"Cilvēkiem ir bail kļūdīties, tāpēc viņi turpina mīcīties pa tām pašām kļūdām."

Atrasts 1 rezultāts pieprasījumam "burpee"
LV vingrinājums: no stājas balsts tupus - balsts guļus - balsts tupus - s.st. (sar.)
RU разг. упор присев - упор лёжа - упор присев - встать
EN burpee

Vingrošanas vārdnīca. R.: Latvijas Sporta pedagoģijas akadēmija, 2004.
--------------------

tupguļtups!!!

"Novecošanas alternatīva ir nevis mūžīga jaunība, bet gan agrīna nāve." (E.Lukasa)

Dienas atklājums
https://youtu.be/gw2nclcoFNE

"Consider more closely the puddle’s reasoning. Let’s name our puddle Doug. He has noticed a precise match between two things: 1) his shape and 2) the shape of the hole in which he lives. Doug is amazed! What Doug doesn’t know is that, given A) the fluidity of water, B) the solidity of the hole, and C) the constant downward force of gravity, he will always take the same shape as his hole. If the hole had been different, his shape would adjust to match it. Any hole will do for a puddle. This is precisely where the analogy fails: any universe will not do for life. Life is not a fluid. It will not adjust to any old universe. There could have been a completely dead universe: perhaps one that lasts for 1 second before recollapsing or is so sparse that no two particles ever interact in the entire history of the universe. Think about the real explanation to Doug’s observation: A (fluid water) + B (solid hole) + C (gravity). If the puddle analogy applies to fine-tuning, what corresponds to A+B+C? What explains the match between what our universe does and what life requires? The puddle analogy doesn’t say. Invoking the puddle against fine-tuning is essentially saying “perhaps a solution exists.” Well, OK, sure, thanks for that, but what could that solution be?" (and ain't it interesting - without the hole there would be no Doug the puddle. A hole itself is a formation with specific parameters. Even if life was fluid, it still does need a hole, not a hill or a plato (and all three of them can be made of the same materials), to exist.

"When you tolerate something, you agree to respectfully endure something you don’t believe or like. It means to recognize and respect another’s beliefs and practices without agreeing with them. You don’t tolerate things you agree with. You don’t tolerate things you approve of. You can only truly tolerate something you do not support."
https://www.str.org/w/tolerance-turned-upside-down?utm_source=pocket_mylist&fbclid=IwAR2owiaSPffi0N_WIdGTAQV6NNWbp0ewPKXPS2MU_rsbKWN6sVkLEm_y-2Q

"Despite a century of conservation science, advocacy and education, extinction rates and habitat loss have increased greatly. Current extinction rates are about 1,000 times higher than estimated background rates,[6] leading some scientists to speak of ‘defaunation’[7] caused by humanity’s impact within a new geological era labelled the ‘anthropocene’.[8]

At the heart of the crisis within biodiversity conservation is a simple question which divides the global conservation movement: What gives nature its value? Is conservation’s raison d’être purely instrumental, preserving habitats and species because of the ‘ecosystem services’[9] they provide for human thriving, or can we speak of intrinsic or inherent values within species and ecosystems and, if so, on what are these values based?"