AnEro

You should look at what we did for the spanish flu before you get all high and mighty about your history take

Obviously just looking at numbers without context of differences between Sweden and other countries it looks bad...

There's other really well written articles from PHDs about how their model literally would only work in Sweden.

The author is only bestseller of a book based on their experience not a perspective from someone trying to approach it like an academic as far as I can tell.

This. it will help with alot more than you think. unironically started losing weight after bumping up my calories since I was going WAY too low thinking 1200 was fine. I was losing just as much and with no plateau with 2000(I'm very tall) until I lost more weight to justify fewer calories.

In my experience TDEE calculators are mostly best guesses and the more expensive the bestester the guess. This is mostly showing in various age ranges and pregnancy, you can expect variance compared to what is calculated. (not sure which method was used for this study as the calculated baseline for what was their expected TDEE) The use for this with TDEE is expect variance in age ranges in the graphic, ultimately there is no way to know until you test yourself with a diet for a few weeks.

The biggest thing is showing how much mental stress plays into calorie burning, enough where an average western lifestyle can have the same calorie burned as a hunter gatherer.

Why is this being hated on? It's a revenue model for them to make the competitive browser we want...

Having these large branded cosmetic additions to firefox is kinda a genius non-intrusive or at least less intrusive way to do advertisements.

I wish that's why we all are doing this

Nature's $7 an hour general compute nodes are still too expensive to not burn money to try to make an equivalent at the cost of electricity and initial purchase.

I don't have much specific advice though I have ADHD the other branch of the mental health family to OCD. It sounds corny but a psych doing self-help advice but from a perspective of explaining the science behind current and cutting edge psych has helped me greatly

Dr. K a Harvard psych on gaming addiction and online communities has a youtube channel explaining how coaching. This isn't a replacement for therapy however his explanations of the science and walking through these ideas as a coach on how to apply these yourself. From my exp has very healthy approaches for just feeling less judgmental towards yourself, so you can get out of your own way and just get things done

Of course a psych will be better however this in my opinion is like fun workshops for myself to understand myself and others. So this might be a great starting point before putting money into a psych/therapist, like starting calory counting and walking more before getting a personal trainer.

I think it's fair regardless to try to prepare or ask how one would prepare for it, economic down turns happen it's a case of when not if. (Well, to be fair I'm extremely curious regardless.)

Know your budget and what you can and can't cut, I'm not the money manager in the house investment wise, but I do the purchasing around the house. I really think people will underestimate how much stuff you don't think about adds up, especially food wise if you're trying to be healthy or athletic. What are cheap enough proteins may just jump out of budget very quickly when you're eating what avg people consider 3-4x the amount of protein you should eat.

>The act is taking steeper measures again child pornography. Are you somehow trying to imply that this will harm the LGBT community?

Sensationalized yes 100%, a bill that defines what is safe for children to see and not see content wise is absolutely a cause for concern as it enters a very partisan political chamber.

Sadly just cause a bill is aimed to do good does not mean the fine print doesn't screw over vast populations or has anything to do with how its advertised at the begining. Look at what the policies that made Pizza a 'vegetable', they were attached to policies to help children's health.

> I challenge your assertion that between 3-5% of people disagree. Would you stake your life on that claim or is that simply more fake news you are spreading without verifiable sources?

I'm refrencing over all also, I should have specificed scientists. I'm pulling those numbers from having climate skeptics on...

>Did you watch the podcast so you could criticize it intelligently or are you purely spewing hate based on what you read/heard in MSM? Seems the latter.

I'm sorry I upset you... However I do listen and I had to stop cause I fact check if I have a question so naturally I started hating it. The podcast cause instead of having interesting scientists on that are controversal cause they speak on risky new research and techniques, he brings people that spew fake info on covid a life or death severity repeatedly.

theres a difference in a difference in opinion and putting on the 3-5% of people that disagree and can't bring facts and evidence to the table constantly.

>Martin Luther King Jr. were among the great champions of progressive ideas in the 20th century. But they didn’t exist within an insular, self-validating community whose values and assumptions were often at odds with those of the rest of society.

Okay I was going to take this seriously but, saying MLK wasn't 'at odds with society'???

"While many people of all races admired King and Parks in the 1960s, the majority of Americans did not and found the civil rights movement both wrong and unnecessary.

