When it comes to driving, there are always dangers. However, adopting a few practices can help us avoid getting into accidents. As a result, here are some tips and tidbits to help improve your driving experience.
Avoid rushing. Try to make it so you don't drive recklessly by giving yourself enough time to make it to your destination. If you are stuck in traffic or something similar in nature, just explain it to your appointment. Don't do something that might cause an accident and make it so you can't make it there anyways. Also, by not rushing, you can stay awake and aware of the bad drivers who make dangerous and stupid maneuvers.
Know your Yellow Lights. From what I have seen, Yellow Lights typically stay for about one-tenth of the Speed Limit in seconds. So for a 50 MPH zone, the light will stay yellow for about 5 seconds, but don't take it for granted. Some areas do have it shorter so you should pay attention and drive through only if you believe you can make it before it turns red. This means don't try to make left turns when the light is already Yellow. It will generally be red before you even start turning. While you can make a yellow light if you are going straight, you can truly never make it while turning left.
Don't start as soon as you see Green. Part of the reason is said above. People will try to make left turns even when the light turns yellow. This means the light will turn green for you before they finish. Wait until it's clear before you start.
Change lanes safely. Don't change lanes as soon as the car passes you because they might unexpectedly slam on their breaks as you aren't looking. Don't change lanes when you just pass a car either because they might be accelerating and not notice you, especially if you are speeding at 10 MPH faster than everyone else.
Turn Red Lights into good things. If your significant other is with you, make red lights romantic. One way red lights have been less tedious for me is that it means I can get a nice hug or kiss while we are waiting. There are other things you can do too such as use them as opportunities to check your gas tank or change the radio. Just make sure you stay aware of your surroundings.
Plan your route. GPS is a great tool but people's dependency has caused them to stop planning their trips. This means these drivers don't know which lane to get into or when they need to make a turn right after making a turn. If you plan your route, you can determine the lanes you need to get into and keep you from making many dangerous maneuvers.
Look ahead. You should always pay attention to the car in front of you, but you should also take note of the car in front of that one. Whatever the next car does will generally impact the car in front of you and therefore you can anticipate what you need to do. No reason to accelerate if you know the head car is braking. Also, Red always trumps. If the light is green but the car in front is braking, then you need to brake.
Know the roads. Once I was driving and the woman behind me was being impatient going just at the speed limit. However, I feel like she didn't know the road because there is a good reason for the speed limit. Because you are going uphill, she didn't know that it becomes a steep drop all of a sudden and there is a traffic light in the middle. Until you make the last-second turn, you don't know if it's green or red. Also, if you don't press the brake, you can easily accelerate from 45 to 60 MPH. However, that isn't the only reason. There is another light at the bottom of the hill. However, even thoguh you can tell if the light is red, you cannot tell how many cars are stopped at it. There can be as many as 20 cars and you wouldn't be able to tell because of a wall that blocks the view until you make a turn. You cannot go fast than 45 MPH if you want to brake in time. If you know all of this ahead of time, then you can avoid making foolish mistakes.
Keep a safe distance. Tailgating is stupid, even more so when you are tailgating a truck. If the car has to brake all of a sudden, then you can be incredibly screwed and it's all your fault. Note that it's harder to brake when you have a bigger car than the one in front of you, meaning it is more likely to cause an accident. Also, when you do it behind a car bigger than yours, you block your view so you can miss what's happening ahead or the signs that tell you where you need to go. Besides, if you keep a good distance, even if the car ahead of you is braking for a second, you can just coast and you'll be fine. No braking necessary in so many cases if you keep the right distance. A good distance is generally 2 seconds behind the car in front. You should also be able to see the light in front of it under the car. Also, if you keep a safe distance, this allows for smooth lane changing that doesn't even affect your speed much. It's a win-win practice.
Thursday, December 18, 2014
Friday, December 5, 2014
Speed Prompt
Hi everyone,
I had the intention on writing a post on Balancing Good and Evil, but I am going to need more time to think about it. Until then, I have a prompt for you to consider. What tells your mind if you are moving fast? Is it a visual queue? For example, if trees are close together, I feel sometimes I'm moving faster even though I'm only going 40 MPH as opposed to when I'm going 60 MPH and the trees are far apart. Then again, perhaps it's because those trees might be on curve and the ones far apart are on a straight road. Maybe it's a feeling of resistance and bouncing. If you are in a car with a bad suspension and low to the ground, you might feel like you are going faster than if you were going faster in a truck with a smooth suspension. What are your thoughts?
