Looking for nautical or island books.

mrpoopsalot · 13 days

Not enough people read Richard Hughes (High Wind in Jamaica; In Hazard) any more, which is a real shame, IMHO.

mommabrown · 19 days

That was crazy inspiring. Please keep on being awesome.

kjoneslol · 28 days

schotastic · 29 days

I have been trying to find an answer to this for some time, actually. The best I can find is that if up to 25% of your weight loss is lean body mass, that's "not concerning" (see the last paragraph in this article for example). I am not sure, however, exactly how "concerning" it might be to lose more of your total weight as lean body mass, at least initially. As in, is it a health concern? Does it signal a fundamental problem with your diet/routine? Or is it just a concern because of your ending body composition once you've lost the weight?

The problem with ending body composition, of course, is that building muscle is often a very slow process (slower even than losing fat). So, you could be in for a long road once you get to your goal weight before you are satisfied with your body composition. From my understanding, in order to avoid this, you want to eat a lot of protein and lift a lot of heavy things.

Personally, I like running and eating at least some carbs so I do both, but to preserve lean body mass, I have also been doing Strong Lifts and eating about 1g of protein per pound of lean body mass. For me, about 29% of my weight loss (based on body fat calculations) has been lean body mass following this routine (FWIW, I am female). Although that's higher than that 25%, I have been happy with my routine so far. My BF% is now lower than a lot of women who weigh 40 pounds less than me, so I feel like the protein and lifting have been helpful in looking as good as possible at whatever weight I am at.

schotastic · 1 month

I just did the math for myself, because I was feeling disappointed in my BF% reduction over the last 6 months. I am crazy strong now, but BF has "only" dropped 6%. But once I did the math, I realized that was actually pretty good. Yay muscles!!

schotastic · 1 month

Just FYI, those numbers you posted sound like they would be about right for you, assuming that your starting weight was about 10 times your flair. You would have started at about 42.5% body fat (200 minus 115 = 85; 85 divided by 200 = 0.425, or 42.5%), and you would've been at about 40.5% body fat when you got to -10% total body weight (180 minus 107= 73; 73 divided by 180 = .405) .

Of the 20 pounds lost, approximately 12 of those would have been fat, while approximately 8 were muscle. Since it's almost impossible to lose weight without losing some muscle, losing more fat than muscle is good progress!

JBurrows_ · 1 month

Damn it, I came here to recommend Sapolsky!

sjhill · 1 month

That's a lilac (Syringa). :)

DiscardNameLater · 1 month

If you really are entirely indifferent to having intimate relationships, you might look to see if Schizoid Personality Disorder fits. Although it is classified as a personality disorder (because it is a rather inflexible, chronic personality style) and may share some genetic links to schizophrenia, Schizoid PD is not really associated with much dysfunction, and people with it rarely seek (or even need??) treatment.

Although people with Schizoid PD don't really want emotional relationships and often feel some asexuality (or prefer masturbation to the emotional messiness of a sexual relationship), sometimes they can have relationships if there are almost no demands for emotional closeness (e.g., a person who they can be physically intimate with but do not otherwise need to relate to emotionally; or relationships that are based entirely around doing a shared interest together, without any demands for 'bonding' during the activity) -- so you could look into finding that sort of thing if desired. Or, just keep doing your own thing.

concretebox · 1 month

You might try deleting this submission and resubmitting the exact same information and pictures with a less offensive submission title.

bob_handerson · 1 month

My memories are probably suspect given that I was so young, but I remember feeling very heavy, and hot. I also remember a feeling of... dread, maybe?

