Have one every month. That way it is not a temptation and you do not make a big deal out of it.
I'm a diet coke addict and the way I deal with it is that I drink half a bottle and keep the rest for latter. The fact that I know that I still have a half-full soda makes me not want to buy another. And if I feel like drinking some soda I just take a sip. The soda is at room temperature so it tastes like shit. This crappy taste makes not want to drink anymore and I can go without buying a new bottle of diet coke for more than a week. Sometimes I can last a month. By using this method I don't feel guilty if every once in a while I have a soda and I've been able to reduce my daily intake of a bottle of soda to just one small bottle (20FL oz) every one or two weeks.
When (mostly) quitting soda I discovered my craving was actually 80/20 carbonation/sweetness, so I could almost totally satisfy it with club soda (cheap) or sparkling mineral water (pricier but generally better). Seltzer didn't work—I think it had too little salt, tasted weird. Lemons and limes are pretty cheap if you want a little flavor and a touch of sweetness, and they provide some vitamins so they're not a total waste of calories. Much better than various flavored sparkling waters, IMO. Mostly I drank it plain, though.
Of course I have a lot more fat on me now than back when I averaged (guessing) 1.5L/day of soda and probably 4000+ total calories a day, almost all junk food. Lots of effort just to slow the progression away from a fit (looking) body toward a middle-aged one. And I feel way, way less healthy and get sick all the time, as opposed to never. Man, being a teenager was great. :-/
Considering the enormous benefits of moving to the US for most of the people in the world, I don't really like the idea of it being easier for the rich rather than the poor to migrate when they're already rich. For a lot of people, crossing a border and doing the exact same job can easily 5-10x real income. It's what my dad did. What I would like is a preferential option for the poor in migration policies. The positive aggregate effects of migration are well known as generally positive according to mainstream economic analysis, but the social problem is that, similar to free trade, it's a policy that creates very very invisible gains (largely unnoticeable as an individual things like marginally lower prices, marginally higher productivity) but with extremely concentrated and visible harm. The family trade is carpentry and I grew up working in it and viscerally saw being undercut by contractors using undocumented labor, so i know it's real. I just think migration doesn't have to be structured this way.
I don't have even the vaguest idea of policy in this (although I'm sure there's some research I can read up on), but I think something can be done, whether via some kind of redistribution scheme, regulation, etc. to attempt to mitigate these effects by redistributing aggregate gains to those hurt hard. I watched many people develop virulent xenophobia and racism because of the issues of undocumented labor and improperly managed migration. I wish in addition to free trade treaties we could have free movement treaties without having to form some pseudo federation like the EU.
I normally do not care about down-votes and I still don't but for people who are downvoting me explain to me this: Where can I go and read the constitution that exists but that it is not written down anywhere? It's an oxymoron. So for all practical purposes there is no constitution.
It does, according to wikipedia (at least some sources are written):
> The UK does not have one specific constitutional document. Instead the constitution is found within a variety of written and some unwritten sources. This is sometimes referred to as an "unwritten" or uncodified constitution.
Used toothpaste with fluoride. Though the fridge was constantly stoked with sugar, fruit juice, bread and bread toppings. Kid of ironic that my Mum is a dietitian who is mobility obese.
Reasearch indicates that fluorided water is better at covering the surface area of your teeth--brushing with toothpaste mostly removes the layer of plaque and allows the active ingredient to work better.
It's actually phenomenal how little dental research has ever reached consumer behavior or dental care.
Only because Trump's supporters were spread out in the right places. Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes so I would not brag about anything if I were you. That large opposition force that surpasses all Trump supporters will not go away. Comments like yours will only piss them off much more and if Trump fucks it up even people that voted for him will turn on him on a dime. This is not over my Trump supporter.
If the Republicans overreach there will be a backlash.
>Hillary won the popular vote by almost 3 million votes
And if the Presidential election was based on the popular vote, that would mean something. It doesn't work that way, and everyone knew beforehand it didn't work that way, and everyone involved, most definitely including the Clinton campaign, was happy to praise the Electoral College to the skies when they thought it would tilt the results in their favor. So, as the kids say, let it go. This line does not help you.
>That large opposition force that surpasses all Trump supporters will not go away.
That's nice, but as long as it's concentrated in a tiny strip along the coasts it will continue to be ineffective. I recommend that instead of attacking the other side you start working on converting them to your side. That's one of the reasons Trump won: he flipped a lot of counties that voted for Obama twice. You can do that right back to him, if you're willing to swallow your pride and talk to people instead of sneering at them.
