I’ve trained my arms for 3 days in a row, nothing fancy: upright rows, bent-over rows and triceps kickbacks, 10 repetitions each, 2 rounds. After that I’m so sore I cannot do more, so I turn to cardio and do planks (front and side) and some yoga.

Really recommend finding a workout split. I do push, pull, legs x2 and an hour on the stationary bike on Sundays. Monday is push, so my chest, tris, and shoulders are all hit. Then they’re rested the next two days when I get back to push. You could do also do a bro split or just find something that works best for you. The important part is that you’re giving your muscles time to rest between sessions.

On that note, the most effective way to gain muscle is to be in a calorie surplus, train to failure, and progressive overload (and steroids). So make sure you’re gaining weight (slowly, don’t just start bingeing cake). Push your sets to the point where you can no longer keep form. Try to lift more than you did last time (either more reps or more weight).

Don’t skip legs. I don’t mean cardio, do some actual resistance work on your legs or prepare to find yourself top heavy. “Skipping leg day” is a meme for a reason.

What exactly do you think my thesis is?

What exactly do you think “support” entails?

It’s clear you lost the plot on the first question ages ago and you have a child’s perspective on the second.

Geoffrey Farrow at Raphael, a jeweller on the other side of the street, can only just bring himself to sell lab-grown diamonds. “They are synthetic,” he said. “Lab-grown sounds exotic, but it’s created – they make it by the buckets. There’s no history to it. The price is going to go down further and further.

“It makes the stone that much cheaper, and people have the illusion that being big is something special. It’s not. It’s quality that you want.”

What the actual fuck is he talking about? Is it the suffering that gives it quality? They’re impossible to tell apart without a magnifying glass.

There haven’t been any new arguments for a while. You repeat the same junk about how you’re a victim because you’re not able to access the IRS in the fashion you zealously demand. You continue to be hilariously upset about getting called out on basic definitions. And you continue to talk about classes and school. I’m 100% certain you’re a child. Maybe fresh out of college.

Grow up.

You keep beating on this phrase because your zealotry has pushed you to a singular idea of what “support” means. Another word you might consider looking up in the dictionary.

They don’t support tor. They aren’t obligated to, morally nor legally. Any argument that they are is founded on zealotry and ignorance. If you feel undignified or a lack of respect because you can’t use your favorite browser, then you’re an idiot.

I don’t think anyone is embarrassed to be not supporting tor, bud. What’s embarrassing is throwing a fit about it, misunderstanding basic English, tossing out trash analogies, attacking strawmen, and being a massive whiner because you can’t use your protocol of choice.

Saying “whoosh” doesn’t make your analogy any less shitty. Further, explaining how your analogy was inaccurate just proves the point.

There is no moral obligation to support tor. I get it. You’re a zealot. Nobody gives a shit. Sucks to fall hard on a niche utility. Grow up and move on.

You are neither legally owed nor morally owed tor access.

Not supporting tor does not indicate a security fault.

The McDonald’s analogy doesn’t apply to the context of this discussion. You’re morally outraged that McDonald’s doesn’t provide plastic straws. Instead of using the straws provided, not using a straw, or bringing your own plastic straws, you’re yelling that they’re poisoning the drinks.

There are other ways to handle your taxes, if you find them lousy or undignified, that’s a real bummer for you.

Your opinions on security are worthless. You are clearly an uninformed zealot.

You keep trying to pull this down to semantics because you don’t have a leg to stand on. Nobody owes you tor access. Nobody is obligated to allow tor access.

You have options, you’re just refusing to use them, probably because you just picked up using tor for the first time out of high school and, like all young idealists, took a hard line on it. Grow up.

Really recommend you go look at a dictionary, thesaurus, and some introductory material on security.

You’ve already been told that you can’t dress up a deliberate act of sabatage as merely “neglecting to support”.

You’re trying to turn this into semantics. They don’t support tor. That’s a factual statement.

I presented my own argument, not yours.

You presented a strawman and attacked that strawman.

Both scenarios block an arbitrary group

Blocking tor is not the same as blocking random IP addresses. There’s really no point in pressing with this analogy.

While claiming that anonymity is non-existent

Did I make that claim? I recall saying tor doesn’t provide you with perfect anonymity. Another factual statement.

Yes

Cool, so use a VPN.

“Owing” is /not/ a drop-in replacement for “obligation”.

It’s a synonym. Maybe you should look up synonym while you’re at it. The IRS is not obligated to support tor and they do not owe you that support.

Context is important.

It is important. Which is why claiming there’s a security issue because they don’t support tor is silly. Just don’t use tor. The website also doesn’t support the entire demographic of people who don’t use tech at all, like the Amish. No reasonable person would say that’s a security issue.

