which is the same song as the one Judy Garland made famous, but Alpert's version is heavenly.
Before the intertoobs and CDs, I searched everywhere for that album (Herb Alpert's Ninth) for years, and finally found a brand new mint one in the cutout bin with the slot sliced in it. For $1. I couldn't believe my prize!
P.S. The yootoob version has poor sound quality. To hear how good Herb is with the trumpet, ya gotta get the CD.
> Before the intertoobs and CDs, I searched everywhere for that album (Herb Alpert's Ninth) for years, and finally found a brand new mint one in the cutout bin with the slot sliced in it. For $1. I couldn't believe my prize!
This cut-out practice is new to me, but a related one in the publishing/bookselling industry rang true. I learn a lot just by reading and reflecting on your comments. Thanks for posting this personal story.
I think we've lost a lot with the transition to digital, these kinds of bargain bins included, which is part of the reason I too love all kinds of secondhand stores and swap meets, etc.
I regularly troll pawn shops and thrift stores, you never know what you'll find there. For example, they usually have a bin full of vinyl. The staff pulls out any that are valuable, but what is valuable on the market has no relation to what I consider valuable. Jackie Gleason, for example, made many records that aren't available on CD. His stuff is great if you enjoy easy listening, old style.
A couple months back, the pawn shop had acquired what looked like an old DJ's 12 inch single collection from the 70s and 80s. $.50 per disk. I grabbed them all.
I’ve found that archive.org also has a large number of out of print vinyl.
What the market finds valuable is partially a signaling problem, as it is only loosely connected to any individual’s taste, and more connected to quick sales for record companies. The market as a whole can’t discover prices for products that individuals aren’t aware of and seeking out in the small window of first-sale. It’s not too different from the traditional VC investment strategy, now that I consider it.
Some years ago, I learned that I'm better at finding things when high. For context, my GF misplace things a few times a week, and I like finding them before she can. I realized pretty quickly that I did better under the influence, because I didn't rule out places the things might be. When sober, I wouldn't check certain places, because, That'd be a ridiculous place to leave that.
Sounds kinda dumb, but it was an ah-ha realization that extended beyond finding misplaced items.
i struggle with adhd and have both the same problem (frequently misplacing things) and a similar solution (checking everywhere, twice, even if im "sure" it wont be there)
My GF and I used to always go grocery shopping together. We had a pretty good system, and Publix is a great store, so we didn't dread shopping. But, for about 2 1/2 years, I only had 1 day off a week, and I was working 10-12 hours a day, not counting lunch or the commute, and my GF really doesn't like shopping on her own.
We're currently using Kroger delivery. There are no Kroger stores here, and they deliver the day after you order, but drivers are employees, and they're paid by the hour ($12-$20, average of $17 according to glassdoor). I'd like them to make more, but I'd also like the employees at Publix to make more, so getting Kroger delivery doesn't seem worse for labor than going to the store. Possible I'm missing something, of course. The service has been exactly what we'd hoped. The produce is good quality, and they have most everything that Publix does. If Kroger delivery is more expensive, the difference isn't noticeable.
Conversely, before Kroger, there were times when we'd use gig-based delivery apps to get our groceries from Publix, and that was an all-around poor experience. I felt bad for the drivers; the drivers didn't do a good job of picking produce and substitute items; and, it was a LOT more expensive.
For sure. It lasted longer than it should have, and it was more severe than expected, but new people filling in the cracks by working crazy hours is kind of built into the structure of the company. Thankfully, I cleared that hurdle, and I have a lot more control over how much I work.
I actually picked the job because of work/life balance, and it's been really good the last few months. But, you're absolutely right, and I appreciate the concern :^)
I think it's clearly counterproductive to shout racist at everything; however, people who don't understand the numbers don't (generally) use numbers to define their stances. They choose what to believe in based on other beliefs, and they justify them with funny math.
The thing I like about your insult vs "you're racist" is that you're attacking what someone is doing, rather than what they are. When confronting someone for being wrong, it's a lot more constructive to say, 'Hey, you're wrong about this, and this is why,' than it is to say, 'You're a moron (or a bad person), and this is why.' It's also more accurate. Labeling is helpful for navigating thousands of people in our communities/millions online, but keep those labels to yourself, and be ready to question them. During confrontation, though, it will cause the other side to shut down, and that's where we are. We're more concerned with defining each other as others than working together to find commonalities and building on points of agreement.
I'd just add that significant power imbalance significantly changes things and how we ought to attack disagreement.
Yes, the point I think you're getting at is how many bad actors will use the aesthetics of rationality without the substance of it, and that's equally irrational. Like the screens of fake code from B-movie hacking scenes, they look like they mean something, but there's nothing behind the surface.
However, in such cases I think it's actually even more harmful to resort to those accusations as a first resort. Those arguments are usually wrong in at least two ways: wrong as in "incoherent, logically flawed", and wrong as in "defending reprehensible behavior".
Failing to point out the logical flaws can lead others to believe "he's unlikable but he's right", another type of posture that these people just adore acting out.
