I'd think it depends on the amount of time you've spent imagining this experience in the novel. If you have had enough time to vividly imagine the entire experience, none of the questions should catch you by surprise and you could answer almost as if you were actually there.
Regarding con-artists, yes I suppose it comes down to whether they can be as quickly imaginative on the spot as most people who are truthfully recalling an experience. That's probably where the inaccurate 15% of results come in.
You see, you've stepped onto the ground rich with history and connotations. Growing up I saw in newspapers photos of children with flippers instead of legs. I've heard kids being called "Chernobyl kid" on streets by other kids. "Chernobyl kid" as in insult meant "damaged kid".
More generally term "Chernobyl kid" means (or used to mean) something very specific: person who was affected by radiation in a way which caused mutations. For mutations to be caused, radiation exposure needs to happen during prenatal development. Just being displaced with your family to other region does not make you a Chernobyl kid. That's why I mentioned wrong generation.
We are talking about boxers who have exceptional physical characteristics. When you talk about Chernobyl in this context, things like antagonist "Rocky IV" pop into mind. Juiced on chems. Or a mutant.
Calling a world champion a mutant is an insult. He has made it to the top thanks to hard work, talent, and smart management.
I see. What I was intending with that comment was to point out that despite being a child who was exposed to radiation in Chernobyl, that child (children, Vitali was there too) went on to be one of the most physically accomplished humans currently alive.
If you find it hard to get started, consider making an appointment with a psychiatrist and ask about Wellbutrin. It gives you energy rather than feeling low throughout the day and makes it magically easier to not get caught up in logically pointless and destructive thoughts. The best part is, you can continue to self-help it just becomes easier, and you only meet once every 6 months rather than every week with a psychologist.
Just my 2 cents, best decision I ever made after ~10 years depression, went when I was 29. Look up Dysthymia.
I took Celexa and Cymbalta a few years ago but neither seemed to do anything for me. I may give medication another shot in the future, but I don't know.
Yes I tried Prozac and Zoloft 12 years ago before giving Wellbutrin a try early last year. It worked worlds better/differently because it is a non-addictive stimulant as well. Some doctors prescribe it to their children as a safe ADD medication.
Interesting. I tried Adderall a few years ago as a stimulant, but it had no noticeable effect.
I ended up going through a month supply of it in under a week, I kept upping my daily dosage hoping for a miracle cure, because I wanted a magical pill. Happiness in a pill or something that would numb me to daily life.
I used Adderall a lot in college and a bit after but it only works temporarily and doesn't target depression. Actually the subsequent low from Adderall and other stimulants is why I hate them and they never turned into a serious addiction.
Wellbutrin had a stimulant effect at first because I wasn't used to it, but it slowly becomes less noticeable, leaving only the positive effects. I remember thinking about a week or so in: This is how other people get to feel?!? wtf
Non-addictive stimulant? Maybe it isn't chemically addictive, but all stimulants have the possibility for psychological dependency. Trading one dependency for another is not what I would consider to be progress.
It only has a noticeable stimulant effect in the beginning, after a few weeks you can't tell a difference and it just becomes part of routine with the same anti-depressant benefits. Whatever small risks you're assuming are far outweighed by the rewards.
I agree with this but for a different reason. No matter how much we discover, everything we find is still something in existence. No matter what force or object you are observing, you can't doubt that it exists at some level, in some way (whichever multiverse or reality it is).
This means that at some point, existence must have been started by something non-existent. Because we only comprehend cause-and-effect, we can't possibly find the origin in a provable way while researching from within existence.
Odd that you would pick those two countries as your examples. Both are federations comprised of a number of separate sovereign governments. Or, for that matter, the United States of Mexico shares that trait of its name with America. (An actual counterexample would be France, a unitary state.)
The Constitution of Canada far more clearly lays out what is and is not the role of the Federal and Provincial governments than the US 10'th amendment does for states rights. Canadian provinces, then, are sovereign themselves (tho not independent). The federal government can't decide it doesn't like an Ontario law and block it any more than it could an American law.
The States of the United States then sound far less like united, sovereign states than the members of some federations without United in their names.
Canadian federal government has much more power than US feds can ever imagine to have. The criminal law is entirely up to the Canadian Parliament, and this is highly unlikely to ever fly in US. Further more, the courts have held that Canadian federal government can spend its money any way it likes to influence provincial policy. While the US Supreme court has allowed some percentage of money to be tied to state legislation (viz 21 year drinking age), it has also struck down laws which forces states to take up new spending or lose all the earlier grant from federal government (viz Medicare expansion in Obamacare). Each US state maintains its own Constitution and individual Judiciary, while the Canadian Supreme Court sits on top of any case of controversy in Canada,
US is much more federal than Canada, except may be for legal fiction where each Canadian province has their own relation to Crown. While Canadian federal government cannot outright strike out a state law, they almost never have to, as the power of Canadian federal government are almost endless where it really matter viz. criminal law, tax and spending.
Federal Republic of Germany. Just `Germany' is roughly equivalent to saying just `America'. As an example, education is in the purview of the German states. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_Germany
I'd be careful about conflating "a good logo" with "good design". Design will make or break plenty of companies. Logos don't really matter; as long as it a) fits the brand, b) doesn't offend anyone, and c) won't get you sued, your logo is doing its job. Way too much importance is placed on logos, in my opinion.
Yes, it's so obvious it's hard to see why Google hasn't implemented it already. I wonder what will happen with this project, unlikely that Google would acquire something rather than assign a small team to fix this within a week?
