nerdgirl

If we're invoking fiction, I'd recommend the MacGyver response scenario. Something much cleverer that worked perfectly and harm no one improvised from materials on the scene. But what if Tom doesn't chew bubble gum? He's a BASE jumper - I'm confident he can improvise. Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If we're invoking fiction, I'd recommend the MacGyver response scenario. Something much cleverer that worked perfectly and harm no one improvised from materials on the scene. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for putting the link there. I hadn't been to the FSM site for a while. Was impressed to see how far they've come along with the Kiva project. ([Nightingale] posted about Kiva a couple years ago.) Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Most heartily concur! Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

While I suspect other could be cited, two indicators of which I am aware: Mortgage rates are rising again from the 50 year lows earlier this spring. (At one point 30-yr fixed rates were even lower than it that story. ) & First housing price gain since July 2006. It’s small (0.5%) and there are lots of reasons why. They're both still short term indicators. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

By serendipity … or probably because your response had prompted be to pay more attention while I was listening to my iPod on the elliptical this morning -[at the irony] … there was a story on NPR “Obesity's Health Costs Grow Heavier: CDC” on the latest of what you accurately noted are many studies documenting the increasing annual cost of healthcare related to obesity. On Monday , a new study was released (primary data) “Annual Medical Spending Attributable To Obesity: Payer- And Service-Specific Estimates,” which provides further data on the increasing annual cost of obesity related health care. “Our overall estimates show that the annual medical burden of obesity has risen to almost 10 percent of all medical spending and could amount to $147 billion per year in 2008. Other studies have also quantified the extent to which obesity influences aggregate health spending. For example, Kenneth Thorpe and colleagues found that obesity was responsible for 27 percent of the rise in inflation-adjusted health spending between 1987 and 2001. “We present nationally representative estimates of per capita and aggregate costs of obesity for all payers and separately for Medicare, Medicaid, and private insurers. We present these costs in total and separately for inpatient, noninpatient, and prescription drug spending--which was not possible at the time the previous papers were written. This additional detail helps specify the drivers of the costs of obesity. Our research shows that obese beneficiaries, on average, cost Medicare over $600 per beneficiary per year more compared to normal-weight beneficiaries. Finally, we estimate the extent to which rising prevalence of obesity is responsible for the increase in obesity costs that occurred between 1998 and 2006.” The authors' results clearly show that healthcare costs associated with obesity are a significant contributor to increased annual costs. They’re still looking at it as an annual cost and not taking into consideration earlier statistical death that avoid the long-term costs of caring for ‘healthy’ old people. I think they need to amortize over the expected lifetime. An even more sophisticated analysis would combine the Dutch researchers data with this new data looking at trends in obesity. At some point, if the percent obese population (w/associated earlier statistical death but lower overall cost) continues to increase will it, just by magnitude, cost more than “healthy” population (w/later statistical death but higher overall cost)? (Does that make sense?) When do the shorter term costs cost more than longer term costs or those that are only incurred if one lives long enough. I.e., where do the lines cross? One of the main conclusions the authors main conclusions about which I have questions is: “Across all payers, we estimate that had obesity prevalence remained at 1998 levels, spending attributable to obesity would have been $47 billion in 2006 rather than $86 billion (based on MEPS spending data). This implies that the rise in obesity prevalence accounted for 89 percent of the increase in obesity spending that occurred during this period.” E.g., data in Figure 4. It isn’t apparent to me in the methodology whether the authors accounted for the significant increases in spending per incident when they estimated the increased cost from 1998 to 2006. The earlier HA article noted that “70 percent of the rise in medical care spending between 1987 and 2000” was due to “rise in the cost per treated heart disease case.” Is that trend continuing and how is/was it factored into the more recent study? It does not appear that they factored in the increased cost per incident to get the 89% value. I emailed the corresponding author asking him. Will let you know what I hear back. Maybe they did account for it? I did note one comment already on the HA site that speaks directly to policy: “Reforming payment mechanisms to encourage clinicians to make more focused efforts to educate patients about obesity -- both prevention and treatment -- will be the first step. Unfortunately, Medicare and private payers would rather pay for bariatric surgery than for effective (time-consuming) management of nutritional and lifestyle changes. This effort makes ‘cutting the fat out’ a literal phrase in the process of reducing health care inflation.” Does current policy prioritize “quick fix” treatment options (bariatric surgery) over other treatment options? That's what the MD comments suggest. Which costs more? Which has a higher profit margin for insurers? Which is more effective? (I don’t know.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If you can find something like that I’d be curious to see the methodology. One can find lots of studies that compare single years or costs with things associated with being fat, e.g., the costs of Type 2 diabetes. Something like comparing the cost of prostate cancer or cervical between two groups: men and women; one incurs a higher cost in each category. And in each category one sex incurs a much lower cost. But in each case, one is going to have an advantage or disadvantage over the other. The Dutch researchers acknowledged that what they expected to find initially was something like what you described. And that’s part of what makes it such a notable finding, imo, that it challenges the dominant perception with data. If “this” is cost of health care, I agree. At least some significant components of the rising costs of health care aren’t necessarily coming from “sinful behavior” tho. And I'm not enough of a health care policy wonk to know which is the biggest contributor. “In eight of the top fifteen conditions [by cost not by incidence], a rise in the cost per treated case, not rising numbers of cases treated, accounted for most of the growth in spending. For instance, the treated prevalence of heart disease remained constant between 1987 and 2000. Thus, a rise in the cost per treated heart disease case accounted for nearly 70 percent of the rise in medical care spending between 1987 and 2000.” Why did care cost more per incidence? (I don’t know … I can speculate … but don’t know.) The 6 mostly costly conditions are heart disease, pulmonary issues [asthma, etc], mental health conditions, cancer, hypertension, and trauma; see data table 2. At least 2 have clear "lifestyle" connections, but not in all cases as the Jim Fixx case illustrates. (Recognize that is not the norm.) If current expectations of care continue with the aging of the population (read: baby boomers), even among the healthiest of them, eventually hard choices are going to have to be made. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

