I can’t help but wonder how much more blood the Russian Federation is going to spill if this mobilization actually kicks into high gear. It’s already enough to make regular soldiers lose their nerve, but imagine the chaos once they start dragging ordinary civilians into the fray. Just picture it: some twenty-year-old college kid from Moscow being hauled away to go "defend" his people somewhere down in southern Ukraine. It’s honestly grim.
Well, that’s that. All I can really say is I'm asking people to take me off their contact lists from here on out. I have absolutely no intention of spending the next six months living like a hermit in total isolation.
Well, my results just came back, and I’m feeling pretty discouraged.
It’s honestly so frustrating. Can someone please just confirm one thing for me? If I go get an antibody test and it shows I’ve already had the virus before, does that actually change anything? Because if I end up being around someone who tests positive, am I still stuck going into isolation regardless?
So, I finally managed to get through to the information line. After explaining the whole mess, the lady on the other end assured me that heading straight to the testing site doesn't count as breaking quarantine. Apparently, I'm good to go.
Rachel Jones8 said:So what are you even going to do with a certificate? You've gotta stay in isolation regardless of what the test says
Look, I get it. I'm stuck in isolation for these next 10 days no matter what. But I'm thinking about the long game here. From what I understand, once you test positive, you're essentially cleared for six months. Literally, if I catch something from someone else in the next half year, I could end up back in quarantine every two weeks at this rate.
Honestly, this whole thing is just a complete joke. I’m already on my third round of isolation, and frankly, I need some kind of official documentation to make this feel real. Otherwise, I could just sit at home for ten days indefinitely, which feels ridiculous when the testing site is practically right outside my apartment building—literally a three-minute walk.
I know, I know, I probably shouldn't be out and about right now, but I am reaching my absolute breaking point with this nonsense.
I’m not entirely sure if this is the right sub for this, but does anyone know how things work with isolation orders? My wife just tested positive, and since I was listed as a close contact, I’ve been told to isolate. If I head down to a clinic to get tested myself, am I going to get slapped with a fine just for showing up?
I was honestly hoping for a movie that would actually build on the original, maybe expand the lore or at least try to maintain some semblance of the quality we saw in the first one. And even though that wasn't exactly setting the bar through the roof, it still felt like a masterpiece compared to this absolute joke.
Even after seeing how much the critics absolutely trashed it, I went in with an open mind since the original is one of my favorites. Honestly, I think the "sequel" works well enough as its own thing—it really shouldn't have been tied to the first movie, and that ending was a choice.
I didn't have high expectations, but I’m still genuinely shocked by how bad this turned out. It feels like Netflix started making a standalone movie, realized halfway through they were crafting an epic disaster that would tank at the box office, panicked, called JJ, and offered him a massive paycheck just to slap the Cloverfield name on it. They basically tried to fake a connection to the original with a few random scenes just to trick people into watching it.
It's just terrible. A total mess of a movie that reminds me of that other recent dud, Life, from 2016—except at least that one had a decent final scene. This one doesn't even have that.
bluetinker54 said:Look, man, you clearly don't know the first thing about tourism or the rental market. Honestly, it might be better if you just kept your mouth shut so you don't embarrass yourself.
rowdypilot19 As specified by: No, I mean they were only protected because they were state-backed, just like those massive government-owned corporations. They’d lock in prices ahead of time, overcharge for everything, and then the companies would just patch up their losses using taxpayer money from the federal budget—nobody actually gave a damn about the consequences.
Of course, when you look at who was actually padding the budget, it was mostly the USA and Russia. Though, if I had to be more precise, it was primarily the USA. .
I guess you're talking about the old America days? But honestly, what was it like before that? Ever since the mid-1800s, the Midwest has been incredibly rich and fertile—back when we actually had some order brought to us by the Americans—but then for the last 20 years or so, we've just been struggling. And now, with the climate changing, I suppose it means we humans are the ones to blame.
I’m sorry, but I think you’re talking complete nonsense.
wearytrucker22 Asks: I mean, I guess they probably have to get out there and actually put in the work too—spraying the fields, dealing with all that rot and decay, and then obviously having to go out and buy the seed. And because of how they’re playing games with the wheat supply, American tourism is going to take a massive hit too, especially since bakery products are such a fundamental part of the experience. You have all these high-end restaurants and local pizza joints that end up having to source their flour from outside suppliers just to keep their doors open. I honestly don't think you can ever make a decent pizza using American wheat; it just doesn't work. You might get by making some okay bread or maybe even some pastries, but as far as pizza goes, you're just out of luck.
