Ooh! I've actually got something for this! It takes some work and consistency, but it's pretty fool-proof eventually.

You got to play with them right before bed.

And I don't mean just a little waving the wand around and watch them jump at it a bit. Give them a workout. My two cats, one's pretty chill and her energy level isn't too high. The other guy though, he's basically a dog. Always wants to play, and play a lot. This worked wonders for him.

Anyway, so you find a toy they really like, and figure out the kind of play that gets them engaged. Some like to hunt, some like to chase. But whatever it is, you got to get them moving, and keep it up until they're panting like a dog. It's perfectly healthy, cats just don't often get that much of a workout so we don't see it. So you do that, and they'll rest for 5-10 minutes, then want to go again. Do that over and over until they don't get back up begging for more after 10 minutes. They'll be exhausted. Then do your nightly routine and go to bed.

This won't work overnight as their routines will get them up and running soon. But you do that every night for a couple weeks and they'll start to sync up to your schedule.

Couple other things that make it easier:

1. When they try to wake you up in the morning and get your attention, don't get out of bed. Don't give them attention. You're trying to get their sleep schedule to match yours so you have to let them know that you're not available until a certain time.

2. Having your own routine of going to sleep at the same time every night. Cats are really good at knowing about what time it is and they need consistency. I'm in bed by 9:30 every night, play-time starts at 8:30 every night. If you vary it up they're never going to know when to sleep.

3)Feeding times. I know a lot of people just leave food out in a bowl, but that's not healthy for most cats (And honestly, for the healthiest, at least wet food is best). You want to figure out how much they should be eating every day and measure out just that much divided by meals. Most are fine with twice a day, since cat's would naturally eat at dusk and dawn, so just before you leave for work (assuming typical 9-5 schedule) and right before bed. I work from home so I do 3 meals a day, and that helps to wake them up mid day so they'll need more sleep at night.

3b) This can vary a lot, but typically a wild cat's routine would be to hunt, eat, groom, then sleep. So you organize play-time with eating, you play them tired (simulate hunting), feed them, They groom themselves while you get ready for bed, then you both sleep. My cats are weird though, they don't play before eating. Not into it. But right after they eat they get excited to chase each other around a bit and play, so we do it then.

It did take my energetic boy longer than 2 weeks (closer to a month), but his energy levels even after a year old were through the roof and abnormal. I think it's the breed. But now when it gets close to play time he waits next to the toy closet anticipating it. Then I play with them, then they chase each other around for about 10 minutes, but then they're tired so we all go to bed and he sleeps next to me in bed every night instead of running around.

You've got some good points there, but it feels a little naive of nuance in parts.

Like, if these are natural rights, presumably this still counted before humans banded together to form the first societies. Before, even, we were small roving migratory groups that only just managed to climb out of the trees. humans, as they were, are basically animals at that point, right? I mean, we're still animals, but you know what I mean. So we still have those rights? What makes us different than the other animals (or even other ape descendants) that we see as food? As a species, we were evolved to eat meat, which requires killing something else that presumably has these same rights that we have to violate to enforce our own right to life. Or did natural rights come later, when we were "better" and "more advanced" than the animals we hunted? Does that mean we get these rights when we reach a certain point in self-awareness?

It's tough to argue with the base arguments you present, and I don't disagree with them... but they can be argued against. Like your slavery argument. It goes against these natural rights that we have always had, yet we started taking our first steps toward stopping it, like, 600 years ago? Slavery predates writing. As far as we know, mankind was enslaving other people as far as we can track, and definitely hundreds, if not thousands of years before. So were they not aware of these natural rights or just didn't care?

It sounds like you're saying these are natural rights that everyone has because it feels right to you dues to the society you grew up in that appreciated these rights. They have to come from somewhere to be natural but only really count for some living things and not others.

