I htink this fits what you intend? It’s been discussed before, most recently:
This guy is putting out a revision of his book about historical biphasic sleep. He had been critiqued for having a fairly low sample size. He’s unearthed a few more:
At this point I’d say “compelling,” not “convincing.” It might be more accurate to write that prior to the “industrial revolution” [itself not a clear term–one of my profs argued that the IR didn’t begin until the 1950s] the timing of sleep didn’t matter too much, so sleep cycles just didn’t matter and therefore people didn’t try to regulate them as much.
I’m curious to see if studies result in recommended durations (although there’s never a one-size-fits-all solution) and more details on what not to do between these phases. I created a routine to calm or focus my thoughts before attempting to sleep. However, I have to resist the urge to consider, write, or research things that pop into my head if I wake up in the middle of the night. It would be too easy to go down that rabbit hole and never get a significant amount of rest.
That strikes me as being like claiming that the Renaissance didn’t start until the 1650s.
For the statement to be true, it would require a more-or-less total redefinition of the thing being discussed, to the point where it is no longer the thing that everyone else is discussing.
I never did quite follow what he meant. But I will say that he was a pretty well-known historian in the field and probably one of the most brilliant people I’ve ever met, in terms of an ability to analyze. He was intimidating as hell to take a class from. His office had no books [“why? I’ve read them already”] except for those written by former students. He’d lead a discussion by saying “As professor Smith argues on page 57” and he’d have no book or notes in front of him. But you’d open your own book to page 57, and sure enough there it was. Crazy.
So many awful things in this background story. What jumps out at me is he didn’t even seem like a good medical candidate, based on the reasons describing why he was ineligible for a human heart. Still, they chose him anyway knowing that risk. The lack of atonement/restitution is even more disturbing, but it looks like the ability to collect on judgements varies a great deal depending on the state.
It’s a shame that the victim’s family had to be reminded of their losses in this way. I’m tired of people acting as if the past doesn’t matter, and avoiding the consequences of their actions. In my state, there was a sensational case of a man who was shot, lived with disabilities, and died of complications related to the original injury. The assailant was later charged with murder:
NOTE: The case above led to an acquittal because the victim had other injuries in the years that followed, but I’m not sure what happened with the precedent mentioned from MI in 1983.
I have an old SunTouch lamp that I use in the morning and while exercising. Even though I’m a morning person, it helps me feel more energized without doubling down on coffee. What needs to change is my workspace, which is too cozy. There’s no ceiling fixture and the lamp I have now could be the reason why I struggle to stay awake in late afternoon/early evening hours.
the author raises some interesting points but I feel like he’s engaging in tautology here. Eating animals is good because we created a system where in order for them to exist we have to keep eating them rings of circular logic, to my mind at least.
Dismantle the systems that gave rise to totalitarian agriculture and how much better would the world be for all species?
I agree. I’m skeptical of his argument, too, for at least that reason.
I’m also skeptical about his claims about wild animals, too.
But generally speaking, I’m an omnivore, but we really do need to have a much more humane system for eating meat and for how we treat livestock. Eating less meat as it comes from our current system would be beneficial for all.
Also, it seems to me that if we did largely stop eating meat, it’s not like we would necessarily just release all those animals into the wild to fend for themselves. It seems like we’d figure out other uses for them or a new way to interact with them, since they are largely domesticated animals.
What jumps out at me is he didn’t even seem like a good medical candidate, based on the reasons describing why he was ineligible for a human heart. Still, they chose him anyway knowing that risk. The lack of atonement/restitution is even more disturbing, but it looks like the ability to collect on judgements varies a great deal depending on the state.
In my state, there was a sensational case of a man who was shot, lived with disabilities, and died of complications related to the original injury. The assailant was later charged with murder:
the author raises some interesting points but I feel like he’s engaging in tautology here. Eating animals is good because we created a system where in order for them to exist we have to keep eating them rings of circular logic, to my mind at least.