It's good that you recognise this is something that you can improve. I think most people don't even realise that it is something they lack or something they can improve on.

I recognise how trying hard can have a lot of ego attached to it. When you try hard more people will look at you and when you fail there might be more eyes on you. It's totally natural that this will feel like something you don't want to expose yourself to.

My advice is to try to imagine how someone you know would climb the problem you are trying. One of the things I find inspiring about watching top climbers is seeing how hard they try. When I want to dig deep I try to put myself in their shoes and imagine that it is not me that is climbing but Adam Ondra or Chris Sharma. It helps detach myself a little from my ego because I can imagine that it is not me that those folks around me are watching but someone else. Whether I succeed or fail it doesn't affect me personally quite as much.

Aside from ego, you might be afraid of doing certain risky moves due to fear of injury. This really requires being mindful of your thoughts when you are about to do a potentially risky move. Try to figure out exactly what you are afraid of and take any steps you need to counteract those fears. For example, if you're afraid of dynoing for the last hold then take a few practice jumps in order to experience how the landing will feel if you miss or let go. It's not enough to just practice the same move a dozen times, you have to really analyse what is going on in your brain and respond to it.

Right, that is the point I was trying to make though. Those who lack the upper body strength on this climb might have to use different beta and therefore spend more energy on the climb.

Yeah, I definitely should have said 2 grades difference between a tall person with good upper body strength compared with a small person with less upper body strength. It's just a bit clunky to say it like that. I used gender as a shortcut because I thought people would find it easier to visualise.

I wasn't meant to be using girl / guy to represent height but actually upper body strength. Of course there are weak guys and strong girls as well but I'm going with a generalisation here.

The phrase "black lives matter" is designed to be provocative and illicit a reaction

I don't understand how anyone can possibly draw that conclusion. The phrase by itself is about as uncontroversial as "fire is hot" or "water is wet". I remember when I first heard it thinking "well that's a pretty low bar but at least everyone can get behind it". I never thought it would be an idea that could possible divide the population.

My interpretation is that the people that it was meant to target were racist cops who literally couldn't care less whether a black person died or not. Those racists really only represent a very small percentage of the population. If you find yourself inclined to change your interpretation of the phrase to something like "Black lives matter more", it makes it seem like you want to position yourself on the same side of the line as those racist cops.

I am sure you will look at this and say "I didn't change my interpretation - that was done by those who support BLM" all I would say is don't fall for that bait. There will always be people who try to divide us. If they can use a phrase as uncontroversial as "Black lives matter" to polarise us then it really shows that our instinct to form tribes really has no connection to our true underlying values.

This was posted at the beginning of the year when only the oldest people were being selected for vaccinations.

Looks like I'm in the minority here but I think this would be V5-V6 in my gym. The angle is definitely steep given how you swing on that cut-loose and those holds are pretty bad too. You probably could have climbed it more efficiently but even so it looks very demanding on the upper-body. Probably 2 grades difference if you are a small girl vs a tall guy.

I think there's only one way to settle this. You can go first, be my guest.

My interpretation is that the original film is supposed to depict that matrix as a world which you want to escape. It's dull, dreary, ominous, repetitive and so on. In this one Neo has a ton of blue pills and seems to be drawn into staying within the matrix with all its colourful charm. I wonder if it will be a story about his struggle to live in the real world or stay in the matrix wonder land.

This is the actual correct answer. Whether they realised it then or realise it now, her death will impact more people than any other's.

Or she thought Hillary would win like most people did.

I bring up video games because that is probably the only other situation in which you would expect to be pushing a vehicle to its limits - certainly not driving at high speeds on the Autobahn (at least I hope not). If you watch a car being driving in a video game and the same car being driven around a real track, you'll see the video game car steers very smoothly and the real-life car has very jerky movement as shown in the Tesla video.

Here's a not very good example but you can sort of track the steering wheel in both clips: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGz5u7lNK3A

Because unlike in a video game, the car and track experience a constantly changing series of forces due to the changing contacts of the wheels and the track and the resonances of those forces through the vehicle. You'll see this in every case where the car is being pushed to its limits.

That there are more extreme measures than abstinence is not really relevant to the point of "I did everything I was willing to do". If abstinence is beyond the point where someone is willing to go, it doesn't change anything that there are points even further beyond that.

Cool, thanks.

Serious question: what if you're a government employee who is allergic to the vaccine, or who has already suffered a strong adverse reaction to the first dose? My auntie is retired but she was hospitalised for a week with pretty bad symptoms after the first dose and understandably does not want to get the second. If she worked for the government, what would they say to her? What would they say to someone who believes they are allergic?

Ah yes, the Trump tactic.

I don't agree that Sasha's response was necessarily excessive. If what u/Miles_Adamson wrote was true, then I think you can blame Joe equally for the escalation. If my little brother won't stop poking me and I tell him I will punch him in the arm if he doesn't stop and he keeps poking him, then it is just as much his responsibility when I punch him in the arm as it is mine. Yes the consequences for Joe are very different than for Sasha, but if she fairly warned him, then I don't see that as excessive.

From your initial comment it sounded like you were saying any private dispute should be resolved in private. I strongly disagree with this as it's the kind of "code" that allows bullying to persist.

Later you said something about how perhaps Sasha might not be the victim here and like I said, it's fair if that's your view. I agree all these things have to be put into context using all the available information and it sounds like you have lots of information to back up that opinion.

I slightly disagree with the point about sponsors - their job is to feed into the aspirations of their customers so that their customers remain loyal. Part of those customers' aspirations is to promote their own moral values such as inclusivity, positive body image and equality and the brands they buy essentially adopt that role. I see it as a kind of symbiotic thing - customers need a platform on which they can promote their views and brands need customers to fund their business. In that way, I think sponsors do have a moral responsibility because it's simply a projection of the moral responsibility of their customers.

As for how we respond and the main point of Bisharat's article yeah I agree to a large extent. We are the least informed party here of any of anyone - at least the sponsors can call Joe and Sasha up and find out what happened. All we can do is react to the limited information we've been privy to and often that information is presented in a deliberately misleading way. I'd much rather that in these situations everyone just assumed they were not seeing the full picture, gave everyone the benefit of the doubt and avoided taking any steps that cannot be easily undone.

Yeah I agree, I think it is too late especially if the actual story is that complicated.

There are two dimensions to this issue, one dimension is what do you believe Joe did. On one side it could be an inside joke that is offensive out of context but in context totally harmless, and on the other side is an 8 year targeted campaign of bullying. The other dimension is how severe you think the punishment should be for this behaviour.

I think the problem is it is a bit meaningless to talk about one of these dimensions without talking about the other. It's one thing to say I know Joe and he's a good guy and he shouldn't have lost his career but we have no idea what standards you are using (where you fall on the second dimension) to make that judgement so naturally we cannot decide whether we agree with you or not.

That is why I said you should specify what kind of behaviour you believe would justify the kind of response that we saw. Maybe your moral standards for cancellation are very different than the average online mobs, or maybe they are very similar. That could be something we could break down further.

And yes, people will assume the worst given lack of information but if you know that is a problem, the way to counteract it is to provide that missing information.

Sorry, I don't know if I managed to explain myself well there. It's a relatively minor point and overall I liked your article and I'm glad you wrote it.

This is weird to me. I feel like if the common story as told in this thread is true, then Joe deserved to lose his sponsors. You claim he doesn't deserve to lose his sponsors, but you also don't want to spend time correcting any of the misinformation that people are using to join this dog-pile.

I imagine it's just a case of you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. People will misunderstand and contradict no matter how much energy you put into trying to correct the record so I'm guessing you've decided it's just not worth the effort. The only criticism I would have of your article is that you didn't specify under what circumstances you think Joe should lose his sponsors. Unless you state where your moral line is, people are always just going to assume the worst about you as a person.

If your real issue is that you don't feel she deserved to feel victimised by his memes, then don't distract by claiming to have an issue with her responding in public. If you don't think she should have been offended by what was meant to be a joke, that is a totally valid opinion to have.

Or just use anti-fungal cream. It works well and probably won't hurt to try.

Oignon

I'd rather she was arrested, charged, convicted and then fired.