Personally, I don't believe in natural rights. We're animals that grew opposable thumbs and learned to make tools. Human rights come about only because we live together in societies. In a way that sounds contradictory, we formed groups and gained rights among those other humans, and in the same instant traded some of those away for that group to function. Rights have to come from somewhere. Without groups agreeing on what those rights are, then the decider of rights is whoever is strongest. Might makes right started to decline only because we got into groups large enough to defend against outside forces, and even then it was only within the group in which those rights existed. Rights themselves are part of the social contract we all participate in when we exist in society and universal human rights is a relatively recent advancement, and we definitely haven't come to a consensus as to what they all definitely are. But if society breaks down, those rights definitely disappear overnight. But I've always been the kind of person who needs reasons to believe a thing and have sound reasons to believe it.

I'm with you on right to life, and bodily autonomy are things that all humans should have. I think we just differ in their origin and universality.

So who decides what rights are natural ones and which ones need a government to enforce? And what are the natural rights? Not just that you believe it to be so, but why? And what you use to make that decision.

Forgive me, but I've been doing a lot of research lately on natural rights and their protections, limits, and origins. I've been reading a lot of philosophy on it and it's extremely interesting. I'm genuinely curious how people come to these conclusions and I love hearing different viewpoints.

In the Witcher 3 they had a thing where if you'd played the previous game on the same system and the game file was still there you could allow it to read that file and use decisions you made there to inform the new game. Now, I never got around to finishing Cyberpunk and don't know what the different endings are, so I don't know how much of a difference it would be, but if they've done that before they could do something similar here. Like, the world and story are the same, but any reference to the past includes the choice you made. And if you don't have a save file, they just pick the one the developers like most probably.

So, I find myself doing something similar at smaller meetings at work as well, when it's just my immediate team. But I wonder if there's some context that may make your situation different. On our team, I've gained a reputation for being a data goblin and supplying that data to many departments that help them focus and make decisions on changes or solving problems. With that, I've been able to cultivate a reputation for being very knowledgeable about the business being able to see past the fluff and cutting straight to the real issue that needs to be solved, like you talk about for yourself, so when I speak about these things, I'm taken seriously. And probably more importantly, I also always offer a potential solution, even if it's not implemented (No one likes the guy who just brings problems but never solutions). Most importantly though, I only do this in meetings with my immediate small team. When other departments come in, they have their own ways of communication and I don't make assumptions that my way is acceptable for them.

In summary, some things to take into account:

• Is this a meeting where your input is warranted? Would the group maybe see the problem as out of your lane? Are there people more qualified to talk about the problem already talking?
• Do they have a reason to think you "putting it in a perspective" is not your place to do? Are there higher-ups here who's job you're usurping?
• Are you bringing anything to the problem other than reframing it? Are you bringing solutions? -Tone is important. Does it sound like you think you're in charge of the meeting and it's your job to keep them on track when it's not? (Verbal inflection can go a long way to convince people you're working with them to solve it, not telling them how to solve it).
• Finally, and this one may be tough, are you sure you're doing a good job of putting it in perspective? I've worked with people who don't contribute to solving anything and seems to only pipe up in meetings to restate the problem as if that's a contribution and then shut the hell up while everyone else works as a team to come up with solutions. Everyone sees their interjection as a waste that gets us off-track. Even if they think they're helping, we usually already have that context in our heads and it was unnecessary.

None of this may apply to you, and maybe you're actually surrounded by people that genuinely need you to help get the conversation focused. But I've seen people (and myself) make these missteps. And I agree with the poster who mentioned ADHD. I have it and have been over-talking people my whole life until it was pointed out to me and I got better about checking myself, while still contributing. You have to learn to read a room and know instinctively when and how your contributions are welcome.

But you need to make it clear in how you phrase things that you "highly value other people’s input." I have phrases I use over and over that seem to help.