More nonsense. If there's one thing that’s actually true, it's that most of our bakery products are subpar, but you can't exactly pin that on the farmers; the blame lies squarely with the bakers. I mean, if certain bakeries are capable of turning out incredible goods, then others could easily do the same if they actually cared to try. And yeah, I’m well aware that some of our local bakers are importing flour from Mexico just because it’s cheaper, not because it’s any better quality.
And you've gone and started in with the nonsense too.
For all those of you who seem convinced that some farmer is only planting wheat just to chase government subsidies, I’d suggest you go do a little homework. Seriously, try to find the actual breakdown of how many acres are allocated to each specific crop. I’m certain that kind of data is out there somewhere if you actually bother to look for it.
neonhound18 Asks: That’s exactly why I argued that we need to focus on education. We really have to sit people down and explain that planting a single crop in a monoculture basically ruins the soil. You end up inviting a whole host of diseases, pests, and weeds to move in, which eventually leads to total soil degradation because the humus levels just plummet—mostly because everyone relies so heavily on synthetic fertilizers for grain crops. I could go on and on about that, but you get the idea. 🕺
No self-respecting farmer—someone who actually treats this as a profession rather than just some shady middleman looking for a quick buck—would ever dream of planting crops in a monoculture. That’s just common sense, something my late grandfather drilled into me from day one.
I think this is absolutely spot on. First of all, let's be clear—not everyone lives within the metropolitan belt. 1.9 miles It’s coming from the coast, too. And honestly, most of the people actually living there don't even have anything available to rent out anymore.
Everything people are saying about agriculture is spot on. Take a place like Pakoštane, for example. Back in the day, everyone there was focused on farming—the land around Lake Vrana is incredibly fertile and productive. But once tourism really took off in the 80s, things shifted completely, and now it seems like almost everyone has just walked away from farming altogether. The prices they get for crops aren't worth the effort anymore, and to make matters worse, the Ornithological Reserve is teeming with birds that end up eating whatever manages to grow. So, you end up with this amazingly rich, fertile soil just sitting there neglected, while the tourism industry continues to boom.
The truth is, investors aren't interested, and finding workers is nearly impossible. Livestock is brutal work; once you decide to raise sheep or goats, you might as well have signed yourself up for a life sentence.
Come on, let's hear from some actual Family Farm owners instead of just the armchair theorists. The number of Family Farms will naturally dwindle over time because so many of them are essentially "retirement" households. And frankly, their heirs don't see any future or any sense in sticking with agriculture.
No matter how unprofitable it might be, we still need it. It's essential for food and for crop rotation. The problem is that all these self-proclaimed experts seem to think a farmer just sows wheat and nothing else.
Fine, I'll just paste my original post right here—the one you're reacting to.
rustydriver said:If having fertile farmland is such a massive upgrade over owning vacation rentals, why don't you two (rowdypilot19 and wearytrucker22) just sell everything, move to the Midwest, and go chase those government subsidies?
It’s honestly absurd watching you try to push this narrative that managing an Airbnb is some grueling ordeal. You clean the place once every ten days, hand off the keys to tourists, and collect the cash. Or, if you're feeling lazy, you just hand over 5-10% to a property management agency to handle the whole thing while you sit back and watch the money roll in without lifting a finger.
And then you have the nerve to compare that to agriculture, where you’re grinding for 6 to 9 months a year, putting in well over 100 hours a month just to keep the operation from collapsing. Basically, the rental owners start with an extra 100 hours of free time every month to pick up a second job—or, as is usually the case, to do absolutely nothing. Not to mention that farmers are at the mercy of things they can't control, like the weather. This year was a nightmare with the drought burning everything to a crisp, whereas on the coast, you’ll get rain 70% of the time like you did three years ago. The rental income stays steady regardless.
