How Does Power Shift In 'Bring Up The Bodies' Affect Thomas Cromwell?

Podcasts about self-discipline are my comfort-food motivation — I put them on when I need to tighten my routine or just want to feel like someone else has hacked the same battles I’m fighting. Start with the 'Jocko Podcast' if you want relentless, no-nonsense takes. Jocko Willink drills into discipline as a daily muscle: you’ll find episodes where he dissects morning routines, decision fatigue, leadership and the mindset behind 'Discipline Equals Freedom' (his book echoes through many of his shows). Those episodes aren’t polished life-coaching sermons; they’re practical, tactical conversations that make discipline feel like something you can practice rep by rep. I play these during workouts when I need that extra shove. If you prefer interviews that mix science with tactics, look for guests on 'The Tim Ferriss Show' — Tim’s conversations with performance experts, behavior designers, and elite performers often center on habit, environment design, and tiny wins. Episodes featuring behavior scientists explain how to reshape willpower into automatic systems rather than relying on brute force. For the emotional, human side, David Goggins’ long-form chats on big interview shows (notably his appearances on 'The Joe Rogan Experience') are raw, story-driven blueprints of mental toughness tied to daily discipline. Pair these with episodes where people who wrote books like 'Tiny Habits' or 'Can't Hurt Me' unpack the experiments they ran on themselves, and you’ll have a playlist that’s equal parts practical and inspiring. Personally, mixing a Jocko episode with a behavior-science interview in one week keeps me both honest and hopeful about small, consistent change.

I've tried a few different "cleanses to heal" over the years — juice cleanses, elimination diets, a short water fast, and even a week where I dropped social media — and the thing that surprised me most was how much my mood and mental state reacted to each one. At the beginning it's usually bumpy: headaches, crankiness, brain fog, and low energy are pretty common when your body adjusts to fewer calories, less sugar, or zero caffeine. Those early withdrawal symptoms can feel like an emotional storm, and they’re real. For me, the first 48–72 hours of a strict cleanse are the worst for irritability and anxiety, but after that there’s often a window of clearer thinking and a calmer baseline that can last days or weeks depending on what I did and how I ate afterwards. Biologically there are a few things happening that explain the mood swings. Rapid changes in blood sugar hit neurotransmitter balance, which affects energy and emotion. Cutting caffeine or sugar produces withdrawal-like symptoms — cravings, fogginess, low mood. Longer-term shifts, like changes to the gut microbiome from an elimination diet, can influence the gut-brain axis; fewer inflammatory foods sometimes eases low-grade inflammation that makes depression or brain fog worse for some people. On the flip side, extreme calorie restriction or nutritional gaps (missing B vitamins, magnesium, omega-3s, or protein) can worsen anxiety and depressive symptoms. Fasting can also shift your body into ketosis, and some people report improved clarity on ketones while others feel jittery and irritable. There’s also a psychological layer: completing a cleanse can boost self-efficacy and give you a placebo-like improvement in mood, whereas failing or feeling deprived can tank your confidence and mood. Because it’s such a mixed bag, I’ve learned to approach cleanses like an experimental patchwork rather than a magic fix. If your goal is better mental health, gentle and sustainable changes beat extremes. Hydration, salt and electrolyte balance, steady calories, and tapering things like caffeine help avoid the worst mood crashes. Adding probiotics or fiber-rich veggies during an elimination experiment helps the gut cope, and tracking sleep and mood gives you real feedback. Importantly, cleanses are risky if you’ve had an eating disorder, bipolar tendencies, or are on certain psychiatric meds — sudden dietary shifts can destabilize people or interact with medications. I always recommend doing some reading, telling a friend what you’re trying, and checking with a professional if you have any mental health history. At the end of the day, cleanses can absolutely affect mental health and mood — sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse. My personal takeaway is that gradual, informed changes gave me the mental clarity and lower anxiety I wanted without the early crash-and-burn phase I used to get. It’s about tuning in to how your body reacts, not punishing it, and being ready to stop or adjust when your mood flags. For me, the most sustainable wins came from small elimination tests, better sleep, and ditching late-night sugar — not the radical one-week juice fasts. Hope that vibe helps if you’re thinking about trying one; be gentle with yourself and celebrate the little victories.