I had the intention on writing a post on Balancing Good and Evil, but I am going to need more time to think about it. Until then, I have a prompt for you to consider. What tells your mind if you are moving fast? Is it a visual queue? For example, if trees are close together, I feel sometimes I'm moving faster even though I'm only going 40 MPH as opposed to when I'm going 60 MPH and the trees are far apart. Then again, perhaps it's because those trees might be on curve and the ones far apart are on a straight road. Maybe it's a feeling of resistance and bouncing. If you are in a car with a bad suspension and low to the ground, you might feel like you are going faster than if you were going faster in a truck with a smooth suspension. What are your thoughts?
N. D. Moharo
Monday, November 24, 2014
True Equality
Hello everyone,
Sorry for writing this late. This last week, I was watching the Legend of Korra tv series on Nick and something about the villains struck me. Each of the four villains claim "equality" as their goal in some way or shape. When things are equal, they are supposed to be in balance, which happens to be the title of the final season. So it will be interesting to see how it ends up.
Something we as a society seem to have trouble is recognizing what true equality is. Some people think they need everything someone else has. If everyone is given the same things, then everything is equal, right? Actually, no. In fact, to do so would lead to absolute inequality.
Let's consider a shopping cart. You can fill it with different combinations of different items and end up with the same total cost as someone else who is buying fewer, but more expensive items. The value of the items inside the cart are equal, but they are made up of different things. These different items could be virtues and talents. It also can be circumstances which change how we view something. A dollar given by a rich man does not carry the same meaning as a dollar given by a poor man. The value of the dollar might be the same, but the sacrifice is completely different. The latter man is the one more worthy of praise.
No matter what, we will always have different needs and circumstances. Perhaps the first place we should have looked was in the family, where we have both an idea of equality despite knowing inequality. If you have siblings, then you know you always see inequality even though the parents might see true equality. The youngest may be considered the most spoiled because of all the attention he may get, but if he's only 3 months old, then he requires the attention, while a 8-year old sister can play with her friends. Of course there will be situations that will feel unfair, but we also always tend to look at only the small details, not taking into account the larger picture, part of which is the number of siblings you have change as you gain another.
To be honest, I can't tell you if my parents have their own favorite child, because we are so different. We have different attitudes and occupations. We each our able to do different things with our parents so it's fairly difficult to compare. However, I believe that we are each loved equally because of that uniqueness. It doesn't matter if one is given more money, because it's probably because he or she needs it more, or is thought of to use it more responsibly. We are different and are given different things, but in our parents eyes, we are equally loved, and that is what matters.
Sorry for writing this late. This last week, I was watching the Legend of Korra tv series on Nick and something about the villains struck me. Each of the four villains claim "equality" as their goal in some way or shape. When things are equal, they are supposed to be in balance, which happens to be the title of the final season. So it will be interesting to see how it ends up.
Something we as a society seem to have trouble is recognizing what true equality is. Some people think they need everything someone else has. If everyone is given the same things, then everything is equal, right? Actually, no. In fact, to do so would lead to absolute inequality.
Let's consider a shopping cart. You can fill it with different combinations of different items and end up with the same total cost as someone else who is buying fewer, but more expensive items. The value of the items inside the cart are equal, but they are made up of different things. These different items could be virtues and talents. It also can be circumstances which change how we view something. A dollar given by a rich man does not carry the same meaning as a dollar given by a poor man. The value of the dollar might be the same, but the sacrifice is completely different. The latter man is the one more worthy of praise.
No matter what, we will always have different needs and circumstances. Perhaps the first place we should have looked was in the family, where we have both an idea of equality despite knowing inequality. If you have siblings, then you know you always see inequality even though the parents might see true equality. The youngest may be considered the most spoiled because of all the attention he may get, but if he's only 3 months old, then he requires the attention, while a 8-year old sister can play with her friends. Of course there will be situations that will feel unfair, but we also always tend to look at only the small details, not taking into account the larger picture, part of which is the number of siblings you have change as you gain another.
To be honest, I can't tell you if my parents have their own favorite child, because we are so different. We have different attitudes and occupations. We each our able to do different things with our parents so it's fairly difficult to compare. However, I believe that we are each loved equally because of that uniqueness. It doesn't matter if one is given more money, because it's probably because he or she needs it more, or is thought of to use it more responsibly. We are different and are given different things, but in our parents eyes, we are equally loved, and that is what matters.
