How to Prevent Black Toenails

Have you ever had black toenails from running? Those puddles of coagulated blood underneath your toenails. Those things that hurt you for months, until they finally drop off. And then they return the next time you go running.

I have.

All my life, as long as I have been running, I have had black toenails. Sure, they have fallen off from time to time, and some of these times the “fresh” toenails thereunder haven’t turned black yet. But inevitably, they always do.

But it all changed a few years ago. I started running minimalisticly. And as I did, my black toenails disappeared. I didn’t notice at first, since it took some time for the old ones to disappear. But after a while I noticed that my toenails didn’t turn black, despite my running. And they never have.

Therefore, I recommend minimalistic running as a way to prevent black toenails. It’s cheap. It’s easy. And it’s great.

Those who are destroying our environment should face consequences for their actions

Today we have a mining system built upon bankruptcies. Whenever a mining company files for a concession for mining, they promise to take care of the excess waste from the mining. In many circumstances these are costly procedures. Therefore some individuals use a bankruptcy strategy. They mine for minerals and put the surplus into their own pockets. When they are done, they file for bankruptcy and society has to take responsibility for the continuous environmental afterwork.

This is bad for society as well as the environment.

All in all, modern mining management leads to everybody getting poorer, because of negative environmental effects, while a few persons consciously use the legal system to enrich themselves. As soon as one mining company is put to bankruptcy, the owners will start another mine somewhere else.

This needs to be stopped.

One way societies have tried to fix this problem is by demanding mining companies to stash away some money. To get their concession, the mining companies need to stow away money in a restoration fund. The problem with this procedure is that these restoration funds never seem to be large enough to remedy all damage done by the mining. Some abandoned mines keep on flushing toxins and poisons into fresh water reservoirs, every second, every minute, every hour, every day of the year. And the fund is never enough.

There is this saying about engineers in ancient Rome. Whenever someone built a bridge, they had to live under that bridge. If the bridge fell down, the bridge builder and his family died. Cause and effect. People had to take responsibility for their actions.

We should implement responsibility for actions in our modern world as well. When our environment is at stake, whenever contamination has dire consequences, as death of people and animals, those responsible need to put their own safety at stake as well.

Those who mine for resources and leave incurable wounds in our nature, need to face consequences for their actions. When water gets contamined, the responsible will have to drink that water every day. If the earth get polluted, those responsible for the pollution must live where the mine once was, for as long as the pollution lasts.

Some might deem these things as barbaric, but we need to take care of our common resources. We need water, air and soil to survive. We cannot promote those who destroy these common resources. We must inhibit their destructive behaviour instead.

For the sake of the poor man’s baby. For the sake of the innocent habitants. For the sake of our world. Let those who destroy our world face consequences.

Poverty leads to crime

Poverty leads to crime. The reason poverty leads to crime is that people have basic essential needs as food but also secondary needs like clothes, hygiene articles et cetera. When people have the need for something, and do not have another choice than to steal what they need, they will do it. When hunger strikes down upon people and they see that food is available in stores, hunger will force them to steal what they need.

The same is true when people need other things badly, which they cannot afford. Be it alcohol, cigarettes or soap, when the need is big enough these people will steal.

The reason for criminality is mostly because people see no other way out of their misery. When living in a poor neighborhood where everybody else is poor, those who are striving to keep ends meet on minimal wages are poor, and the only people not being poor are criminals, then the choice will appear clearly. Either you work your butt off, and most probably stay poor, or you become a criminal with a chance of getting rich.

People turn to criminality, because that is their only perceivable choice.

Right wing politics is about taking money from the poor and give it to the rich. The underlying moral is that rich are entitled to their riches.

What right wing parties miss, is that by making the poor poorer, the whole society becomes poorer, since criminality is such a destructive force. When society becomes poorer, even the rich affects since they too will be targets of criminality.

Therefore, there is a societal need to always fight right wing politics. We must always try to reverse the money flow back to the poor from the rich. In my opinion, the best way to do this is by implementing basic income guarantee.

To succeed you need others to believe in you

To succeed you need others to believe in you. I have found that this is the most important cause to success, yet it is often overlooked. The reason for this is probably because of the popularity to emphasize on the individual efforts as the major cause of success, since these are something the individual (who might buy self help books) can do something about.

But individual efforts mean nothing as long as nobody believes in the individual who puts in the labour.

