Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
zk
ParticipantMusicals where the dialogue is spoken and there are song/dance numbers are sometimes enjoyable. Sometimes they’re great. But when most, or even a lot, of the dialogue is sung, I can’t stand it. Sung dialogue almost never has an interesting melody, if you can even call what they’re doing a melody. It generally sounds the same as all the other sung dialog in all the other sung-dialogue musicals. It sounds artificial and lame. It doesn’t sound musical. It sounds like dialogue in a musical.
ParticipantI watched it the other day. It was not at all what I expected.I hadn’t heard anything about it except how great almost everybody thought it was.
If I’d known it was mostly rap/hip hop I wouldn’t have gotten my expectations up. The first “song” was a super irritating rap piece. I paused it to read some reviews, and they talked about how many genres of music were in the show. So I was hoping it would improve. But it was dominated by rap. I only enjoyed very brief parts of it, particularly the guy who played King George and also an occasional funny joke or gag. I couldn’t stand the guy who played Jefferson. Super hammy and not nearly as entertaining as he seemed to think he was.
I wouldn’t say I hated it, but I did dislike it for sure.
I think a lot of the love for it is due to its inclusive qualities. Which isn’t a great reason to love entertainment, if you ask me. It’s either entertaining or it’s not. And, to me, Hamilton was for the most part not entertaining.
ParticipantLet go of the tendency to want things to be other than they are.
Desire is suffering.
And all that.
You’ve done the mindfulness thing, so you know what I’m talking about.
I have a very similar tendency towards wondering why. And towards feeling like “i better get going.” But as I accomplish a few of the things I want to accomplish, I find that any lifting of the “i better get going” feeling is fleeting. I feel like I’ll always want more.
Svelte has given some great, concrete examples of what a “complete life” might include. And maybe that (striving toward a life that would feel complete) would be a better way to go. I don’t know. I just feel like you (meaning you, scaredy, or me, or people like us) might spend a whole life chasing some kind of complete life, feeling all the while that it won’t be enough, and then at the end feeling it wasn’t enough.
I remember when Don Zimmer died a few years ago. I remember thinking, “what a great life this guy had. Played baseball for a living. Had millions of friends. Loved his kids and grandkids. Always seemed to be having a good time.” Then I thought, “yeah, but he’s dead now. Was it enough? What did it mean?”
If I lived that life, a life about as close to perfect as I can imagine, what would it mean? Would it mean anything different from my life? If I lived his life, but with my personality, would I be any happier than I am now?
And to me that last question is the key. And I think the answer is no. You may be familiar with the studies that say that, other than for a brief period, winning the lottery doesn’t make a person happier, and getting paralyzed doesn’t make a person less happy. A person’s happiness level is pretty much set, and life circumstances don’t have much to do with it in the long run. So changing what happens in your life isn’t likely to make you happier. I’m not sure whether “more fulfilled” is the same thing or whether it applies here. But I think it probably does.
The takeaway there, if one is down with all that, is that to “get going” might not be the answer. If you could make your life into whatever you’re imagining that it could or should be, even if you could somehow magically turn it into a life like Don Zimmer had (or whatever a great life looks like to you), would you be happier than you are now? Would you feel like your life was complete?
—
As far as what might actually succeed at changing our happiness set point, I’ve only ever heard of one thing that can accomplish that, and that’s regular meditation. Studies have shown that regular meditation can cause changes in the brain and make you happier.
I meditate regularly, and it does help. But my commitment to meditating and my meditating habits aren’t as strong as they might have to be to live a life without wanting things to be more or better. Ironically, I feel like if I improve my meditating habits and carry over my mindfulness to all my waking hours, I will be able to let go of the desire for things to be different, and things will be better then.
Which brings me to a question for you, scaredy: Are you still into the whole meditating/buddhism thing? I can’t say that meditation has put me in a place where I fully accept things as they are, but I think you’re more into it than I am, and I was…hoping, I guess, that a more accomplished meditater would have gotten something significant out of it. I’m curious to hear how (or if) it has changed you.