With Love,
N. D. Moharo
Friday, November 7, 2014
Concerning the idea of a god
Hello all,
While I tend to avoid religious discussion, there is an idea that was floating in my head that I wished to explore. In today's world, some people try to be very tolerant of other people's beliefs. One of the results of this is the idea that there is "One God, and it's the same God for every religion." The idea that is floating in my head says, this is absolutely false.
I can tell you that the idea of "One God, and it's the same God for every religion" is one that makes it easy for Atheists. The reason is because they need only to disprove one concept of god that people believe and they win their argument. However, if you hold that everyone does not believe in the same god, then there's more work to be done.
I'll even go as far as to say that people within the same religion don't believe in the same god. If you think that a god is someone who answers your every wish, you are probably missing a lamp or that's not true. If you think that god is someone that was created and then created people and the world, then you are like the Ancient Greeks (except for some like Aristotle). If you think the idea of god is someone's body that we are currently living on, then you are like the ancient Babylonians (or playing a game called Xenoblade Chronicles). The problem is that the further into these ideas you go, you realize they are mutually exclusive of each other. To say that all of these notions of a god are the same shows that you don't have a clear understanding of what being a god means.
If you have a firm belief in what a "god" is, then you would see that the whole world does not believe in the same god. If you have a definition like, "A supernatural being from which everything was made," then that would exclude any notions that "god was created."
Part of the reason why I have been thinking about this was hearing the argument that "God, as the first mover, created everything" being countered with "well, who created God?" Such a response demands a question "Do you know anything about logic?" If the idea of a god is that it is the first mover, by the definition of first, that means there was nothing before. So to ask "who created God?" is an invalid question because it is arguing against the definition of "the first mover." If someone insists in thinking that absurd question is a valid point, there is no point in talking anymore. You can't argue with people who are illogical.
The other reason why I am writing about this is because I am wondering what exactly it means to be a god. You can't say that there is no God if you don't even understand what it means to be God. What we can do is bring up ideas of gods and then refute them one by one until we come to a clear understanding. However, I don't have the energy to do that right now so let's focus on one idea and then what it means.
Throughout history, it appears that one common idea of god is that a god does stuff for you. If you need water, you perform a ritual and rain will come. If you desire a good harvest, you sacrifice a tenth of your wheat and it will multiply. These ideas seem to be common in a lot of religions. I want to look at the idea that goes against this notion; the idea of fatherhood.
This idea is mostly popular with the rise of Christianity, though it appears some Christians think of God as someone who does your bidding if you ask. Sounds like a supernatural butler to me from which I then wonder how is that any different from magic? Of course, we have muddled our idea of what magic is, so that will have to be another topic for another time. The reason why I'm interested in the idea of God as a Father is because it goes against the idea of a glorified butler and actually looks better.
Think of it this way. Do you know of any master that truly cares about his butler? The butler is meant to serve you as the most important person. The idea that a supreme supernatural being is inferior to us is just horrifying and makes no sense. However, a father who listens to the requests of his children does make sense. There's something weird that happens when you grow up. you realize that things that used to appear so important really don't matter anymore. So what if I didn't get to sit at "my desk" in that "one class"? Does that matter now compared to "How am I going to afford to repair my car?" We consider the things that we see right now as the things that are important. As we grow older and realize there are far more important affairs, we can see farther and better organize our priorities and anticipate what is necessary. I think we can easily prove that there is no god that is just like a supernatural butler, but to disprove that there's a god who's like a father is much harder. This is because instead of saying, "right away, sir!" we might hear, "wait a second." Even then, a good father normally would look and see if the request is good for his child ad answer accordingly. A 14 year old might ask for a car, but a good father would say, "You're not ready. Wait until you are older and have experience driving." If we were to say which concept is more likely to be true, I would argue in favor of the "father."
Now there is more to discuss, but I can't think about it anymore for today. Perhaps I shall visit this topic again another time, but I will likely wait until I have a better grasp of the various ideas before doing so. Until then, I hope that you at least realize that we need to be careful about our definitions of things that we take for granted, such as the concept of a god.
Update: J. D. Nyle wrote a piece on magic a while back. Since I don't have anything to add, I'll share the link here: http://neostrikershining.blogspot.com/2015/11/magic-confusion-lotr-and-shining.html
While I tend to avoid religious discussion, there is an idea that was floating in my head that I wished to explore. In today's world, some people try to be very tolerant of other people's beliefs. One of the results of this is the idea that there is "One God, and it's the same God for every religion." The idea that is floating in my head says, this is absolutely false.
I can tell you that the idea of "One God, and it's the same God for every religion" is one that makes it easy for Atheists. The reason is because they need only to disprove one concept of god that people believe and they win their argument. However, if you hold that everyone does not believe in the same god, then there's more work to be done.
I'll even go as far as to say that people within the same religion don't believe in the same god. If you think that a god is someone who answers your every wish, you are probably missing a lamp or that's not true. If you think that god is someone that was created and then created people and the world, then you are like the Ancient Greeks (except for some like Aristotle). If you think the idea of god is someone's body that we are currently living on, then you are like the ancient Babylonians (or playing a game called Xenoblade Chronicles). The problem is that the further into these ideas you go, you realize they are mutually exclusive of each other. To say that all of these notions of a god are the same shows that you don't have a clear understanding of what being a god means.
If you have a firm belief in what a "god" is, then you would see that the whole world does not believe in the same god. If you have a definition like, "A supernatural being from which everything was made," then that would exclude any notions that "god was created."
Part of the reason why I have been thinking about this was hearing the argument that "God, as the first mover, created everything" being countered with "well, who created God?" Such a response demands a question "Do you know anything about logic?" If the idea of a god is that it is the first mover, by the definition of first, that means there was nothing before. So to ask "who created God?" is an invalid question because it is arguing against the definition of "the first mover." If someone insists in thinking that absurd question is a valid point, there is no point in talking anymore. You can't argue with people who are illogical.
The other reason why I am writing about this is because I am wondering what exactly it means to be a god. You can't say that there is no God if you don't even understand what it means to be God. What we can do is bring up ideas of gods and then refute them one by one until we come to a clear understanding. However, I don't have the energy to do that right now so let's focus on one idea and then what it means.
Throughout history, it appears that one common idea of god is that a god does stuff for you. If you need water, you perform a ritual and rain will come. If you desire a good harvest, you sacrifice a tenth of your wheat and it will multiply. These ideas seem to be common in a lot of religions. I want to look at the idea that goes against this notion; the idea of fatherhood.
This idea is mostly popular with the rise of Christianity, though it appears some Christians think of God as someone who does your bidding if you ask. Sounds like a supernatural butler to me from which I then wonder how is that any different from magic? Of course, we have muddled our idea of what magic is, so that will have to be another topic for another time. The reason why I'm interested in the idea of God as a Father is because it goes against the idea of a glorified butler and actually looks better.
Think of it this way. Do you know of any master that truly cares about his butler? The butler is meant to serve you as the most important person. The idea that a supreme supernatural being is inferior to us is just horrifying and makes no sense. However, a father who listens to the requests of his children does make sense. There's something weird that happens when you grow up. you realize that things that used to appear so important really don't matter anymore. So what if I didn't get to sit at "my desk" in that "one class"? Does that matter now compared to "How am I going to afford to repair my car?" We consider the things that we see right now as the things that are important. As we grow older and realize there are far more important affairs, we can see farther and better organize our priorities and anticipate what is necessary. I think we can easily prove that there is no god that is just like a supernatural butler, but to disprove that there's a god who's like a father is much harder. This is because instead of saying, "right away, sir!" we might hear, "wait a second." Even then, a good father normally would look and see if the request is good for his child ad answer accordingly. A 14 year old might ask for a car, but a good father would say, "You're not ready. Wait until you are older and have experience driving." If we were to say which concept is more likely to be true, I would argue in favor of the "father."
Now there is more to discuss, but I can't think about it anymore for today. Perhaps I shall visit this topic again another time, but I will likely wait until I have a better grasp of the various ideas before doing so. Until then, I hope that you at least realize that we need to be careful about our definitions of things that we take for granted, such as the concept of a god.
N. D. Moharo
Update: J. D. Nyle wrote a piece on magic a while back. Since I don't have anything to add, I'll share the link here: http://neostrikershining.blogspot.com/2015/11/magic-confusion-lotr-and-shining.html
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
ADHD and ADD: Problem or Solution?
Hi All,
I will will start off by saying that I am not a doctor and I don't know too much about the things society regards as diseases called ADHD and ADD. Part of the reason why I don't know much is because the idea of it being a "disease" troubles me deeply. If anything, it might just be because it is over-diagnosed,and perhaps that is what I am really complaining about.
Every now and then, I wonder if I have one of these "sicknesses" as I can't sit still for long and can be easily distracted. At night, I can have so many ideas racing through my head, that sleep has said goodbye for the night. Even if I sleep, I can find my sheets and pillows thrown on the ground in the morning, though luckily not every night. However, I'm one of those people who refuse to get an actual diagnosis because I don't think pills are the answer. In fact, I think there are natural solutions for the actual problems and there are a some elements that are not problems at all.
One of the reasons why parents seem to consider ADHD a disease is school. They want their kids to do well in school, and kids with ADHD have a reputation for subpar grades. To be honest, the main reason why I would see if I would be diagnosed with ADHD is to prove that reputation wrong. Despite how distracted I got, my grades were among the top of my class in both High School and College as I graduated Summa Cum Laude. This was even when I was in a mood to not care about my grades, but I still did my homework, studied, and asked questions. If I didn't understand the material, I would ask questions until it made sense logically and then I would be fine. I watched a Studio Ghibli movie the other day where a girl having trouble with fractions was asking how dividing fractions made sense. The way she said how it appeared to her was confusing even to someone who did understand fractions. The problem was that it was mixed up logically, so after I thought about it, I could give a proper explanation if asked. Sometimes, you just need to ask questions so someone can show you where you got confused.
Also, if a student isn't grasping the concept he is supposed to be learning, maybe it's because the way the teacher was teaching the class was ineffective. My Algebra teacher talking about adding One Cat and One Dog does not get you a Catdog-hybrid to explain why 1X + 1Y does not always equal XY was perfect for me. My Biology teacher's practice of pausing the video every second was very ineffective. The other alternative is that he isn't asking questions when he has them so the teacher doesn't know he has to spend time explaining the concept.
Back to the subject of school in general, it is unnatural. We talk about ADHD kids and their "disease" as if they are the ones not normal, but it's the concept of school that isn't right. One of my instructors asked a really good question to his class once. "Why is recess gone when you enter middle school? High school students need recess as much as little kids." It's true. Students need breaks where they can be freely active, not just P.E. but free. They need time to wind down and relax or space to go and play ball. Sitting at a desk for 6 hours is unnatural and unhealthy. ADHD people help bring to attention that people need to be active and to move around every few minutes. If we just sit in one unnatural position for periods of 50 minutes, then we are going to end up with backs and necks of 70 year olds by the time we're 35. It seems weird how health articles talk about how it's best to move around in the workplace, but it never mentions how it applies to school as well.
Some people think they only need medicine to fix their problems. However, I have yet to find a pill that doesn't have a side effect. The ADHD pills might actually be causing more problems in the process of "fixing" one. If one of the problems is focus, consider this, is it more productive to take on three tasks at once or to barely even do one? Someone I know with ADHD falls into the former category. He's done and learned far more than other people I know. I think ADHD actually helps in motivation. If seeing a project to the end is a problem, then that has to do with willpower and responsibility. Take care of those things and that won't be a problem anymore
As for my personal sleep problem, I've seen improvement after adopting a strategy. I try to stay off my laptop for an hour before I try to go to sleep and I try to maintain a regular sleep schedule. My time in Japan actually helped me with this as I noticed I could sleep well in I started a wind down procedure at 9 and was in bed by 10. If I missed the 10pm curfew because I was playing cards with friends, I had trouble sleeping for a long time even if I did the rest of the procedure.
What do you think? Is ADHD a real problem? I know when I was sick once, I had a horrible time trying to focus and was wondering if that is what ADHD people feel like all the time. If that is the case, then maybe medicine is best. But if the problems are the ones I normally deal with, that isn't a disease and should stop being treated as one. Personally, some of the people I know with ADHD were some of the nicest and most sociable people, and that isn't a bad thing. You know what that is also called? Sanguine. It's a temperament and completely natural as a personality type. Makes me wonder if those who labeled it as a disease were the pessimistic doctors.
