u/turnleftorrightblock

I am trying to get the phonetic patterns correct. Why is Porchetta pronounced Po-r-shet-ta? I thought ch was pronounced English's k. And c is pronounced either English's ch sound or k sound. (a, o, u vs e, i rule, reverse it if h comes before e or i) Or did I hear it wrong?

Any interchangeable similar cold cuts available in Canada? Hopefully from Nofrills/Loblaws Grocery Stores? I mostly just wanna try the taste.

Edit:

Sorry, i should have said cured meat, not cold cut. I was ignorant of Guanciale usually being cooked.

Pancetta does not have to be cooked, right? Where can i get some in Canada?

I recently switched to this because I have felt that regular pseudo-push-ups or deep maximum pseudo-push-ups get my forms demolished after a couple reps even when the muscles are not exhausted enough because I am relatively weak pound for pound. (I am heavy for my height and muscle mass.) What I started doing is the regular push-ups, but with hands lower than regular push ups "almost" like regular pseudo-push-ups. I feel more in the shoulders and chest than regular push ups, and my forms are easier to be intact even after 8 reps. I can do up to like 40 dips by the way. (Used to be able to do 53 dips at one go when I was 20kg/44lbs lighter. I have gotten fat, and dieting.)

Even in weight lifting, they say 3-5 sets with 8-12 reps is ideal for muscle growth. So, I probably should be doing at least 8-12 reps with whatever exercise I am doing instead of trying something more difficult than my body can handle (in terms of 8-12 reps, not 1-6 reps) out of curiosity, ego, sense of accomplishment (can be proud of having done it, but shouldn't be a staple for exercising probably).

I thought I invented Pesto sauce on bread. I googled on a whim, and Google has everything: "try a toast with Pesto sauce AND cheese." So, I tried it, and I prefer that over pasta in both flavor and convenience (pasta takes too long, AND I always end up cooking 3 servings per cooking). What do Italians prefer? I want to add salami or prosciutto on the Pesto cheese toast the next time.

I am not talking planche push ups but tucked planche push ups with legs folded.

Also, how many pseudo push ups should i be capable of before attempting good-form tucked planche push ups or elbow lever? I can do 6 pseudo push ups with perfect form (after that, my back becomes round) per set on my rest days. I do other things on my workout days.

Also, is there any cue i should be aware of for tucked planche push ups? Like how to know whether my back is horizontal as opposed to slanted without filming myself every time to check?

For the record, i am a fatty losing weight.

For the record, i have A+ on first year economics course, but no further FORMAL education in economics, and certainly am not a PHD. And i can only analyze as far as i can perceive from my formal and informal educations on economics. There are Phd economists here, right? Please talk in mainstream orthodox view only. Peter Navarro holds a PhD in economics from Harvard University, and his "high tariff drives success" is not working out right now. I support SOME LEVEL of tariff to protect your key industries so that you are not economically and politically dependent on foreign countries like a puppet. I think that is a good thing. Especially if trade partners do not raise back tariffs. (Although they would be busy protecting THEIR key industries.) But i cannot say Navarro, PHD with non-orthodox view, style is working out so well. I want to hear Orthodox Phd views, not non-orthodox Phd view. If you feel an inkling to give a non-orthodox Phd view, label it non-orthodox so that i can prioritize the importance of inputs i get.

1. High minimum wage is not a good thing.

2. If going at high minimum wage, it has to be raised over 50 years or so to soften the blow on the middle class. If EVERYONE starts earning BIG DOLLARS, then the current savings are that much WORTHLESS. It makes ZERO DIFFERENCE whether you have that much savings or not. For super rich people, they can earn back their losses. Middle class people have no control and power to do that. And strong middle class with visionary super rich elites is what makes the country prosper and grow. Low class people living "better" more than the skillsets they have to offer to the society is either insignificant or detrimental to the quality of life for EVERYONE ELSE (MAJORITY). We can have SYMPATHY and look after their quality of life to some extent, but not to the extent of $30 per hour. Middle class's savings (purchasing power) will be destroyed if they do this. When middle class is destroyed, that country's economy is weak.

