apple's new tv series about extraordinary athletes. episodes are really short* because the show focuses on the athletes' specific moments of their careers. here are the athletes:

(see: lebron james)
(see: tom brady)
(see: alex morgan)
(see: usain bolt)
(see: shaun white)
(see: kelly slater)
(see: katie ledecky)

almost failed state.

its president* is considering banning netflix and regulating social media.

has the hottest girls on campus.

easy.

he has been kicked off of twitter
twitter's statement
image

biggest free to use video streaming platform, released in 2005. originally started as a dating website, failed catastrophically, and was bought by google 18 months after its initial launch to become the massive video sharing platform it is today

in 1765, parliament passed the quartering act, requiring the colonies to provide housing for 10,000 british soldiers. a year later, two regiments of redcoats, as british soldiers were sometimes called because of their uniforms, arrived in boston. the people maintained an uneasy peace with the redcoats until march 5, 1770, when an unruly mob taunted some soldiers. the soldiers opened fire, killing three bostonians; two more later died of their wounds. calm followed for the next two years, but the basic conflict had not been resolved.

samuel adams, one of the most radical patriots, began calling the incident the boston massacre. for several years, patriots cited this incident as an example of british brutality.

i thought ariana grande was a font name *

the pareto principle (aka the 80/20 rule): for many events, 80% of the results come from 20% of the causes. examples:

-you wear 20% of what’s in your closet 80% of the time.
-80% of the women date 20% of the men.
-80% of a company's profits come from 20% of its customers
-80% of all frustrations in a relationship are caused by just 20% of the problems
-80% of your stress can be linked to 20% of the people you surround yourself with
-20% of the foods you eat account for 80% of the weight you gain
-20% of your friends give you 80% of your enjoyment
-80% of the world's pollution comes from 20% of the factories
-80% of the awards/achievements go to 20% of athletes/artists/authors/actors
-20% of all the artists on spotify are responsible for 80% of the sales
-80% of your grades come from 20% of your efforts

a form of electronic money that exists solely as encrypted data on servers—is announced. the first transaction took place in january 2009.

a chemical company that is founded in turkey. it is exclusively prevailing in the field of exportation of plastic.

breakups can be painful whether you've been on just a few dates or have been together as a couple for many years. no matter the reason nor the length of the relationship, handling a breakup poorly can create undue pain.

up to three dates

if you've gone out with someone no more than a few times, he/she is unlikely to be permanently devastated by the dissolution of the relationship, although the two of you may have drastically different opinions of whether you were a good match...and rejection always hurts.

what to do: often the best thing to do is nothing-don't call or text, and simply allow the relationship to end. this approach sometimes is portrayed as cowardly or cruel, but there's a good chance that the other person also would rather let your nascent relationship drift away than endure the unpleasantness of an official breakup. sometimes, though, the other person doesn't get the hint. if you receive a message from the partner suggesting that he doesn't realize it's over or wants a clear-cut conclusion, then it's your responsibility to respond.

even if the other person phoned you, a text message or an e-mail is acceptable here-it spares both partners from an emotionally difficult conversation that really isn't necessary after only a few dates.

this message should include a positive statement about the other person or the time you spent together plus the explanation that the match just wasn't working for you. there's no need to add greater detail about what went wrong-pointing to shortcomings or missteps is more likely to add pain than reduce it.

examples: "i really enjoyed getting to know you, but i don't think that it was a good romantic match for me"... or "i don't think that the chemistry was working, but you're great and i hope you find the right person."

four or more dates but still not "exclusive"

by date four, your partner has invested substantial time and emotional energy in the relationship and has reason to believe that you think the match might work. you owe this person an explanation if you end the relationship.

what to do: a conversation is required, either in person, by phone or via video chat. you might want to send a text or an e-mail to set up this conversation-"do you have time to talk tonight? there's something i need to discuss." most daters understand what could be coming when they receive a text like this, which gives them a chance to mentally prepare for the coming conversation.