THAT’s incorrect.

No, it’s absolutely correct. You can continue to whine that they don’t support your particular use case, but that’s your problem. The documents and services are all available right now for all Americans. You insisting on using your niche protocol is nobody’s problem but your own.

You can also /randomly/ block large swaths of people arbitrarily and with the same mentality claim “better security” because you think a baddy likely got blocked, a claim that inherently requires disregarding availability as a security factor.

This is a stawman. Tor is notorious for bad actors. Not even remotely the same as blocking addresses at random.

Infosec, comp sci, and all tech disciplines cover most diligently principles and theory which are resilient over decades, not tool-specific disposable knowledge.

You really need to go back to school. No principle and no theory in infosec requires every protocol be available in order to achieve “availability”. All of these fields are relatively new and still evolving.

Perfection is never on the table in the infosec practice.

Indeed, that’s what I was saying.

But Tor most certainly provides anonymity in the face of countless threat agents, among other features.

So does a VPN, you twit.

“Owes” implies a debt. I never spoke of owing or debts. The IRS has an obligation to inform the public.

English your second language? It’s fine if it is, just know that “debt” and “obligation” are synonyms.

When they exclude demographics of people from their service (in particular people who funded them), it’s an infosec failure and an injustice.

Anything to be a victim. Grow up. Nobody owes you tor access.

It’s a red herring.

It’s really not. You’ve been asserting that there’s somehow a lack of security because they don’t support tor because that means they’re failing on the “availability” point of the CIA triad. That’s incorrect.

The scope is the American taxpayer.

This is also incorrect. The scope is the American taxpayer who is able and willing to utilize the website. You are either unable or unwilling. You are not in the scope. You absolutely can block entire swaths of address ranges and, in fact, have better security because you did so.

My infosec MS came decades ago.

A lot has changed from decades ago, you might consider going back to school.

That’s not anonymous.

Neither is tor. And even if tor did provide perfect anonymity, tough shit. You are again just whining. Nobody owes you the ability to “anonymously” download tax material at your preferred comfort level of anonymity.

Indeed, it is not binary. I’m glad you can see that now. Availability has scope, and for the IRS, tor is not in that scope. This is not a security issue. Continue to scream into the void about how literally any impediment to every form is access is a security issue, but that’s not how any of this works. Given you seem to keep bringing up course work and professors and this naive view of security, I’m assuming you’re a student. Keep studying.

That’s not an option.

It is an option. Saying “nuh uh” doesn’t make it not an option.

This does not compensate or serve as an excuse for incompetent security.

This serves as availability. You have TLS, postage, and physical locations you can utilize. You are just whining. Your refusal to use any of the plethora of means available to you has no relation to the competency of the IRS’ security. Grow up.

I’ve read what you wrote, but you are refusing to acknowledge reality. Availability does not even remotely mean what you are stating. You might reconsider taking infosec 101.

If the Tor network has no access, then they have no availability.

Then there is no service that has any availability and all meaning is stripped from the word.

The website is not just for transmitting tax declarations.

Indeed, and if TLS isn’t sufficient for you then by all means, use the postal service. Hell, you could even go to your local IRS location.

No, you have full access. You can go utilize 100% of the functionality of the site. Again, you are misrepresenting what availability is in the CIA triad. It does not mean all feasible ways and means of access are supported. Otherwise you’re arguing that all iOS apps are also insecure because they aren’t available to Android users.

If TLS isn’t sufficient (or available) for you, do the paperwork and mail it in.

If users who should have access (e.g. US taxpayers) are blocked, there is an availability loss. Blocking Tor reducesavailability. Which by definition undermines security.

This is a gross misunderstanding of that CIA triad. You do have access, just not through tor. Nor through Bluetooth. Nor plaintext. “Availability” does not mean you will support every known protocol so that purists and idealists can be happy.

I have USAA, and if you use that app you’re eligible for discounts on your insurance.

Huh? What do you think they promised that wasn’t delivered that would’ve made this anything that a phone app couldn’t do better? Fundamentally, talking to things sucks, but phones support that anyway. The gimmicky interface is worse than just a touch screen. You have to wear the fucking thing which makes it useless if I’m in bed or whatever. The AI was shit but could just as easily be integrated into an app. It was a shit product from design to execution.

Whaaaaat? Y posted something misleading? Do you think this person might be biased?

The court didn’t answer the question of whether or not Trump engaged in insurrection. The question is whether or not a state can kick candidates off the ballet under section 3 of the 14th amendment and the court found that they could not.

They probably aren’t insured at all. These aren’t billion dollar satellites, so they’re probably just launched at risk.