正在加载视频...
视频加载失败
My much requested day of eats as an Olympic athlete 🤍 Breakfast * chicken bone broth * cawfee * 2 eggs on sourdough toast Pre training * watermelon * red apple * electrolytes Lunch (post training) * chicken Mexican rice bowl Snack * scone wit...
9 条评论
Dewy Decimal5 天前
Cut like a cake 🤙
Smitty5 天前
That's it? I'd be starving
Stanford Clinic2 天前
Bone broth, eggs on sourdough, then training fuel - that breakfast table looks like love in a mug. Simple and solid.
Jim Erickson4 天前
🔥🔥
Thomas Mack4 天前
Pure perfection!!💪🏻🙌♥️
Sports and Music5 天前
Gorgeous abs 🔥🔥🔥
CJ Pallach4 天前
Olympic athlete?? That’s so sick!! What is your sport?
Daddy3 天前
🔥
Leroy Luis4 天前
all looks good
!["What are the fruits of Joseph Smith?" There are dozens of good fruits I can list-- our language training program the government tries to copy, our ministering program other faiths try to copy (and fail), our youth and missionary culture-- and so much more. But I'll focus on the three most important fruits: 1. The Book of Mormon I can't overemphasize this one. The Book of Mormon is the keystone of our whole religion-- a "sudden death proposition." All our claims live or die based on the veracity of that book. If it's a fraud, then Joseph, his revelations, the church he organized, priesthood authority, Joseph's successors-- everything goes with it. On the other hand, if it's true (as I know it is), then all that it implies is true, too: living Prophets and Apostles, priesthood, revelation, temples, dorky prom invites and carrots in your jello (obvious jk on those last two 😉). For 196 years, this book has been critically analyzed perhaps like no other book in modern religious history. No critic can account for how an uneducated farm boy correctly wrote inexplicable Hebraisms, dozens of short and long Near Eastern style poems, a story more intricate than Lord of the Rings with an internally consistent geography, verified distinct wordprints across characters, hundreds of names, interwoven storylines, rich theology, etc. Then to leave easter eggs for archaeologists and linguists to discover centuries later. He supposedly made scores of ridiculous (at the time) guesses about the Old and New World that were eventually corroborated by archaeology—making Joseph an astronomically good guesser if he wrote the thing. Oh, and he dictated one of history's most rich and complex religious texts in a single draft over about 65 work days. When you begin to study it, you'll find the case for the Book of Mormon is deeply impressive. The evidence, in the words of Farrer, "does not create belief, but it maintains a climate in which belief may flourish." For those who say "Well the Bible says any other scripture is impossible," we respectfully suggest that you're reading that message into 2-3 Bible verses when it's not there, and we'd be happy to explain why there is ample space in the Bible for continued revelation. 2. The lives of the people Charles Dickens (yes, that Charles Dickens) boarded a ship of Latter-day Saint immigrants. He fully expected to find the "Mormons" would fit the stereotypes he'd heard, and was prepared to write about all the horrid things he saw. But after observing the Saints, he wrote: "To my great astonishment they did not deserve it; and my predispositions and tendencies must not affect me as an honest witness. I [felt] it impossible to deny that, so far, some remarkable influence had produced a remarkable result, which better known influences have often missed... [they are] in their degree, the pick and flower of England." Most people who join our Church don't become interested by an ad for a free copy of the Book of Mormon or a 19-year-old in a suit. It's because they knew members of our Church and could tell, like Dickens, that there was something wonderfully different in their lives. And it's not anecdotes; it's quantifiable. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints produces higher outcomes in longevity, marital happiness, family togetherness, income, education, health, and virtually every other positive socioeconomic indicator there is. They are more devoted to God and more biblically literate than any other Christian faith per Pew Research. If you're interested in the stats, Clint Teeples has made it his hobby to accumulate all that data-- check his account for the receipts. Latter-day Saints are happier, more devoted to God, and successful in their personal lives than virtually any other group in America. That's because of the truths we build our lives on-- the truths we learned from the revelations of Joseph Smith. What about the "bad fruits?" "He was a con man, a fraud, an adulterer, etc!" None of those things are true. Dig past Reddit anti-Mormonism and look at the actual history. It's not that hard-- this was the nineteenth century-- not the ninth, after all. Thousands and thousands of documents-- journal entries and meeting minutes and newspaper accounts, etc. And I'm sure it will come as a shock 😉, but most credentialed historians aren't Latter-day Saints. Yet what do they see when they study his life? A get-rich-quick scheme? No. He lived and died penniless (and often houseless). He died in debt in large part because he was too generous with people who came asking. And he broke the mold by insisting members not be paid for their part-time service in the Church. A sorcerer and a gold-digger? No. He was as superstitious as other 19th-century rural Americans as a youth, then abandoned his superstitions when he began his work as a prophet. A philanderer? No. And the inspired, temporary practice of polygamy is a subject deserving a much longer explanation than a few sentences here. Historians as a group do not accept Joseph as a Prophet. But they almost universally acknowledge Joseph was sincere-- that Joseph truly believed God had spoken to him, that he believed the revelations he received. Even to the extent that as he knew he was about to die, he turned to the Book of Mormon (which he supposedly fabricated) for comfort and inspiration as he went to his Maker. Get past the sound bytes and caricatures and get to know Joseph Smith. 