Carl-Richard

Who the fuck drinks three glasses of milk (750g) a day anyway? If you don't drink that amount of milk, you have to eat 400g of almonds (nobody does that), 150-200g of cheese (you fat pig), 780g of low fat sour cream (you drinking the stuff?), 1.5kg of spinach (you'll definitely get kidney stones) to hit 100% of RDA for a male my size. I only hit about 40% with a standard day's worth of food. How do you do it? Do you snort calcium-fortified soy?

Anti-holism, except when it comes to making holes in his body (and filling holes, the gay way, he's gay, and that's A-ok).

I have been taking a calcium supplement (500mg, with 20ug vitamin D; I also take more vitamin D than that, but just for proper accounting) for over a year because I was trying to cover that hole in the RDA numbers, and now when I tried reducing it by half, my brain took a dive. I think calcium is a nootropic. I might also just have to get through the "withdrawals" so to speak before I can give a real judgement.

No.

You sound like my stepdad. We don't care about "not dying". We care about what is optimal. You can be starving and not dying.

🤢🤖 Even though I haven't tasted any of them, both of them has existed as "fake food" in my head since I learned about them (not necessarily based on anything factual).

I also don't drink milk because I've concluded that lactose is an unnecessary nutrient (we're all on the lactose intolerance spectrum), together with gluten. And I only can eat so much cheese or sour cream before I start losing culinary satisfaction points. The "gastronomic calculus" doesn't add up when I perturb my "intergalactose" intolerance. I've been watching too much Anthony Bourdain.

"In 2026, we will no longer have to write books because AI can do it for us" -ah Israetel.

Bros* It's called having a teatular fascination.

Milk and oyster smoothie sounds like something Liver King would make. R-word's Razor.

Have you checked whether you have a pulse? No feeling = death.

@Osaid You know what? Calcium RDAs are a conspiracy to force people to drink milk. There, I said it. Big Tit got their hands in the health organizations.

I supplement zinc because it gives me ADHD drug powers without going to the doctor >:)

I hit everything quite good except calcium. Calcium is a bitch. Consistently hovering around or below 40%.

Actually a "hell" of a composition: Here is the pure orchestral version so you can more clearly see the structural aspects: It's actually incredible that Ihsahn composed this at only 16-17 years old.

They say that good music keeps you at the edge between familiarity and surprise. Too familiar becomes boring, and too surprising becomes hard to follow. Musical improvisation is the manifestation of this in real time, and you can usually notice when the player is engaging in well-established/familiar patterns ("licks") and when the player is creating something completely original. I'm used to improvising a lot on guitar, and I've noticed that I'm able to imagine impossibly intricate and original lines of improvisation in my head, but I'm in no way technically advanced enough to manifest that through my instrument. When I listen to the most complete virtuostic improvisational players out there, even though they can come very close many times, I always feel a tension between boredom and impenetrability. Of course, this desire I have of hearing the most hyper-creative lines of notes that I can possibly imagine is impossible to fulfill. It's completely relative to my unique conception of music, and I would probably never in a million years get to hear somebody produce even 10 seconds of those exact notes (which would be absolutely transcendentally orgasmic if it happened). Nevertheless, I know two players who come extremely close, and I'll try to weigh to which extent they're too "boring" ("musically conventional" is a better word) or too impenetrable (too melodically or harmonically complex) relative to my impossible standard of imaginative perfection. Guthrie Govan (obviously). It's tricky, because he is so versatile that he often fluctuates between too conventional (like bluesy bendy stuff) and too complex (like jazzy shredding stuff). I'll give an example for each player: Allan Holdsworth is notoriously known for being impossible to imitate by other players. For reference, Guthrie Govan can imitate virtually anyone but him. He often becomes too complex. I sometimes have to listen to his songs 30 times to understand what he is doing (like the run at 1:28 in the video below). (Btw things become more interesting around 0:40).

Last night, I had a dream that I was being chased by several tornadoes. Then today I read about the tornado incident in Kentucky with an estimated death toll of 100 people, which is the worst tornado event in the history of Kentucky. About two weeks ago, I had a dream where PsychedSubstance got kicked out from his own house. Today he released this video: The night my dad's boss died from drowning, I had a nightmare where I was being chased by a ghost, fearing for my life. I usually never have those types of nightmares. What is this?

I just thought about the time I met my brother walking towards me on a road to a store and he said his friend had died, 10 or so years ago (I was really high at the time and answered something like "shit, is it going to be in the news?" without stopping to ask how he was doing; completely retard zoinked out). I remember before meeting him while I was walking down the driveway outside the house, I had this really weird feeling, like something was fucked with reality that day. Like literally the way reality "looked" (my visual field) was different, the general vibe, the baseline feeling of reality, was different somehow. His friend lived probably only about a quarter mile away or less from our house.

You'd have to give an example.