Let me give you an example. Two sportsmen in the beginning of their career are equally good at what they do. They both go to a trainer to participate in the team he is leading. This leader believes in one of the sportsmen and not in the other. Who do you think will get more playing time? Training time? Advice?

Another example. Two persons apply for the same job. One of the persons is highly qualified for the job. The other person is a charlatan, who poses as someone qualified. Who do you think the employer will choose, given the fact that the employer believes in the charlatan? And even when the poser is discovered, do you think that the employer would go back to the highly qualified person he believed wasn’t as proficient as the poser?

A third example. Two equally bright students have the same teacher, and this teacher believes that one of them is smarter than the other. Who do you think will get more attention and help? The one the teacher believes is predisposed for learning, or the dumb one? Who will most likely get the best grade? In this case, we know for sure that the one the teacher believe is smarter will get a better grade, since this is a classic pedagogical experiment. Still we have millions upon millions of students and teachers worldwide, who believe that the single most important factor in succeeding in school is the student’s intelligence.

Some people believe that self-confidence is of importance in order to succeed. But self-confidence has minor if any effect at all on success. Rather, self-confidence is an effect of success. Think for yourself, if you observe someone you do not believe will succeed having enormous self-confidence, what would you most likely call that person? A winner? Or self-illusional?

Some people believe that the belief of others boosts that person’s self-confidence, which will make that person succeed. There are stories like: “It felt wonderful that someone finally believed in me, so I could let myself grow into my full potential”. I’m sure you have heard these stories. And I’m not saying that they are untrue. I’m saying that the effect of raised self-confidence is by no way comparable to the effects of another person actually helping the first person out.

And that is perhaps why selfconfidence is mistaken as an ability you need in order to succeed. People get self-confident when others help them. And those who get help are already halfway to success.

But this doesn’t mean that you should give up, just because nobody believes in you. Instead, take advantage of this knowledge. If you want to succeed, you need to convince people to believe in you, for them to help you out. Because everyone wants to be by the winner’s side.

What is the likelihood of making 1 million dollars from starting/being in a startup vs. trying to be an author of a best selling book?

This is an answer to the question What is the likelihood of making 1 million dollars from starting/being in a startup vs. trying to be an author of a best selling book? on Quora.

Firstly, if you want to make 1 million dollars, the highest likelihood of success is by working hard on your everyday job and saving every penny possible. This is true in most professions in developed countries.

But if you must choose between a startup and a bestseller, then there are some things to take into consideration.

What is your capital within these two areas? Do you have business knowledge within the field of your startup? Do you have an extensive network within the field? Have you read a few thousand books? Have you written for 10000 hours? Are you a famous person which are more likely to get published and sell books? Answers to these questions and other similar ones will give you a fair view on which option is best for you.

But there is one more thing which should be taken into consideration. It’s not just about what you might win. It is much more about what you will lose, since that is the most probable outcome.

In which of these cases is your loss worst? Is it the financial loss of an unsuccessful startup, or is it the loneliness of writing, and the lack of social contacts following that?

Also, which knowledge is more valuable to you? Is it the ability to write a book? Or the ability to run a company?

So, the choice should be about personal possibilities and preferences. But if we take a more objective view on the question?

I’d say that you should start a business.

Let’s take a look at writing. First, you need to read books, so that you have an understanding of what works and doesn’t in writing. Then you need to write. It will take a long time before you get proficient enough to write well. Gladwell is referring to the 10000 hours rule. When it comes to writing, I believe that it takes 10000 hours reading and 10000 hours writing, until proficiency.

Then, let’s say you write. Since it takes a lot of time to write, you really should have another job, unless you have an understanding spouse or some kind of heritage (but then you wouldn’t need to write that bestseller, would you). This other job might lead to you becoming weary and less likely to finish your book. Actually, most people writing a book never finishes it.

There is also the feedback problem with writing. Most of the time you get feedback once for each book, or perhaps once for each rewrite of a book. Well, of course you might pester your friends with unfinished manuscripts, but then you will most probably notice a slight unwillingness from their side after a while. The absence of feedback will most certainly harm your chances of writing a great book.

If you try to publish your book the traditional way, then you send your manuscript to publishers. If you are lucky someone will read your manuscript for more than a few seconds at these publisher houses. So, if the first reader actually reads your manuscript and likes what she reads, then a few more persons will have to agree on publishing your book. Most books are never published.