3. The ultimate fruit: Revelation I have studied the fruits of the Book of Mormon for 30 years. I have studied the fruits of Church membership for a little longer than that. I have studied Joseph's life and read the gamut of literature from apologetic to apoplectic. Most importantly, I have prayed to God about these things and received pure light and knowledge to my mind-- not "some warm fuzzies," but a divine witness, a seal, confirming to my spirit and my intellect the authenticity of the Book of Mormon and all that it implies. I echo all the words of Elder Jeffrey R. Holland below and likewise ask that my testimony "be recorded by men on earth and angels in heaven." I wish I could make the whole world know that I know. The Book of Mormon is true. And Joseph Smith was a Prophet of God.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2038820841790521857/amplify_video_thumb/2038819396295233537/img/GdtoQAQS3FKxVKfx.jpg)
![“I hear way too many of these stories. […] We have to provide the care; I mean we actually have court judgments on this. […] Well, you know, you do the math on it, I’m, yes, there is 23,000 patients a year that get, uhm, diagnosed with cancer. We have 120 oncologists. That’s about 191 patients for each oncologist. So you would think that they should be able to treat 191 patients. That’s less than 1 patient a day.” - Danielle Smith (*) 😳 sounds like she wouldn’t be surprised if a lawsuit were to come. 2.Does Danielle Smith have any idea what fills an oncologist’s day? Maybe it’s time for Premier Smith to finish her Stampeding activities to flip flapjacks at each of AB’s cancer centres to meet with oncologists, their support team, pathologists and patients. In the meantime, maybe the oncologists I know could add to this list, giving our United Conservative Party of Alberta Alberta Government and Alberta Health a better picture of what actually happens behind the scenes when an you treat <1 patient per oncologist per day. Here is the list I have come up with so far: ⁃Review incoming referral ⁃Review incoming patient’s medical history ⁃Preliminary meeting with new patient: confirming diagnosis, discussing next steps, including treatment options, answering questions, condoling patient, agreeing on treatment and getting treatment consent ⁃Writing doctor’s notes for patient’s employer for medical leave ⁃Writing and sending requisitions for additional tests and/or scans ⁃Writing detailed notes of patients in patient’s file ⁃Reviewing results from requested tests and/or scans ⁃Filling out patient’s short-and/or long-term disability forms ⁃Coordinating treatment ⁃Coordinating bloodwork for every treatment cycle. For example, mine was initially 2 weeks, then moved to weekly, then moved to every 3 weeks + quarterly infusions ⁃Between cycle patient appointment to review bloodwork, assess patient. listen to patient’s side effects, adjust treatment as needed, send referrals for side effects management ⁃Write prescriptions for outpatient medication(s) ⁃Update patient’s file with summary of meeting ⁃Review updates from providers addressing patient’s side effects ⁃Attend Tumour Board meetings ⁃Conducting research, including meetings with with the research teams, testing, reading other studies, compiling and analyzing mounds and mounds of data, then writing so results can get the results/findings published… ⁃training residents (who often leave because they see the chaos and uncompetitiveness of the AB system and pay) ⁃teaching classes at amedical school (many, if not most are university medical professors), grading papers ⁃speaking or attending medical conferences to remain up-to-date on what’s new in their area of oncology ⁃returning patient and other medical professionals’ phone calls. I didn’t factor in any time they may use running to the bathroom, having a quick bite to eat, or grieving when one of their patients take a turn for the worst, or dies. This just goes to show how much Danielle Smith is out of touch with how it works. This is only my view as a patient of my oncologists’ workload, and I only see a part of what they do. Alberta Medical Association (AMA) David Shepherd Dr. Luanne Metz AHS_CancerCare Alberta Health Services The Breakdown (*) Global News. (2024, June 1). Your Province. Your Premier. Edmonton, AB. Accessed: July 8, 2024. (around the ½ way mark of the show)](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1810538163678617746/amplify_video_thumb/1810537986632855552/img/4kdK6pFCOyX-1tKL.jpg)