We weren't required to recite the Pledge beyond elementary school, as I recall. That was in a small town in the midwest more than 15 years ago. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Interesting thought. But I wonder if it discredits the males that have chosen that field. Unless you're suggesting that teaching is somehow a "lower" career (?), it doesn't. I don't think that. And just to be explicit: it also doesn't discredit the women who have chosen that field because they really want to be teach. I wasn't in any way stating it was a "lower" career. I was just wondering if your theory did a disservice to the males in the career by saying now that the "best and brightest women" are gone that the quality has declined. Not that your theory might not have merit... but just wondering about the implications of that statement. As I explicitly noted, it's a hypothesis not a theory. There's everything right with asking the question of how does that hypothesis account for the role of male teachers. (And the role of the "best and brightest" women who elect to pursue teaching too.) You made/implied the assumption about "discrediting" one group or another. Which would suggest that one likely already had men who chose teaching as a profession out of a wider pool of possible opportunities rather than a narrower range of choices. What has been observed is a among the already low numbers of male teachers is a decreasing number of men entering teaching: "The number of male teachers in the United States is at a 40-year low. Out of the 3 million teachers in the United States, only one-quarter are men, according the National Education Association." And this would imply that not only have women left the field, but both sexes have chosen other careers. In that case, it would be very challenging to determine whether the loss of the females or the males were the significant variable in the decline. True to some extent - that what are the independent and dependent variables are not known, hence why it's a hypothesis. Also can't necessarily apply same cause or effect. As [Andy9o8] explained magnitude of effect matters. I.e., one also would need to factor the significance of the change. If a pool of 10 previous high quality candidates was reduced to 9 that magnitude of that effect is likely to be less than if the a pool of 40 is reduced to 4. 10:40 ratio reflecting the average ratio of male to female teachers. 10% reflecting the reduced number of male teachers as an overall percent. And 90% of women choosing other careers as a back of the envelope calculation of alternative career path for women. (Suspect it's actually higher than that.) Although the reasons for decline are not necessarily the same. Particularly given prior tacit limitations on one sex w/r/t choice of careers versus the other. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Interesting thought. But I wonder if it discredits the males that have chosen that field. Unless you're suggesting that teaching is somehow a "lower" career (?), it doesn't. I don't think that. And just to be explicit: it also doesn't discredit the women who have chosen that field because they really want to be teach. Which would suggest that one likely already had men who chose teaching as a profession out of a wider pool of possible opportunities rather than a narrower range of choices. What has been observed is a among the already low numbers of male teachers is a decreasing number of men entering teaching: "The number of male teachers in the United States is at a 40-year low. Out of the 3 million teachers in the United States, only one-quarter are men, according the National Education Association." /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