As Svelte is doing, my dad left a very complete record of his life for us. And I find it fascinating to read/look at. And I’m doing the same, along with pursuing other things that I think will make my life more complete. I’m also meditating, which does help my general state, but also in an attempt to be able to not want things to be other than they are.
Maybe ideally we would strive to live our best life and try to leave something behind but at the same time not constantly wonder if it’s enough or wish for more. Easier said than done.
Participant[quote=gzz]
You have to weigh this against the risk of physical ownership: lost, stolen, forgotten, etc.
[/quote]
I used to work with a gold bug. He told me he had a decent percentage of his assets in physical gold, and that it was in a safe in his basement.
If I owned that much physical gold, I wouldn’t tell anyone that I had it, let alone where it was stored. I wouldn’t tell my mother where it was stored, let alone some guy from work.
When I asked if he was afraid of it being stolen, he said, “aren’t you afraid to have your wealth in ones and zeroes on somebody’s computer?”
Which is an interesting point. Unless I’m mistaken, all (at least most) bank accounts, stocks, brokerage accounts, etc (and some bonds, too?) are ones and zeroes on somebody’s computer. Sure, you get monthly statements and all. But it’s still vulnerable to e-theft just like physical gold is subject to theft.
Other than stupid mistakes on the part of the holder of the electronically-kept asset (e.g. falling for phishing), though, I don’t think I’ve ever heard of such theft.
I imagine they’re backed up in lots of different computers in different locations. So even if your the city where your bank is headquartered is nuked, your account should survive.
I would be more worried about a major hacking event than anything else, I guess.
Not making a point, I guess. Random thoughts on theft or other loss of assets. I’m kind of making guesses, and I’d be interested to hear from people with more knowledge about it.
ParticipantI don’t know anything about that, but have you considered zero deductible comprehensive?
It’s generally only about $7 extra per month. Maybe less if you’re already at a $250 deductible. Makes it a no-brainer to get any little ding or chip fixed.
July 10, 2020 at 6:16 PM in reply to: the reopening of america is a pivotal historical moment? #818742Participant[quote=svelte]
I’m sorry to hear that. Particularly for the daughters.Otherwise I’d just say he made his decisions.
[/quote]Yeah, no doubt very rough for them.
Unfortunately, even if you don’t have kids, right now those kinds of decisions are likely to affect others (by possibly spreading the virus).
[quote=svelte]
I struggle with how much to be sympathetic on many topics – especially those in the news this year – and how much to be indifferent. I still feel like I don’t have myself tuned correctly yet.
[/quote]I know what you mean. It’s a crazy time.
Some Japanese theme park gave advice (intended to reduce the spread of the coronavirus) to its customers who ride on roller coasters. And others put it forth as a good motto for 2020:
“Please scream inside your heart”
July 10, 2020 at 5:09 PM in reply to: the reopening of america is a pivotal historical moment? #818737Participant[quote=scaredyclassic]
not sure how this all plays out, or what people really believe deep down
…
I expect most people wont suddenly head out to party, as I still get the heebie jeebies if the supermarket’s too crowded. [/quote]
Friend of a friend of mine was a big trump supporter. Went to Arizona to attend a party in the middle of their outbreak. Got COVID. Died. Left behind his two daughters.
It appears that they actually believe the propaganda deep down. That guy certainly seems to have.
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]Virus Just seems to run out fuel at around 20% infected.
Cruise ships, really really hard hit areas etc…[/quote]
Yeah, but why, and, more importantly, will it last?
Participant[quote=The-Shoveler]
IMO At some point we will reach burnout before any of the above.We already seem to be lowering the death rate as well.[/quote]
Burnout. Interesting concept.
Places where it’s peaked do seem to have lower rates. But sometimes those rates start to rise again.
Why do those lower rates happen? Is it because the peak scared everybody and they’re being careful with their social distancing and whatnot? Is there some scientific, medical reason? Will those lower rates stay low in most areas? Is strict social distancing required to keep those rates low? Is there some sort of minimal herd immunity involved? If there is, will it last?
