https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png

Anthros. https://www.anthros.com/

I work in IT. Have for a long time now. I often spend half my day or more at a desk working on a computer. As my career developed I found myself less active. I was quite active and fit in my youth so I didn’t think much of it until I started having serious back pain. Decades of neglect caught up to me and I found myself in immense pain from… Doing nothing.

After a few scary incidents of thankfully temporary disability I was motivated enough to figure out what was wrong and learn how I could fix it. I came across the typical advice of course. Stretch. Train the body to be stronger and more flexible. Be more active. Sit less. All good and necessary. I still had to sit a lot though. Even with a sit/stand desk I’m going to want to sit down sometimes.

I did a lot of reading and almost as much testing before concluding that Anthros is the best office chair currently available. I now have a few years of experience with one and that experience has only reinforced that opinion.

It’s designed by folks who developed expertise on ergonomics working in the wheelchair industry. There’s a lot of copy on their website about all that and more info given in interviews / podcasts. Marketing aside the point is that it’s not just another funky chair following trends. There are evidence-backed reasons for the design.

The pelvic support is what fully convinced me. Pelvic support is to lumbar support what not-getting-stabbed is to a field tourniquet. Sitting with my legs engaged and my pelvis supported for the first time wrinkled my brain in ways similar to the first time I wore prescription lenses. After maybe fifteen minutes of “active sitting” I felt relief in my back instead of pain.

It is genuinely shocking how much of an impact a chair has made in my recovery from sedentary self-induced injury. From spending hours trying to get comfortable in chairs not designed to meaningfully support human bodies. I thought my problem area was my mid-back and core muscles. It was my whole spine. I still sit like an idiot sometimes but doing so in the Anthros is uncomfortable and that prompts me to either stand for a bit or take a walk. When I’m using the tool properly I am comfortable and pain-free.

Now that I’ve made myself sound like a paid shill here are some things I don’t like about the Anthros chair:

1. It’s expensive. I had to save for months to buy one responsibly. $2,000 for a chair is a lot to ask. I am happy with my purchase and I’ve recommended them to friends who have complained about back pain. Maybe the cost is justified. Maybe not. I’m too ignorant of the particulars to be able to say. Either way: it’s expensive to the point I take issue with the cost.
2. The armrests adjust their horizontal placement too easily. There’s about two inches of play in their forward/backward position and four “notches” of inward/outward movement at about three degrees per notch. The flexibility here is nice but there’s no locking mechanism for these adjustments and I found myself adjusting them accidentally all the time. I’m sure this could be countered with claims about accessibility and/or that this is only an issue when I’m using the tool improperly (sitting poorly). Even if valid points: this still feels like an area that could see improvement. It feels cheap in ways that a $2,000 chair shouldn’t. It’s the only thing that feels cheap on the chair but I still notice it after years of use. It doesn’t bother me as much now that I’m used to it and I’ve encountered it less as my sitting habits have improved BUT it has remained a complaint since day one.
3. I think it’s kind of ugly. This is a bit petty but I just don’t care for the look of the thing. It’s fine but I feel it’s kind of an eyesore. I’ve had chairs that looked cool and fit my sense of style. The Anthros looks like I stole it from a hospital or something.

That said: if I have my way, until and unless someone develops something better, I will always have an Anthros chair at my desk. If I ever own a business where it makes sense to buy desk chairs for people then I’ll only buy Anthros chairs. If I could gift one to everyone I know then I would.

I’ve done a lot of physical therapy to rehabilitate my back, abdominal core, and pelvis/hips from working at a desk. I’m significantly healthier than I was a few years ago. I attribute some of that progress to the chair. I’m confident I could’ve made the same progress without it but also confident that progress would’ve taken longer. Without the chair I’d still have been fighting bad habits I didn’t even know I had. I also wouldn’t reasonably have been able to change those habits as effectively.

I cannot recommend the Anthros chair strongly enough. Nothing else even comes close.

I asked to receive a drawing of me writing the prompt asking for that drawing. Someone delivered a picture of an abject moron drooling while typing away at a keyboard on a desktop computer. Hah! Jokes on THEM! I was on my CELLPHONE while on the TOILET.

Otherwise accurate. 11/10

🤨🫩😑🙄⬆️

The rhetoric is too weighed down by its own heavy hand to impact the uninitiated it intends to reach. It reeks of snark in ways the intended audience find unapprochable. If the intent is to agitate the complacent then target the soft spots which give cause to push back against a target. Few are spurred to meaningful change through shame alone (and the few, I’d wager, are often reactive instead of responsive).

Yet I never seem to catch 'em at the local pub.

How very… American.

Food shortages got you feeling down? Looking for a reminder of good times? After the break we’ll reveal the best thickening methods for coldbrew Mac. Adding body to the cheese-water really sells the experience!

You’re travelling through another dimension, a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind; a journey into a wondrous land where Jack Handey voices Cookie Monster. Next stop, the Twilight Zone!

A society requires its health, access to leisure, and the time to pursue their betterment in order to visit museums and internalize the lessons of history. The United States has reserved realization of these essential human needs for the upper class.

We require such leisure to discover the capacity and motivation to better understand ourselves, those around us, and our collective material circumstances. Without that freedom museums become mere mausoleums until their intended visitors regain the humanity we were contractually coerced to forfeit.