Activists like King and Parks were reviled, red-baited and called extremists in their own time. " > https://time.com/5099513/martin-luther-king-day-myths/

I'm sorry people are at odds with tiny changes in their work place and there is schools of thought to implement change in workplaces to deal with that resistance, but an ideology around 'we need to and can do better by changing' is supposed to not generate that resistance? I think he's the one that needs less time on twitter if he's taking terminally online people as if their represtives of their respective movement.

I'm going to be honest, I didn't have the expectations that any custom hardware would perform like a companies benchmarks claim they do. Since they would be cherry picked to hell and back, especially apple.

The fact it has a geekbench score that makes my gen2 threadripper look bad and can still have 3060 performance in a laptop is still very impressive to me.

It's not legit for sex but is for gender, it put me as female as a trans woman.

All these 'sex' determination quizzes through these gendered questions just are usually 'what are you more similar to a social view of man or woman?'

I don't think that is technically culture appropriation, but yes they also participate in regardless. I don't disagree that the self-proclaimed activists usually are doing more harm than good when it comes to the causes they're fighting for.

Like body positivity movement often leaves men behind, where just because it isn't as often tied to their value in society like women doesn't mean they should be shamed or feel shame for aspects of their body they can't change. Where looping back to the watered-down version of the main concept, where they are using it as an excuse to stay an unhealthy level of obese. When the goal was more about you shouldn't have to battle a deep shame for being obese as well as the extremely hard habit changes to get out of obesity. Where it should only be optionally brought on yourself it helps you move forward

twitter mobs also cancel people for saying the wrong thing about a kpop star. Doesn't mean they are right or taken seriously, just means a large group of people can bully you.

If you're not doing anything actually racist or offensive, they will be seen as they are bullies. People cancled or have seen real life consequences have been people learning what is offensive/racist publicly when we should be way more forgiving since most of these concepts are snippets taken from university level courses than described again in 30s chunks. Those people deserve education of why people are upset and why what they said is a problem not cancellation

No we do just our arguments for solving issues for working-class people involve unions, and adopting more democratic socialist approaches. Which over all hurt a corporation's owner's large profits usually based on surplus labour value, and be forced to have that go back to the people producing the corporation's value. So that is an uphill battle fighting 1%s advertising power. Convincing people that it is a system that works and can still be profitable to corporations just means they can't see the massive returns they do currently while contributing to healthy economic environment is extremely difficult. The fact you don't hear more about us advocating for it, is an example of the cultural hold the 1% has on the populous where the ideas aren't covered or are covered as a strawman pie in the sky ideology.

Which compared to social issues of bringing a group of people and their culture as part of a norm happens to also brings in more to the labour force. Corporations and the people that own them can immediately start using their labour value surplus for profits just as they do with other demographics.

Currently, that is what the default is though for a western perspective. Most products are designed to hit that market because that demographic has the most resources, for a lot of complicated socio-economic reasons that I'm not qualified to really describe in a way that they deserve.

Those structures were designed around that default demographic, where those extra products and incentives are attempts to take what is working for the default and allow others to enjoy the benefits that was only afforded to the default.

For example: I as a trans woman, even with those extra supports and incentives to help me, I find that when presented as man or now when I don't tell people I'm trans it is easier to operate in society/organizations in general. The incentives don't help or make things so much easier or a comparison to how much easier it was traversing as a default demographic.

Don't get me wrong I understand the population at large have a rebranded version a lot of these terms, and it is futile to try and take them back. However, a lot of academics and people subscribing to that idea aren't going to change. So understanding how different groups use the term and what concept they're trying to describe, helps with they are actually trying to say.

Personally I have been digging into the 'why' behind people still argue something that to my understanding has no rational basis, found these disconnects between the use and what it was supposed to mean very interesting. Really just has shown me all news media regardless of bias has created a problem having to water down or modify a concept/story to be entertaining or click-able has distorted so much information

I don't think politically charged idea are the issue at all! I just think the way people end up using them waters down the original concepts, then people use it incorrectly/creates a new concept that is divorced from its original meaning. Where it also allows bad actors to use them for authoritarian or selfish means to further their agenda whether it's a politician or someone trying to boost their ego

>distills cultural appropriation down to "Did some non-white non-cis group do something first or value it first? Then white/cis people shouldn't do it or express thoughts about it."

That's my ultimate problem is that news and media regardless of their biases are financially motivated to water down those concepts. Mostly because they can't survive otherwise, it's more about the entertaining version of the news/topic and not the accurate probably boring complicated hard to digest content.

