The_Jewish_Cuban

I'm gonna use this post as an opportunity to get some conflictions I've felt in my heart out into the world.

After learning that there was such things as "hot" people and "non hot" people I struggled with self image constantly.

The saying "hell is other people" really sticks with me and characterizes alot of how I would grow to view myself. In terms of my body fat, my barrel chest, my facial structure, and my thinning hair, my view point on the way I look could be characterized as unhealthy at best, and profoundly worrying at worst. In a sense, I'd fully internalized this idea that I'm not attractive.

This translates into today quite interestingly. I left my shitty job, moved to a walkable city, got back into school, got a good workout routine, I'm eating much healthier and now in seeing significant results in how my body looks.

I should be happy right? That's the thing, I am happy. It makes me feel really good. I feel desirable and, sometimes, even a bit hot. Not movie star hot but I've noticed when I crack a smile at people I get a blush or an interested response rather than a neutral or just friendly one.

I guess the bulk of why I wanted to write this is because I feel conflicted about how I never overcame this negativity towards myself based on appearance. If I firmly believe others shouldn't be judged for their outward appearances, then why couldn't I ever internalize it, why can't I bring my mind and subconscious understanding to reflect what I've been taught to believe, what I think is right.

I suppose I haven't got a major point to make. Maybe the healthier body has made a healthier brain and that made me hate myself less. However, I think that may be too simple of an explanation. I'm just frustrated with this sense of learning that, to my subconscious anyway, the fucking shit head vapid and vain ideology infected me so much I was incapable of self love until I reached a point where I thought it was okay to do that.

Maybe you guys have some thoughts from reading this? Regardless, I hope you're doing well comrades and I hope you're getting fit and healthy.

I'm vibing hard watching the river. Anyone got good vibes to contribute? Or music suggestions?

Edit: hammock vibes

Title mostly.

I'm doing fine right now, had an argument with my brother but overall I got my path forward ironed out, but I can't shake the feeling that all of what I do is just some pathological need to stumble forward into what I'm supposed to do but rather than actually being a meaningful calling or direction.

Maybe I'm just depressed.

Pretty much just the title. Every Sunday we get together and play for 4 hours and honestly there are like 100 things I'd rather do. I love DnD shows and content (which I acknowledge aren't actually existing DnD) so I keep getting suckered into giving it a try.

I just hate to quit mid session because thats rude and is a pain to everyone else but also I don't want to spend 4 hours every Sunday on my day off doing something I'm not enjoying.

How do I end this lightly? Can I?

Article

I'm doing a research project on evaluating Communist party support in the context of the application of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics, relating widespread support for policies with the relevant socialist theory. Anyway, while doing research I stumbled across this usage of K-means clustering to analyze the data and with this application of a data analysis tool, the support for the party, while still high, varies greatly from what is initially suggested from the surveys.

Looking at it I find some of the justifications they use for describing typologies a little fishy. The questions asked are whether or not you trust the CPC on a four point scale with 1 being not at all and 4 being high amounts of trust, with the second question being about support for the one party system using the same scale. In any case they use K Clustering to break these groups into the four possible typologies and cluster the two of the middle groups together under the justification that people can be "ambivalent". However, this feels like unnecessary simplification of the clusters in order to present the "ambivalence" as being more varied than it is. Just because people might have incoherent views on the issue doesn't mean they do and presenting the issue as that feels like it could be "gerrymandering" data. I'm completely open to my speculations and reservations being completely off base, this is very estranged from my major, but I thought I would ask her for some help in understanding it.

You guys are pretty smart sometimes

The part I'm discussing occurs on page 56 where they begin to explain their statistics and methods.