As with many things, it's easier to stay healthy if you are wealthy.
You can buy personal training services, workout gear, a home in traffic-calmed neighborhoods where you aren't jogging or cycling along rural highways, a pool, etc.
You can buy fresh fruit and vegetables instead of highly-processed food. If you're American you can buy imported or certified organic meat instead of the hormone-filled shit on the shelves at grocery stores. You can spend less time working and more time cooking healthy, with no pressure to eat fast food because you're in a rush.
Statistically, yes. And statical health things are the only health things to really worry about (because you can't ever do things to avoid getting cancer, you can only ever do things to decrease your chance of getting cancer).
But then again, the list of things that statistically keeps you healthy while being expensive is actually very short (GLP-1s currently being the most notable item on it).
Supposedly this is going to change in the near to mid future with more wonder drugs incoming. But, for the time being, that's nice!
I mean if I had someone tailoring workouts to me, keeping me motivated to stick with a training regimen, and free time enough to get super fit and look great naked, I'd sure be happier.
You are looking at it from the wrong perspective, you are trying to fit "healthy" into your current environment. I think it's the wrong approach.
For example: societies that live the longest and are generally the healthiest do not have gym equipment or trainers, exercise is a core part of their every day life.
The mistake you are making [I think] is looking at these things as impossible goals because of lack of more money so it is easy not to try and risk failure.
I accompanied a family member in an ambulance recently and I had the ambulance rerouted to a private clinic. They needed a €25k payment guarantee but we were able to go into surgery within a day.
Gosh, have we in the West forgotten so much of our history already?
Much of the gold was moved out of Europe prior to and during WWI. Partly out of fears of German aggression b ut also because throughout the war, European countries bought massive amounts of materiel from America, which increased the flow of money out of European and into American coffers.
But gold itself is very heavy and thus cumbersome to transport. It doesn't make sense to run transatlantic gold shipments every time a few bars change hands. So central banks tended to keep the gold more or less in one big vault and just sort of move the bricks between one country's pile and another. So there would be, in essence, a large stack of gold in the US Federal Reserve, and that gold belonged to France, or whomever. When the war ended, European countries were devastated and needed goods from somewhere that didn't have depleted industrial capacity and whose farmlands weren't littered with UXO.
This situation more or less cemented America's position as the world's creditor, and so it simply was more convenient to keep a large portion of one's gold reserves in the country with whom you were doing a lot of business. For some countries, repatriating gold is a matter of sovereignty, and e.g. France started repatriating its gold reserves in the 1960s.
Now that Americans have decided they like being a military, economic, and cultural superpower less than they like electing a dementia-ridden child rapist, other countries have correctly realized that America's decline cannot be stopped, only slowed. After all, it's Americans themselves who are the root of the problem, and Trump is but a symptom. This instability is not going to stop when he leaves office. Better get your gold off the sinking ship, but do it slowly so as to not accelerate the sinking before you can get it all out.
Re: the gold situation after WWI, if you're interested I encourage you to read Liaquat Ahamed's excellent Lords of Finance, which won the Pulitzer, IIRC.
I couch youth sports, and same experience. It's getting better now that the kids are getting older (10-11). But when they were in 1st or 2nd grade, the home schooled kids were so far behind their teammates in social skills.
I only had one on my baseball team in the spring, while he was definitely not on the same level as the rest of the team socially, it could have just been that he is a shy kid by nature.
It really comes down to the parents, like most things. If parents are heavily engaged, then the kids turn out more well rounded, regardless of where they go to school, public, private, or home.
I can also usually tell just based on the kids if their parents will be helpful or not. If I ask for a parent to help with setting up at the beginning of practice, or if an assistant coach can't make it and I need a hand, the way a kid acts is a pretty good indicator if their parent will get out of their chair on sidelines and come help.
There are outliers, but its a pretty good rule of thumb.
Counterpoint: I was also a camp counselor in my teens and 20s, and I even taught homeschool.
They were definitely easy to pick out, but I think in a good way. They were undersocialized with children, but felt way more at ease around adults. They understood more mature humor, spoke larger ideas in better sentences, and behaved perfectly.
And sure, they were a little "weird." As everyone ought to strive to be.
