That’s a complete non sequitur. Everything we learn changes the way we view the world. You cannot make version control software without a data model that needs to be learned. Git’s model is very easy to visualize.
What a time to be alive. We pulled that exact thing out on a school trip, and two of my classmates were so affected they literally collapsed. Placebo is kinda crazy. The entire thing doesn’t actually work, of course, but that scene did make me doubt, a tiny bit.
> Give up, and go to old.reddit.com, which is ugly and not designed for mobile, but at least works okay.
Wait, are you kidding? I thought you were talking about using it on desktop. New reddit is literally unusable on mobile. This is what it looks like for me (https://imgur.com/a/pa07d2c). New reddit isn’t just unusable, it is literally nonfunctional. I can only imagine it’s been deliberately destroyed to drive people away from the web over to the app. They do something similar with links. All links from new reddit have their underscores "escaped" with \. Basically they corrupt the URL. If you’re on old reddit, you get these bad links and have to fix them yourself, but new reddit does it for you, of course.
Yep I quit after I couldn't browse some video game sub in the browser because it was marked "NSFW". Having to manually go in and change the subdomain is doable, but gets obnoxious over and over again especially as I hate mobile text editing.
Obviously a sufficiently large number of people do view currencies that are controlled by a single centralized entity as a problem; whether current cryptocurrencies are a solution to that problem is a different debate.
> Obviously a sufficiently large number of people do view currencies that are controlled by a single centralized entity as a problem
Do they? If there were no magic 10x, 100x, and 1000x returns in crypto and it only solved the centralization problem, would even 1 out of 100 current crypto proponents still care about it?
If those lower returns were coupled with lower volatility, I think we'd see more people utilizing crypto, for specific use cases:
a. Instant, negligible-fee ledgers within social cohorts (eg. Algo, Nano, vs Paypal, Zello [a bit of that "anti-corporation" philosophy doesn't hurt here]).
b. Privacy-coins, which also happen to have low fees but are too slow or haven't developed the UX to play that quick social role, so they attract an alternative audience through privacy ideals (eg. Monero).
c. For donations, with the same trade-off between ease of use and privacy depending on the involved parties' preferences.
I'd argue it's the risk of volatility which both drives high returns and suppresses these uses, so a stabilization of market prices would eventually see growth in these use-cases as their potential audience puts proportionally less weight on the risk-factor.
One might not see 1 out of 100 current investors remain, but do think that these audiences could grow to equal or surpass such a small segment of the current interest.
How can you ask that when we are seeing record inflation around the world? Are you really asking if people would prefer a currency that doesn't lose 90+% of its purchasing power over the years?
They used to be close to 100% of the Bitcoin community. It's probably a lower percentage today as it has gained more mainstream adoption. But why does the exact number matter?
Have had colleagues who were required to not work for their resignation period (3 months). "Professional quarantine," since they were going to competitors.
You can only feel sunshine and grass because your brain interprets sensory signals from your body. It’s easy to imagine a world where your cyborg body can deliver those same signals. If the sensation is the same, why would you _not_ exhchange your fragile meat sack of a body with a far more versatile mechanical one?
Well, creating life forms would require us to create self-reproducing machines, which doesn't seem like the same thing.
This will end up in a goalpost-shifting debate where the extent of self-repair capabilities necessary to qualify as "self-repairing" is argued. I'd say that a fault-tolerant system is at least 50% of the way there.
Perhaps, but imagine no need for surgery, no need for anesthesia, all wounds, illnesses and ailments fixed simply by switching the damaged part, or switching bodies entirely.
Radagast fits the druid archetype more than the wizard archetype nowadays. Gandalf is a unique case in my head. He’s more of a battlemage, the way I see it, if you ignore that he’s basically an angel.
You’re reading that wrong. Of course you burn more calories through exercise. Michael Phelps couldn’t have eaten 12k cals a day if exercise didn’t burn calories.
Well that's what the article says. The Hazda who walk 8-12 km a day burn the less calories as an average American (or the same after adjusting for body weight).
Also that Phelps thing is highly questionable. He says he "probably" burns 8-10k, not 12k. Not the type of statement you want to rely on to dismiss all this work.
