exasperation

The result is insane in my opinion, it means any sensible math system with basic arithmetic has a proposition that you cannot prove.

Stated more precisely, it has true propositions that you cannot prove to be true. Obviously it has false propositions that can't be proven, too, but that's not interesting.

with a rigorous, needlessly convoluted proof.

Again, Goedel's theorem was in direct response to Russell and Whitehead spending literally decades trying to axiomize mathematics. Russell's proof that 1+1=2 was 300 pages long. It was non-trivial to disprove the idea that with enough formality and rigor all of mathematics could be defined and proven. Instead of the back and forth that had already taken place (Russell proposes an axiomatic system, critics show an error or incompleteness in it, Russell comes back and adds some more painstaking formality, critics come back and do it again), Goedel came along and smashed the whole thing by definitively proving that there's nothing Russell can do to revive the major project he had been working on (which had previously hit a major setback when Russell himself proved Russell's paradox).

how about:
x = 2
2x = 3,000
omg! they’re inconsistent!

You didn't define x, the equals sign, the digit 2, 3, or 0, or the convention that a real constant in front of a variable implies multiplication, or define a number base we're working in. So that statement proves nothing in itself.

And no matter how many examples of incomplete or contradictory systems you come up with, you haven't proven that all systems are either incomplete or contradictory. No matter how many times you bring out a new white swan, you haven't actually proven that all swans are white.

And formal logic and set theory may have seemed like masturbatory discipline with limited practical use, but it also laid the foundation for Alan Turing and what would become computer science, which indisputably turned into useful academic disciplines that changed the world.

but I feel like people in union jobs making enough of a salary to buy a comfortable home is going to drive up wages for everyone

Even if that is an effect where increased unionized non-supervisor wages push up supervisor salaries, my point is that there are simply fewer middle managers to benefit from that effect.

Plus the second order effects of a hollowed out middle choking out the pipeline for promoting and training future business leaders, so that it's a small number of big corporate executives overseeing jobs they've never had instead of the older system of a lot more small and medium sized business leaders supervising jobs they used to personally work.

It was a response to philosophers who were trying to come up with a robust axiomatic system for explaining math. Russell and Whitehead's Principia Mathematica attempted to formalize everything in math, and Goedel proved it was impossible.

So yes, it's a bit of a circlejerk, but it was a necessary one to break up another circlejerk.

I don't think the McAllisters were in union jobs. I think they were pretty high up the tier of management.

People talk about union jobs going away, but don't forget, non-unionized middle management has totally been gutted by outside consultants over the same time period. So the changes in the workforce have hurt the earning power of both the line workers and the middle managers who used to make up the middle class.

This whole thread is kinda wild to me, but I think this Princess Bride answer helps me distill it down to: I'm ok with you not liking movies that I love, but how can you say that you don't understand other people liking it?

I don't care for Star Wars or Lord of the Rings but never has it crossed my mind that this is more than just a matter of taste, that there are people whose preferences are outright wrong.

Up in horsey heaven, here's the thing
You trade your legs for angels wings
And once we’ve all said good-bye
You take a running leap and you learn to fly

Sauropods had hollow bones and air sacs all throughout for lightweight structural support. You can't just compare sizes and assume similar density as elephants or other large mammals.

The "mental illness" and "plumber" categories can actually add up to be more than 100%.

One's goose being cooked is an idiom from at least 200 years ago. The transfer of that meaning to generally being a single adjective rather than a full phrase is probably at least 100 years old.

And as more evidence, here's an issue of Boys Life magazine, from August 1938, that uses the phrase "he's cooked" to describe someone who is going to lose a sporting event. So it's at least 87 years old, maybe older.

Ok, so I'm switching over to a 5/3/1 program, and I've tried to digest all the information from Jim Wendler and a few others, tailored towards my own things.

I'm choosing a 3 day split, based around bench, deadlift, and squat. I have a previous neck injury that results in painful muscle spasms if I overtrain on any movements pushing or pulling above my head, so I don't train OHP to failure. As a result, it seems like specifically treating OHP as its own primary lift isn't something that I want to do, or need to do.

I'm setting my training max at my 5 rep max at each lift (180 lb bench, 335 lb squat, 385 lb deadlift). There are some formulas for estimating your 1 rep max from 5 reps, and Wendler recommends a training max set at 90% or 85% of the 1 rep max, and I think these two calculations seem to mostly cancel each other out (I've seen some say 4rm is a good number, but also some saying that it doesn't hurt to go with a lower training max anyway).

So with accessories, I'm just going to do some pushing with my bench day (OHP, incline bench, push ups, dips), some pulling with my deadlift day (rows, pull ups, clean and jerks), and some leg stuff with my squat day (front squat, lunges, calf raises). Any issues I should be aware of on this approach? I'm open to other approaches, but can't really do gym sessions longer than an hour, and going more than 3 times a week is gonna be difficult.

So here's what I'm looking at, in terms of actual details:

Week 1: 5-rep sets of 65%/75%/85% (last set AMRAP)
Week 2: 3-rep sets of 70%/80%/90% (last set AMRAP)
Week 3: 5 x 75%, 3 x 85%, 1 x 95% (last set AMRAP)
Week 4: 5-rep sets of 40%/50%/60%

Then I increase my training max. I'll be back here asking whether I should be doing more than the 10 lbs/5 lbs based on my actual performance on the AMRAP sets.

Anything else I should think about?

If you take 100 joules of electrical or chemical energy, and then direct them to a heater in a house, it'll create about 100 joules of heat. That's 100% efficiency.

But if you use the 100 joules of energy to run a heat pump, it might bring in 300 joules of heat into the house. That's 300% efficiency, when measured locally at the place you actually care about (inside the house). Zoom out and laws of thermodynamics still make it impossible to create more energy than was put in, but if you look at just the part you care about, it's possible locally.