Trying to make sense of the quote.. bear with me:

So there are two versions of that quote floating about:

Trust someone as far as you can throw them

Do NOT trust someone as far as you can throw them

Question 1: I agree it's contextual but which makes more sense? First implies a limited trust and the negation implies negative correlation with distance. I think.

I like the Wodehouse quote: “I wouldn’t trust him as far as I could throw him, and I’m no shot-put champion.” - P. G. Wodehouse, The Code of the Woosters (1938)

So from the first link, let's trust the baby (a random baby.. not yours) as far as you can throw it. Will assume shot put than a hammer throw for the baby as it makes more sense. (Hammer throwing babies is for emergencies) Record for 7kg shotput for men is ~20m. Most people could do 10m with little training. Which is a fair distance to trust a baby. Anything more and I might be too late to react.

A random toddler, you can throw less distance and therefore trust it less? And what about a random human, they might not let you throw them.

Let's take negation.. What about computers? Back in the day, computers were massive so can't trust a mainframe computer as far as you could throw it. So I mistrust it less (due to complexity) than say an ultrabook, which I could throw far enough. Of course based on your experience with computers, the negation of this applies.

Question 2: So on this scale (throwing ability), what could I trust the most? Nothing? My voice? Tangible things?

Question 3: does the metaphor hold or am I just trying to make it fit?

• "Yes, I trust the rocket, we threw into space together.. "
• "I don't trust SD cards, discs were better (or vice versa)"
• "I used to trust my scooter but ever since losing my hands..."

Maybe I'm overthinking this and the fact that the negation can also hold true means that it's literally a matter of trust than my ability to throw.

Maybe this should be in Nostupidquestions as I'm aware the moon exists. And I guess there may be an orbit zone where things tend to remain in orbit. But curious...

The full context question is: For man-made satellites, would they benefit by having a "Self destruct" button?

Sure it may add more debris but since an explosion would scatter debris in all directions, anything flung up or down would cause it to get out of this geostationary zone/band.. And hopefully come crashing down to Earth, reducing overall debris? Compared to an abandoned satellite, remaining in orbit and breaking down due to relatively low energy collisions with surrounding debris.

Basically I'm trying to justify self destruct buttons. Thank you!

Undiagnosed here, seeking some inspiration and will to not lose hope.

Had anyone successfully gotten in tune with your ever changing hyper fixations?

• If so, how long do your fixation periods last?
• Do you have a structure or benchmark after which you can effectively "close that chapter"?
• What strategies do you have to nudge yourself towards topics which will be meaningful in the long run?

I tend to go from rabbit hole to rabbit hole but it never feels like I'm in control. These fixations never produce any meaningful outcomes and always have a cost which I pay for by neglecting other aspects of my life.

It is a superpower and a weakness as you all probably know. It's great for expanding your interests and appreciating life through different perspectives. I don't want to lose it and want to get into some harmony with it. Anyone had any success?

Thank you :)

Sincerely apologize if this is the wrong place for such a question(/rant).

The context of the question relates to "Self" and maybe about "Power" in general.

I'm assuming the following maxims hold true:

• Unexamined life not worth living...
• Philosophy is lived. Choices primarily determine your philosophy

Please to correct my assumptions or reasoning. Can elaborate on above if needed.

I tend to myself in circles regarding the importance of philosophizing and examining my life. Maybe it's a symptom of some mental issue.. With every new idea I learn, I now have to consider it and balance it with all I've learnt in the past. Each choice becomes a battle of value systems and ideas and perspectives and constraints. It's tiring to the point where I try not to think and just "do".

But then that path leads me to an autopilot where my choices fall to my default "human" state overridden by the philosophy modules installed at the time. Then it devolves into the unexamined life. Or then life throws a curveball. I have to snap out of it and need to reassess everything going into the philosophizing state above.

Philosophy feels like an indulgence.

I'm guessing this pendulum is not new. On a global scale, Academia are cutting philosophy department budgets as it's easier to divert money to "actionable" disciplines. No point in "wasting" time in thinking about thinking about doing things. Who needs a meta-compass if we need to walk the distance anyway (even though it helps a tremendous deal if the compass is in the right hands (which hold the power)).

I know I've reduced the argument to 2 buckets. I'm currently trying to consume Zen literature trying to get rid of my buckets and/or/xor trying to bring harmony of various buckets in my life.. (https://tinyurl.com/verse20)

My question is: how do you manage all this philosophizing in your life? How useful is this indulgence?

Happy to accept any books/articles on this. Thank you.

This guy single handedly put so many of my "feelings about the world" into context. It's a lecture series which goes through the aspects of philosophy trying to explore the topic of "Meaning".

For an novice like me, he related so many different concepts together and showed the nuances between ideologies throughout the world and various periods.Like a bore hole through the past.

Surprised it's free and glad it exists. Maybe one of you might find some video interesting. If you have any similar recommendations, feel free to share!