![Apple’s iPad “Crush” Ad Is Bleak, Ominous and Threatening I don’t know if you’ve seen Apple’s just-released commercial for the “New” iPad Pro, but it’s pretty awful. It is dark, humorless, and feels like a not-so-thinly veiled threat to writers, musicians, game makers, developers, and artists of all kinds. …and children, even. I’ve watched it at least five times today alone, and I’m left with one big question. “Who on earth approved this?” It’s absolutely baffling that the world’s largest technology company, with the world’s biggest marketing budget, thought this would be a good idea. What kind of idiot—or idiots, since dozens or hundreds of people had to be involved in the writing, staging, producing, recording, and editing—felt this kind of ad would somehow create a positive emotional connection with consumers? Seriously, it’s terrifying. In a dank, cold warehouse, devoid of all life and humanity, an industrial crusher comes to life, and slowly starts destroying a collection of musical, philosophical, and artistic devices and instruments. For no apparent reason, everything starts getting smashed: first, a trumpet, then an arcade video game, then cans of paint, a piano, a globe, a metronome, a guitar… on and on it goes, obliterating everything in sight into a colorful, gooey, explosive mess. Books, camera lenses, lamps, a guitar, a sculpture, and a typewriter—all tools of the liberal arts—get mangled into a garbage heap as Sonny & Cher cheerfully sing, “All I ever need is you.” In the penultimate moment, a goofy yellow smiley emoji becomes a bug-eyed scary-clown freak as it, too, is crushed to death. Worse, if you enable closed captions like I do by default, the video says: “[POPPING] [SPLAT]” right as its eyeballs pop out of its head when Cher sings, “Give me a reason to build my world around you.” It’s enough to make a child cry. It has all the comforting vibes of the burnt pink teddy bear floating in the swimming pool on Breaking Bad after two planes crash in mid-air. I have so many questions (aside from simply wondering the names of the soon-to-be ex-employees who greenlit this abomination). First of all, as a trumpet player myself, I am personally offended that they made me watch a perfectly good trumpet get smashed to smithereens like it’s no big deal. Why would they torture me like this? Second of all, what is the message here? No, not that “the most powerful iPad ever is also the thinnest,” as the voiceover artist states in the last few seconds of the clip. I mean: what is the message? Ostensibly, pulverizing children’s toys, arcade games, architectural models, and ceramic Angry Birds into a paste implies something like “We’re taking all the best of humanity; all the collective works of Western Civilization, smashing it into pieces and putting it inside this remarkably thin device so you can have all of it in the palm of your hand.” But my oh my, is there an elephant in this room… he’s hiding behind the monstrous destroying machine. Did anyone inside Apple realize that everyone outside Apple will recognize this imagery in a metaphorical sense, but not the one Apple intended? We don’t see a crushing machine gently consolidating the greatest output of all our artistic endeavors, simply reformatted for a digital age and consumed by everyone with instant, fingertip access. We see what is painstakingly obvious to us, and the timing couldn’t possibly be worse. We see a giant, soulless machine consuming our work in a very different way. Right now, AI models are training themselves on our intellectual property and even our very own personally-identifying data. We aren’t the ones doing the consuming. We’re the ones being consumed. The tech industry has become one massive gaping maw, opening wide and swallowing everything in sight, chewing it up into little bits and pieces of comminuted waste, like a paper shredder or a garbage disposal. It’s destruction in its most literal form. And for what? For a newer version of the iPad that is only slightly thinner than its predecessor? For an only marginally improved version of Apple’s tablet device that has been around for 14 years? For increased profits? This is a terrible look for Apple. They may as well be saying: “All your work are belong to us.” Personally, I am a fan of artificial intelligence. I am eagerly embracing our robot overlords and I welcome our new CSV god (as the actual developers of AI models like to say). I look forward to the freedom and innovation that will come as a result of humanity augmenting our intelligence with AI like a force multiplier on a battlefield. But if Apple has the same perspective I do, they’re selling it in the worst possible way. When I see this video, I see that Apple is definitely crushing something… but I’m not sure what. -Crushing small companies that develop apps for the extremely heavy-handed App Store, which imposes byzantine restrictions on what they can and can’t do with their own apps? -Crushing competitors by limiting what they can do on the iOS and MacOS platforms with arbitrary and capricious rules about enabling functionalities that Apple doesn’t like, even if users do? -Crushing publishers and content creators with a punitive 30% fee on all subscriptions and in-app purchases? -Crushing choice and competition by not allowing app makers to make apps and programs that do the same thing that native apps already do, even if they do it better? -Crushing all human creativity and innovation by automating and systematizing everything? In the early days of the “Google vs. Apple” fight over the web and app stores, I was really concerned that Google was becoming way, way too powerful. Specifically, in 2015, when Google came up with “app streaming,” they announced a