>How much money have you contributed back to this seemingly indispensable project?
Perhaps it's time for you to become familiar with the terms of the Mozilla Public License, under which Libre Office is released. There is no requirement for monetary compensation.
Yeah but like, we don't know if OP is making any money off this, let alone significant money. Let's not instantly hold them to the same "please contribute or you're dragging things down" standard as a zillion dollar corporation.
You believe you know better than the authors themselves about how they ought to be treated?
They chose -- explicitly, voluntarily, knowingly -- to give the thing away for free. That's their right for their own creation. Your preferences don't supersede theirs.
You've emphasized this point more than once, but I don't think it's a good counterargument to the GP. It is equally valid to say that they have explicitly (voluntarily, knowlingly) chosen to accept donations for their work.
By profiting off their work and not supporting them you are making your own choice. It says nothing about the authors' preference.
They chose a license that is _explicitly designed_ to allow people to profit from their work without paying.
There are many other licensing terms in common use. They chose that one.
That's fine, they can do what they like with their work. There is no moral obligation to reinterpret their motives in a fashion that differs from their formally expressed preferences.
They chose to accept donations -- also fine. If you want to donate, go ahead. If you don't -- that's fine too, by definition.
>I feel like Reddit has just become such a toxic place.
The more I learned about reddit's early history, the more I realized it was always rather toxic. Alexis and Steve (and Jeremy) were totally fine with Michael Brutsch (/u/violentacrez) promoting lots of gross shit (jailbait, pics of dead kids etc.) until they caught some bad publicity and it started to affect their bottom line.
I guess everyone has their price, and money talks, but it really seemed (and still seems) like reddit is happy to host all kinds of horrific content until said content results in negative press, and then suddenly it's about "protecting users", those same users that the reddit staff clearly didn't give two shits about the week prior. They care about privacy, except when it's about targeting ads to users or selling user data to advertisers. They care about the integrity of the platform, except when Steve Huffman was editing user comments for funsies.
I used both Bazzite and Debian, and, while the games do "just work", the problem with Bazzite was that the peripherals were fiddly. Getting the Xbox controllers to work needed some fiddling every time, streaming games from the desktop was hit and miss, and a few other small things like that.
It's still amazing how well gaming on Linux works, but the only reason why I wanted a Steam machine is becasue when a few friends are over, I don't want to spend twenty minutes fiddling with controllers, it kills the mood. I want to turn it on and game immediately.
Nobara Linux, which is based on Fedora. I used the "Gnome" installer rather than "official" because I still want a regular desktop experience. I've been on Linux for development since 2008 as well so I wanted an "all in one" OS this time rather than dual-boot Linux/Windows.
I'm running this on AMD CPU & GPU (because AMD historically was always better supported than Nvidia). I've not run into any issues the past weeks. Discord and the game both run smoothly. Honestly hard to believe given how rough it was in the past.
That said, I don't play a wide variety of games, I tend to stick with a single game for years. So I'm happy just running "The Finals" and haven't tried other games lol.
What kind of issues are you running into with Bazzite?
>What kind of issues are you running into with Bazzite?
It's just a mess. There are three different ways to get software, so despite being a seasoned Linux user of 20+ years I'm never really sure if I'm installing something via the happy path or not.
I wanted to install Battle.net, for example, and the best/only way I could get it to work is by following some random forum post to run battle.net as a steam app, so if I want to play StarCraft 2 I need to launch Steam, launch bnet from within steam, then finally run sc from that.
Networking is kinda flaky, too. Sometimes games (incidentally, StarCraft, but also other battlenet games like HOTS) will simply refuse to connect to the master servers.
Controllers randomly don't work, etc.
I could go on. None of these are deal breakers in and of themselves, but I'm continually reminded why The Year of the Linux Desktop isn't happening. It's just generally janky.
You can buy personal training services, workout gear, a home in traffic-calmed neighborhoods where you aren't jogging or cycling along rural highways, a pool, etc.
You can buy fresh fruit and vegetables instead of highly-processed food. If you're American you can buy imported or certified organic meat instead of the hormone-filled shit on the shelves at grocery stores. You can spend less time working and more time cooking healthy, with no pressure to eat fast food because you're in a rush.
Money really does buy happiness.