If I wanted to introduce someone to the genre then Empires of the Undergrowth would be my first recommendation.

The gameplay, narrative, and progression mechanics are top-notch. The developers understand what makes RTS mechanics compelling and have designed systems that are more intuitive and accessible for everyone.

For instance (no spoilers) unit groups are built-in to base management. No hotkeys or group micro management required. It happens automatically as a functional result of more obvious concerns.

My only critique of the game, if I were forced to offer one, is that the UI can seem a bit clunky at first. That aside though the team’s expertise and care shine through in ways which prove the user experience was well considered throughout development.

It’s fun, too!

Oh, buddy. Ooooof.

I was ignorant but curious.

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

She’s got a Doctorate of Philosophy in English Literature from Oxford, is a feminist author, and conspiracy theorist. At a glance I can understand why she’s developed a reputation of a certain color.

Care to share any specific grievances?

I’d argue that isn’t even dark humor. The joke’s focal point is how ridiculous your mother’s position is. You’re taking up an untenable and patently absurd position in faux support of the initial absurd position. That’s ridicule. Now I will grant that lampooning a rhetorical opponent’s position can lean “dark”. Unless the punchline relies on taboo for the heavy lifting though it isn’t crossing that line.

You didn’t say anything offensive or taboo. You criticised someone’s bad take using contemptous analytic hyperbole. I grew up with this kind of humor in my family. It was mostly used as a learning tool which avoided direct confrontation of idiocy while allowing the temporarily embarassed idiot to save face, realize they weren’t thinking clearly, and choose to be in on the joke at their old self’s expense. There are other choices, of course, but if you chose to die on mount stupid then you’d better expect to get buried underneath it as well.

Your family doesn’t seem to be receptive to that brand of social therapy. That’s ok. My point is more to encourage you that you didn’t do anything wrong (and that it’s even normal to joke like that elsewhere).

Your mom might not think you’re funny… But I do!

Possibly! A lot is left to interpretation in the film. I agree with your take though. More or less. I feel there’s enough presented after the initial twist (was he just imagining it all?!) to suggest an additional turn. That being the horror of a society built on such incredible self-absorbtion (and cocaine) is the real bogeyman.

The lack of comprehension from some reminds me of a certain type of Fight Club fan on whom the film is wasted entirely.

My framing in the previous comment is meant to highlight how Bateman’s story seems to resonate with the disaffected and media illiterate as I understand them. It seems much of the subtext intended to catch the viewer’s attention and request a critical eye fails to register with that crowd. My aim was answering the question implied by the comment I initially responded to; namely: How could one genuinely delude themselves into believing Bateman represents “peak masculinity”?

I could have made that more clear in the perspective I used to convey the point. Note taken. 🙂

I honestly think that’s part of the appeal for those who idolize Bateman. He’s particular and vane and envious. We are led to see his flaws as he sees them: extensions of justified righteous indignation at the world’s resistance to his perfection, all. His narcissism fueling disgust for the world and everyone in it.

The jilted pampered white boy is exactly what they identify with.

Evaluate the comparison drawn in the final scene of the film. Bateman confesses again, in-person this time, to his lawyer who blows him off for reasons that could be debated within the narrative. The important bit for our discussion is that, regardless of the reasons for dismissal, the lawyer simply doesn’t believe Bateman is capable of the crimes he confesses to.

Not even recognizing Bateman (and mistaking Bateman for someone else) the lawyer says: “Bateman’s such a dork, such a boring, spineless lightweight…” “…Oh Christ. He can barely pick up an escort girl, let alone… What was it you said he did to her?”

After some more back and forth Bateman returns to his friend’s table and finds his friends discussing Ronald Reagan’s address regarding the Iran-Contra scandal. The sentiment is how unbelievable it is that someone so unassuming could do something so vile, brazenly lie about it, and almost get away with it.

To be dismissed as incapable while believing oneself cunning and depraved and wholly underestimated. To act on that depravity and take by brutal force. To confess vile crimes that go unpunished because no believes you capable of them… It’s a twisted diamond in the rough story.

That’s not the gritty visual masculinity we normally think of, as you say, but Bateman is rape culture personified and adorned in every tropey “high-class” commecialization of masculinity at the time. Couple that with anemoia for the eighties in a generation raised on algorithmically tuned psychological traps which weaponized toxic masculinity for profit and… Tada!

We strike resonance with a certain brand both of internet-raised narcissist and naive, disaffected, emotionally-immature manchild. Especially young men who’ve been emotionally manipulated into believing alt-right propaganda makes sense of a world they’ve been stymied from understanding.

I think you’d find more agreement stopping at “I’d rather use a free alternative”. I agree with your sentiment. Replacing proprietary tools built by rent-seekers with volunteer/community run projects whose developers hold user freedom and choice in high regard is categorically better for most people.

Corporate requirements, vendor lock-in, and the friction of momentum make that tough for some people though. I’d still ask they give the alternatives a shot, of course, but I can understand why some might still choose the ideologically inferior option.

For those people? Having options like the open source circumvention tools mentioned allows them to continue using what they’ve paid for (and ought to ostensibly own) without being forced to pay extortion money to do so.

I think you got voted down due to your out-of-hand dismissal of that well engineered alternative with an uninformed value judgement.

tl;dr: you’re correct on the first half but too hasty on the second half.