-HubSpot for sales CRM, for email marketing, and for our website. Easy to set up email templates and automated follow-up sequences, and there's a huge benefit to having your sales CRM be the same system you're using for email marketing & website because you have a really granular view of what a lead has engaged with that isn't there if you have a separate email marketing tool.

-JustCall for dialer/phone system.

-Canva for presentation decks (a designer can set up great templates that will look good even when folks like me who are design-challenged are building a new deck)

-Zoom for discovery calls / product demos (and Zoom webinars for marketing events)

-Loom for video sales letters (and for internal training videos)

-Google Workspace

I've done fasting in pretty varied ways. The longest was for eight days. What I usually do now is a 24-hour fast: dinner, skip the following breakfast and lunch, and then dinner.

When I fasted for eight days, I dropped about ten pounds. On a 24-hour cycle of fasting, I will drop between 1 and 2 pounds a day depending on activity level. I have never had the experience of gaining 20lb after fasting, nor have I ever felt like I was in famine mode. I think I gain weight a bit quicker than before I started doing the 24-hour fasts, but at the same time, it drops off quicker, too (it's true that fasting changes how your body stores and uses fat).

If you go from fasting back to junk food binges three or four times a day, yes, you will (unsurprisingly) gain the weight back. If you're putting 6k calories a day in, nothing about the effects of that are going to go away after your fast. If you go from fasting back to a reasonably balanced diet, the weight isn't coming back--if you aren't overeating, how could it?

This has been my experience. Your mileage may vary. I am not a doctor and this is not medical advice.

I'd also recommend the schedule that I use, which is to eat a normal dinner, and then skip the following breakfast and lunch, and then eat dinner at your usual time. You get 24 hours of no food, but it doesn't feel like a whole day. You also get a beneficial side effect: if you have no food intake in the morning, you don't get nearly as hungry later in the day. It's much harder to eat breakfast and then skip lunch and dinner than to eat dinner and skip the next two meals. Drinking a lot of water throughout the day will also help alleviate the "empty" feeling.

I'm not a doctor, this is not medical advice, consult your healthcare provider before undertaking any diet or exercise routine, blah blah.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial#G...

The Information Control Division of the U.S. Army had by July 1946 taken control of 37 German newspapers, 6 radio stations, 314 theaters, 642 cinemas, 101 magazines, 237 book publishers, and 7,384 book dealers and printers. Its main mission was democratization but the agenda also included the prohibition on any criticism of the Allied occupation forces. In addition, on May 13, 1946 the Allied Control council issued a directive for the confiscation of all media that could contribute to Nazism or militarism. As a consequence a list was drawn up of over 30,000 book titles, ranging from school textbooks to poetry, which were now banned. All copies of books on the list were confiscated and destroyed; the possession of a book on the list was made a punishable offense. All the millions of copies of these books were to be confiscated and destroyed. The representative of the Military Directorate admitted that the order was in principle no different from the Nazi book burnings.

The censorship in the U.S. zone was regulated by the occupation directive JCS 1067 (valid until July 1947) and in the May 1946 order valid for all zones (rescinded in 1950), Allied Control Authority Order No. 4, "No. 4 - Confiscation of Literature and Material of a Nazi and Militarist Nature". All confiscated literature was reduced to pulp instead of burning. It was also directed by Directive No. 30, "Liquidation of German Military and Nazi Memorials and Museums." An exception was made for tombstones "erected at the places where members of regular formations died on the field of battle."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_Federal_Repu...

Thing is - people here tend to disagree. Yes, you cannot say whatever you want. No, you're not easily allowed to have a gun at home. But look - that's a freedom that is debatable in itself and even if we'd discuss it for hours over a couple of beers: We'd probably end up having to agree to disagree on the merits of both approaches. Or philosophies. Or ideologies.

Look, I don't particularly like Germany. I think patriotism is as good an idea as being a fanatic football follower, regardless of your home country. Someone put it better than me here: [1]. There's a lot wrong in DE as well, but if someone from the US calls the US a police state and you're invoking that difference in belief and laws as kind of an example how bad it is over in DE, then I think you're lacking perspective.

1: http://www.futilitycloset.com/2011/09/22/one-world/

Been to NYC lately?

If I'm stopped by a cop in Germany or the Netherlands, I don't have a thing to fear, except for being fined for a traffic violation or a car malfunction. You don't hear stories about cops abusing their power, because they are extremely rare. Cops can be trusted.

If I'm stopped by a cop in the US, God knows what may happen. I could be beaten, have evidence planted on me or be accused of crimes where their word is simply enough. Cops are not to be trusted.

I'd rather yield to not being allowed to deny the holocaust, thank you very much. It's not as if the US doesn't have a whole range of exceptions to freedom of speech[1] anyway, some of which could reasonably be considered to include holocaust denial (incitement, defamation, obscenity). It's not arbitrary that it's forbidden in Germany and it's really ridiculous that some Americans keep bringing that up. Is that really the best you can do, complaining about the insidious nature of being denied the right to deny the holocaust?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Un...

That, and the only time I've ever had my Kindle go dead on me was when I accidentally left the WiFi on and used it constantly for like three weeks.

The thing of it is, there really aren't many (if any) goods purchased by consumers that are genuinely durable goods under that definition. Houses, possibly, but we clearly know that can turn out badly. Everything else. . . . well, everything else depreciates, most often quickly. Cars, televisions, appliances, and so on.

There just isn't a return on investment in terms of dollars and cents for consumer purchases that justifies the use of debt. If a business borrows money, they're just leveraging to increase profits. If a consumer borrows money, it's typically because they're not patient enough to wait until they have the cash (been there, done that, know from personal experience).

Anyway, the point of everything I said is to say this: I don't think there's good leverage for consumers, with the possible exception of student loans and a mortgage (for a reasonable house!). Everything else is just impatience.

EDIT: Given my school loans I'm actually pretty skeptical of the utility of student debt, too.

I'm tempted to say there are edge cases, say your car broke down, you need some repairs, it's within your budget, but you can't pay until your next payday in 4 days, but you need it fixed today. That's what we've all been told is the sort of ideal situation a credit card is good for - but then I realize, that implies you are living check to check - which is already a bad position to be in - the credit card might save you in that moment, but it won't fix the overall financial problem you have.

(gonna ramble here) As soon as people start working, whether in highschool, college, or after, they should start forming a cushion. That cushion should on average grow throughout their entire working life. This isn't retirement savings. It's not an investment. When it gets big enough, sure, you can cap it and start investing, etc.. you don't need 10 years living expenses sitting in the bank.... but what about 6 months? What about a year? That's not absurd to me. Imagine the comfort of knowing you can lose your job, maybe be a bit more frugal, maybe pause on contributing to your retirement fund and no big vacation this year, but you have enough liquid cash in the bank that you don't need to work for a year. That cash becomes something you treasure. You don't WANT to dip into it. You won't just blow it on junk once it gets bigger. YOu won't just take a year off for fun - you'll just take comfort in the fact that you don't care when payday is and can think long term. You can make rational decisions about your job, changes in life, etc. It keeps you far, far away from the punishing cycle of debt the banking industry makes it so easy for you to get caught up in. It gives you HUGE leverage in financial situations.

It's basically cash in the bank that you can call on at any time. Anyone who has been working more than a few months should not be living paycheck to paycheck - if we could just get that message across to more people, things would be a lot better for all. People always say "oh, easy for you to say, I have expenses, blah blah....". Those same people, if given a 50% raise, will tend to increase their spending habits by 50% and still live paycheck to paycheck.

We need to stop thinking like a credit society. The credit score needs to stop being the most important financial market we measure by.

Even when it comes to housing - We need to stop talking about "buying a house" when we mean "mortgaging a house".

Everyone always counters with "Well, how else am I supposed to afford a house?". One answer might be "If you don't have enough to buy the house outright, you CANT afford the house". Sure, there are reasonably low risk situations responsible people can put themselves in and buy rather than rent, and come out ahead - but how many people actually do that -vs- get into the danger zone? I wonder.

Some cultures work for the benefit of future generations - they are a generation ahead at all times. The parents buy the house and pay for school for the kids when they grow up/get married/whatever, as their parents did for them. The kids, grown up, finished school, work to save up money to buy their kids an education and a house, and so on. What rule says we have to stay behind, when we could be a generation ahead with a little planning?

TL;DR: Agreed

And it has nothing to do with a segment of society. You're complaining about someone half-jokingly calling us all whiny babies.

People like you were complaining about the common usage of "damn" years ago too.

"damn" is no longer an issue because most people aren't terribly religious nowadays, at least not enough for people to censor themselves. That's not the case for "bitch".

It's absolutely true that people are responsible for their feelings. But that doesn't mean you aren't also responsible for your choice of words. By saying that I am responsible for how I feel when I hear the word "bitches," you are trying to imply that you aren't also responsible for choosing to say it. It's perfectly valid to say that we are BOTH responsible for our choices. I should choose to ignore you, and you should choose another word. There is no need to say that one or the other but not both of us should be responsible.

I find your arguments along these lines to be passive-agressive. If you want to hurt other people with words, own up to wanting to hurt other people with words. Don't pretend that it's everyone else's fault. Because surely, if nobody took offense to these particular words, you would hunt around until you could find words that would cause offense.

You choose to use these words and phrases precisely because they have shock value. It's not like you use the word and are surprised it carries some special meaning that offends people. I see elsewhere you have told people to "fuck off." Are you seriously suggesting you weren't trying to give offense? Because if it isn't possible to give offense, why are you trying so hard to offend people??

My use of both "profane" and non-profane offensive comments in my comments is to drive home my point. It is not intended to hurt others, but merely make them think to themselves "frack it, I'm ignoring him." "What he says would normally offend me, but I'm going to have a nice evening with my wife and kids instead" ...or something along those lines.

If I get anyone to that point then maybe they'll know that in the future, if some anonymous dude dares use the dreadful word "bitch" on the internet, it's best for the sanity of everyone to let it slide.

"Because if it isn't possible to give offense, why are you trying so hard to offend people??"

-gets back in character...- Well I'd say there is a keen difference between "giving offence", which I am of course not doing, and "presenting others the opportunity to take offence". The choice is theirs.

That's the most cowardly thing I've heard all day. But it's only lunch time, so we'll see how it goes.

You didn't answer the original question, either: would you drop the phrase "Sorry, nigger." into casual conversation? If not, why not?

You are in charge of if you get offended. It is a decision you and only you can make.

It's why the legal system has the concept of the "reasonable person", but I prefer "Do you talk to your mother with that mouth?"

"Do you talk to your mother with that mouth?"

Yes, I do. And if that bothers you, kindly fuck off. You have no place telling me what I may or may not say in the presence of my mother.

If an adult loses their temper in public, they are rightfully looked down upon. If an adult publicly becomes offended, I similarly look down upon them.

No, I'm just an adult who recognizes that words only have the power that you give them. If you wish to continue to allow your emotions to be a slave to the language of others, that is your prerogative; but don't expect others to follow you.

And yes, I addressed your question. Read the parent comment of your post again.

And that's all I'm going to say - this thread has gone on long enough.

Says a lot about you that the inclusion of minorly offensive words or implications can cloud your ability to critically interpret what others are saying. When you allow somebody else to offend you, or make you angry, you are allowing them to impair your thought processes. You are giving others the power to control you.

In order to defend yourself, you must realize that although somebody says something mean, it is up to you if you get angry, and although somebody may say something offensive, it is up to you if you become offended. In the real world, people are going to say shit you don't like. Trying to "correct" their behaviour is the wrong approach.

Whether you care is a different matter. If you don't, that makes you a rude person. Which you're free to be, if you wish.