The formal term is irony, because what they are presenting is actually a "Reductio ad absurdum", but they don't understand why their argument is absurd.
If you want a case and point of this, imagine a comedian proposing this idea dripping with sarcasm and clever little jokes, sort of what John Oliver does. The overall absurdity would be obvious, and everyone would understand the suggestion is a bad idea, with a little bit of honey to go with the vinegar.
The people often presenting this sort of unintentionally ironic argument don't seem to recognize the idiocy or exclusivity of the thing they're suggesting. Lacking understanding of the absurdity of the situation is the definition of their ignorance, because the burden of understanding and proof are on the person presenting the argument, not the audience. (Everyone is ignorant in some way, and nobody is even close to knowing everything. You're being dramatic if you really think that way, even for a second.)
Don't pigeons have to work to eat also? Unless food is just dropped into their nest each day there is no escaping the rat race, no creature is excluded.
There's an alternative to making money, which is stealing it. Just like some birds steal other birds' nests (presumably because they're unhappy that someone has amassed a larger collection of twigs).
Yes, but a person can still choose which job to work in order to optimize their happiness, trading off compensation with the work's enjoyment. A person can also invest in themselves and develop new skills to unlock additional types of jobs, etc.
This is geographically variable: the more rural you are, the less choice you have. And between comparable geography, there's a lot of variation. It's not just job, it's profession. To get an OK nursing or teaching job, you may need to move across counties or even states. You can invest in yourself if you have capital.
You can invest in yourself if you have a library card. You can invest in yourself if you have internet.
Yes, some people might have to move to get a job, but living somewhere isn’t a right, at least in my mind. There’s emotional and sentimental reasons to live where one currently does and it would be “painful” to live somewhere else, but is doable.
Are you suggesting that everybody has the choice to study through library books and get a more fulfilling job? Everyone has the aptitude for book learning? So all those people stuck in dead end jobs in a factory (that could be done by a pigeon) are choosing not to learn CS and earn $mega at FAANG? That rather undermines the meritocracy cult of SV doesn't it, if anyone could do it?
The merit concept - true or not - is that it takes extra work to both survive and study enough to earn $mega at FAANG. The work is what earns the merit.
You're arguing that it's not hard work that gets people good jobs; that the people stuck in dead end factory jobs could never work hard enough to earn $mega. Right?
I usually hear this argument being presented as one where factory worker was not given equal opportunities and/or that FAANG worker didn't earn their position. I'm not sure if you're saying that, or that the people doing pigeon jobs are naturally incapable of doing anything else, but both of those ideas sure take all the agency away from individuals.
It rings especially hollow to me as someone who didn't go to college, and taught myself to code, and makes $x per hour, and knows a lot of people (including my partner and her friends) who did go to college, who work in a factory and make 0.2*$x. While the sour grapes element and the jealousy (or covetousness mixed with some bafflement) is always there under the surface, I find it so petty. I have a hard time understanding it. If you want my job, go download a free IDE and start spending all night making stuff for 10 years while doing your day job. I did it while driving a taxi and waiting tables for minimum wage.
I think a lot of people could do it. The fact that they could, and don't, is exactly the basis for the sense of earned merit for those who do. Hot tip: Skip the marriage and kids till you get where you want to be financially. But if you do want to prioritize having a family, don't then be jealous of those who prioritized their career.
That... doesn't sound like HIIT. HIIT shouldn't average out to anaerobic heart rate ranges, otherwise you really lose the benefit of keeping your heart engaged in aerobic ranges during the rests. And to be honest, HIIT used for recreation shouldn't even peak in the elevated ranges above 167 bpm, if you're talking about doing it safely over years for health. Higher than that might be effective in training to increase aerobic capacity or lower your overall heart rate, but may damage your heart over time.
The effect of taking those controls on HIIT should result in reducing the autonomic stress response of /all/ exercise on heart rate, not increasing it. The demonstrated effect of HIIT is being able to efficiently scale aerobic capacity without increasing the time required and prolonged physical stress on the body. That's why Olympic athletes have been using interval training for a century, and from the 90s to this day, have used HIIT techniques like Tabata to increase their overall ability to exercise for a long duration, without having to actually commit to exercising for repeated long durations.
I'm not sure where you got that piece of information about loads of people with great anaerobic "metabolism" vs aerobic "metabolism". It would truly be very difficult, but not impossible to consistently raise your anaerobic capacity, (which I'm guessing is the implied relation to processing lactic acid efficiently as a fuel source for exercise?) but not raise your aerobic capacity also. Most of the ways I have seen that involve some kind of ketosis, or something that would otherwise deprive the body of the baseline glucose to drive aerobic capacity up in tandem with anaerobic capacity (because there's just not available excess glucose to store as glycogen in muscles beyond basal mechanical muscle operation and may lead to atrophy from burning muscle as a fuel source a.k.a. awful orange piss). And generally you would have a hard time building up extra muscle in that state as well, so it would be generally not advisable/possibly extremely dangerous to do so without proper diet and nutrition.
disclaimer - I am not an exercise physiologist or certified in any way. I'm an idiot on the internet, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or don't have it quite right
My point is that if the capability of your aerobic system is very poor - and it is for the vast majority of people, including many HIIT advocates - then whatever exercise you do, you'll very quickly be approaching anearobic territory and find it very difficult to stay at a metabolic steady state for long durations of exercise. When I mean anaerobic, I don't mean "zone 5". I just mean that there will be a much higher percentage of anaerobic glycolysis happening than perhaps should be for a particular level of exertion.
For these people, their aerobic system is so bad that they need to walk to stay in "zone 2". It stands to reason that if they are doing a HIIT session then they are very quickly in the territory of zones 3 and 4, so we are looking at lactate threshold or critical power levels of exertion. So you are looking at more than 60-70% of power coming from anaerobic metabolism. That puts a lot of stress on the body.
For these people to develop their aerobic systems, they need to do a lot of slow jogging or fast walking. Eventually if they do that enough then they'll be much healthier, find HIIT sessions easier and recover much faster. People that spend too much time doing intense exercise will eventually end up with some degree of autonominc dysfunction. I've seen it plenty of times with HIIT people that want to start doing running. They train multiple times a week. Look stressed and knackered. Think they are aerobically fit but can't run a 5km in less than 20 minutes and can't run a 10km at all.
I do HIIT all the time, e.g. 20x400m on the track with 3min walking recovery. But as you noted, one doesn't do these sessions to increase ability to exercise for a long duration, you do long runs e.g. 25km at aerobic threshold for that. I don't do these sessions to primarily target adaptions to my aerobic system either. Instead, I do HIIT sessions like 20x400m with varying levels of recovery to target different apations. E.g. with long recovery I can target anearobic capacity. With shorter recoveries and a lower amount of reps, I can improve lactate buffering and usage.
Finally, it's reasonably well known in athletics circles that if you improve your lcatate threshold, i.e. increase the intensity that you are able to stay sustainably aerobic, then you end up decreasing your anaerobic capcity. The reason why is that the lactate threshold training reduces your ability to produce lactate.
Source: I've been running a long time and have coached runners of various levels.
Think they are aerobically fit but can't run a 5km in less than 20 minutes and can't run a 10km at all.
Is this a typo / did you mean 30 minutes? 5k in 20 minutes is already maybe top 2% of people who compete in races. And running a 10k is far, far easier than running a 5k sub 20.
So the data nerd in me is struggling with your framing a bit. HIIT for people with "aerobically poor systems" may resemble slow jogging or fast walking based on HR alone. Also outside of analyzing blood serum or glucose monitors, there isn't much of a reliable way to secondarily analyze the lactate threshold (actually). There are metabolite analysis that can be done, or things like creatine supplementation to facilitate the "smooth" transfer between aerobic and anaerobic processes, but on a fundamental level, my understanding as a lay person, is aerobic exercise produces lactic acid as a byproduct, and anaerobic exercise uses lactic acid as a fuel source. That is the reason anaerobic capacity decreases, as your lactate threshold increases. The real reason you are subject to a much greater degree of boom-bust is "lactate threshold training" is about increasing the physiological load the body is capable of sustained aerobic capacity for exercise (which is what you're saying), primarily by training your body to increase the amount of available glycogen. That's really only useful in the context of running and a few other endurance sports, and is hardly a metric of overall health.
Also IIRC the story of Marathon was relevant because the runner died to deliver the message. That sort of implies, despite the feat, that not everyone should be able to do that, nor should they.
HIIT conceptually depends on what your body does in a given state, not a unit of exercise. I would wager large sums of money the people that are overeager to engage with higher and higher intensities are not actually looking or reading the metrics of their own bodies, and adapting the behavior accordingly. It's not really about want or "determination" lol, it's about what you do to get your heart rate in a given place, and the fluctuations that produce an effect, given the systems in your body.
You kinda strawman these "HIIT people", as if they're actually doing HIIT, or as if they represent everyone. Autonomic dysfunction, based on overtraining syndrome or overexertion is not the same thing as observing a HIIT protocol based on your own biometrics. It's honestly hilarious, because HIIT and interval training at large is specifically designed to avoid OTS, especially where it relates to the serious damage that can occur to the vascular system, musculature, and ligaments, once scaling up the duration with a similar level of intensity occurs. Running a 5km in less than 20 minutes is a perfect example of a not very good metric actually. There are plenty of people that could put themselves at risk of damaging themselves to do such a jaunt. It is a very light entry point, but arguably is a good metric for elaborating on why training is important to be able to accomplish physical feats safely, but there's kind of a packaged Ableism in your argument that I kind of find distasteful. If your doctor looks at blood serum, analyze heart rates under stress loads, and examines blood oxygen under stress and during sleep, you can pretty much guarantee they will arrive at some degree of analysis that could prove (outside exception of health conditions or illness) a degree of general health and fitness.
