This could be me. It is interesting to see how close some details are: My home country is (based on your user name) the same as mine, I do have the same dreams, I do have approx. the same savings. Im just a little younger and I didn't get my education in the US.
So, I really, really can relate to your situation.
Here is what worked for me:
First: Radical self-acceptance. Your outlook to the future determines your success in reaching your goals. That's the hard part, and I'm not there, yet, too.
Second: If you struggle with self-acceptance, apply what I call the Paradox of Specificity.
In professional sports, any exercise should be specific to the training goal to achieve maximum results. If, for example, you're training for a marathon, there is little value in doing chest presses all the day. This rule of specificity to me, is very appealing. It just works like programming: Effort in, result out. However, the rule of specificity does not apply to the way more complex thing that we call "life". Take dating for example. If anything you do with your time is somehow "looking" for a partner, you will most likely fail. This is the part where specificity is actually causing harm.
So, what I did: I created a mindset that I can influence my well-being. The reasoning is easy: If I see that I can change things for the better, I will continue to do things.
First, I started with a proper diet, then I added some sports. The first months already were amazing, so I read everything I could. I optimized my Gym training plan, my diet, my supplements, I experienced with medications, oxygen therapy, cold exposure, sauna, red light exposure and everything I could find. The results:
- More confidence as I went from overweight to below 10% body fat
- more overall well-being, better sleep, no fatigue
- the idea that I really control what's going on in my life was planted in my head
Second, I put myself into uncomfortable situations: I walk every day at least 10k steps, no matter the wheather. I end my shower with cold as long as I could (increasing number of seconds each time), so that my mind gets programmed to complete a task even in uncomfortable situations.
Also, I did things that I would never have done before. Public speaking, travel in solitude (which I admit has felt like loneliness sometimes), practising martial arts.
Third, start to get rid of negative things: Avoid toxic people, avoid alcohol, and other drugs, limit my caffeine intake, no more junk food.
And now, where am I? I'm still struggling with positive perception of the future but I see this gets better every day. I am more open to people and I feel that I "attract" positive vibes around me. I was guest on a marriage and I was able to build strong relationships with other guests. Something I thought I've lost (or just became too old).
A word on therapy: Not sure about your insurance, but if you can afford it, take some "retreat" for 6weeks in a nice clinic that offers nature, sports, good food, therapy sessions and whatnot. This distance from your usual day to day life and the support you get, can be a booster. But: Tell them what you want, put the effort in. I know how harsh that sounds: But no therapist can help if you just sit there and complain how bad everything is.
Btw, getting back to the US seems appealing for me too, right now, even if the timing is not right from an economic pov.
If you want to chat, give me a note here and we'll find a way to connect
You don't have to supply (i.e. buy) your own hardware, but you might have to pay for the power supply.
On the contrary, you likely have lower commuting costs.
However, the more important aspect might be that you end up needing more space at home and the employer needs less space in the office. Working from your kitchen table is probably not the best idea in terms of ergonomics.
In my opinion this aspect gets few attention in the discussion.
Many people (prior to Covid) did not have a desk and chair suitable for WFH (I did, but many of my coworkers didn't). Chairs and desks are hardware.
Many couples do not have two spare bedrooms (especially in the Bay Area) to work in. That means potentially renting/buying a larger living space, or converting living space into working space.
N=1, but my lower commuting costs are more than offset by the lack of company-provided lunches, snacks, and coffee.
And one way to "push for that regulation" is giving an example that you are not hurting yourself too much if your choices reflect the legislation you demand.
If you ARE in fact hurting yourself too much, then you prove that people can chose one from the following:
A) keep the status quo, but the planet will most probably heat up and very bad things happen.
B) change the status quo to something that really, really hurts. But the reward for your surrender is that there is a chance that the planet does not heat up so much and less bad things happen a few decades from now.
That is what most people perceive in climate activists.
Yes, it makes sense that it could be perceived that way. But that would not be entirely accurate, since it will get much cheaper to emit less CO2 once there is effective regulation in place.
For example: If a really painful Carbon tax was introduced over night, the next day people's lives would look a lot different. Activities that used to be mundane would suddenly be expensive luxuries.
However, that's ignoring the fact that the economy would start to route around this tax. What are currently still niche low-carbon technologies will get a lot cheaper due to economies of scale. Photovoltaics are already a super cheap way of making electricity while the sun shines - suddenly there's going to be a huge incentive to building out storage.
