I'm quoting because it's been lost many pages back, but this guy (the one in catwoman's post, which is who I think crimson wife is referring to as well) has been specifically shared to be eating junk in large quantities.

I think it's totally normal as you move into a healthier place, to start realizing the contrast between what could have been and what was. I am going through this myself.

Untrustworthiness. I have to be able to trust someone to stay with them.

MANY of my math students do better doing this.

I like getting consumables. Like some sort of treat food. Or books. I maintain a long visible amazon wishlist so that my family can get something and rely on it still being a surprise. If you're crafty some sort of craft supplies would be neat too.

Yep! I still go to the store and instinctively head to the plus sizes section.

I can only say that while I knew I was gaining weight, I had no real idea how large I had gotten. All my pants were elastic-waist and so they could stretch quite a bit before I needed new ones, and when I looked in the mirror I saw the same person as the girl who weighed 50 lbs less.

Yeah. It's like being an alcoholic who has to live in a bar and be offered free drinks by everyone daily and "Oh come on, one won't hurt" when you decline (which is what people DO).

No kidding. It's like (for me) the difference between doing a spring cleaning (I can get that done) and managing to keep the place clean on a daily basis (hahaha). When you're losing the weight, you've got goals, you've got measurable progress, you can see things happening. Maintaining, it's ... seeing something NOT happen, and that's just so much less motivating.

My siblings and I definitely learned to read with sight words (Ladybird) and inferred the phonics rules, but we grew up in a highly literate household where if we did say the wrong word, we would be corrected and "Not wig, do you see the 'n'? what word is that?" I honestly think that one big flaw with a lot of programs (like the completely drill-free math programs as well) that look great in theory and don't do that poorly in trials, but utterly flop in widespread implementation, is that they don't work badly with neurotypical children from families with the cultural and/or financial capital to realize where their child is not making connections and either supplement on their own or pay for supplementation. So when tested in schools populated largely with those children, they look fine, but when implemented on a widespread basis they do not.

Are you still trying to lose weight? Often this is a sign that it's a good time to stop and maintain for a while. Other ideas: Some fat may help satiety. Or your new body might just be needing some more carbs than it did when it was heavier -- you could try adding a small amount of complex carbs. Play with it and see if either of those reduces your hunger level.

I could, easily. There are some foods that just are not self limiting for me -- and for many other people that I know. Cheetos, for example, I do not care for, but I could easily eat an entire pound of sesame sticks, or an entire family size bag of potato chips, washed down with 2 liters of soda, as a snack between meals (and I used to do this, on a daily basis). I mean, these foods are engineered to not be self-limiting. We have corporations sitting figuring out how to make food so that we'll be inclined to take just one bite more. Even knowing this, if I'm at a party and this stuff is out, I won't be able to stop myself from eating until it's gone. I can't have them in the house because they call my name. So I guess my point is -- these foods bypass all of the body's natural satiety responses, so that even people without medical conditions won't fill up on them.

If the physical attraction is literally the only issue, then I presume we're talking about an issue of some extra weight in a perfectly functional person. In that case, yeah, I do think it's shallow. If it goes beyond that -- if spouse B is gaining at a rate where they soon will reach the point, or have already reached the point that it starts to impact quality of life/family life (not being able to work if a breadwinner, not being able to care for children if a caregiver, not being able to participate in activities that the rest of the family does, starting to impact health), then I think it's a totally different story. It especially is if they're not addressing it (including seeking out medical causes, or treating things like insulin resistance causing carb cravings) -- although frankly I think it's ALSO spouse A's responsibility to facilitate, by (for example) not purchasing hyperpalatable foods to leave around, pitching in more to make it easier for spouse B, etcetera. And at this point I no longer think it's shallow to be concerned.

Milk thistle saved one of our cows who had a seriously damaged liver after ingesting something. I forgot what she ate, it was a while ago.

I would say that there is a large difference between "minimum standards" and "minimum standards for what the post-hs goals are". If a child has one or two legit years of HS math and their plans are going directly to a 4-year college (especially if they're intending on a STEM major), they're not meeting minimum standards for their post-hs goals, even if they may be able to get in somewhere with a "hook". But I wouldn't say that that's below minimum standards overall -- they're behind, but not ludicrously so, and many PS students are on a similar level. If their goals are just getting into the local CC, or going directly to work, it's enough (although it's still below what I'd like to see, and I'd encourage anyone asking for advice to do more).

I would say rather that mid-program curriculum changing (especially when it becomes hopping) should really not be done by a parent who isn't thoroughly conversant with the material themselves. And the more times you change, the more important it is that the parent has a sufficiently advanced degree of competence to tell what's already been covered, what's been covered but was phrased differently, and what's building on something that was taught in the previous level that you haven't covered yet and need to figure out how to teach on the fly so you can get back to the lesson.

There are some things in the past that I'd love to see as well. Can you imagine just getting to slip in and see things like the Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Or see Stonehenge near when it was constructed?

If I really couldn't fail? Lottery ticket. But for real, what I'd love to have is a day/boarding school for kids who are just plain round pegs in today's square-peg world, including time for them to explore vocational options (welding, plumbing, culinary arts, hairdresser, agriscience), artistic options (music, arts, not just the standard options but like improv rock band), academic options, and also including flexible pacing. I guess the lottery ticket fits in that if I won the lottery, I could afford the land and staffing necessary to make it really work.

If you've got any mental health issues where you've been thinking "I should really see someone about that...", it's a good time to call someone. By the time the year rolls over (at a minimum) you'll know whether it's benefiting you.

Oh my God no. I am under no obligation and have no "moral responsibility" to care for people who simply happen to be related to me by blood at the expense of my own well-being.

Oh gosh yes. I just got done grading a test. I was getting answers where the units would have worked out to be something like radians per inch or something. People, it is a measure of speed, this means that somehow, somewhere, one of your units should not only involve time, but should end up in the denominator. But units mean nothing -- you just plug in the numbers and then tag the units on at the end, right? (sarcasm)

Imo no. It should be covered in precalc.

Developmental math has also changed a lot over the last couple of decades. It used to be that it was designed for people who had never had the class in their life. It is now better suited for people who already saw the material, but just forgot it. Where this leaves people who genuinely never saw it, goodness only knows -- I assure you it is a personal source of profound irritation.

Yes. Yes yes. = should ONLY be used when things are actually equal. It should NOT be used to mean "and my next step is". Another example of nonsense that I see in calculus class all the time -- f(x) = x^2 = f'(x) = 2x = 0 so x = 0. What the student MEANS is: f(x) = x^2, so by differentiating, f'(x) = 2x. Setting f'(x) = 0, we get x = 0. But that is not what they wrote! This is especially confusing to students when we are attempting to apply the transitive property of equality. If a = b and b = c, then a = c. But this is not true if you use = to mean "and my next step is". So for anyone who's reading this -- stop your kids from doing this! There is a symbol that it's legal to use to mean "and my next step is", and it's a single wiggly line with an arrow leading to the right. Or you can just go to another line. You can see more info on this in the article, including the actual typeset symbol. https://math.vanderbilt.edu/schectex/commerrs/#Consciousness There's a lot more interesting info in the article I linked if you scroll to other sections.

Good on you for trying. I'm still trying to convince my college students that. Argh. Somehow they've internalized 'smart kids do it in their head'.