I was totally hooked the moment that revelation landed in the middle of the timeline — it felt like the floor pulled out from under the whole plot. In the internal chronology of 'The Shifting Epoch', the new power is formally credited to Lord Elias Verne because his public demonstration during the Sundering Era is the first event most scholars and characters recorded. Elias gets the statue, the ceremony, and the official plaques in the capital. That’s what the timeline shows on paper. But reading carefully, and loving the messy bits, I saw the hints that the power was actually discovered earlier by a lower-profile figure: Mira Tal, a ledger-keeper from the Outward Markets. Her journal entries, tucked into a footnote in the middle books, describe the experiments and accidental rituals that produced the phenomenon Elias later polished into spectacle. So in my head the thrilling truth is that the timeline separates discovery from discovery's fame — Mira found it, Elias made it history, and the books delight in that messy, human gap. It still makes me grin whenever the credits roll in my head.

I've noticed the smartest-sounding people sometimes make the silliest decisions, and that observation led me down a rabbit hole about how 'stupidity' actually behaves in a workplace. It isn't a personal insult — it's often a predictable interplay of cognitive limits, social pressures, and incentive mismatches. The Dunning-Kruger vibes are real: people who lack self-awareness overestimate their skills, while competent folks can underplay theirs. Mix that with cognitive overload, tight deadlines, and noisy teams, and you get a perfect storm where small mistakes magnify into big performance hits. Practically, this shows up as overconfident decisions, dismissal of dissenting data, and repeated errors that training alone can't fix. I’ve seen teams ignore telemetry because it contradicted a leader’s hunch, and projects blew budgets because nobody built simple checks into the process. The psychology at play also includes motivated reasoning — we interpret data to support the conclusions we prefer — and sunk-cost fallacy, which keeps bad ideas alive longer than they should. To counter it, I favor systems that don't rely purely on individual brilliance. Checklists, peer review, split testing, and clear decision criteria help. Creating psychological safety is huge: when people can admit ignorance or say 'I don't know' without shame, the team learns faster. Also, redistribute cognitive load — automate boring checks, document common pitfalls, and set up small experiments to test assumptions. It sounds bureaucratic, but a bit of structure frees creative energy and reduces avoidable blunders. Personally, I like seeing a team that can laugh at its mistakes and then fix them — that’s when real improvement happens.

The thrill of a chase has always hooked me, and prey drive is the secret engine under a lot of the best thrillers. I usually notice it first in the small, animal details: the way a protagonist's breathing tightens, how they watch a hallway like a den, how ordinary objects become tools or threats. That predator/prey flip colors every choice—do they stalk an antagonist to remove a threat, or do they become hunted and discover frightening resources inside themselves? In 'No Country for Old Men' the chase feeds this raw instinct, and the protagonist’s reactions reveal more about his limits and code than any exposition ever could. When writers lean into prey drive, scenes gain a tactile urgency. Sensory writing, pacing, and moral ambiguity all tilt sharper: a hunter who hesitates becomes human, a hunted character who fights dirty gets sympathy. Sometimes the protagonist's prey drive is noble—survival, protecting others—but sometimes it corrodes them into obsession, blurring lines between justice and cruelty. That tension makes me keep reading or watching, because the stakes become not just whether they survive, but whether they return whole. Personally, I love thrillers that let the animal side simmer under the civilized one; it feels honest and dangerous, and it sticks with me long after the credits roll.