desire to form a “web of apps.” This was concerning. Especially when coupled with Google’s efforts to steal content from other websites and provide it to users via the “knowledge graph” results, ending up with the creation of “zero-click” search results pages, which absolutely punished website owners and content creators. By taking the most valuable content off a website and showing it to Google users without them needing to click through to the website itself, Google had essentially stolen everybody’s intellectual property with only the most minimal attribution possible (to fend off lawsuits no doubt, but with no intention of users actually visiting the website in question anymore). “Google is eating the internet,” I thought, and said out loud, (although I probably wasn’t the first person to use that phrase) But what I meant was purely an analogy. It was vague and ambiguous, almost silly. Maybe I was wrong, though: maybe it’s Apple that’s doing the eating. Maybe Apple is not only gobbling up everyone else’s work, but also homogenizing it—and us—and forcing us to use their platform, pay their fees, abide by their rules, and constantly keep upgrading, upgrading, upgrading, to an ever-thinner iPad in order to use it. Watch the video again. This is the stuff of nightmares. To be perfectly fair, even if I were to take the commercial at face value and ignore it’s off-the-charts creepiness and just stick to its one stated claim—that the new iPad Pro is thinner—it still fails as a commercial. Why? Because nobody cares how thin an iPad is. Seriously. I’ve owned an iPad since 2010: that means I’ve carried around a version of Apple’s already-thin tablet every day for over a dozen years. Never once have I said to myself: “You know what improvement I’d really like to see in this thing? I wish it were thinner.” Never. That thought has never crossed my mind, even once. You know what has? -Better battery life. -I’d like my iPad to not get hot to the touch when I use the Apple Pencil to take notes. -I wish it wasn’t so fragile: I dropped my brand-new iPad 2 back in the day when it slipped out of the arm-hold I was carrying it in, it bounced on the pavement, and the screen shattered into a thousand pieces, making it unusable. -I wish it had more storage. -I wish Apple would stop changing the type of cable connector it uses: I’ve gone from the original 30-pin connector to the Lightning connector, and now to the current USB-C/Thunderbolt connector. -I wish I could view the screen in direct sunlight. -I wish it wouldn’t overheat and turn off automatically when I use it outdoors in the summertime. Those are announcements I would welcome in a new iPad Pro commercial. None of this “now even thinner” nonsense nobody needs or cares about. So, back to the commercial. In my opinion, whoever made this ad should be fired. I almost never say that about other companies, especially for good-faith marketing efforts gone wrong… those of us who work in marketing make mistakes sometimes, and we learn from them. But cases like this warrant a special exception. Marketing and advertising are designed to make people want to buy your products. This commercial doesn’t just not make me want to buy Apple’s products. It makes me not want to buy Apple’s products, which is something altogether different. It turns me from someone who likes iPads into someone who is almost rethinking iPads entirely. That’s not just a bad advertisement; it’s a harmful advertisement. Apple’s usually known for great commercials. The legendary 1984 Super Bowl commercial was, of course, their best. I thought “Hello, I’m a Mac” was absolutely brilliant. They have made some missteps along the way, but this one is really bad. Not even their nauseatingly preachy and woke “Mother Nature” ad from a few years ago was this bad. Steve Jobs once said, “Technology alone is not enough—it’s technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing.” My goodness, that last line alone is poetry itself! This ad seems to be Apple signaling that they don’t believe in that anymore. And I don’t think all this handwringing is an overreaction to where you could say “Oh, c’mon, it’s just a commercial! What’s the big deal?” It is a big deal. It tells you about the values of the company, and what they intend to communicate. Really, how is this the same company that used to sell iPhones by showing grandmas using FaceTime to connect with their baby grandchildren from afar during the holidays? Everything about it is wrong: even the thumbnail they chose for it (the bulging-eyed smiley face) and the fact that they gave it the title “Crush!” It was fun to see the reactions to the video online today. I find it fascinating that Apple shared it on YouTube but turned off the comments. On X, Tim Cook shared it Tuesday, and the video, which so richly deserves to be mocked, is getting it in spades. Some people are calling it “anti-art.” One user called it “soul-crushing,” which was about as literal and logical a response as you’d expect. It turns out Apple actually made an announcement about the commercial. In response to the (apparently unexpected) poor welcome it got, Apple wrote: “We missed the mark with this video, and we’re sorry.” Lame response from a tone-deaf tech behemoth, but still, they hopefully got the message. C’mon, Apple. I have seen the future, and this ain’t it.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1788740167194579387/media/GNLjSOOaEAAZ6VT.jpg)