Then there’s the overhead. You have to till the land constantly using heavy machinery, which means either renting equipment or shelling out a fortune to own it. And at the end of the day, you actually have to sell the product. Most of the time, you're selling at the border just to break even, or sometimes even at a loss. Those subsidies you love to talk about aren't making people rich; they're just keeping them from drowning. That's the reality, despite the story you two are trying to sell.
How can you even put tourism and farming in the same conversation? Look at how something like Ultra in Split works—scammers hike prices by 200% and fill every room without having invested a single cent more than they did last year. When does that happen in farming? When demand outstrips supply—like during this drought when yields dropped by 50%—does the price skyrocket? No. If the local supply is too low, we just import food from other countries, and the domestic farmers still get stuck with the same old prices.
Sure, there’s a fair percentage of people who went bust because they overleveraged themselves on tractors and combines, or simply because the economy tanked. But what really grinds my gears is the attempt to claim that renting out apartments is harder work or less profitable than farming.
So, enlighten me, kid. Where exactly did I say something so stupid? Where was the part where I made a fool of myself?
If having fertile farmland is such a massive upgrade over owning vacation rentals, why don't you two (rowdypilot19 and wearytrucker22) just sell everything, move to the Midwest, and go chase those government subsidies?
It’s honestly absurd watching you try to push this narrative that managing an Airbnb is some grueling ordeal. You clean the place once every ten days, hand off the keys to tourists, and collect the cash. Or, if you're feeling lazy, you just hand over 5-10% to a property management agency to handle the whole thing while you sit back and watch the money roll in without lifting a finger.
And then you have the nerve to compare that to agriculture, where you’re grinding for 6 to 9 months a year, putting in well over 100 hours a month just to keep the operation from collapsing. Basically, the rental owners start with an extra 100 hours of free time every month to pick up a second job—or, as is usually the case, to do absolutely nothing. Not to mention that farmers are at the mercy of things they can't control, like the weather. This year was a nightmare with the drought burning everything to a crisp, whereas on the coast, you’ll get rain 70% of the time like you did three years ago. The rental income stays steady regardless.
Then there’s the overhead. You have to till the land constantly using heavy machinery, which means either renting equipment or shelling out a fortune to own it. And at the end of the day, you actually have to sell the product. Most of the time, you're selling at the border just to break even, or sometimes even at a loss. Those subsidies you love to talk about aren't making people rich; they're just keeping them from drowning. That's the reality, despite the story you two are trying to sell.
How can you even put tourism and farming in the same conversation? Look at how something like Ultra in Split works—scammers hike prices by 200% and fill every room without having invested a single cent more than they did last year. When does that happen in farming? When demand outstrips supply—like during this drought when yields dropped by 50%—does the price skyrocket? No. If the local supply is too low, we just import food from other countries, and the domestic farmers still get stuck with the same old prices.
Sure, there’s a fair percentage of people who went bust because they overleveraged themselves on tractors and combines, or simply because the economy tanked. But what really grinds my gears is the attempt to claim that renting out apartments is harder work or less profitable than farming.
So, I ran into a bit of a headache yesterday. It seems like every single time I close out of Safari, my entire cache just vanishes into thin air.
It’s incredibly annoying. Every time I want to check my email, hop on YouTube, scroll through Facebook, or log into some random forum, I have to manually type in my passwords and deal with the login process all over again. It’s a massive waste of time.
I'm not entirely sure if there's a connection, but this started happening right after I installed a second hard drive yesterday. Before that, everything was running smoothly; nothing would clear itself unless I specifically went in and did it (and I haven't touched any of the settings in Safari).
If anyone has any idea what might be causing this, I’d really appreciate the help. I’m starting to lose my patience with it.
rustybadger42 said:Adding some cardio to your strength training might actually get you where you want to be. If you're aiming for that lean, wiry look, cycling or long-distance running could do the trick. Though, if you're already naturally gifted with strong legs, you probably won't have much to worry about. Honestly, don't stress too much about getting bulky; it doesn't just happen overnight, especially for us women. It’s all about myofibrillar hypertrophy, which you can target with a smart mix of strength and endurance work.
Please, let's not talk nonsense like "if you want lean muscles." Muscle shape is basically hardwired into your DNA. No specific type of exercise is going to fundamentally change how your muscle fibers are shaped.
I'd usually skip commenting on this just to avoid being rude to the OP, but it’s honestly wild how many women—my own sister included—seem to think that picking up a couple of light dumbbells will suddenly turn them into Arnold.