I just have a hard time believing it to be true that no amount of exercise will increase the overall caloric expenditure. For example, I've done a few multi-week bike tours, and we ate an enormous amount of mostly pasta every day, and managed to peel off a few pounds each by the end of it.
It's strange. Go out in freezing weather and stand still;you'll get cold. Move about and you get warm. I find it unlikely that you can heat up without energy?
The article mentions a study that tracked energy expenditure of runners over many weeks, and found that the energy expenditure was much lower at the tail end of the experiment, suggesting the body gets accustomed to the activity somehow and burns less energy.
The study must have tracked non-runners, given the conclusion. If they were already runners and the conclusion is that they get accustomed to the activity, they'd already be accustomed and there'd be no tail end difference.
So they most likely tested non-runners and had them start running. We get more efficient at physical exertion with practice. Better coordination of muscle groups. Finding a more efficient pace. Correcting form deficiencies. These all increase capability or reduce energy expenditure.
This assumes that there isn't a spectrum of running intensity. In this case they were running 10s of kilometres every day during the study, an absurd distance. So they were likely experienced runners already who were engaging in this extreme competition and took it up to an abnormal intensity that they weren't used to.
We saw a very large reduction in caloric expenditure in people who were already very fit runners. So body weight changes over the course of the experiment are unlikely to explain it.
The article says pretty explicitly that, while you do burn more calories while exercising, your body finds other ways to compensate and generally keeps about the same total energy expenditure in a day.
I'm pretty sure this doesn't apply to extreme cases like modern athletes, who explicitly push their bodies in many ways that normal fit people don't, and who have teams of doctors and coaches that can force them to keep up with exercise and diet even when their bodies are telling them to stop.
Is it certain that we absorb all of the calories we consume? I went on a backpacking trip with my friends recently and despite similar activity levels everybody was surprised when they noticed that I eat twice as much as anybody else in the group.
Maybe I should bring it up with a doctor, but I feel fine, I just also spend more on food than most.
No, there's lots of calories in stool, but it depends on the type of food. For example, eating lots of fats and oils tends to "go through". On the other hand, rate of metabolism varies between people too.
Yes, this. These conversations about weight loss are so rife with spherical cows and people come to ridiculous generalizations because of it. Bodies are complicated and varied. "Michael Phelps eats 12kcal a day and yet he's not fat" is just a correlation, it doesn't mean anything. He's an extreme outlier of a person in many ways.
I was eating similarly in my 20s and 30s and in 20s I kept about 80kg but in 30s I got to 130kg :/
BTW there are diseases that reduce calories absorbed, you might want to get checked for colitis ulcerosa and crohn's disease. They have nasty side effects so better to know earlier even if you don't have the worst symptoms.
The body absorbs refined carbs very quickly. The glucose rush will increase insulin levels to very high levels and make you feel hungry again soon leading to the consumption of even more calories.
Increasing the energy prices isn’t a solution. It’d affect to poor disproportionally, while also being greatly destabilizing for society at large. It’s basically a flat tax for heating your home.
Norway recently experienced its highest energy prices ever, in large part because of tighter coupling with the European market. Some people got bills 10x of previous years. Using less energy simply isn’t an option here, otherwise you freeze to death, or damage your home. It led to a massive political outcry that was easily exploitable by populists.
You can’t go back on decades of energy policy in that short a time frame, and you can’t do it without easing the tax burden somewhere else. The current government in Norway is polling extremely low. So low they probably won’t recover by the next election in 3 years. And they didn’t even cause the spike in energy prices here. I dread to imagine what would happen if a government intentionally hiked the enrgy prices just to stop bitcoin miners…
There are plenty of unknown numbers :) For example, the number that is 1 if the Goldbach Conjecture is true, and 0 if it is false.
(BTW, if you want to know the difference between constructive and nonconstructive mathematics, it's that constructive mathematics doesn't let you say "well, it's definitely 0 or 1" because it leaves open the possibility that there's no proof of either termination or nontermination in the current theory... which is basically the philosophical distinction under discussion).
In the book "When Einstein Walked with Gödel" by Jim Holt,
It seems like that assumption is not as clear as it seems.
I am not able to articulate it well enough and I don't have the
book at hand.
If my recall is accurate then there is a bit of a question if
there exists a "final number".