How did you measure that? Now since you’re (assumedly) happily married to a physician, it’s completely understandable & probably a sign of a good relationship that you might be subjectively influenced. That’s not necessarily a bad thing; it’s just an understandably not completely objective standard. Otoh, imagine if [kallend] had written physics professors (or professors of any kind) are the best & brightest. Or [billvon] had written MIT engineers are the best & brightest. I strongly suspect they would have been challenged readily, on an understandably not completely objective standard (*caveat, unless they provide some metric on which to make that assertion.) The one that I find interesting, for all kinds of reasons, who use “the best and brightest” meme – & some really seem to believe it – is the CIA, especially in hiring and recruitment, which im-very-ho, has on occasions led to pernicious isolated ‘group think.’ My point isn’t that physicians aren’t smart and hardworking. It’s more an observation of how this one category seems to get an exception or pass when a more frequent criticism that I observe in this forum is more akin to criticizing anyone who pursues higher degree, e.g., “I'm an alumnus of Life U - I escaped the brainwashing 'societal indoctrination' early.” Why is there an exception for physicians to the anti-higher degree/anti-education behavior? For you, it’s commendable, imo, that you effectively defend your wife. For [kbordson], it is her chosen profession. Last week, the National Association of Colleges and Employers released its “2009 Salary Survey, which details the Top 10 starting salaries by degrees. At the top: petroleum engineering. Next chemical engineering. Have to get to #5 to find one that isn’t an engineering field – computer science. Only 3 of the top 15 were non-engineering degrees. Depending on how one measures “brightest,” choosing to pursue a degree that one can earn in 4 years without student loans in some/many cases, might be a candidate for “bright” choice based on some folks’ metrics, i.e., readily earning cash. Physicians have traditionally ranked very high or at the very top of polls of most-respected careers. Along with firefighters, nurses, teachers, religious leaders, scientists, and members of the uniformed service. One might speculate that at some level, there is a great deal of respect for those who commit to serving others, in various forms … even if monetary reward does not necessarily correlate with general perceptions of respect. And if the goal is a "better" society, shouldn't childcare workers be getting paid *a lot* more? After all they take care of the future of society. (And selfishly, I like my job much better, wouldn't want to work with kids under 10 all day for almost any amount of money.) One of my personal hypotheses -- pure speculation -- is that part of the reason for the apparent decline in public education is that many of the 'best and brightest' women who used to have very few choices for careers (nurse, secretary, teacher) now become doctors, lawyers, etc. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Binding?! Are you kidding? No. It becomes binding when national implementing legislation is passed by the US Senate or corresponding body in other nation-states. For the UN Dec of Human Rights, that occurred principally when the US ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in 1992. In 1977, the US signed other main protocol underlying the UN Dec of Human Rights - the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights but has not ratified it. 160 other nation-states have. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