I don’t know the answers to any of the above, despite a bit of searching. Any (credible, scientific) information anyone has would be helpful.
ParticipantThis article covers some of the difficulties of producing a vaccine, and also some treatments that are in development. These treatments could be available before a vaccine.
It basically suggests that a vaccine could take a long time, and we might end up using masks, physical distancing, and quarantine until we get a treatment, and then use that treatment until we get a vaccine.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/opinions/covid-19-treatment-reason-for-hope-haseltine/index.html
Participant[quote=barnaby33]
To the poster who wants me to differentiate between treatment and cure, why?
[/quote]
If you’re talking about me, I wasn’t asking you to differentiate between treatment and cure. I was asking you to differentiate between a vaccine and a treatment/cure. A vaccine is something you get before you get the disease, and it prevents you from getting it or prevents you from getting a bad case of it. A treatment mitigates the effects of the disease after you get it. A cure eliminates the disease after you get it. The reason I was asking you to differentiate is because I wanted you to show me the evidence that a vaccine wasn’t going to happen. You gave me evidence that a treatment or a cure won’t happen.[quote=barnaby33]
We have neither and the vast preponderance of evidence screams loudly that we will not be able to produce, test and manufacture either in a time frame which would mitigate anybody from catching this if they are susceptible.
[/quote]Show me this vast preponderance of loudly screaming evidence that shows we won’t get a vaccine in time to keep susceptible people from getting COVID. (If, indeed, you think we won’t have a vaccine. You’ve really only addressed treatments and cures so far.) I am genuinely interested in seeing it.
[quote=barnaby33]
The amount of fuzzy thinking and shiny graphics is just stunning.
[/quote]
What fuzzy thinking, exactly?
[quote=barnaby33]People simply do not want to accept reality.
[/quote]
I’m only interested in reality. That’s why I’m asking you to show me evidence of what you’re talking about.[quote=barnaby33]
Wear a mask if you like the virtue signaling as I do.
[/quote]
Do you think that virtue signaling is the only thing masks are good for?[quote=barnaby33]
In a case like the Corona virus and with a govt as hopelessly broken as we have right now, there is practically speaking no cure or effective blocking treatment that can be deployed, hence herd immunity is the ONLY way to restore normalcy.
[/quote]
Herd immunity through natural infection might not be possible.
If that’s the case, it makes the search for a vaccine that much more important.
Participant[quote=DWCAP]
[quote=zk][quote=DWCAP]“We’ve tried getting vaccines for coronaviruses before, particularly SARS and MERS. We just haven’t done it yet. We think this is going to be a hard effort.”[/quote]
Nothing in either of those articles says a vaccine is “unlikely to work.”
There is a lot of concern that finding a vaccine will take more time than we would like. There is concern that it’ll have to be taken annually or that it will not be 100% effective.
There is some concern that we won’t find one. That is possible. But likely? If anyone is saying that it’s likely that we won’t find one that works (and I haven’t read anyone saying that) they’re in the minority.
[/quote]
I don’t understand. what standard are you using? We have never created a Coronavirus vaccine that is acceptable after 30+ years of trying. We have new, poorly understood, highly contagious virus which is able to spread without and even before symptoms. We have an virus that seems to prey upon the sick and infirm, who are the most difficult to defend.
Please define ‘unlikely to work’ because ‘Thing we have never done before in a time frame we have never accomplished’ seems to qualify to me.
The FDA just announced that any approved vaccine would need to be 50% effect or better to be approved in full phase III clinical trials. This is inline with our best flu vaccines, and only means 1/2 people are protected/ symptoms reduced per vaccination. Flu season is an annual thing that claims tens of thousands of lives annually, and we can’t stop it. I need to know what you mean by ‘work’ because I think most people erroneously think it means ‘stop the spread of COVID-19’. Even the experts are not holding out for that.[/quote]
You’ve quoted me out of context. My response of “Nothing in either of those articles says a vaccine is ‘unlikely to work’…“ was in response to your post that had links to two articles (neither of which said the vaccine was unlikely to work). It was not in response to the post that you showed it was in response to. Please don’t quote me out of context.