3. When you have drastically large minimum wage, construction workers and retail clerks both earn minimum wage. Then everyone wants easier safer jobs with equal pays. To pay construction workers more, homes cost more. But that is not marketable because middle class's savings lack purchasing power now. If raising minimum wages, retailer clerk minimum wage should be different and far lower than construction worker minimum wage. The society's purchasing power over consumptions of goods and services is directly related to the cheapest labor's cost. When waiters and retail clerks are "slaves" while everyone else gets paid more, that is how the majority of society have high purchasing power. Every single person in the society having high purchasing power is impossible. Items do not circulate that many, and it is never first come first served basis for selling. Hence, socialist countries forced the prices down and rationed. Middle class savings are not made into zero, but sufficient enough for going from "can buy a home, can retire, can run a business" to "cannot".

4. Pretty sure middle class collapsed because of the government handing out money to low class, which resulted in middle class's savings (purchasing power) being worthless. Super rich people can earn back their losses. Middle class businesses cannot. Low class people and governments fucked middle class. And the economy is always weak without strong middle class. And those people are blaming super rich people for earning back their losses plus more after the governments and low class fucked up. Homes being expensive is not a problem if your savings are worth as much as they used to. Everybody except the upper class is poorer now. And they think the answer is stronger lower class, not stronger middle class. When everyone except super rich people has no savings PRACTICALLY in value and worth, then everyone except super rich people is in a position to work for someone else as an employee. Middle class cannot afford businesses. That makes BOTH middle class AND low class into low class.

5. There is no quick fix to an economy with some "genius idea". Gotta produce and supply more everything so that all items can go all around to everyone in the society. Especially after YOU fucked up and destroyed middle class's saving's worth (purchasing power, business power, home ownership power). Stop focusing on the low class people. Focus on the majority middle class people.

6. No, it is because governments and low class greedily fucked up the value of money and the value of middle class savings. Low class wanted a quality of life their skillsets contributed to the society are not entitled to. Super rich people can just overcome and earn back the losses plus more against the obstacles low class and governments create. They committed no fault. It is all low class and governments fucking up middle class. They are interconnected. When everyone is "capable" of making at least 30 dollars per hour, your 300k savings (originally capable of bartering the money with 30k hours of someone else's labors) are worth 10k hours of someone else's labor now. (Or the products, items, services represented by number of hours. Market is about bartering labors.)

7. Ideally, minimum wage should stay below living wage, and there should be policies and subsidies producing excess everything off the equilibrium points so that the society flourishes with items. The society flourishing with items has high purchasing power. The society flourishing with "everybody highly paid" is everybody being equally poor except the super rich people who can survive government policies, and earn back the losses plus more, which is not super rich people's fault, it is the governments and low class fucking up middle class.

8. Businesses are harmed when everyone can buy their items first come first served while the prices are forced down instead of prices are reasonably out of reach so that only the people with more money can buy them without rushing to the stores. They are sold out in either case. The later case makes more money. Your job is not to think some "genius idea" but to listen to mainstream Phd scholars who have accumulated reasonings based on academic procedures the most accurate by design than some random "genius idea" not academically admissible cause your reasoning system is not an accurate design (design/system flaw, aside from result flaw).

I really like Philosophy particularly laws, reasoning, and ethics. It is just that I really hate Archaic English. I have no problem comprehending casual modern English, but when Ancient Greek Philosophers "talk" in archaic English, I cannot even guess what they are talking about. When someone rephrases it in modern easy English, the perceptions are subtle but comprehensible. It is 100% the language issue, not a subtlety perception issue. (As in, I understand immediately when rephrased. When in raw archaic language, I cannot even guess.) So, recommend me some easy philosophy books so that I can train myself in the ways philosophers speak. Preferably something that shows archaic English version and then translates it into modern easy English version.

For the record, I find the opposite of peace is natural states, not war. Natural states can be peaceful, or can be hostile (depends on against whom). I want to make a clear distinction between not-war and peace. Having this in mind, why is peace considered good?

According to Oxford dictionary, peace can mean 3 different things.

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/us/definition/english/peace?q=peace

1. a situation or a period of time in which there is no war or violence in a country or an area.
2. the state of being calm or quiet.
3. the state of living in friendship with somebody without arguing.