DSE brought up, however inadvertently perhaps, another intersection of technology and ownership of ideas (w/ref to [kallend]’s making available the 45-sec rule briefing he developed, arguably his intellectual property). In the fast changing world of social networking via ICTs, what constitutes plagiarism? Is stealing 140 characters from someone else and repeating those verbatim without credit on your Twitter feed plagiarism? Is 140 characters intellectual property? A friend of mine recently wrote a short piece on the subject, “Bantamweight Publishing in an Easily Plagiarised World,” in which he calls it a “lawless frontier territory.” /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Actually, higher obesity rate & smoking rate should correlate with *decreased* cost overall. Sounds counter-intuitive at first, eh? Healthy (non-smoking, non-obese) people cost more over a lifetime. Perhaps not per year … but they live longer and the amassed cost of living longer and diseases of old age make them cost more, e.g., 10 years at $5K is still less than 14 years at $1K + 1 year at $50K. Health care costs increase as one get older. If you die young, one avoids long-term care (that costs more) and diseases of old age, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, etc. Primary Data “Lifetime Medical Costs of Obesity: Prevention No Cure for Increasing Health Expenditure” “The obese cohort has the highest health-care costs for diabetes and musculoskeletal diseases compared to the other cohorts. Lifetime costs for cancers other than lung cancer are equal for all cohorts. Despite differences in life expectancy, the costs for stroke are similar for all cohorts. The most pronounced difference in costs occurs in the category ‘costs of other diseases,’ which is purely the result of different life expectancies. “Despite the higher annual costs of the obese and smoking cohorts, the healthy-living cohort incurs highest lifetime costs, due to its higher life expectancy, as shown in Table 1 (attached). Furthermore, the greatest differences in health-care costs are not caused by smoking- and obesity-related diseases, but by the other, unrelated, diseases that occur as life-years are gained. Therefore, successful prevention of obesity and smoking would result in lower health-care costs in the short run (assuming no costs of prevention), but in the long run they would result in higher costs.” Secondary accounts, Science Daily “Lifetime Medical Costs Of Obese People Actually Lower Than Costs For Healthy And Fit, Mathematical Model Shows NPR “Study: Healthy People Cost Governments More” MSNBC “Actually, it's a long, healthy life that costs more” The model is purely monetary driven and does not make attempts to value quality of life or opportunity costs either from longer, healthier years, on public health concerns, or from quality medical care. Nonetheless, it does suggest that the perceived correlation between "sinful" activities and healthcare cost needs more examination. And while I agree that some "sinful" activties certainly suggest variables worth investigating, a limited set (there are others beside smoking and obesity, those two just seem to be fixated on, imo) of behavioral traits do not appear to be the (an?) independent variable in determining healthcare costs. [semi-facetious/farcical] Us non-smoking, healthy-eaters -- & vegetarians are worse , stair-climbers, should get down off our high-horses … because on average we’re going to cost the healthcare system more in the long run. The most personally responsible thing to do is to die at age 65. (Logan’s Run anyone?) [/semi-facetious/farcical] Now am I going to start smoking, stop eating healthy, and stop climbing stairs? No. I like having a resting heart rate in the 50s (albeit upper 50s). When I had more free time and was running a lot more I tried to get it down to the 40s (never made it). I’m going to maintain those behavioral choices not because I irresponsibly want to cost more in healthcare (statistically) but because, admittedly quite selfishly, I like climbing mountains and trekking to really big ones in other countries. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Why not? Perhaps ironically, health care. She wants to get married sooner. They've both got good health care, but she's quitting her job to move where he's stationed. The options in her field are limited there. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I like that idea. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I’m confused. Camp Victory … or “Campus Victory” … is where Al Faw Palace is, which is MNF-I headquarters. The CG in 2005 was LTG Vines, iirc. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for chiming in. I know you know more than most and possbly anyone on this board on idiosyncrasies, realities, and underlying arguments of copyright. Most of us think of a Kindle like a physical book (to some degree) because we're getting same/similar information and parts of it "feel" like the same process. It's sold as a replacement for books. You're reading the same thing you might read in a book. It's not a book tho.' As you point out, even with books there are limits on what an individual can do with the ideas contained therein, e.g., fair use copyright laws. Realistically, a bricks & mortar book seller (in the US/Western Europe, CAN/AUS/NZ) is unlikely to sell home-bound copies of something that was copied on a Xerox machine. If they did, the liklihood of anyone coming after a customer's purchase is low. But that's what was done w/the Kindle version of _1984_. That's a fair point. Agree. It really surprised me how un-tech savvy their actions were. If they had done something like you suggested, I bet we never would have heard of the case. Apology from Amazon.com's CEO. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Concur on the irony. You've identified a potential with huge implications. Throughout human history, folks have tried to change the record or alter it to reflect what they want/their intentions. The question, imo, is there something inherent in electronic data that makes that easier to do and harder to detect. How does one validate/verify what was the "original"? For example, how about the implications for electronic voting and fraud? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That game looks cool to me. I’m the first to admit that I don’t know a lot about online gaming. That’s a first, yes? I thought that one could sell stuff in Second Life. Or is it the potential magnitude that is new? I remember reading a while back on the idea of making money/earning living through Second Life. Not the same article but this one from early 2007 noted that the founder of Second Life “estimated that 17000 residents had positive cash flow in Linden dollars, with about 450 generating monthly income in excess of $1000” (real dollars). Iirc, the bottom-line *then* was that it was low return and very hard to do … at that time. The intersection of real estate speculation in Project Entropia makes me wonder if 100 years from now (or less), will there be a virtual mortgage crisis? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