I just want to show how ridiculous that PsychedSubstance dream was. I will also elaborate that I literally was inside his house in the dream and I got the sense he got kicked out, and then we sat on one of those big concrete stairs-like things in a city and he looked really lost for words staring down and into the air and I asked him "so, what now?". Imagine we're in a city sitting at a café near the city square and I say for example that "within seven seconds", 1. "Derek from More Plates More Dates will walk up in front of us and get robbed at gunpoint". 2. "Oliver Tree will crash a helicopter into the city square". 3. "Michael Jackson's son will arrive and start dancing to 'Beat It' while a big dancing crew emerges in a flash mob". Then that is exactly what happens. What would you think then? Just a coincidence? Or did I maybe have a glimpse into the future? The way I constructed those examples is that they involve a semi-famous person that engage in an action they have most likely never done before, within a short time frame of me predicting/conceiving of it (i.e. analogous to the PsychedSubstance dream event).

Quod Erat Demonstrandum.

I also sense I have to dispel the notion that you can't manipulate someone by saying something you honestly believe to be true. A partner can say "I love you" and honestly mean it but still use it to manipulate. For example, your partner does something very serious which you don't like and you threaten to leave them: "But don't you know I love you?". That might be true in the larger picture, but what is the aim there?

What is a distraction is insisting reality works like a game of marbles, an outdated fiction from the 17th century that people still cling to because of cultural manufacturing and institutional drag.

We were a group of about a dozen people. The person had booked the table. We arrived half an hour before the booking. The waiter said "sorry, you have to wait". The person then asked "can we sit in the bar in the meantime?". The waiter said "no". So we walked around in the city while waiting. The person expressed disappointment and controlled anger, "I've never ever experienced this; I say we just go another place now, if that's how it's going to be". The others did not want that, so we went to that restaurant. We also waited a bit extra, and the waiter told us why he had denied us a table, that other people had stayed for long and were told to leave but they were slow. We order our food, then a different waiter serves drinks, the wine drinkers including the person have Prosecco (sparkling wine). Then, after everything is served, the person asks the waiter: "I want to taste the white wine. Can we do that?". The most chilling and ominous vibe spreads across the table. The waiter paused for about a second, then said with an almost timid or terrified voice "yes, yes, the white wine.. I can bring it to the table... yes?". The person: "yes, thank you". It was clear that some seething, boiling rage, was subtly spilling out between the words of the person, but the tone, the voice, was controlled, only a subtle hint of anger. The person tasted the white wine, then asked if the other wine drinkers wanted to taste and tell them if they wanted it. The second wine drinker said "I think it's too dry". Then the rest of the wine drinkers concluded "no thanks, no white wine". The person laughed as the waiter left with the now opened and barely used wine bottle. At some point, the person also asked the waiter "can we get it by the glass?" (meaning they can pay for only each glass and not a full bottle). The waiter said "five wine drinkers means five glasses which is a wine bottle so that would not be possible". The person said "alright alright". At this point, I had tuned completely out of the conversation. I usually speak more than most in that group; after that point, I didn't speak but when people asked me why I was silent, dropping hints about what the hell was going in in front of their eyes and which they were repressing to not stir the pot too much. So what was happening was that because a waiter in the restaurant had "slighted him" by having him wait outside the restaurant because he came half an hour too early, he had planned to harass the waiters with wine tasting theatrics where his goal was to be as unpleasant and demanding of a customer as possible, and when it did go that way (the wine drinkers turned down the white wine), he laughed. This is psychopathy because it's not just impulsive anti-social behavior. It's cold, calculated anti-social behavior. Behavior where you plan, behavior where you know better, behavior where you choose to go down one path over another, repeatedly, incessantly, without changing, until you are satisfied.

When things get sufficiently removed from oneself into the past, we start to view it more through aesthetic than the brutal factual reality. We see this with the Vikings, pirates, Romans, Spartans. We start viewing them as cool, even noble somehow, perhaps despite the factual reality, and we even identify with them. Look at the Norwegian football fans during the World Cup role-playing as Vikings with their "Ro!" chant. The Vikings were essentially what Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS and Al-Qaida are today. Violent, ruthless killers, slaughtering everyone in their way, doing surprise attacks on larger cities and settlements. Norwegians are terrified of Islamic terrorists, yet they identify with the Vikings. The distinction is the separation of the far past and the immediate threat towards their survival. Remove the immediate threat to survival and you start viewing them in a different light. "But their ideology is different, that's why Norwegians don't like Islamic terrorists". Yes, different from their own, so it threatens their survival because it threathens them now. But is it really different from the ideology of the Vikings if you look at the pure structure rather than the content? Violent Islamic jihadism is not really that dissimilar from violent Norse paganism. Also, pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers, who couldn't be more different from oneself ideologically, also get the aesthetic treatment. There is even the idea that they were somehow enlightened or peaceful, living in perfect harmony with nature with egalitarian and matriarchical tribal structures, when that probably couldn't be further from the truth. This image crashes immediately once you replace "pre-agricultural hunter-gatherers" with "uncontacted jungle savages", and you see how when you meet these people in the present, you will end up with an arrow through your eye before anything else you can "gather" from them (talk about "aesthetics"). And of course, pirates get the Johnny Depp treatment, the Romans get the "every movie ever made about Ancient Rome" treatment, Spartans get the movie "300" treatment, etc. It wouldn't surprise me if 1000 years into the future and if violent Islamic jihadism has somehow become a thing of the past, Norwegians (or whatever they're called) start viewing violent Islamic jihadists as something cool, a bit like pirates, or the Vikings.