But what I have seen is that, people want number 2 and number 3 when they don't deserve it, and then when this is brought to their attention, they use the number 1 to justify why they should get "peace". And then, they conclude that therefore they should get number 2 and number 3. They sound very dumb to me. If we split the word peace into 3 words (peace-1, peace-2, peace-3), all they are supposed to get with their approach is peace-1, and they are not allowed to get peace-2 or peace-3 neither in the word nor in the concept. Be aware that I am not denying peace-1 is a bad concept. I am telling you that peace-2 and peace-3 should not be pursued or prioritized at all but be left at natural states.

Let's say peace is good because of the comfort and convenience they provide (in other words, it is because "peace feels nice") just like unjustified war is bad because of the discomfort and hardship they bring (in other words, because "war feels horrible, and there is no motivation to go through something horrible unless there is a justification prioritized higher than "feeling nice").

Aren't we taught to work our ass off to a reasonable level whether as a student or as an employee? Working our ass off clearly destroys comfort and convenience. That's like telling us to go on a war, except not with a gun but with labor (studying or working). If we are expected to work our ass off to a reasonable level, then that means comfort and convenience are not the highest priority humans should have. If comfort and convenience are not the highest priority and pursuit humans should have, then there are other things more important than peace like the survival, truth, honesty, freedom of emotions including hatred, free will, and justification.

These are my perceptions, yet I see willful idiots who blindly follow their mantra "peace is the absolute good thing" that they have memorized. I find no intelligence in them memorizing a "rule" or a "goal", then just blindly pursuing it. I say I do not agree (for those reasons I have explained), then they harass me to adopt their way of thinking. You seriously don't see something wrong and wishful about your goals? Why is no-war-no-peace thing a bad thing to them? I mean, if they are my enemy, I can see their lowly motivation. Their ego can't stand that there is someone who hates them for what they have done. It's called Ultranationalism. But for their followers not their ethnicity, nationality, or whatever group, those idiots memorize their goal and rule, then play control-freaks when someone like me do not pursue the same goal and rule without me violating a single law.

So, why is no-war-no-peace (natural states of calm or hostile relationship without war without peace) bad?

FA/CMA4102 - Creative Producing for the Media Industries (3.00). Is this course required to get the degree in Screenwriting? I am asking because: 

The prerequisite for FA/CMA4102 is FA/CMA 3101.

The prerequisites for FA/CMA 3101 are FA/CMA 1001, FA/CMA 1101, FA/CMA 2101, PANF 2100A.

The prerequisites for FA/CMA 2101 are FA/CMA 1001 3.0, FA/CMA 1101 8.0, PANF 1100B.

The prerequisite for FA/CMA 2101 is PANF 1100A.

Those are a lot of prerequisite courses for FA/CMA4102. The website says FA/CMA4102 is a required course, but its prerequisite courses are not required courses. I would like to double-check if FA/CMA4102 is really a required course because this is unusual and does not make sense to me.

https://calendars.students.yorku.ca/academic-calendar#/programs/BkVKmw27q/H14w5wuGj?searchTerm=Screenwri&bc=true&bcCurrent=Cinema%20and%20Media%20Arts%20(Screenwriting)%20-%20Bachelor%20of%20Fine%20Arts%20-%20Specialized%20Honours&bcItemType=programs

I have a Spanish tutor who has been teaching me. Once my basics are strong, i think i will move on to online lessons like Duolingo while asking specific peculiar questions on this community.

Edit:

I am not saying Spanish is hard. I find it easier than English very often. But it is not a free ride neither. Takes works.

Like, a rose is feminine una rosa. This makes sense. Flowers are feminine. A knife is masculine un cuchillo. Knives can be dangerous and danger kind of relates to masculinity. Acceptable. A table, chair, cup are feminine una mesa, una silla, una taza. Sure. Women did the kitchen stuffs in the era languages were formed. Then, i learn a plate is masculine un plato. Uh, kitchen stuffs? Women? And a female shoe (high heel) is masculine un zapato. Why? Do men wear high heels? Also, beer is feminine una cerveza. Wasn't drinking a man's hobby? Why is beer feminine? Like, i do not sense a rigid pattern in genders of Spanish nouns. Are they random, or is there a systematic instinctive heuristic that i can apply?