I’m curious: what other examples you see of this over the last 30 years or so? Not saying there are or aren’t, just curious what you see as being other examples. I hadn’t thought of it that way. Am tempted to invoke a new version of a popular aphorism: they’ll take my books when they pry them out of my cold dead hands. There is also the issue of preserving records. While paper is not forever, it is less problematic to archive than electronic records, which may or may not be in a currently readable form, e.g., remember the Millennium Bug search for programmers who knew COBOL? Among the complaints about PowerPoint, it doesn’t enable preservation details of the how a decision-making process is made that typically are found in briefing papers or information memos/appendices. I moved recently and while I don’t have any of the 8” floppy disk, I do/did still have 3.5” disks (most of which I just tossed) and Jaz disks. At the time, those were fabulous for what I was doing (working with relatively large data sets). None of my current computers has built-in drives to read those. There’s a lot of data on the Jaz disks. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Earlier this week, Amazon.com remotely deleted copies of George Orwell’s _1984_ and _Animal Farm_ – delicious irony, eh? – from the Kindle electronic readers of folks who had downloaded the electronic version of the texts. Fox News article on the incident. Now did Amazon do anything illegal? No. Amazon was prompted to remove the two texts out of concern regarding what appears to be clear violation of copyright laws in the distribution of the texts. There is nothing to suggest that what they did was illegal. Yes, clearly it was within Amazon’s rights to do it, and the company has a responsibility to protect itself from potential litigation. A lot (?), some (?), most (?), a few(?) folks don’t realize than when one purchases an ebook, you don’t really own the file. You buy the rights to access electronic data not ownership of that data. Code is loaded onto your device. Amazon retains substantial control over content on the physical Kindle you purchase – it’s all in the terms and conditions to which one agrees. Was the legal decision poorly executed from a marketing/PR perspective on Amazon.com’s part? Yes. Essentially they deleted the files remotely in the dark of the night without any announcement. Still not illegal … less than brilliant move from a public relation’s view, yep. If Amazon.com’s actions were normatively wrong (as separate from legally wrong) or what it might mean potentially is less clear to me. And the latter is most interesting, im-ever-ho. Interesting, again im-ever-ho, quotes from an Op-Ed in the Christian Science Monitor “Kindle e-reader: A Trojan horse for free thought” on the incident: Thinking historically about the role of literature: books, pamphlets, and other written material to communicate ideas, there have been a lot of ideas communicated that a lot of people in power didn’t want communicated. From Federalist papers and Paine’s “Common Sense” pamphlets (one might call them the works of the “American Liberation Organization”, the ALO ) to Vaclev’s Havel’s plays that challenged communist rule and wrongs in then-Czechoslovakia to the Pentagon Papers. This comes in the wake of the much heralded use of Twitter in conjunction with the recent protests of apparent voter fraud in Iran (or perhaps over-hyped) as an example of the power of new information and communications technology (ICT) to empower civil society, democracy, and transparency. The Kindle incident shows, first that ICT is a dual-use technology. It can be used for good and has the *potential* to do be used for harm and to restrict freedom. Intent is critical. (And to be explicit, I’m not saying that what Amazon did was wrong but it shows the potential; I’m also not explicitly saying that while clearly legal, that it was right. Right and wrong are normatives.) The comparison with Twitter in Iran also makes me cognizant of the need to not over-hype or over-react to single incidents … but to be aware. Another quote from the CSM Op-Ed: Do you agree? Is it something you worry about or not even on your metaphorical radar? One of the revolutionary ideas of liberalism (the classical version) was the notion of private property. That stuff, including but not limited to land, could belong to common people and not be subject to seizure by the ruler (usually monarch) or less often, the Church. Owning ideas is not the same as physical property, but I do think that technology is further enabling blurring of what previously were clear cut demarcations. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

You need to be more specific than that for it to have REAL meaning. 12212012 is so blase. But if you begin the party at 21:02, then you get . . . 210212212012. Now THAT means something! A computer-geek friend of mine wants to get married on 101010. His fiancé is less enthusiastic about the idea. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Existentialism doesn't necessarily deny physical reality as far as I am aware. It's applying the philosophical method to the appropriate realm, imo. I think the works of Heidegger, Barthes, Sartre, etc are _really_ interesting. What you've described sounds more like post-modern deconstructionism to me. Honestly, I'm not really sure what [chasteh]'s argument is. I can ask questions but I don't seem to be communicating well to get responses that illuminate that argument. Post-modern deconstructionalism (part of literary theory) was popular in the 1980s and 1990s. It challenged the objectivity of *everything.* Eventually these folks invoked superficial notions on quantum mechanics, chaos theory, and string theory. And they started pontificating (intentional choice of word with religious connotation) about the ‘subjectivity’ of science. Again, one can find examples (too many im-ever-ho) of the intentional mis-use of science for profit, greed, or harm … but that’s the humans not the science. The ‘subjectivity of science’ argument exploded (metaphorically) when an intentionally farcical article, "Transgressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity," by a well-regarded, award-winning physicist, Prof Alan D. Sokol (NYU), was published in the leading cultural studies journal with such absurdities such as "pi is an integer.” I heartily agree, which is not in any apparent conflict to me with existentialism, that one cannot approach human interactions as one approaches a scientific inquiry. And I wouldn’t want to either. Whereas there’s a tremendous amount of science behind aircraft engineering, atmospheric fluid dynamics, and canopy design, what compels one to skydive does not need to be within the realm of science. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

If I was to choose one person who I’ve ‘met’ through dz.com who has inspired me to be better in things I do professionally, I’d say it was Keith [BIGUN]. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying