It would be the same for pole vaulting. You can enter the competition at a lower height and continue to clear as the height increases. Once you fail at a height you still have the highest height you did clear for the competition which you can still win with. That was probably a horrible explanation - my apologies if so.
"Once the vaulter enters the competition, they can choose to pass heights. If a vaulter achieves a miss on their first attempt at a height, they can pass to the next height, but they will only have two attempts at that height, as they will be out once they achieve three consecutive misses. Similarly, after earning two misses at a height, they could pass to the next height, when they would have only one attempt.
The competitor who clears the highest height is the winner. "
So, it takes some planning, and some athletes start at heights that they know they will clear easy, just to guarantee them 2nd or 3rd place. Then they continue their attempts at higher bars. Once they know they have won they have 3 more attempts to try and break the record.
I like and see the value of corpspeak. Take “bandwidth”, for example. It’s superior to “time”, because it implies that something else has already filled up all the available time. Plus, by definition, bandwidth = [unit of work] / time. So if I don’t have bandwidth for something, I imply that something else needs to be removed from my workload to be able to do the thing.
Having an arsenal of phrases is not a bad thing per se; as with technology, it depends how one uses it.
If I'm a Go developer, or changing jobs because I want to use Go, of course that it is in both mine and my future employer's best interest to set expectations if I'm gonna work on Go or on ASP.NET.
"sure milansm, you'll work on Go code. we just need to support this ASP.NET codebase for a little bit and then you can lead our migration to Go. I promise.".
In this market, employers are saying anything to get folks in the door. They're scrambling for workers, and a lot of times it's because their codebase is shit and folks are leaving in droves, so they dangle carrots to get folks to support their decaying crap.
This is exactly what I’ll try to change in next 5 years. Have a sustainable baseline: my own food (or at least 50% of it, other 50% locally grown within ~10km) and energy independent (for heating and cooking), and treat everything else as a luxury that can perish any time now.
I don’t want to give up my remote work, car and (occasional) luxury vacation, but would love to be able to sustain myself without it. Current life-style (apartment, frequent food orders, total dependency on the power grid) is a ticking time bomb (which might not go off in my lifetime) and feels like all-or-nothing gamble.
Regarding food: What you eat is significantly more important than where it comes from (there are a few exceptions). Not eating meat and dairy is the biggest impact you can have food-wise. Getting your potatoes from within 10km or 1000km doesn't really matter in regards to emissions. In fact, depending on where you live, locally grown food can have a bigger environmental impact than non-local food (due to artifical light, fertilizers, greenhouses, etc.)
I probably wasn’t clear enough. I don’t feel guilty because of my life style, I feel like I’m in a trap. What would happen with me and my family if power grid goes down for a week? What about a month?
The point is, we can probably have best of both worlds if we accept lifestyle change (IMO simple life close to nature is an improvement, not degradation) where we enjoy the benefits of technology, but not being dependent on it.
Think living in a village, spending very little, eating non processed, locally grown food, working remotely, driving a car maybe a couple of times per month to visit friends and do some shopping and that’s it.
I’d like to do that not because I feel responsible for climate change, inequality or whatever, but for personal security, longevity, and quality of life reasons.
Edit: side effects of this lifestyle are less co2, less pollution, resilient local economy and much more.
>I’d like to do that not because I feel responsible for climate change, inequality or whatever, but for personal security, longevity, and quality of life reasons.
Yes, the individual is not separate from society.
You cannot separate climate change from your "personal security, longevity, and quality of life". They all depend on the climate not changing.
And yes, you are in a trap. You are unable to escape your conditioning. You could live the way you want right now. It will be hard, but you can do it. Lead by example and all that....
This is ridiculous. You are expecting people to take aassive downgrade in standard of living. I spend years working to make more money than everybody so I can live better, not worse. And you are wrong, my kids will live much better as well, because I will pass on that money.
Believe it or not, most Americans won't vote to substantially reduce their own standard of living. Maybe other people's, but not theirs.
> be domesticated
Fuck that. That's possibly the most condescending and demeaning way you could have phrased it. But I'm assuming you knew that and did it intentionally.
You seem to have 'standard' and 'quality' conflated in regards to 'living'.
Standards of living are always increasing because of people's incorrect belief that everyone must live like a king.
Quality of living or life as it were, is more about making sure that whatever standard you live at is providing the best quality it can offer for that life.
You are seeking a higher 'quality' of life, through increasing your standard of living. This WILL result in a higher quality of life, provided you have all the necessary funds to support it. Absolutely. BUT, it comes at costs that you and others will not always see or understand immediately or even as fast as might be preferred on even slower scales.
Meanwhile, if you instead just sought a higher quality of life only, you would be likely be fine with some things being at a slightly lower standard. Such as using transit more often, instead of driving everywhere. You don't have to not own a vehicle; you just have to not drive it needlessly. Make sense?
Yes, I realize that reduces the convenience factor of the vehicle, and yes I realize that transit is often terrible... but the latter is often because it has to compete with the former. Not just in regards to road space, but also personal space. So I admit that there are things that need to be fixed on that side as well. Separate cabins within transit train systems would be a good start I think.
Either or, the fact remains that many of us are able to find ways to get around in society and do things that you do as well. We just don't pollute as much. We live just as well in some ways, maybe not as well in others. But overall we have a roof over our heads, food in our bellies, and half decent clothes at best covering us up. (Disregarding the homeless problem of course... 1 problem at a time...)
So anyways, the main point remains. Quality of life is more important than whatever standard of living you think you prefer to live at; because ultimately if your standard of living isn't giving you the quality you seek, then it's not worth it.
So you are saying maximize quality of life at a given standard of living? Fine, but the maximum quality of life at a higher standard is greater than the maximum quality of life at a lower standard. Are you disputing that? There's also that achieving maximum quality of life at a given standard is hard, increasing standard of living can actually be easier.
If a majority of the world thought like you, what do you think the outcome would be? Well, you can see it all around you; micro plastics, climate change, endless wars, etc...
A massive "downgrade" in living is coming regardless of the money you hoard. Maybe not for your kids, but most probably for your grandkids. Even in the short term, looks like a recession is coming based on mortgage rates hitting 5%.
I appreciate the concern and care you have for your children, but setting them up with such a high standard of living will only lead to them suffering.
And you might call my lifestyle a downgrade. That is what everyone keeps telling me.
I’m from Serbia, and know for sure that during the NATO war against Serbia in ‘99 our military was residing in (some) schools. It makes sense if you think about it. If they were better at information warfare, they would have written “children” on some of the buildings.
There are a bunch of rules, all aiming at making sure as a company director you can’t qualify for any government benefits, and income is taxed in box 1 (income from employment) which has the highest rate.
First is a minimum of €45k, then you can’t be paid less than your highest paid employee, for an LLC you need to pay yourself at least 75% of profits. There’s probably more to stop creative accounting and ensure the first chunk of money is always taxed as personal income.
There’s also the feel of being played and deceived when something you had strong emotional reaction (i.e. Ukrainian father saying goodbye to his daughters) turns out to be propaganda and part of information warfare.
Absolutely, that one specifically got me. Didn't that turn out to be a Russian soldier or something? Regardless, the firehose of social media content isn't tuned for accuracy, it's tuned for volume.
Yes. I have two daughters, and my eyes get wet and my throat closes every time I remember that scene. But then, it turns out that most likely I'm manipulated. I say most likely, because I'm not sure anymore, and I don't want to get invested anymore and research what is true and what is not.
It is a tough feeling if you make yourself aware that to emphasize might mean you are taken advantage off. Probably not too healthy to experience that too often.
It would be great if you could get a correct (or close) answer every time if you made a guess, and where you made an error. I assume you would get better after a while and would be even more fun.
