I'm doing it in racket, because it's probably my favorite language.

Right now, I'm just turning my current coinfasting and cardio routines into scripts. I'll expand flipism into other parts of my life.

My hope is it becomes weird enough to get others to start contributing their own stochastic decision scripts.

My goal is to turn myself into a markov model.

I created a Lifescripts repo where I am automating away parts of my life into stochasticism.

github.com/pookleblinky/lifesc

Homophobia, cusses Show more

@john_henry the beauty of it is that all you need to engrain is the coinflip, the rest piggybacks off it. No reason to go balls out from the beginning.

Make heads something fun, something you'd like to do 3-4 times a week. "try out a new recipe" "make a really good cup of coffee & relax" "walk the dog somewhere new" etc

As I said, I'm loving it. It feels fun, sustainable, and effective. No idea if it'd be torture for someone else.

The introduction of randomness has an interesting effect:

On average, the expected result is known. For any given week, however, you don't know the distribution. So, you can't go balls to the wall because the next few days may also be. But you can't just play it safe, because the next few days may minima.

It incentivizes you, without even thinking about it, to calibrate correctly.

The introduction of randomness allows a nice fluctuation that averages out to a known quantity over time.

The only real *daily* habit is flipping a coin and rolling dice. Everything else can be tweaked, scaled up or down as wanted.

As I decrease my deficit, for instance, heads will likely become TDEE+15%, tails TDEE-15%, a multiplier of 25 on kettlebell, etc. Same daily habit, but modified in a small way.

I then made my kettlebell stochastic.

After I flip the day's coin, I roll a 2d6 and multiply it by 10. That's how many swings I do that day. On average, 70. Maximum: 120.

I could, if I wanted, attach this to the coin: heads multiply by 25, tails multiply by 10, etc. Doing this would increase the max to 300, and the average to 210.

So far, I've been loving it.

So I added more stochasticism.

Every morning I cycle 20 minutes. On head days, I do a 30 minute afternoon cycle. That's 140 minutes baseline plus, on average, another 105 minutes of cardio each week. Maximum: 350 minutes.

Which is smack dab in the suggested range for maximum cardio benefit (140 is the accepted minimum, 450 is the accepted point where diminishing marginal returns from cardio kick in)

So I've been doing a lot of stochastic things lately.

Since November, I've been doing what I call coinfasting.

Flip a coin in the morning. Heads, eat, tails fast that day. The expected value of heads over 7 days is 3.5, it averages out to identical to a scheduled alternate day fast.

A man attempts to rob a bank, but himself and everyone present are completely unaware that every other person in the room has super powers.
#writingprompts #writing

Man I haven't touched mastodon in months. Really gotta use it more.

@KevinCarson1 suppose that's 225.
225x8: 285
235x8: 298

Adding 10lbs requires 13lbs more strength.

Your 5rm should be about 245. If you add 5lbs to that: 292. You only need to be 7lbs stronger.

The laziest, slowest way is to add a microplate or such and beat your 5rm by any amount of weight. If it goes up by 5lbs, your 8rm should now be 232. The laziest way is to increase 5rm, up to at most 5lbs.

The laziest way is to, paradoxically, work at higher intensity.

Fortunately, every reputable program has *some* built in laziness to prepare the beginner for this point, so they have some idea of what it means to *need* to go slower in order to make progress.

When choosing a program, literally any will work. Err on the side of a program which is a bit slower and lazier than you'd like. You'll find out why in about 6 months, and thank your past self.

Intellectually, a beginner knows that on SS5x5, adding 5lbs per workout, 15lbs per week, it's cartoonish to think that at the end of the year they'll be lifting 780lbs. They know this, but abstractly.

Bad programs are ones which leave the beginner utterly bewildered by this realization, with no idea at all what to do. They weren't exposed to the virtue of laziness, and struggle as they try to discover it in a state of baffled frustration.

It's a balancing act which, for the beginner, does not matter at all. What does matter is whether they are adequately prepared for when going lazy is the *only* way to progress, and progress is only possible by going even slower than they thought even though they knew they'd have to slow down at some point.

The better beginner programs, are ones which choose a balance point such that the beginner isn't suddenly surprised and discouraged when they hit the end of that initial, literally-anything-works honeymoon. They tend to err a bit towards laziness rather than speed, basically.

Show more
Octodon

Octodon is a nice general purpose instance. more