Depends on how soon you are planning to buy. The usual rule of thumb for a big purchase (house, car, etc) is that if you’re planning on it occurring in 3-5 years, put money in a savings account. Otherwise, yeah you should probably invest it.
I agree there is a time and place for it. 5 years is a bit long IMO. The S&P500 is up 250% in the last 5 years, while savings would have netted maybe 10% growth in that time. I imagine some sort of hedge would be appropriate, but have definitely been burnt by taking money out of the market too soon.
Im just shocked that some people think stock is some SV alternate reality. I grew up in a rural community before the internet, and even then, nobody I knew was long term saving for houses or retirement with a savings account.
Yeah agree, I think it's really about personal risk tolerance.
I do agree 5 years is a while, but it's also easy to say that right now based on the last 5 years. It's not terribly difficult to find 5 year periods where returns aren't very good or flat out bad (e.g. starting investing in 2000).
It is interesting they only support 64gb and then jump to 128gb. It seems like a money play since it's $1,000 to upgrade for 128, and if you're running something that needs more than 64 (like LLMs?) you kind of have no choice.
Same thing with Olympic weightlifting. This is a very common phrase in my gym.
Snatching has got to be the most humbling barbell movement ever. Dudes who can easily bench over 100 kg (220 lbs) would never get to close snatching that. (Myself included, but hopefully one day)
I know nothing about Olympic weightlifting! What makes snatching so unique and humbling?
Aside: you don’t have to, but a one sentence definition of it would be awesome too - my lifting has been limited to the classic stuff, no fancy Olympic “bend and snap” stuff ;)
You pull the barbell up from the ground (like a deadlift) while dropping into a squat, and then get it up over your head while standing up. It is much more explosive than either the deadlift or squat separately.
Why… well, it’s a sport where you compete to lift the most weight. The other competition lift is the clean and jerk.
For my old ass I do it because it’s so hard and the rest of my life is fairly soft. Waking up and getting beat down by some snatches (or occasionally having a great session) keeps me level headed in other areas of life, I guess.
If you’re not a competitive weightlifter but still training explosiveness for other sports then you’re better off doing variations on the lifts. Like hang snatches, power cleans, power snatches, etc.
Totally fair, all of it. Thanks for the explanation. When you put it as simply as “it’s about who can lift more weight,” my question looks dumb in retrospect, of course.
It would be just as easy for someone to incredulously ask me why I love BJJ, despite being hypermobile and having a much higher chance of injury as a result.
It’s about what you love. That’s why you do it. That makes perfect sense.
The point is to use the explosive power of your legs to optimally throw & catch a very heavy thing over your head. It’s not designed specifically to work any particular muscle but test your overall capability. That said it’s much, much harder on core & shoulder stability in particular than either deadlifts or back squat. Or front squat for that matter.
Oly lifts are humbling in that being able to squat or press a lot of weight doesn’t necessarily mean you’ll be able to snatch a lot of weight because there’s so much technique training required. The explosiveness and the sense of timing is very hard to learn.
To answer an aspect of your question that other commenters haven't addressed, the snatch works hip and shoulder mobility in a way that deadlifting and squats do not. The barbell is driven by the explosive hip hinge (unhinge?) directly up, so it is a departure from deadlift even if it looks like it would train the same muscles. Training your snatch lift in a non-competitive sense really exposes imbalances the lifter has. Your hesitance is really reasonable though, it's a non-trivial lift so coming into lifting completely new and trying to throw a snatch up isn't a very good idea.
It was about table saws, not circular saws. There’s a big difference between the two. Table saw accidents often result in losing fingers and it’s not that difficult to mess up while using one.
There’s a well known, proven, easy solution to table saw accidents called SawStop. It’s basically as obvious to use as a seat belt is if you want to be safe. The only problem is those table saws are very expensive.
Social media doesn’t have an existing and obvious solution (besides not using it).
Isn't SawStop patent encumbered? AFAIK the three point seat belt design's patent was made open by Volvo at the time, so the patent didn't hold back adoption.
Yes - in fact the whole company was started by a patent attorney.
SawStop says they'll release one patent (which is about to expire anyway) but they've got a huge portfolio of other ones, and companies like Grizzly say that SawStop is unwilling to engage with them in good faith on licensing their technology.
Bosch released a saw with similar tech, except unlike SawStop it didn't use overpriced consumables every time it triggered. SawStop sued the product off of the market.
The company founder also serves as an expert witness when people shove their hands into moving saw blades, then sue the saw makers - testifying that the makers should be held liable because they haven't licensed his invention.
Of course, I'm sure for SawStop getting all their competitors banned will be a highly profitable decision; it's no surprise they're lobbying for it.
Sawstop did sue Bosch, but then changed their mind and gave them a free license immediately after the case was won. It was boschs decision not to release their product in the US for whatever reason.
I think this could be aptly summarized as "you can't accidentally slip and become depressed" using social media. You can absolutely slip and lose one or several fingers or your entire hand using a table saw.
The more pertinent comparison would be alcohol IMO: none of the people who want "something" done about social media seem to have a problem with the widespread, massive use of alcohol within society and the incredible amounts of continuous and ongoing damage it does.
No you can't. You can, through usage over a long period of time, and by ignoring a lot of good advice, create problems for yourself just like anything else.
If a table saw could only remove your hand after years of dedicated usage, then sawstop wouldn't be the obviously good idea it is.
Hence why the comparison to alcohol is much more apt, and yet, mysteriously - absent in the discussion.
Damage from social media use is gradual and insidious. Additionally, it's designed to be addictive, slowly pulling users in. There is no threshold that announces itself when users are addicted or have begun to "ignore a lot of good advice".
There's also no absence of discussion around the dangers of alcohol or drugs. And, there are actual laws regulating or outright banning their use.
But, even if it was absent from the discussion, that would not absolve social media. Is every world issue rendered illegitimate if we don't also mention the dangers of alcohol with equal fervor? It seems a random, meaningless requirement.
I think every issue is due consideration in the context of "do I personally not care about the thing I want to regulate about everyone else?"
Alcohol is a useful yardstick, because it was banned (to considerable disaster), almost everyone likes it, the misusers tend to not realise it till considerably later, and we've got studies which look dire on the cost to society of it in fiscal terms.
If what you're calling for would seem ridiculous if it were applied to alcohol, then maybe it's just going be ineffective or you just don't have any "skin in the game" so to speak: after all, both serve a considerably important social cohesion function as well.
Which to loop it back around is why trying to compare social media regulation to something like mandating sawstop is especially disingenuous.
People need mental healthcare too. Done. Solved. Treat it like any addiction.
Of course the trick is that social media access doesn't require folks to pay an upfront cost, so it's harder to slap the cost of this additional service on the transaction. But of course as financial regulation makes banks do KYC and file SARs (suspicious activity report) social media regulations could do something similar. (Hurray more surveillance saves the day!)
I see. Just seems a bit circular, as the original question implies creating solutions.
Also, seems like an odd gating criteria for whether or not people support the idea of regulating social media (i.e. per the specific thrust of the original question).
I believe it's only five months of health insurance since it says "Five months of benefit continuation". It does also say "Continued access to Modern Health through the end of 2024", but Modern Health is a mental health platform.
