I think it’s worth reflecting on the baseline paradigm of our political system. Which is: we are perfectly fine taxing one group of people (the working non-retired) at very substantial levels so that a different group of people (the retired) can not work for 20 years at the end of their lives. Given that our backdrop is such an incredible impingement of the liberty of some for the benefit of others, I think it’s completely reasonable to likewise impinge on the freedom of people who can gamble responsibly to save people who are prone to gambling addiction from destroying their lives.
Then restrict it to just programs that help the poor. Still an enormous share of the federal budget and, thus, a huge impingement on the liberty of people who are not poor.
Did a long bike ride recently and just used my iPhone to track the workout. Probably suboptimal, since it doesn't have all the heart rate stuff, but it gets the big picture (elevation gain, speed, distance).
Upgraded my work machine from an M1 MBP to an M4 Mac Mini a couple of years ago. I do a lot of work in Excel with large sheets. The performance improvement was very noticeable and appreciated!
I came across a theory which seems more likely to me: Gruber lost access to Apple execs after he posted the following regarding Tim Cook and other tech CEOs congratulating Trump on winning the election in 2024:
“I wonder how much Cook dithered over that cheerful-looking exclamation mark. I hope he regrets it. … I wonder how much it stings to be reminded that all the money in the world cannot buy dignity. I wonder too, what taste Cheetos-dusted 78-year-old testicles leave in one’s mouth. Whatever the flavor, I hope it lingers.”
I think the real issue is knowing that half the boys in your school are masturbating to a picture of you. It's been a long time since I've been in school, but my sense is that half the boys in your school aren't masturbating to non-nude pictures of you. The fake-ness or real-ness of the nude pictures doesn't really matter.
> Maybe try to figure out why you’re feeling hungry.
For a lot of people, the reason they feel hungry is because the way their brain works is that they feel better when they feel full and their life sucks for some reason, so they want to feel better. Hence overeating. It’s entirely a psychological issue for a person like this. Counting calories is not going to help them. In fact, them even being able to maintain a calorie counting regime is downstream of resolving their anxiety/stress/depression. In other words, diet and exercise are not the beginning in the causal chain required for them to lose weight.
And you’re getting absolutely no traction in this thread because you’re completely oblivious to this. Which is common for someone for whom diet and exercise is easy to control.
>For a lot of people, the reason they feel hungry is because the way their brain works is that they feel better when they feel full and their life sucks for some reason
i am not trying to gain traction, i already know what i am saying applies to vast majority of people and i've yet to come across people who feel 200-300kcal deficit is impossible to apply for them because of their insane appetite.
In most cases where people say this, they are sedentary so their TDEE is very low, applying deficit makes them end up in very low calorie zone where they feel miserable.
Why all these people who are failing can't actually define their fitness journey by putting some numbers into perspective?
because they calculated nothing, they just winged it. I am not denying that there aren't people who cannot control eatingg, there are but they are rare.
I've helped many people lose weight, become jacked, and go from underweight to a healthy weight.
I regularly hear from overweight and obese people who come to me, “I’m genetically predisposed to being fat.” Yet after a few months, we often make significant progress.
Many of them have also tried “deficit dieting,” and it didn’t work for them. But when I looked more deeply into their methods, I found they had calculated their maintenance calories incorrectly.
They were running huge, unsustainable deficits. They weren’t doing any Zone 2 cardio, which is an easy way to boost maintenance calories, and most of them were largely sedentary.
Many times, their diet consisted mostly of packaged, processed foods, and they weren’t eating enough protein or healthy fats or vegetables.
Simply fixing these issues led to major transformations. I’ve yet to come across someone who is truly resistant to these changes.
I do not doubt existence of people who simply cannot sustain even a small deficit or people who have no control over their diet but i've among 1000s of people i worked on i never found even 1 such person.
I keep an open mind maybe i'll eventually find such person, so far i've not.
With sustainable approach they stay around 15-20% Bodyfat (for males) for long time spanning several years, very few relapse and when they do they know what they gotta do.
We have expensive drugs that make people less hungry, and essentially require they take them for the rest of their lives. We also don't really know the long-term effects of these drugs when used for this purpose. (Using them for diabetes is different.)
We do not have computers that think. And what we do have, if improved further, is likely to cause severe labor disruption, which could lead to mass riots and civil war if we're not careful. (And since when have we been careful?)
So far the main effect of "computers think" has been making my job both more precarious and more miserable— talking to agents all day instead of writing code sucks ass and I want to die by the end of it, it's like spending all day on Slack with particularly dimwitted coworkers. What about that should make me excited?
Think about that next year when climate gets even worse, and the year after.
And don't forget that it will get worse every year for the rest of your life. Unless we cut CO2 emissions to 0, in which case it won't recover: it will just stay as bad as it is when we stop the emissions. But no need to think about all the disagreements coming from cutting our energy use (because cutting emissions means cutting energy use), because we just won't do it. So we can happily focus on the wars that will come from the energy crisis and enjoy the climate worsening every year.
The obvious solution to the earth getting too hot is to reduce the amount of energy and obvious way to do that is to block out the sun, clearly. That's why we need so much space lift capacity. Not to get to Mars, but to blot out the sun which will cool the Earth!
"The obvious solution to this invasive species is to bring a predator from where they come from, so that it will regulate it. Problem solved".
5 years later, the problem is two invasive species. My point is that messing up with the climate is not necessarily a good way to fix the fact that we messed up the climate. Naive hope like this is simply dangerous.
And that's assuming that this ridiculous idea is actually possible in practice.
> The obvious solution to the earth getting too hot
What about the mass extinction we are measurably living in right now? It has nothing to do with the Earth getting too hot. We've lost 80% of insects, we are emptying the oceans... it's not a risk, it's happening. We measure it.
It's 40°C all over my home country right now. And as far as I am aware, each year is going to get worse, and the thinking computers are adding more fuel to the flame.
The pill has more power in the argument here. Thinking is still nebulous and the same could have been said in the 70-80s.
The magic weight loss pill really is groundbreaking.
However, the gap has widened massively between who reaps the most from advancement.
Case point, uncle and aunt are wealthy. Last time i meet them they barely eat. Both on Ozempic. Neither are fat let alone overweight. This was years ago.
No one is excited because they do not just feel but are literally being left behind.
wait, so we have a pill that cures us from (some of) the effects of having turned all of out food into low-nutrition, high addiction items that negatively impact our health while they destroy our ecosystem? (ask where all the water that goes into making soda comes from, all the high frutcose corn syrup, all of the palm oil, ...)
And that's what gets you excited about the future?
Ok cool. Computers think. They're (trying to) use that to literally replace regular people. And not in a Star Trek way. "Permanent underclass" way. That's bad.
I would rather we not have technology than have people starving en masse. Literally our best hope is that the rich bastards are lying that they'll be able to do it to scam other rich bastards.
When I was in high school we were able to have an app that made it look like you were drinking beer. And the internet produced rainbow unicorn attack and nyan cat.
I was very optimistic about nyan cat. I'm very unoptimistic about nobody being able to afford computers for the next 5+ years.
Also since this thread is about general malaise - I am finding myself rather missing GW Bush's jovial brand of imperialism and cronyism. Strange fate.
> Heart disease later in life caused by genetic predisposition to high cholesterol isn't something people generally select for or against in a partner, but its effects happen later in life well after people have children so it passes on.
That depends. It can still affect genetic fitness if it affects an individual's ability to confer benefits on their descendants. Of note: most of the most wealthy and influential people in our society are beyond their reproductive years (not technically true for men, but mostly true in practice).
