PsychedelicEagle

Ideally you address the issue when it's at the level of annoyance, before it rises to the anger part of the spectrum. Sometimes it's not possible, and then anger is OK. But if it happens too often it's a hint the person may be lacking the self-awareness and emotional maturity required to spot it and act upon it already at lower levels of the spectrum.

How do I try it out? I have a Claude subscription already. Is it within the "Cowork" tab of Claude desktop?

Could you try affiliate marketing with, e.g., YouTube channels or Instagram accounts on the productivity space? Really inspiring that you did it yourself — I will try it out.

Looks quite awesome — have you made it yourself, @integral?

Interesting. Do you do liver enzymes in your bloodwork? I was supplementing with 200ug SeMet (Selenium L-Methionine, the organic form most found in whole food) and my whole-blood selenium levels really rose, and together with it ALT & AST, which could be a downstream effect from mild Selenium toxicity. I then stopped supplementing and stopped eating Brazil nuts for a while until the levels normalized. I'm now back to my Brazil nuts (as a good Brazilian that I am ) One caveat with Brazil nuts is they have very large variability. From my Obsidian notes:

Here's an interesting conversation I had with Claude today:

lol

Pretty much all books I've read on success are on Leo's book list. I'd say The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People, Think and Grow Rich, and So Good They Can't Ignore You definitely shine out.

Exactly haha, posted before seeing this. I agree both is better than either/or.

Cal Newport has a great book on this subject: "So Good They Can't Ignore You". I read it a decade ago and it helped me trust the process of focusing on deliberate practice and building real skills at the field I was entering at that time.

Sorry to hear that, Pedro. What I can share is that "doing what's right is never wrong", or "fazer o certo nunca é errado", a phrase I learned from our compatriot Dr. Corassa (guessing you're Brazilian too). That means focusing on the fundamentals is appropriate even when those habits may not directly or miraculously cure you overnight. Maintaining consistency on things like high-quality sleep, sunlight exposure, physical exercise (to the extend that you can), clean & whole-food diet, good social relationships, living aligned with our chronobiology, maybe incorporating forms of fasting, spending time in nature and with plants, standing on bare ground, mindfulness and meditation. Also, Axel Schurawlow wrote a book — I haven't yet read it — that could maybe be appropriate for your current life moment. Keep in touch 🙏

Late to the party — Happy birthday Leo!

Nice, that's the right mindset. You can still build your spiritual base with other means until the time comes.

Wise words indeed.

Yes, @integral, tho IIRC it wasn't very effective for PFAS in particular.

Interesting data: Diet contributes to 70% of adult PFAS exposure Both plant and animal food sources can accumulate PFAS For animals: they eat contaminated food, drink contaminated water, and bioaccumulate; For plants: accumulation from contaminated soils on leaves and stems; fruits and seeds tend to have lower PFAS concentrations; Freshwater fish is the worst — "eating a single freshwater fish equals a month of drinking 'forever chemicals' water" [link]. Processed and fast foods may have additional PFAS exposure from packaging and processing Dietary fiber appears to reduce the concentration of PFAS in blood Blood donations/removal can help eliminate PFAS, but generally not recommended as a 'detox' strategy

Nice infographic. I heard from some sources that mercury is not that worrysome in types of seafood containing compensating levels of selenium, which acts as an antagonist to mercury exposure. That's why someone with high levels of fish intake don't show up with higher mercury levels. Not sure how accurate that is. My actual concern regarding seafood or freshwater food is, however, PFAS: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGkEpbpIJuA

Not really, with this amount of fat water cleans it easy. I've been doing this for almost 2y now.

Correct, but not the point of requiring soap to wash the fatty acids that whole food has. Unless you are heavily processing nuts or seeds that you extract a lot of oil from it (e.g., tahini, which I sometimes do, but rarely). As for soap, generally not toxic indeed, but it depends on what they mixed it with (type of surfactants, rinse aids, God knows what else). My philosophy is: if you can avoid it, why not? I kill two birds with one shot: lower LDL cholesterol (by eating less fat), and no detergents. The environment also thanks. EVOO is the only oil I use (I aim for total polyphenol content >= ~400 mg/kg). Max 1 tbsp (13.5g) per day, on top of already cooked food. I never use oil in the cooking process, only adding it later to the meals. All other fat I ingest comes mostly from whole nuts and seeds (currently total fat/day = ~25% of total caloric intake, 88g/day). Here's a breakdown of the average daily intake of the last 6 months.

I'm on @integral's side as far as this list goes. A lot of these products are, to begin with, not even necessary. They were all made into people's habits due to mass marketing, as chemistry evolved throughout the 20th century allowing for such products that didn't exist before. I haven't used a single drop of dish soap at home for the last 2y. If you don't cook with oils, no soap is required. Some things like skin creams I still use for hydration purposes — in such cases I try to go for truly clean ingredients & labels.

Guy is just nuts, and ungrounded as @Natasha Tori Maru said. Filming in the middle of the street with a bunch of noise. Set and setting as we all know. Deep insights require a calm, deep setting.

Good watch indeed. Thanks!

It's a fair point. Conservativeness is a relative concept however (as every other concept is). What you call conservative in Sweden might be liberal in other countries. The general pattern is that the world changes, societies evolve, and change is inevitable. Meaning that eventually the optimal policy will reflect what was once more likely defended by liberals, and less likely defended by conservatives (by definition).

I guess the point is that immigration policy was not the problem in itself, but how it was performed. Had Sweden done immigration in a more conservative manner (which still could be considered a liberal policy overall), the outcome would probably be better than both: (i) what was done and (ii) no immigration at all. The essence of "conservatives being on the wrong side of history" is true generally, but there can be exceptions as with every rule.