N. D. Moharo
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Loss in Layers of Creation
Dear Sojourners of the Imagination,
I was thinking about my essay concerning my theory of creation and I thought about Creation Loss. This idea is that with each layer of creation, there is something missing from the previous. For our current situation, it's emotion. Think about it. Something people dislike about robots, our great form of creation, is the lack of humanity in them. They don't have emotion or feelings. In some regards, that's perfect, but not for some duties. The lack of humanity can make dealing with robots a chore and a hassle. The prime example of this is the automated recordings on the phone. I absolutely hate those things that tell you "Press # for ____." To make it worse, the options given don't correctly correspond with the reason you are calling. Just to make even worse, they hide the "Talk with a human" so well that you give up in frustration doing so. Some reasons for this is to increase efficiency but it feels more like so they don't have to pay good customer service employees. Alas, good customer service is something that should be highly valued by corporations that want a relationship with its customers.
Anyways, if, let's say, "humanity" is loss when we create something, what would be the reverse? If we were created, we probably loss something as well. If that were the case, I think it'd be what we refer to as "Divinity." What does "Divinity" mean? I actually can't say for certain at the moment. My guess it has something to do with all of the virtues a man can have. Virtues are the great habits we form that mark our character as good. Perhaps "Divinity" is the "perfection of good with no evil." Sure this would be the result of Judeo-Christian ideals, but perhaps that's the truth, or at least the one that makes the distinction in my head. This is because we can technically replicate with our own nature other things we associate with the Divine thanks to computers or the imagination. The only thing we cannot inherently do now is Perfect Goodness. We don't have a Perfect Morality. We are exactly like the Greek gods... flawed. So this is why I believe that Perfect Morality and goodness is what we loss. We can strive to obtain it, and perhaps robots will strive to learn emotion, can we ever reach that goal? Your faith might say it's possible, but that's a different subject.
I was thinking about my essay concerning my theory of creation and I thought about Creation Loss. This idea is that with each layer of creation, there is something missing from the previous. For our current situation, it's emotion. Think about it. Something people dislike about robots, our great form of creation, is the lack of humanity in them. They don't have emotion or feelings. In some regards, that's perfect, but not for some duties. The lack of humanity can make dealing with robots a chore and a hassle. The prime example of this is the automated recordings on the phone. I absolutely hate those things that tell you "Press # for ____." To make it worse, the options given don't correctly correspond with the reason you are calling. Just to make even worse, they hide the "Talk with a human" so well that you give up in frustration doing so. Some reasons for this is to increase efficiency but it feels more like so they don't have to pay good customer service employees. Alas, good customer service is something that should be highly valued by corporations that want a relationship with its customers.
Anyways, if, let's say, "humanity" is loss when we create something, what would be the reverse? If we were created, we probably loss something as well. If that were the case, I think it'd be what we refer to as "Divinity." What does "Divinity" mean? I actually can't say for certain at the moment. My guess it has something to do with all of the virtues a man can have. Virtues are the great habits we form that mark our character as good. Perhaps "Divinity" is the "perfection of good with no evil." Sure this would be the result of Judeo-Christian ideals, but perhaps that's the truth, or at least the one that makes the distinction in my head. This is because we can technically replicate with our own nature other things we associate with the Divine thanks to computers or the imagination. The only thing we cannot inherently do now is Perfect Goodness. We don't have a Perfect Morality. We are exactly like the Greek gods... flawed. So this is why I believe that Perfect Morality and goodness is what we loss. We can strive to obtain it, and perhaps robots will strive to learn emotion, can we ever reach that goal? Your faith might say it's possible, but that's a different subject.
From your Fellow Creator,
N. D. Moharo
P.S. What do you think would be the next layer in loss? If we lost Perfect Morality, and Robots lose Humanity, perhaps the ability to create? I'd like to hear your opinions
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Ponderings: Bed Firmness
I don't have any letters to write for today, so instead I'm just going to ponder. A while back, I checked out some mattresses with my lovely significant other. After all, when we decide to get married, it's important to get a bed we both can be comfortable in. Curious how different our tastes are, we went to the SleepNumber store and got our "sleep numbers." Hers was higher than mine. I wonder if that's normal. Then I remembered how she commented how she liked my firm structure and I said I preferred her being soft. I wonder if the degree of softness in a bed is related to the firmness of the body someone likes. Of course, asking different people about their physical preferences and beds is improper so I have not been able to do more than ponder. To be honest, I think it was more of a coincidence, but it would be interesting if these two things were related. Tell me if you found this to be the case as well.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)