I can still picture the hum of fluorescent lights and the oily smell of machinery whenever I read 'Graveyard Shift'. To me, the story feels like it grew out of a very specific stew: King's lifelong taste for the grotesque mixed with his close observation of small-town, blue-collar life. He’d been around mechanical, rundown places and people who worked long, thankless hours — those atmospheres are the bones of the tale. Add to that his fascination with primal fears (darkness, vermin, cramped tunnels) and you get the potent combo that becomes the novella’s claustrophobic dread. When I dig into why he wrote it originally, I see a couple of practical motives alongside the thematic ones. Early on, King was grinding away, sending stories to magazines to pay rent and sharpen his craft; the night-shift setting and a simple premise about men forced into a disgusting place was perfect for fast, effective horror. He turned everyday labor — ragged, repetitive, and exploited — into a nightmare scenario. The rats and the ruined mill aren’t just cheap shocks; they’re symbols of decay, both physical and moral, that King loved to exploit in his early work. Reading it now, I still get the same edge: it’s a story born of observing the world’s grind and turning those small cruelties into something monstrous, which always hits me harder than a random jump-scare ever could.

Numbers have a sneaky way of turning a simple hit into a complicated puzzle, and multipliers are the main culprits. I like to think of damage calculation as a pipeline: you start with base damage (weapon power, spell power, or a formula involving your level and stats), then a series of modifiers bend that number up or down. There are two big categories: additive bonuses (you add percentages together before applying) and multiplicative bonuses (you multiply one after another). For example, a +20% attack buff combined with a +30% skill bonus could be treated as either +50% if the game adds them, or 1.2 * 1.3 = 1.56 if the game multiplies—big difference. Critical hits and elemental advantages are often multiplicative, which is why landing a crit on an elemental-weakness-hit can feel explosively satisfying. The order of operations matters more than most players realize. A typical sequence I’ve seen in many RPGs goes: compute base damage, apply additive buffs/debuffs, apply flat bonuses, apply multiplicative modifiers (crit, skill multiplier, elemental multiplier), then apply enemy defenses and resistances which can again be additive or multiplicative, and finally apply caps/rounding. Small details like whether defense is subtracted before or after multipliers, or whether negative modifiers get clamped, change the outcome drastically. Rounding/truncation is another devil in the details—some games truncate at every step, which can nerf many tiny multipliers, while others round only at the end. You also see special cases like damage caps, diminishing returns (so stacking 10% resistances doesn't become absurd), and conditional multipliers (bonus vs bosses, vs burning enemies, etc.). Some titles like 'Final Fantasy' play with crit multipliers being fixed values, while games like 'Dark Souls' hide a lot of multiplicative quirks under the hood. From a practical perspective, this affects build choices and tactics. If multipliers multiply, stacking everything that multiplies is insanely strong—crit rate plus crit damage plus skill multiplier can create huge variance, which is great for burst but risky for consistency. If bonuses are additive, diversifying into reliable flat increases and defense penetration may be better. I love theorycrafting around this: planning breakpoints where another piece of gear tips you into a new damage range, or choosing between reliable DPS versus burst windows. Also, reading community spreadsheets or testing on training dummies helps reveal the game's exact order. For me, learning the multiplier rules turned mundane grind fights into satisfying math puzzles and made every gear swap feel meaningful. I still giggle when a carefully stacked build explodes a boss in two hits.

I've always been fascinated by how co-op changes the story you actually live rather than the one on the page. Play experiences shift from solitary narrative consumption to a messy, beautiful duet. In single-player I follow an author-shaped arc; in co-op the arc is negotiated. That means plot beats can be delayed, accelerated, or sidetracked entirely because someone wants to poke at a side quest, crack a joke, or take a detour to admire the scenery. Games like 'It Takes Two' lean into that duet, making cooperation part of the narrative engine, whereas sandbox co-op in 'Sea of Thieves' turns storytelling into improvisational theatre where the crew writes the tale together. I also notice emotional textures change. Shared discovery amplifies wonder; shared failure builds different kinds of tension. Designers must balance authored moments with player freedom, planting anchors (set pieces, character beats) so the emergent stories still thread back to a coherent theme. For me, co-op stories become the ones I retell at parties—full of human flubs, surprising heroics, and the tiny moments that only make sense when two people are laughing about them afterward. I love that kind of memorable chaos.