Disregarding how many times you have rewritten your book, the lecteurs will suggest major changes to it. Since you have no authority at all within the field, you must accept these changes, disregarding what you have learned by reading a few thousand books. So you make another rewrite, based on the whim of your lecteurs. But if your lecteurs are not bestselling authors (they never are), your book’s chances of becoming a bestseller hasn’t improved much by that.

So, you have a book written and published. Then you need a lot of luck in order for your book to be picked up and bought by book buyers. A vast majority of books don’t cover their costs. Yet another step where the odds are against you.

Today, you also have the possibility to self publish your book. This raises your odds from abysmally small to slightly abysmally small. By self publishing you may choose to publish more unique books, for the good and the bad of it.

There are so many persons involved in the creation of a bestseller, that I don’t recommend anyone to try. If you must write a book, then write it. But if you do it for the money, there are much more lucrative businesses elsewhere, like cleaning toilets and changing diapers.

Conclusively, it is much better to start a business. If your business ever becomes a success, then you can write a bestseller about that.

What effect does the shape of a glass have on the flavor of beer?

This is an answer to the question What effect does the shape of a glass have on the flavor of beer? on Quora.

The most important effect of any beer glass shape is aesthetical. How things look is important for most beer drinkers. For example, that’s the main reason why most beer producers filtrate their beer. By filtrating you remove certain flavors, to the advantage of a clear looking beer. The looks of the beer create expectations which in its turn influence the drinker’s taste of the beer positively, even though an unfiltered beer tastes more.

So, by using different beer glasses you create a visual stimuli, which in itself influence how the beer tastes.

Furthermore, there are cultural expectations on how different beers should be drunk and how they should look like. The best example of this is that some beer glasses are called weiss bier glasses (since they are supposed to be used drinking wheat beer).

Though, these cultural choices have surely derived from taste preferences for different types of beer.

Simply put, beer reacts differently from being poured and drunk from different glasses.

The general rule is that most prefer to drink fresh and stingy beer types, as wheat beer and lager, in high, slim glasses. The reason is that high glasses better manage to contain the carbonic acid of these beers than pints and big round glasses (i.e. wine glasses). Both wheat beer and lager gains in preserving the carbonic acid, because of their lighter flavor.

Some beer glasses are slim, but have a bulge at the top of the glass. The reason for this typical beer design is to better keep the carbonic acid within the beverage, while at the same time concentrate the smell at the drinker’s nose.

More heavy and flavory rich beer types, as ales and especially stouts, gains from a streamy pouring into big glasses. Such procedure mixes the beer, which awakens flavors which otherwise might stay dormant. Carbonic acid isn’t that important when drinking stout, since the beer is rich in flavor. It’s even an advantage to lose some of the carbonic acid, in order to bring out other fragrances.

Also, by having a bigger contact area between the beverage and the air, the beer lets go of more fragrances, which enhances the drinker’s experience considerably. By using a wine glass (a glass with a lower bulge which narrows into the top), you maximize the contact area, while at the same time concentrating the fragrances to the drinker’s nose. This works perfectly for wine, but is not a very good design for i.e. lager, since it leaks carbonic acid at a very high rate while lager doesn’t smell very much.

Another thing to take into consideration is how much beverage you’d like to pour into your glass. Slim glasses contain less liquid than pints, which also is an argument for using them for lagers, since it takes less time to finish them which leads to less loss of carbonic acid at the last sip.

Though these general rules apply, what matters in the end are personal preferences. Beer flavors behave differently in different glasses, and the best way to understand what you like is by experimenting. You might be surprised how much visual and cultural preconceptions shape our tastes.

Don’t Read Writing Books

I have read my fair share of writing books during my life, and I have two main reflections regarding that kind of literature.

The first thing I have found out is that books about writing are quite meaningless. There are two things you need to know to write well, and neither of them are learned by reading writing books.

The first thing you need to learn to write well, is how good writing looks like. To try to learn that by reading writing books is equivalent with learning how delicious food tastes, by reading recipe books. The only way to learn how good writing looks like, is to read good and bad books and register the difference between them.

The other thing you need to learn to write well, is to write. And you learn to write, by writing. To try learning how to write by reading writing books is like trying to learn to ride a bike, by reading a bicycle riding book. Not a good idea.