explain that your feelings "haven't been progressing"...or that you don't see a future together because you "want different things" or "have different interests." as above, add something positive, such as how much you've enjoyed the time you've spent together.

if this partner wants greater detail about what went wrong, point to areas of incompatibility. example: "i like to go out a lot more than you do. that worked during the pandemic because we couldn't get out much, but eventually either you would get tired of going out or i would get bored staying in."

don't say, "let's be friends"-it's extremely rare for romantic relationships to transition into nonromantic relationships...and suggesting this might send mixed messages or prolong an uncomfortable situation.

it's usually best not to be swayed if the partner asks for another chance. your carefully thought-out decision is much more likely than your partner's emotional response to be the better choice. alternative: if your partner responds to the preconversation warning text above by texting back that she would rather that you told her now than wait for a later conversation, she's likely signaling that she would prefer to avoid the unpleasantness of a breakup chat. in this situation, it's acceptable to end the relationship via a follow-up text. mention in this text that you're available for a phone call if she does want to talk about the breakup, although this offer is unlikely to be accepted.

long-term committed relationships

if you've been together more than a few months, breaking it off is going to take more than a few minutes and possibly more than a few tears. your partner likely will feel blindsided by the breakup even if it seems obvious to you that the - relationship isn't working. long-term relationships usually end because of a slow accumulation of issues, not a single massive misstep. often, one partner considers this slow accumulation of issues to provide proof that the relationship isn't working...while the other believes that these issues are in the past and assumes the couple has overcome them or underestimates the problems.

what to do: long-term relationships must be ended in person. have this conversation in a private place that isn't your home-private so that your partner can express his feelings and emotions freely...and not your home so that you can leave afterward. your partner's home often is the best choice. exception: a public setting is justified if you fear that your partner might become violent.

leave no doubt that the relationship is 100% over. opening the door even a crack for a potential future reunion only makes it harder for your partner to move on. provide a clear explanation that doesn't assign most of the blame to your partner or yourself. examples: "i don't feel in love anymore"..."i think we want different things"..."we fight too much"...or "i can't adapt to your lifestyle."

don't back down if your partner claims he can change and the relationship can improve. the issues leading to the breakup of a long relationship inevitably have been discussed before. if the situation was going to improve, that should have happened already.

be patient and understanding if your ex has questions or a strong emotional response. you've been processing the impending demise of the relationship for some time, but it's new and perhaps unexpected for your partner. try not to take it personally or get drawn into an argument if your partner says mean things to you-that's just a reaction to the pain and embarrassment of being rejected. but, if in your opinion, your partner steps over the line from anger to verbal abuse, it's perfectly valid to draw a line. example: you might say, "we can continue to talk, but i won't be yelled at" or "i know i've hurt you, but if you want to keep talking, you have to stop insulting me."

if you and your partner have possessions in each other's homes, suggest that you arrange the exchange later, perhaps through the mail. or if the breakup conversation occurs in your partner's home, bring a few collapsible bags and say, "i'm going to pack up my things...let me know later how you'd like me to get yours to you!"

suggest that you and your partner coordinate what you tell shared friends to minimize the breakup fallout. recommend that you both update your facebook relationship status at the same time, for example...and note that when asked about the breakup, you'll say something positive such as, "it just didn't work out. she's wonderful, and we had a good run." criticism of an ex makes both partners look bad.

take physical cues from your partner during the breakup conversation. it's fine if she reaches for your hand or wants to cry on your shoulder, but inappropriate for the person initiating the breakup to initiate physical contact, even if it's a well-intentioned attempt to provide comfort.

for the first month following the breakup, try to avoid social situations where you might bump into your ex, if feasible.

doublethink is a term coined by george orwell in his famous novel 1984 to describe the act of simultaneously accepting two contradictory beliefs as true. in the novel, the ruling party of oceania uses doublethink as a tool of propaganda to control the thoughts and actions of its citizens.

it refers to the ability to hold two conflicting ideas in one's mind and believe them both to be true. this is a dangerous concept because it allows people to accept lies and manipulation as truth, leading to a society where facts are distorted, and reality is constantly being redefined.

