and doing what you can in real life to make the world a better place is important. But the moderation is important - getting upset doesn’t help anyone. So I try to limit my time with current affairs to specific times reading articles and reports, so I can learn about the world in a calm way. Rather than the drip drip anxiety provoking chaos of 24 hour news and social media.
I believe that the the claim that medieval people needed to drink beer because water wasn’t safe to drink is a bit of a myth. They built aquaducts, dug wells, etc.
As far as I understand it, it was more to do with preference (beer is great!) and calories. Beer was a good way to turn grains into easily quaffed liquid meals.