>This is not over my Trump supporter.
I voted for Evan McMullin, dude.
>If the Republicans overreach there will be a backlash.
If only certain people had realized that Democratic overreach could cause backlashes, too, then your party might not be a smoking hole in the ground right now.
He was an asshole that happened to be right several times in his career. First with Apple, then with Pixar, then again with Next and Apple. Your are being disingenuous by trying to paint it like he was just lucky.
Being correct thrice is not proof that he was not lucky, after all, there's a man who was struck by lightning 7 times through no effort or genius on his part.
I'm not saying Jobs was not smart - but chance and luck was a huge factor in his successes. He wouldn't have had his come-back had Apple bought BeOS rather than Next.
No, if the employee keeps not reaching his potential then it is right to call him out on this. Do this only if the employee is not carrying his own weight when you know he is capable of more, otherwise just fire him. Of course, if your manager is being an abusive asshole then leave to another company.
Also, if you have to do this more than once then just fire the guy.
Sitting someone down personally, and explaining the situation with respect. Is a lot different then screaming at someone, telling them they are the single point of failure, swearing and calling them out in front of their peers.
You're fighting back even though you seem to agree with user837387. In order to facilitate continuing to argue, you seem to be shifting the goalposts so that you can continue flagging the behavior as bad behavior:
OP said: "looked at you and very directly said in a very loud and stern voice"
Your edit: "screaming at someone, swearing and calling them out in front of their peers"
Of course, there's a place for calling someone out in front of his peers, too. Part of the art of leadership is to do that when necessary (because if not, one's failing to do what's necessary), but only when necessary.
He got things done, because he actually knew what he was doing, but happened to be an asshole. For every one of those, there is a million other assholes that will sink the ship.
I'm really missing the point you are trying to make. People prepare for the SAT to get a better grade and you think it is unfair. WTF? Actually, I do get it I just think it is insane that you think it is a reasonable point, as if it were a moral imperative.
What I do not get is why you think this way. People are simply trying to improve their chances by studying and trying to get a better SAT. It baffles me that you think this is somehow corrupt.
Your point seems to be that poor people cannot prepare for the SAT because they do not have the resources. I agree, but I think you should instead focus on fixing poverty. How? I have no idea.
You cannot stop people from studying or preparing themselves to have an advantage over everybody else, that is just crazy thinking.
"Preserving the existing class structure" is not a design goal of the SAT, so to the extent that it does so, that is a problem. A test that didn't have this property would be a better test.
However, I don't think all is lost. Most of the wealthy's advantage is the fact that they actually practice taking the test. It's not clear why poor people don't avail themselves of this perfectly attainable advantage (frankly, how can they consider a few hours of their time more valuable than the many tens of thousands of dollars of scholarships on offer?), but they don't seem to do it. To fix this, let's get more poor kids to take the practice tests. I'm doing that in a very small way. When asked for advice, I tell poor kids and family members to practice, practice, practice. I tell rich kids there's nothing they can do...
I agree with you. Poor people not studying for the test is a problem with culture. It is the crappy culture they have learnt from their parents that is keeping them down. The parents don't know any better or don't care and henceforth they never push their kids to prepare for those test.
Oh yeah, I had a conversation with a less-wealthy parent on this topic within the last couple of months. I got the impression she was searching for some sort of secret or hack. I told her that the student should take a couple of practice tests and grade them herself so as to understand what happened. She didn't believe that would do any good, even though she sought my advice specifically because I got 35/36 on ACT several decades ago.
>>We didn't know how to talk or study or dress or think the way our peers did
I know exactly what you mean. Whenever I wanted to try something new, like apply to an internship, my brain tried really hard to convince me not to do it because I would get rejected. My subconscious tried really hard into making me a complete looser. To this day I sometimes have to tell it to shut up.
I come from the bottom of the bottom. I felt intimidated by everybody, especially those people that belonged to a higher income family. The good upbringing was noticeable.
I'm a diet coke addict and the way I deal with it is that I drink half a bottle and keep the rest for latter. The fact that I know that I still have a half-full soda makes me not want to buy another. And if I feel like drinking some soda I just take a sip. The soda is at room temperature so it tastes like shit. This crappy taste makes not want to drink anymore and I can go without buying a new bottle of diet coke for more than a week. Sometimes I can last a month. By using this method I don't feel guilty if every once in a while I have a soda and I've been able to reduce my daily intake of a bottle of soda to just one small bottle (20FL oz) every one or two weeks.