Why? Honestly, if you ask me, this LAFC squad has been one of the most underwhelming teams we've seen in the last decade. There’s just no real class there—no one who can actually step up and change the tempo of a game when things get tight. Even back when they were playing in Chicago, their narrow 1-0 wins felt shaky; they never really inspired any real confidence in the fans. And let’s be real, the only player with any actual talent is Soudani, but he’s basically useless for us tonight. Since the kickoff is at 7:00 PM, he’s effectively out of the starting eleven anyway. At the end of the day, whether he’s on the roster or sitting in the stands, the team is just weaker without him. It's a tough pill to swallow, but that's the reality for the squad right now.
Moving on: Hajduk at 2.7 on Sportsbet.
I’ve been watching Dila Gori lately, and honestly, those last two matches—against the Seattle Sounders and Aalborg—were a complete letdown. It was pretty underwhelming stuff. Interestingly enough, they didn't concede a single goal in either game, though that doesn't exactly make the performance any more impressive. 🤣 So, looking at the numbers from these last few matches, it’s honestly a bit surreal. Between our guys and Aalborg, we’re talking about roughly 40 shots on goal against Dile over two games, and we couldn't find the back of the net once. Meanwhile, Dile stepped up to the plate, took maybe six shots, and buried four of them. It’s one of those things where you just have to sit there, stare at the stat sheet, and wonder if we're playing a different sport entirely. 🤣
Their run has to end eventually. I’ve got a gut feeling the guys from Miami are going to absolutely tear through that defense and push their way into the next round.
Finally, we have a right back who can actually deliver a decent cross instead of just throwing the ball blindly into traffic like we saw with the previous guy. Pinto's a massive upgrade for that position. On the left, we’re sticking with Pivaric tonight, but honestly, bringing in Lima was the real move—he’s easily five times the player compared to what we had with Pivaric or Lucho. It’s about time we saw some actual quality on the flanks. Honestly, Addy looks like he’s on a completely different level physically compared to Puljic—way more composed and just sturdier in the tackle. Even without getting into specifics, losing Lucha was actually a massive win for the squad's depth. Once Soudani steps into that role, everyone is going to realize just how much better this setup really is. It’s one of those moves that makes total sense once you step back and look at the whole picture. The only part of the roster that looks thin right now is the attack. I know everyone is pushing for guys like Smith or Miller to step up, but honestly? They just don't inspire much confidence in me. Then again, these are the same players we had on the field last season, so it’s not like the offense has actually regressed. It’s more about the uncertainty. With Miller out on the injury list, nobody really knows what kind of shape he'll be in when—or if—he actually makes it back to the lineup.
The only real loss we're facing compared to last season is Mateo. Honestly, that's it. Nobody else. People act like Vida is this indispensable cornerstone, but he’s really not.
If you ask me... The Sheriff is sitting at +125 for the win, while Dinamo is hovering around +135. I’ve been looking at these numbers for a bit, and honestly, it feels like a coin flip where the house is trying just a little too hard to convince you one side is safer. It’s that classic mid-season tension where nothing is certain, but everyone acts like they have the blueprint. Just another day in the grind.It was pretty obvious that the LA Galaxy squad had the upper hand here. Honestly, if their strikers weren't playing like they had their boots on the wrong feet, we’d be looking at a comfortable 2-3 goal victory right now. Only Fernandes actually looked like he belonged out there; he probably could have slotted two easily if the service hadn't been so spotty. On the other hand, I honestly felt like if the Sheriff didn't score a goal in ten years, it wouldn't even matter. They seem completely harmless to me. Since they’re forced to chase the game now, they can't just sit back and park the bus like they did back in Chicago. That opens up massive gaps on the field, which means we're looking at either a comfortable two-goal win or maybe even a three-goal blowout. And one more thing—here are the stats from that first game. http://www.rezultati.com/utakmica/jT...ika-utakmice;0 Three shots on goal—only two actually on target—in ninety minutes of play. Honestly, I just don't see how they manage to find the back of the net twice to pull this off.
