I find the goal of perpetual progress in resistance training strange. Yet it seems to be almost universal. If you are not lifting more today than you lifted yesterday, you are a failure. Gains, gains, gains. It is rather obvious that there are genetic limits on strength and size. Everyone is somewhere on their own spectrum of potential. Someone who doesn’t resistance train at all is likely near the bottom of their potential. Someone who works out 5 days a week, never misses leg day, eats enough protein (1g per kg in Europe, 1g per lb in the US) is likely near the top of their potential. Living in higher and higher ranges of your potential requires exponentially more ongoing effort, dedication/discipline/sacrifice, blood/sweat/tears/pain. Say my absolute maximum genetic potential in exercise X is to lift 100kg. Say I never do exercise X, so my current maximum is 40k. With some effort, like training 3 days a week for 4 months, I might get this to 60kg. Perhaps I could maintain that gain for decades by continuing to train 2 days a week. Or, I could keep pushing and maybe I could get it to 80kg in a few years. With an absolute all out effort, applying all the knowledge of the latest studies and perfect discipline, I could temporarily push it into the high 90s. Everybody can do what they want to do, but it seems to me that seeking the minimum effective dose of resistance training to look and feel good, and be strong enough to do what you like or need to do, is a reasonable approach. No need to push for more gains after that.
There was at least one additional murder. Louis DiBono, who held a lucrative contract to fireproof the steel beams of the towers, was murdered in the parking lot under the North tower on Oct 4, 1990. John Gotti was convicted for the murder (and four other murders). The FBI, eavesdropping on Gotti, overheard the order, but misheard the name and thus failed to warn DiBono. Also, there was no video surveillance or witnesses, and the body wasn’t found for three days, all indicating a lack of security. The Feb 26, 1993, bombing was apparently done from the same parking lot 2+ years later.
Rights afforded by the US Constitution such as free speech, assembly, and due process extend to everyone in the country, not just citizens. But apparently, there is no right to be in the US. The state department (Marco Rubio) has the power to revoke any non-citizen’s permission. And that is exactly what they are doing right now to non-citizens who are legally in the US on visas for work, school, vacation, etc., if these people do or say something the Trump administration finds objectionable like attending a pro-Palestinian protest. They’ve revoked 500 student visas so far at dozens of universities. Google “revoke student visa”. And since there is no illegality needed, there is no due process necessary. These people are just sent home with no explanation given. In some cases they have no idea what they even did wrong. They can even be kicked out on mistaken identity because there is no due process. This has nothing to do with illegal immigration. These people are in the US legally, and have done nothing illegal. This policy is apparently designed to intimidate anyone who dissents, including citizens. If the Trump administration can find a legal loophole that allows them to harm their enemies they are using it. And if no loophole exists, they are trying it anyway (since Trump’s Supreme Court has already ruled that nothing he does can be a crime). See their actions against law firms and investigations into Miles Taylor (called Trump “unfit”) and Chris Krebs (called the 2020 election “secure”). All this is happening under your nose and you see it as purely focused on illegal immigration.
14th question on the application (not mentioned in job listings): “Do you currently reside or open to relocation in one of the following states: Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida Hawaii, Illinois, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington”.
The journalist published proof that Hegseth texted detailed military attack plans via Signal two hours prior to the attack (the secrets) after multiple participants on the Signal chain lied to congress in a public hearing and claimed it didn’t happen. Would letting those lies stand have been the ethical thing for a journalist to do? Exposing a bunch of liars at the highest level of government is absolutely American and something all US citizens should be expected to do. Sadly, about half of Americans will still believe the lies even now that they have been exposed.
You very conveniently ignored my demand for official apology to Signal team. Why? What you have against them? Or everything should burn because half of America hates Trump? ;-) What about my point of running Signal on officially issued by Whitehouse phones? Do you disagree with that? Or we are ignoring the facts again, to make TDS the center of our conversation? And, what I _really_ want to know - will you continue using Signal or, as result of that stupid publication, you would ditch it?
Thank you and please don't take my post wrong - I respect your views very much, I am just appalled how Signal is getting hurt among all that. It's unfair to Developers and great people workingin Signal team.
I didn’t realize that in order to comment I needed to address all of your points. Your take on the journalist (point 3) is the only one objectionable enough to warrant comment. But in the spirit of mutual respect, here you go: 1) Should the Washington Post apologize for calling Signal “unsecure, commercially available messaging platform.” Well, first, I think we can agree it’s a commercially available messaging platform. We might even agree that it is one of the most secure commercially available messaging platforms on Earth. But, as you can gather from other comments in this thread, “secure” is not a black and white thing. The padlock on my shed is secure against my kids. It is not secure against my neighbor who owns bolt cutters. Whether or not something is secure depends on the threat profile. What is the threat profile in this case? Furthermore, if some critical aspect of a system (such as the underlying cryptography) is secure that doesn’t necessarily mean the system as a whole is secure. For example, what if it is possible for an unintended party to be part of a secure conversation? Well, that by definition would not be secure. What if it is possible to screenshot classified information from a Signal conversations? That might be a security flaw. We could go on about challenges Signal faces, like their software runs on hardware they cannot control, on an OS they cannot control, compiled by a compiler they cannot control, distributed through app stores they cannot control. Or we could talk about how secure systems are only secure if used in a secure manner. We might agree that Signal is as secure as it possibly can be, given those limitations. But whether or not Signal is “secure” is not the question we should be asking. We should be asking whether it is “secure enough” for the context under discussion. The answer is no. The conversation leaked to a journalist. That is not secure. We might rightly say that Signal is apparently unsecure. I don’t expect journalists to understand crypto systems. I do expect them to recognize a security breach when it stares them in the face, and it makes sense to me that they might consider that unsecure. So, no, no apology necessary. 2) You are making a lot of assumptions here. Do you know that all 19 participants were using Signal on a govt issued device with NSA installed OS? How do you know that? All 19? If this were the proper system for communicating classified information, wouldn’t they have claimed as much? They can’t make that claim, so they are claiming it wasn’t classified information. And they are doubling down after the nature of the information has been revealed. Ask the pilots if it’s classified. And your contention that it was surely audited by the NSA line by line? Well, that has two problems: a) that would require Signal to be unsecure, and b) maybe only 18 NSA employees showed up to work that day, because they missed the journalist. The lack of any potential for NSA oversight is part of the problem. If the NSA were listening in, they could have moved the conversation to a SCIF as soon as the Fox News guy started texting F-18 launch times. 3) See my original comment. 4) By deep state, I guess you are referring to people who are actually qualified for their jobs, who understand that attack plans (including weapon systems, launch times, bomb detonation times) are classified information that if compromised could lead to mission failure and loss of life. No, these people aren’t furious that Signal prevents them from leaking information. They are furious that their unqualified superiors used Signal and did leak information. And to your question, sure I will keep using Signal. It is secure enough for my needs. But if I ever need to keep anyone updated about pending military strikes, I’ll go to a SCIF.
It just depends on the use case. The "interface" could be complicated enough that it needs a full blown application with state. I would say that's the typical expectation today from users.
My favorite (besides water, coffee, tea) is sparkling water with some fruit juice and no added sweeteners, e.g. the brand “Spindrift”. It’s 35 calories. I prefer it to colas, juice, and sparkling juice. It is particularly refreshing when you are hot (from yard work, exercise, etc.) when other drinks can taste too sweet.
reply