"I really like what Jane was saying there about the Bobbles. It got me thinking about how the doo-dad's flipperdoodle can cause this issue. I wonder if there's a way we can head this off? Maybe cut out the whats-it protocol? Tom, you've been looking at the flipperdoodle process lately, do you think that's a possibility or if there's something else we could do to streamline it?"

But again, this really only works if you're in a group where that's how equals talk to each other like that. If there's a superior in the meeting who knows about the Bobble department, that's probably their responsibility. You've got to make it sound like you're working with the team to solve it, not sitting above them and keeping them on-track like you know better. Try listening to how other's phrase things and try to imitate it, tone as well, not just saying the words. I did not come up working in offices so I've had to adapt to the environment, and that's what I did.

I suppose that's a good point. I definitely would prefer that to burning to death. I just wish the dead battery noise could be set at a different volume to the "wake the fuck up, you're about to die!" noise.

I think it's really more of a sociology thing. Like, it's pretty well accepted that our natural inclination towards fairness is not from a biological drive, but because we would want to be treated that way. The best way of ensuring that is creating a society where that is the norm. Mankind decided that killing others is wrong because we don't want to get killed ourselves. If we think stealing from others is fine, we have no redress if someone steals from us.

When I was young, I noticed that the some of the Hammurabic Codes shared a lot in common with Christian teachings. I brought this up to my dad and he said "Yeah, where do you think Hammurabi got the idea?" Now, obviously, he's got his timeline confused, and even as a small child I could do that math and knew the royal edicts pre-dated the 10 commandments and are of a completely non-religious nature. Groups living together need fairness to prosper.

Evolution, however, tends to lean more towards the strongest surviving. Evolutionarily, we need our genes passed on. Sure, we might manage to procreate before we die, but then we're not around to protect that lineage. Lions are a good example of that problem. If a rival male takes over your pride after killing you, they will also kill all the cubs. Presumably so only their genes are the ones moving on. That is the evolutionary drive. Wolves, however, are much more social creatures. They function as a group that doesn't necessarily need to be related and they make decisions similar to how we would expect our own group behaviors. If one of the pack is hurt, they don't leave it behind to die, they protect it and even leave them behind with the pups to heal when they go out on hunts. But this only extends to their pack. Anything outside the pack does not get that consideration. It's only in groups where being grateful and kind is an advantage.

Sociology is still a science though! A very good reason to follow those precepts.

Oh man, and that other poster thought they were rambling... I get real wordy when the Adderall kicks in first thing in the morning.

Questioning doesn't mean you have to come to a different conclusion. I'm cis-het(ish) and don't just take that for granted. I've thought about my gender identity and sexuality and done the introspection. I'm definitely more of a gender abolitionist, so I don't necessarily follow the loosely ascribed gender traits consistently, but I'm not trans. Questioning and defying social norms does not make one not cis. And that government comment is weird. Society assigns them to us. The government just writes it down.

Why do you hate sex workers?

Sure, that's the concept, and it's a problem. But that's not what the name "Human Resources" means. That's like saying the office of Veteran Affairs is implying that veterans are themselves affairs. The title is obviously meant to imply resources for humans. It's a lie, but that's what those words are supposed to mean. It's not called "Humans are Resources."

Every libertarian thinks every other libertarian isn't really because they don't subscribe to every set of their specific beliefs.

You realize that most actors and writers are barely or not at all paid enough to live. This idea of the rich and famous actor is an edge case that you're letting become your whole idea of them because they're exactly that. Famous. But even you have to realize that there are countless others that will be and currently are being affected by the things their striking against. For too many years already writers have been shafted by production companies by hiring them as short term contractors to avoid paying them a fair wage or give them an option for royalties. And when literally everyone in the industry is doing that, then they have no choice if they want to get paid at all.

And being mad because some high profile rich fuckers are participating is insane. Their participation shows just how important it is. They'll be fine. They have millions and they're still out there on the picket line anyway because the things the industry does and wants to make worse is bad for humans. That's what collective action is about and it's beautiful.