As for the Seattle Sounders, I’m betting the Georgians aren't going down easy. So, my pick is 1x (around 1.45 on FanDuel). You can tell the Sounders have more raw talent, but those Georgians are ten times more organized. They sit back, defend like their lives depend on it, and just wait to hit you on the counter. Given they walked away from the first leg with such a solid result, I’m expecting an even tighter defensive wall than last time. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they just park the bus until the 85th or 90th minute, waiting for the Sounders to run out of steam before snatching a goal.
We also need to mention that Tottenham has only managed two wins on the road in their last six matches (against West Ham and West Bromwich), while all those blowout victories happened at home.
Personally, X2 at 1.8 feels a whole lot more realistic to me.
That kind of coefficient only makes sense if they score first. My bet? Ronaldo almost never finds the back of the net in a game that ends in anything other than a 2-2 or 2.5 total.
Looking at tonight, I’m leaning toward Real Madrid taking the win. They’re playing out of their minds right now. After last week's performance, their confidence is through the roof, and honestly, I think they'll ride that momentum straight to a victory.
I don’t know, I’m leaning heavily toward a two-goal margin—a straight-up win for the Galaxy.
Looking back at their first matchup earlier this season—you had the Galaxy with Kovacic and Vida holding things down, while the Sounders were running with Radossevic and that trio of center-backs—they only really looked dangerous when they snagged that early goal. After that? Absolutely nothing. They just vanished. Honestly, it was one of the most one-sided derbies I've seen in a while; the Galaxy absolutely steamrolled them. The Sounders were lucky they didn't walk away losing by four or five. The Galaxy will definitely miss Kovacic, but I don't think Vida's absence will be felt as much. My gut tells me the Sounders might scrape together maybe four or five decent chances tonight, if they're lucky. On the flip side, the Sounders are playing without Radossevic now, and their defense is a total mess. So, yeah, I'm expecting a relatively drama-free victory for the Galaxy.
Rachel Torres said:Honestly, Susan is pretty toned all over. It’s not just her core; her legs are actually her strongest feature.From my experience, you can get abdominal definition just by doing standard crunches, like this http://i1244.photobucket.com/albums/...1-mdn.jpg, provided you put in enough work with cardio if you aren't naturally thin.
Total nonsense.
When will people finally realize that crunches don't burn fat off your stomach? Everywhere I look on these forums, I see posts like "I'm doing 500 to 600 crunches a day," yet they wonder why the belly fat isn't budging. How does that even make sense???! To get visible abs, you need a low body fat percentage, not just a high volume of crunches.
And like they mentioned above, the person in this photo doesn't even have defined abs.
Does Susan have legs that are too muscular? What even is that?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKfWgnB4h38
Honestly, this is just more of that nonsense you hear from basically every girl walking into a gym only to stick strictly to the StairMaster, the stationary bike, and the treadmill. If you ask them why they won't touch a single weight, it’s always, "Oh, I don't want to get bulky." Right. Because we all know you can suddenly turn into a pro bodybuilder in two months just by picking up a five-pound dumbbell.
First off, you need to decide what your actual goal is. But I can tell you right now, you aren't going to see any real definition without legitimate training—which means you can forget about those "all-day workout split" routines where you barely even break a sweat. You should plan on hitting it at least three times a week for at least an hour per session.
Honestly, nothing cracks me up more than hearing someone brag about crushing 500 or 600 crunches a day, only to act genuinely shocked when they can’t get rid of that layer of belly fat. Crunches are practically useless for weight loss. People just grind away at them for no reason. Even if you have massive abs underneath, they aren't going to show if you haven't lost the weight first. You can't just target fat loss in one specific spot. If you want to see your abs, you have to lose fat from your entire body. You really only start seeing definition once you hit somewhere under 10% body fat. That's why so few women actually have visible abs; biologically, women naturally carry a higher body fat percentage than men. You're mostly only seeing it on those girls who live at the local Equinox, hitting the gym five days a week and basically sacrificing their sanity to get there.
Regarding your question, it’s obviously more effective to do them all at once. Warm up for five minutes, then knock them out in a solid 15 to 20-minute block. I mean, if you think that Ab Ripper app is useful, go ahead and download it—do what you want. As for this idea about not wanting to sweat? Well, if you don't want to work hard, maybe just stay on the couch. To me, there’s zero point in splitting 200 crunches into tiny sets of 25 and doing them eight times throughout the day. Just get it over with.