I don't remember anything after that, but I went into respiratory arrest (resuscitation by the EMTs, hospitalization, all that). My aunt told the medical staff and the police that she gave me "half" what she usually took (no way of knowing if that's true), but however much she gave me was still a potentially lethal dose for a child.

bob_handerson · 1 month

I'm pale to the point of being transparent, so she was easily able to hit a vein.

bob_handerson · 1 month

My aunt lived with us while she was supposed to be getting clean. I don't remember the sequence of events leading up to this , but she injected me with heroin. I was 7.

kondrat1983 · 1 month

Sorry it's the wrong sub -- I mod Animal and Botanical, as do you. You sent me two comments about comments I left on submissions that did not include the animal or plant name in the title, one in Animal (this one) and one in Botanical, IIRC.

I did not remember (or pay any attention to) which sub we were in when we started this discussion. I just said, above, "if I see you approve anything I have questions about, I will bring it up with you directly," so I was bringing up an example of a submission where the organism's name was not in the submission title yet the submission was approved. But whatever, clearly it's not worth it even discussing civilly. Carry on.

kondrat1983 · 1 month

Okay so here is an example: http://demelt.deviantart.com/art/Misty-morning-in-Verdun-10-291557056 -- this does not include the name of any plant in the title, but you approved it. These type seem a little tricky, since "Misty Morning in Verdun" is clearly the title of the photo, but I guess I would not have approved this? What are your thoughts?

Slartibartfastibast · 1 month

That is fascinating. It appears that while the mean level of cooperation decreases, the variance in cooperation becomes larger. The authors explain this as showing that increases in intelligence "can facilitate greater extremes of cooperation." From the article:

This leads to a synergistic process, where this increase in cooperation due to increased intelligence creates further opportunities for intelligent individuals to engage in mutual cooperation. However, as levels of cooperation increase further this feedback can break down, as there may be enough cooperation occurring for unconditional cooperators to increase in the population, allowing in turn for the invasion of unconditional defectors or ‘meaner’ intelligent strategies (e.g. grim variants, false-cooperator variants, etc.). This results in intelligence-facilitating cycles in the levels of cooperation seen in the population (figure 2), which increases both the variance in, and the maximum level of, cooperation.

So this suggests to me that while intelligence increasing allows most people to cooperate and benefit, increasing intelligence over a whole group allows some individuals to become, essentially, antisocial -- individuals who profit a great deal by not cooperating. Is a certain level of social intelligence necessary to 'create' antisocial individuals?

Vailhem · 1 month

Hey - you already posted this (4 days ago) so I removed this submission. Cheers.

subtextual · 1 month

subtextual · 1 month

I'm totally not a bro, but those are pretty sweet. Thx.

subtextual · 1 month

I don't know how to use scripts. =( I typed.

subtextual · 1 month

Oh, the submission title should say [BotanicalPorn].

DukeSpraynard · 1 month

Hi there - this submission has been removed, because the original source is both (a) easily located (as you can see from following my link or doing a quick google image search, it's from wikipedia; the photographer is Dan Molter) and (b) an approved source. See the rule change at the top of the page for more details, but the basic idea is to highlight original sources and give photographers credit for their work. If you want to re-submit the original source, please do!! Cheers.

dreamstatemind · 1 month

This submission has been removed because the original photo is clearly from another approved source (since it says National Geographic in the corner of the pic). See the rule change notice at the top of this page for more details. The main idea behind the rule change to give the photographers credit, especially when it is relatively easy to do so. Cheers.

dreamstatemind · 1 month

This submission has been removed because the original photo is clearly from another approved source (since it says National Geographic in the corner of the pic). See the rule change notice at the top of this page for more details. The main idea behind the rule change to give the photographers credit, especially when it is relatively easy to do so. Cheers.

weedsches · 1 month

This submission has been removed because it has been posted several times (most recently 1 month ago, here). Reposts are allowed, but only after 3 months. Cheers.

Secret Santa 2011	Trick-or-Treater 2011
Four-Year Club	Summer Santa 2011
reddit mold	Best Comment 2010-07-26
reddit gold Charter Member	Charter Member
Verified Email	Best Link 2010-03-22
Secret Santa 2009

subtextual

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login