The other thing I have learned from reading writing books is that they influence your writing.

I learned my lesson when I read Stephen King’s On Writing, which I must say is one of the better books within the genre. The lesson I learned was that: If you use the same methods as another writer, then your writing will look like his. I used the exactly same methods as King described in his book. My text sounded exactly like King himself.

Now, creating literature like Stephen King might not be the worst thing possible, but being a copycat is still nothing I would like to do. Therefore I abandonded the idea promptly.

Every author has their own set of rules on how good work should look like, and which methods they should use to get there. If you copy someone else’s methods, your writing will look like that person’s too. So, you should only use someone else’s methods, if you are willing to write texts which sound like his.

One more thing. If the person who has written the writing book, is not an otherwise acclaimed author, then your writing will be influenced by that as well. You will then unconsciously write prose which is more shit than hit.

So, don’t read writing books. The best thing you can do instead is to read and write, read and write, and then write some more.

Spiritual Enlightenment is Permanent

This is an answer to the question Is spiritual enlightenment permanent? on Quora.

Interesting question. Instinctively, I’d say that it is not permanent. You need to do something to keep up enlightenment.

But heuristics has proved me wrong. I became enlightened in my late teens, haven’t done much about it since then, and still am enlightened.

I’d like to explain it like this. Enlightenment is a choice. You choose to disregard yourself. This choice will effect all other choices in your life thereafter.

Therefore, if you perceive enlightenment wrong, you might think that you need to do all those other choices to keep up the enlightenment, hence, not seeing enlightenment as permanent. But those choices are just sheer deductions of your earlier choice: to accept enlightenment.

But shouldn’t it be able to change one’s mind? It should be perfectly possible. Perhaps someone has. But such action will probably never find its way into the Great Books of History.

I have revalued my decision about being enlightened. Several times. But always, when it has come down to that initial choice I made twenty years ago, I cannot change it. Trading ego for divinity and nothingness is the right thing to do every day of the week.

Prerequisites to Reach Enlightenment

This is my answer to the question What does it take to reach enlightenment? Permanent happiness? on Quora.

I believe that there are many prerequirements needed to reach enlightenment. But permanent happiness is not one of these. I believe that happiness have nothing to do with enlightenment.

Sure, I got happy when I became enlightened, but that was an effect of discovering enlightenment. Happiness was by no means causing my enlightenment. Rather the opposite.

For example, recount the famous tale of Siddhartha Gautama. It wasn’t him being a happy prince and all that, which made him become enlightened. First he had to see someone sick, a corpse and then live ascetical for several years, before he could hit the right train. He had to have his share of unhappiness.

If the reincarnation theory is legible, then perhaps you even can’t reach enlightenment within this life, but only do your best to get a “better position” in your next.

I believe, as several persons already have stated, that the road to enlightenment is individual. I can’t tell you exactly how to become enlightened. Nobody can. You can only become enlightened by making your own separate choices how to live your life. And by that I mean choices of action, not choices of belief.

Decisions. You need to make your own decisions.

Honesty is an important prerequisite. You need to be honest to other people, but it is ultimately more important to be honest to yourself.

Acceptance is crucial.

Several answers contain introspection as an alternative. I do not agree, although it might be semantics. Enlightenment is ultimately to reach out to everything but yourself. It is about eradicating yourself. Introspection is the opposite, and therefore not so great tool for reaching enlightenment.

Responsibility for your actions.

Love.

The Feeling of Enlightment

This is my answer to the question How does it feel to experience the state of nirvana? on Quora.

I reached enlightment by four separate steps of insight while I was 17-18 years. Each and every of these insights where filled with a joyous, fantastic feeling of bliss together with amazement and oneness with everything. A great feeling.

The thing is that I didn’t fully realize that I was enlightened. Yeah, from time to time I thought that I might have reached nirvana, but I didn’t thing so much about it. It is not a big deal to me, since I am not a Buddhist. It hasn’t been until the recent years of my life, that I have realized that I am enlightened (I am 38 now).

So, the feeling of discovering enlightment is hilarious (at least it was for me). It’s like ten thousands orgasms.

But being enlightened is totally empty. It doesn’t make you feel anything. It curbs feeling, although curbing is the wrong way to express it. It is the feeling of nothingness.