[quote=DWCAP]
I don’t understand. what standard are you using? We have never created a Coronavirus vaccine that is acceptable after 30+ years of trying. We have new, poorly understood, highly contagious virus which is able to spread without and even before symptoms. We have an virus that seems to prey upon the sick and infirm, who are the most difficult to defend.
Please define ‘unlikely to work’ because ‘Thing we have never done before in a time frame we have never accomplished’ seems to qualify to me.
[/quote]
That certainly is concerning. But the magnitude of this problem is such that unprecedented resources will be spent on it. It’s certainly possible that that will result in unprecedented results. (I’ll address the standard later in the post.)In any case, I’m not saying a vaccine is likely to work. I don’t know, and I’m trying to find out. I asked, in response to a statement of “a vaccine is unlikely to work” the question “where are you getting that from?” It wasn’t a rhetorical question. I am concerned with whether a vaccine will work (as everybody should be) and if there’s credible information saying that it’s unlikely to work, I want to know about it. You provided two articles, neither of which said a vaccine is unlikely to work.
I am certainly open to credible information that says a vaccine is unlikely to work. If it’s out there, I really very much want to see it. I’m trying to get at the truth, as always. I just haven’t seen such information out there yet. I thought livinincali knew something that I didn’t, so I asked about it. I’m asking you the same thing.
The fact that we’ve never developed a vaccine for a coronavirus certainly is concerning. One could make the argument that that makes developing a vaccine for this coronavirus unlikely. But I’d like to see that argument made from a scientist – or preferably several or even a consensus of scientists – who are experts in the field. So far I’ve seen some scientists who say it may not be possible or “we think this is going to be a hard effort.” So I’m on board with those positions. But I haven’t seen “unlikely” (or anything equivalent to “unlikely”) from any scientists yet.
[quote=DWCAP]
The FDA just announced that any approved vaccine would need to be 50% effect or better to be approved in full phase III clinical trials. This is inline with our best flu vaccines, and only means 1/2 people are protected/ symptoms reduced per vaccination. Flu season is an annual thing that claims tens of thousands of lives annually, and we can’t stop it. I need to know what you mean by ‘work’ because I think most people erroneously think it means ‘stop the spread of COVID-19’. Even the experts are not holding out for that.[/quote]
By “work” I don’t mean completely eradicate. I mean, at a minimum, provide the same kind of protection as a flu vaccine. You might still get it, but you’re a lot less likely to get very sick or die from it.
Also, I could be wrong, but I don’t think that 50% effective means that only half the people are protected/symptoms reduced. That would mean that half the people get no protection at all. I don’t think that’s the case. I read the CDC’s page on it, and it’s a bit unclear. If you have any clarification, I’d be interested to read it.
ParticipantLooks like staffing is more of an issue than ICU beds for Riverside County.
Participant[quote=DWCAP][quote=zk]
A vaccine is unlikely to work? Where are you getting that from?[/quote]
Google it. This is from end of April, but I think most of the concerns are still valid. It isn’t like we have not been trying to make a Coronavirus vaccine before.
“We’ve tried getting vaccines for coronaviruses before, particularly SARS and MERS. We just haven’t done it yet. We think this is going to be a hard effort.”
https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/science/story/2020-06-06/race-for-vaccine%5B/quote%5D
Nothing in either of those articles says a vaccine is “unlikely to work.”
There is a lot of concern that finding a vaccine will take more time than we would like. There is concern that it’ll have to be taken annually or that it will not be 100% effective.
There is some concern that we won’t find one. That is possible. But likely? If anyone is saying that it’s likely that we won’t find one that works (and I haven’t read anyone saying that) they’re in the minority.
-
AuthorPosts