There absolutely exist genuinely racist, sexist, etc. people, and one should definitely call them out when appropriate. But those terms are very susceptible to "cry wolf" type of scenarios. If everything is the worst thing ever, then nothing is. Being more cautious with how one plays those cards allows them to be more effective when needed.
I completely agree with you about labeling, I couldn't have said it better myself.
I think that's more of a symptom in this case. The problem is that the writer and, likely, her husband are driven by ego. Everything about the first few paragraphs screams, I'm putting on all sorts of fronts (bc I think I'm being smart/cool).
If you feed your ego ahead of your soul, you won't know what you really want/need, and if you don't know what you want/need, how is anyone else supposed to satisfy you in any sustainable fashion?
The good news is that relationships can help you develop as a person. You should be growing together and on your own. If you care for someone and feel you're failing them in some way, it should drive you towards self-examination, which should spur new perspectives and development.
I would guess that you and your wife are less driven by ego than most. You probably don't reach a place where you're self-giving without at least corraling your ego. You may be at a point where you take it as a given.
To be clear, everything in your post is good. I just think it's Step 2, rather than Step 1.
The word "soul" has been mixed up with a lot of confusing voodoo, but when I was trying to look up the historic definitions, it was basically equivalent to 'the part of you that thinks and makes choices'
With that definition I feel like a lot of the soul talk makes sense. Like here you 'feed' your soul the information, experiences, and media you seek out, and that influences the 'nature of your soul' by creating the environment it reacts to.
For example, now you've exposed yourself to the idea of a mutually self-giving relationship, and if you keep trying to figure out more about what that means, then your thoughts and choices can start falling in line with that concept.
That definition would mean that it's essentially the same as ego, and would make the grandparent's post warning against "feed[ing] your ego ahead of your soul" meaningless. What would be the difference between ego and "soul" in your understanding, allowing to prioritize one over the other?
Sometimes "ego" is used to refer to the self, but I think the distinction we're going for here is between "self" (soul) and "sense of self importance" (ego.)
So you can feed your ego with praise and self-centered narratives, but it takes wholesome thoughts, good deeds, and self-giving love (both received and given) to nourish a soul.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
— Phillipians 4:8
Freud intended the term "ego" to refer to conscious awareness, basically. Jung used it to mean the focal point of conscious awareness - he treated awareness as being a lot more "smeary" than Freud did.
Western Buddhists use the term to refer to attachment - to the body, emotions, feelings, and the sense of selfhood. I think the closest term might be "atman" - the selfhood that is derived from Vishnu in hindu thinking (I really don't know). Atman sounds like "atmen" - german for breathing. I assume they have the same root. Anyway, the Buddhist notion is a notion of something of which they deny the existence - the term "anatman" refers to the fundamental Buddhist notion that there is no enduring self (or "soul").
I was raised a Christian, and spent a number of decades as a Buddhist; I've never known what the term "soul" was supposed to refer to.
I italicized "soul" in an attempt to indicate that I meant it as a symbol. I thought the context made it clear, so I was comfortable using it as a shortcut, but perhaps I miscalculated.
I meant the soul as part of you that is balanced, at peace, has perspective of where you fit within things, is aligned with a greater good - as opposed to a self-injuring sense of self-importance.
It's not an easy thing to summarize or pin down, and it's kind of different for everyone.
>I think some of that is down to the server considering themselves the customer's equal, which is as it should be, and is not dependent upon the customer's disposition for their income.
Absolutely. Where I work, if the customer is wrong, we tell them. Some are nicer about it than others. If a customer is rude, we can be rude back. Sometimes it escalates the conflict, but it's ultimately up to the individual how they handle it.
But, a lot of people are flabbergasted that we have the gull to tell them they're wrong. "Terrible customer service!" - even if the worker is being extremely polite. You NEVER argue with customers in the US - unless you own the company or you're backed by a union.
My union dues are less than $50 per month, and it's one of the bigger/more powerful unions in the US. I don't agree with everything they do, but the pay, benefits, and security (very hard to be fired) don't have a non-union comp (that I'm aware of, anyway).
I love poetry but strongly dislike most poems, and I've always really liked The Second Coming. So, maybe you do like poetry but just haven't found many poems that work for you.
Back in like 2005, I got a collection of Yeats' poems. It's a big collection and smells like the previous owner read it while smoking inside. It's been a while since I picked it up, and while there are some other poems I like, very few approach the quality of The Second Coming.
Assume positive intent until someone proves your assumption wrong. One of the good things about assuming positive intent is that you should treat people well. If you do, and the other person does not reciprocate, you should no longer assume positive intent. Maybe they're just having a bad day? You can, and should, still leave room to change your mind again, but I would recommend basketing people who show signs of foolishness, selfishness, and general unkindness apart from people who reward your optimism.
It's not your job to find the good person beneath the layers of trash. Generally speaking, our faults don't dwindle upon closer inspection, and even if they did, life is short, and you probably have other things to do.