here are a few examples of doublethink in action:

war is peace: in 1984, the government convinces its citizens that war is necessary for peace. this is a prime example of doublethink, as it is impossible for war to bring peace.

freedom is slavery: another example from 1984 is the idea that freedom is actually a form of slavery. the government claims that by taking away people's freedom, they are actually freeing them from the burden of making decisions.

ignorance is strength: the ruling party of oceania encourages its citizens to be ignorant and uninformed. they claim that this ignorance is a form of strength, as it allows people to focus on their work and not worry about the world around them.

political correctness: in modern times, the concept of political correctness can be seen as a form of doublethink. while it aims to promote tolerance and respect, it can also be used to silence dissenting opinions and limit free speech.

advertising: advertisers often use doublethink to sell products. for example, a company may claim that their product is both "all-natural" and "scientifically proven." these two claims are contradictory, but by using both, the company hopes to appeal to a wider audience.

one of the must-read george orwell books to read. another one:
(see: animal farm)

some fav quotes:
--spoiler--
who controls the past controls the future.
who controls the present controls the past.

doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them:
war is peace.
freedom is slavery.
ignorance is strength.

big brother is watching you.

freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. if that is granted, all else follows.

we do not merely destroy our enemies; we change them.
--spoiler--

the cybertruck has been discussed many times here, but it’s literally an automotive disaster—an absolute mess of a vehicle. (and before anyone asks, no, i don’t have the money to buy one, but hey, it’s free to criticize.)

– the body panels are poorly manufactured and don’t fit together properly, causing them to stick out. the only task required is simple sheet metal bending, and they can’t even manage that. in a well-functioning automotive company, such quality issues would have the quality control team putting the engineers on notice. even cars that people dismiss as “cheap,” have tons of quality control checks. if you fail even one, the quality control team will be right there to hold you accountable.

– the so-called stainless steel used for the vehicle is actually rusting, which is outright fraudulent.

– in whistlindiesel’s video, as mentioned above, the chassis breaks under relatively high stress on the tow hitch. this means the structural integrity of the vehicle is compromised, essentially rendering the truck useless. additionally, in the same video, when you shut the doors firmly, the interior trim not only traps you inside, but also cracks when you try to open the door.

– the truck’s bed volume is ridiculously small compared to other light trucks. they tried to make it look sleek and ended up compromising on practical utility.

– the vehicle is incredibly rigid, meaning in the event of a crash, it’s not the car that will absorb the impact—it’s you. this car ignores modern automotive safety measures, so in an accident, the car remains intact while all the crash energy is directly transferred to you, likely causing severe internal injuries and multiple organ failures. it’s a recipe for a horrifying death.

– the biggest concern for me is the steer-by-wire system. in products like fighter jets, a fully electronic fly-by-wire system is used, but remember, fighter jets are few and not used in populated areas. this car, however, is a "commercial vehicle" meant for everyday use among people. in the event of a malfunction, the steering system is entirely under electronic control, not yours. if there’s a power transmission issue, you could lose all control of the servo motors. a software glitch could cause the vehicle to make unexpected steering inputs, leading to potentially fatal accidents. in a large, three-ton vehicle, the lack of a mechanical failsafe system is terrifying. you can see the steering system locking issue in whistlindiesel’s video as well.

in conclusion, in my opinion, selling this vehicle to the public is a big mistake. the current american vehicles, due to tax incentives in the u.s. automotive sector, are already massive, six-meter-long, three-ton death machines. adding this vehicle, with its numerous safety flaws, only makes things worse. it’s highly likely that, like the chevrolet camaro zl1-1le and many other american cars, the cybertruck will face strict regulations in europe and might even be banned from sale there due to these safety concerns. and rightly so. this vehicle is a huge insult to the 120-year-old automotive industry and to the safety regulations developed to prevent people from dying, all because of elon musk’s social media influence and the tech bros who get swept up in it.