I understand running is important to you, personally and culturally. Don't attack tools in the toolbox of fitness, just because you see other people using them wrong (edit: you did say you do use it). Everything in the world is a nail if you're holding a hammer, etc etc.
Conceptually, most of what you said is sound, but yeah. I think you're a nerd for process, which is cool, making kind of misguided arguments that are not really about what we're talking about here, which is why the article observes a principle experimentally we've known works for over a century. Also I personally like HIIT, interval training, and HIRT especially for all of the reasons I've described. :)
This is because maintaining inertia is efficient, despite the stress on the system. This is the reason High Intensity Interval Training and High Intensity Resistance Training work at all, because you're making a conscious effort in your exercise methodology to eliminate momentum and acceleration from the movements, which increases the work done within the context of your body, reducing the exerted energy lost to mechanical inefficiency of repeated movements.
You don't even need to stop moving while walking to see this effect in action. Just try walking so slow that you've eliminated almost all the momentum from the motion of walking. Just try it for a minute straight and see how it feels. (Forewarning: It's going to look ridiculous, like you're walking in slow motion.)
[TW: SPOILERS] I don't understand how something like this can be critical, but 'conveniently' ignore fundamental conceits of the narrative that led the characters to the formation of the Dark Forest Hypothesis, such as the technological explosion capacity of advanced galactic civilizations, which was a huge talking point in the trilogy. It was literally the reason why the Trisolarans utilized the Sophons /to halt technological progress of human research past a certain boundary/ by having the Sophons manipulate the results of any microscopic-scale particle experiments of scientists across the globe. (You know, the thing that causes a bunch of scientists to kill themselves and spur the plot of the first book into action)
Also disclaimer: didn't read past the paywall because lol paywall
I would also encourage the use of the GNU Image Manipulation Program for raster style image editing. It's not as shiny or clean as AffinityPhoto, but it seems more powerful and has scripting as an option. Just a helpful suggestion of a middle-ground between automating through ffmpeg and AffinityPhoto.
At this point everyone should be looking at Krita instead of GIMP. Krita has a much slicker UI, more features, and similar keyboard shortcuts to photo$hop.
I wish somebody could implement a Photoshop UI for GIMP. I am using GIMP as my main photo editor but there is a lot of UI pain. A lot of it. Many things are counterintuitive.
I vaguely remember a fork that at least turned it into a more traditional modal app instead of dozen small windows floating on the desktop. That certainly helped.
It has had a single window mode since Gimp 2.8 was released in 2002. Unfortunately it's not the upstream default, but a lot of Linux distros set it that way anyway.
Aside from the common complaint of its odd UI decisions, the thing that got me about GIMP last I tried it was how rough around the edges it is on macOS. It seemed very confused about my dual monitor setup for example with modals doggedly showing up in the top left corner of one of the two monitors no matter which monitor the main window was placed on.
Try taking a look at high intensity resistance training. It's the weight lifting equivalent to high intensity interval training. It's very effective, and it's low impact relative to the amount of time spent exercising.
You are incorrect. There is a consensus among scientists who study this subject that /skeletal/ muscle mass is directly associated with bone density. There are specific arguments and disagreements about what exercise is most beneficial for increasing overall skeletal muscle mass index efficiently, but the relationship between skeletal muscle mass, blood flow and nutrient distributions, the downstream effects on hormone regulation systems, and how all of those improve bone density are very well studied.
A random online dictionary says it means "(fully or partially) covered with water" and I hereby declare that this means that only singular water molecules are not wet.
This is a tangent, but snake oil was medicinally effective.
The colloquialism "snake oil salesman" comes from the old scam of confidence men selling a cheap, adulterated (and sometimes drugged) mineral oil as snake oil (based on the Chinese water snake from Chinese traditional medicine). People would pay a premium for what they thought was medicine, only to find out later that the confidence men bamboozled them and skipped town with their money.
> In 18th-century Europe, especially in the UK, viper oil had been commonly recommended for many afflictions, including the ones for which oil from the rattlesnake (pit viper), a type of viper native to America, was subsequently favored to treat rheumatism and skin diseases.[6] Though there are accounts of oil obtained from the fat of various vipers in the Western world, the claims of its effectiveness as a medicine have never been thoroughly examined, and its efficacy is unknown. (emphasis added)
If you want a case and point of this, imagine a comedian proposing this idea dripping with sarcasm and clever little jokes, sort of what John Oliver does. The overall absurdity would be obvious, and everyone would understand the suggestion is a bad idea, with a little bit of honey to go with the vinegar.
The people often presenting this sort of unintentionally ironic argument don't seem to recognize the idiocy or exclusivity of the thing they're suggesting. Lacking understanding of the absurdity of the situation is the definition of their ignorance, because the burden of understanding and proof are on the person presenting the argument, not the audience. (Everyone is ignorant in some way, and nobody is even close to knowing everything. You're being dramatic if you really think that way, even for a second.)