(Of course, you wouldn't actually do that over night.)
But again, the OP is about credibility. So, for the advocates of legislation changes (e.g. climate activists) it would give their credibility a huge boost if they started to surrender symbolically from things like traveling abroad (and also, would remove a rhetorically very easy target from their critics).
The proposed legislation itself should of course refrain from being "just" symbolic.
Well that is exactly the point. Of course, climate activists reducing their individual leisure demand would decrease global carbon emissions only insignificantly, if at all.
That's not the point here. The point is that climate activists ask their government for big changes because they fear civilization could end otherwise. And those big changes would have significant impact on the lifestyle of almost all people affected by these laws. So, why should one be willing to (and thus, vote for the changes) change ones lifestyle, if the advocates just say "well, I stop travelling abroad, when everyone else stops as well (and other carbon emission is reduced, too)"? The OP is about credibility, or, even lower level: sympathy.
Maybe it becomes more obvious if we look at one specific example. In the Netherlands they lowered maximum speed on highways to 100 km/h (from 120 km/h). Correct me if I'm wrong but the carbon saving from that law is close to non-existent compared to the whole economy's carbon emissions.
Or, the whole EU banned light bulbs. Also, the energy saving compared to the whole EU's energy consumption is probably sub 1%. And with the advent of white LEDs, people just use more light and the overall effect is even less.
Both measurments combined have an impact less than your claimed 5%-10%. Does that mean that government should stop taking small steps, and only the "big shot" counts?
Or can small steps (by governments OR individuals) be a tool to increase awareness?
Those changes, mandating LEDs and lower speed limits, are vastly more important and easy to make than trying to get a ton of individuals to choose a different lifestyle. Psychology tells us about hedonistic adaptation, it'll be much easier for a government to make a big play than for tens of thousands of rich people to all individually give up their lifestyle. It'd be more influential for them to boycott gas planes and use their wealth to stimulate electric plane use, but again: psychology. That's why we need governments...
But think broader, about concrete and steel and shipping, the really hard areas. There is no "choice" about steel, it's a technological and policy issue...Even if we cleaned up our individual consumer choices, that won't change the need for steel or change how it's produced in a dirty way.
Look at a wind turbine, for instance. It's a giant tower of steel. Even though we need wind turbines as fast as possible, we still need dirty steel to ramp those up, and we need new tech to then make future steel cleaner.
This is why focusing on individual choice is so small. Even if all us rich Westerners went vegan and rode bikes to work, that wouldn't address all the tricky technological and chemical issues.
Correct, even if you look at the URL on each link it will have IDs and tracking code embedded to be able to see who clicked what link and very rarely go straight to the actual URL it is referring to without a hop or two.
Sort of. It doesn't have to be a traditional file or anything, so it helps to think of it as a unique URL being accessed instead of a different pixel. What makes it work is the client automatically loading all images, which means the user accesses the URL automatically as well. It stops working if the client uses features that disable automatic image loading.
You could implement this by sending each email with an img tag that has a unique url, such as https://foo.bar/baz/id_1.jpg, which the server will route under the hood to a script. The script stores the fact that someone visited id_1, assumes it must have been the recipient since only they have the URL to get to it, and responds with image data to make the whole thing seamless.
The "Badge" is essentially resembling a pirate flag (white skull with crossed bones on black background).
Hamburg, of which St. Pauli is a nation-wide well-known area often in the media because it's red light district and its most known police station, is also traditionally a hot spot of militant antifa scene.
In 2017 the antifa turned that city into a burning hell looking like civil war area.
If that would not be enough, there is a building squatted since 1989 by far left scene.
So, it is not that counter-intuitive to associate fans of Germany's most violent soccer club with the far left scene of that city...
> In 2017 the antifa turned that city into a burning hell looking like civil war area.
This is a gross misrepresentation of what actually happened. There were over 100k protesters, almost all peaceful, and about 15k police personel. That "burning hell" were just a few dozen burning cars, mosty police cars, and a few burning barricades. As the lawsuits are still ongoing, it isn't clear whether these were started by antifa or by fascists, who were also present, looked identical and have been accused of actual violence against the police. There are also accusations of agents provocateurs of the police itself, which isn't that improbable because the police also used that strategy during the G8 summit 2007.
So the protests where almost completely peaceful. Although there was a bit material damage, it isn't clear who was responsible for it.
In 2009, they became the first club in Germany to adopt a set of guiding principles by passing a resolution the club's AGM.
These values include social responsibility and promoting the interests of members, employees, supporters and volunteers beyond the sphere of sport; tolerance and respect and social responsibility. The club is regularly involved in solidarity actions with a wide range of causes.[0]
The parent post equated club supporters and "militant antifa" with the perpetrators of violence and "if that were not enough" presented the continued squatting as an example of undesirable behavior.
It's not the most violent soccer club by far. I saw a ranking and St. Pauli was on place 15, the first one being Frankfurt and the second Dynamo Dresden (what is a known right wing club).
The club does a lot of social activism and most fans in Hamburg are pretty normal social democrats. You are not wrong that there is an overlap of St. Pauli fans and the left scene in Hamburg. It's not a stretch that a militant person from Hamburg would also be a fan of this club. That's about it and how it probably ended up on that list.
Also the squatted building you are talking about is now owned by the city that basically allows its current use.
> It's not a stretch that a militant person from Hamburg would also be a fan of this club. That's about it and how it probably ended up on that list.
I am far away from accusing either the club or its fans as potential threats.
It's just as you said: There is a visible overlap, this pirate flag ended on that list and that's it. The list we're talking about even puts not ban on that sign. It's just connects it to that milieu and that's it.
First, Tailwind encourages you to use apply to build reusable components,
second, Taking building blocks from a generator like the one posted here, makes at least to me more sense than it would be for Bootstrap: You see a component and can (thanks to utility classes) see how it's built and change the appearance relatively fast. With Bootstrap you would basically just add a component class and that's it - customizing is more complex then.
I really like the idea of life time purchases rather than subscriptions.
To minimize the risk that your site goes down (or is economically unstable at some point in time), you could consider making this a paid downloadable app.
I'd pay double for a self-hosted version, that isn't phone-home dependent.
This removes a huge risk that the service will one day disappear. (If your sites go down you may not be able to release a self-hosted version)
So, I really, really can relate to your situation.
Here is what worked for me:
First: Radical self-acceptance. Your outlook to the future determines your success in reaching your goals. That's the hard part, and I'm not there, yet, too.
Second: If you struggle with self-acceptance, apply what I call the Paradox of Specificity.
In professional sports, any exercise should be specific to the training goal to achieve maximum results. If, for example, you're training for a marathon, there is little value in doing chest presses all the day. This rule of specificity to me, is very appealing. It just works like programming: Effort in, result out. However, the rule of specificity does not apply to the way more complex thing that we call "life". Take dating for example. If anything you do with your time is somehow "looking" for a partner, you will most likely fail. This is the part where specificity is actually causing harm.
So, what I did: I created a mindset that I can influence my well-being. The reasoning is easy: If I see that I can change things for the better, I will continue to do things.
First, I started with a proper diet, then I added some sports. The first months already were amazing, so I read everything I could. I optimized my Gym training plan, my diet, my supplements, I experienced with medications, oxygen therapy, cold exposure, sauna, red light exposure and everything I could find. The results: - More confidence as I went from overweight to below 10% body fat - more overall well-being, better sleep, no fatigue - the idea that I really control what's going on in my life was planted in my head
Second, I put myself into uncomfortable situations: I walk every day at least 10k steps, no matter the wheather. I end my shower with cold as long as I could (increasing number of seconds each time), so that my mind gets programmed to complete a task even in uncomfortable situations.
Also, I did things that I would never have done before. Public speaking, travel in solitude (which I admit has felt like loneliness sometimes), practising martial arts.
Third, start to get rid of negative things: Avoid toxic people, avoid alcohol, and other drugs, limit my caffeine intake, no more junk food.
And now, where am I? I'm still struggling with positive perception of the future but I see this gets better every day. I am more open to people and I feel that I "attract" positive vibes around me. I was guest on a marriage and I was able to build strong relationships with other guests. Something I thought I've lost (or just became too old).
A word on therapy: Not sure about your insurance, but if you can afford it, take some "retreat" for 6weeks in a nice clinic that offers nature, sports, good food, therapy sessions and whatnot. This distance from your usual day to day life and the support you get, can be a booster. But: Tell them what you want, put the effort in. I know how harsh that sounds: But no therapist can help if you just sit there and complain how bad everything is.
Btw, getting back to the US seems appealing for me too, right now, even if the timing is not right from an economic pov.
If you want to chat, give me a note here and we'll find a way to connect