Nonstarter, obviously no one wants to work for peanuts, and it's easy for people with established careers to give that advice but not very useful for most younger people with little resources
My advice then would be to live frugally, do personal projects and save and save, then leave the company if you have 3-6 months of living covered. You can spend more time on getting your CV right and searching for offers. If recruiters and/or companies see you have a company known for paying peanuts, they'll unlikely to hire you unless they are the same predatory company. Nobody wants a burnt out employee that won't respect him/herself. That's why you wouldn't put such company on a CV and should have a good personal project to show instead for that time frame.
Madame Bovary: beautiful book, but also somewhat scary. Warning against idealism and condescension (the 'Belle' complex from Beauty in the Beast, ie too good for someone or some society). With it is an oddly inspiring ability to romanticize and imagine heights and a life different from reality, to dream big dreams. It maps well, though exaggerated in a fatalistic sense, onto the types of people today as it relates to love and relationships (the nice guy who is clueless and mistreated, the neighborhood wife who is motherly but not sexy, -- similar to Susan in the Waves -- the social climber whose credibility is self-fabricated and manages to achieve high renown and accolades despite being an imposter, the mysterious bachelor ie the ladies man who has accumulated his aura and attractiveness by focusing on himself rather than on a woman, the creepy old rich guy who offers money for sex to attractive women in financial/general distress or life threatening circumstances)
Lots to say about, and lots to learn, it's a short book but it is packed with substance. Honorable mentions for its depiction of the swings of neuroticism and depression, the allure and mystery of the feminine, how it characterizes art/theater, and all around creating a beautiful, rich, vibrant world. Apologies for the run on sentences; I don't want to get too caught up in this unless people are interested
The article was excellently written and worth the time to read & digest. Your comment is beautifully indicative of the shallow "garbage in, garbage out" point the author made at the end.
No, that's tasting good in the moment then feeling horrible and crashing afterwards. I understand his comments not very scientifically rigorous, but the message is pretty clear. Eat healthy, work out, feel good. It's pretty obvious when I'm doing something unhealthy, though maybe if you've had horrible diet/exercise your entire life you need to read up on healthy foods/workout routines
But "you need to read up on healthy foods/workout routines" is something completely different from "listen to your body".
The two statements are similar in one way, though: Completely useless as advice that will get people healthier. "listen to your body" will get people to eat what they wan't. "you need to read up on healthy foods/workout routines" will get people to read all sorts of bad advice. Like, for example: "listen to your body".
People might have to learn how to listen. Many modern diets don't really give kids an opportunity to experience different things. How can you know what your body wants if you never had the chance to try?
It is a question of being exposed to a wide array of options and and then of being able to feel what is needed. Compared to a violent craving for sugar and fast food the signal is much more muted.
So it's not just "listen to your body" it's more like "learn to listen to the specific right signals that your body is whispering very, very softly while yelling for more sugar". Is that right?
I'm sorry. This is horrible advice. In fact I would not call it advice at all. Basically you are just saying "do the right thing" without specifying what "the right thing" actually is.
It's not my advice, I know that for many many people it does not work. I'm just saying that's how I understand it and for me it does work. It is hard to imagine it is fundamentally impossible for most, but it might well be.
I mean, who probably has more testosterone: the guy sitting at a desk typing for 8 hours a day, or the guy who just impaled an enemy with a spear and savagely roars