Thanks! That description and the excerpt with it also helps explain the huge part of why it's offensive. It's not about one's feelings, it's about dynamics of how that shame effects the market. The 'in group' have a much easier time to monetize their version and when they do, it is in ways that end up hurting or killing 'out groups' ability to do so.

'Cultural Appropriation' is supposed to be about how the 'in group' in a culture takes and rebrands a cultural practice of the 'out group'. Where the rebranded version is the socially acceptable version of it and the original is still seen as a negative outside the cultural norm. People shaming others for the original version is the part that is offensive, not the fact people have learned, enjoyed and adapted the original practice.

Black drag queens came up with a numerous amount of make-up techniques and styles used by women today, like contouring. Shaming them for loving the art of make-up applied to the hyper exaggeration and depictions of femininity, while contouring yourself while outside that community is an example of this.

These leftist philosophies/ideas aren't the problem, it's the lack of education in what a subject actually means with lack of understanding of the nuance of the core subject and then applying it with an authoritarian lens is the problem. Which is the problem with all politically charged ideas regardless of their origins.

It's not even about ownership, it's about the power structures applied to each version or fork of the idea itself

I agree market forces are largely an issue, just know that when you're saying 'WrongThink' and 'Market forces drive companies to support one point of view in media, and censor everything else;'. Just as a heads up cause I would rather have these conversations than not, just like you said others wouldn't.

It just sounds like the 'reason, discourse and civic debate crowd are more aligning groups known for hate speech or using dog whistles to encourage that type of person to watch their content. For instance a Ben Shapiro, who sounds smart and looks like he wants reasons and facts but really his perfectly crafted throw away statements just take 30 minutes of googling to disprove. Rather than actually providing real fats and logic, it's just the common sense he can placate to and arguments reinforcing a religious agenda. It makes sense why he doesn't notice this as well, because to be cold and analytical it reduces blood flow to the sections of your brain that contribute to emotional thinking which is normally ideal. However, it also turns off your ability to sense when it's seeping into your thoughts regardless. So focusing purely rationality alone, can also dampen your effective rationality because it is harder to tell when you let emotions play a factor in your think

> chilling effect it had on free speech

I think comparing this to free speech is just a losing argument cause legally free speech is for criticizing the government non-violently.

They are private companies that have a monopoly, making a new platform focused on enabling creator's means of revenue is the ideal approach.

>If a liberal channel is wrongly banned, an army of Googlers quickly rushes to fix it. If a conservative channel is wrongly banned, there's internal snickering.

Conservatives unironically have a victim complex for this because lefties have the same issue because they are saying the centerist thing. Democrats or what conservatives call 'liberal' right now are mostly a centerist party, trying to be palatable to the largest audience. The same social media companies want to keep the largest ad consumer base as well as advertiser pool.

> another darker side of this

I honestly think it is a societal shift of the vanilla of politics, I'm sorry conservatism is no longer vanilla and is actually the rocky road of politics and isn't as friendly.

Edit: I challenge anyone offended by this point of view, to look into conservatives that have been 'cancelled'/'silenced' viewership and numbers before and after. It usually helps them get more of a following across the board, they inflate this issue beyond how bad it is to get more attention for a possible loss in revenue.

1. Common misconception is only right leaning views are being demonetized, it's all politics so yea they are also being punished by youtube as well.

2. People aren't dieing/being permanently injured at rates that hospitals can't keep up with because of the lack of police because the movement was so effective that it has vast swaths of the population without policing. So much so standard solvable emergencies that you could normally be treated for at the hospital end up killing you due to lack of availability of doctors.

3. Those beliefs are based on studies that have been upheld and are reproducible how ineffective current policing policies are and are underperforming by numerous metrics and especially over all in areas with poverty or mostly minority population. So not paying them more money (defund)or rewarding them for underperforming, like one would a corporation that is under performing was the original goal. It has spun a vocal minority into more extreme views of abolishing the police entirely after having emotional reactions looking deeper at those numbers.

I'd be with you on this one, but his ban is coming off an announcement they are banning vaccine misinformation as well as all the last posts even on Twitter are relating to the vaccine.

The Republican leaders haven't exactly been beacons of scientific accuracy and review in this emergency. So it lines up, that one would also get caught in a widespread new policy banning vaccine disinformation.

Yea, this one is to make sure that there isn't going to be regulations on youtube or other social media.

Since no regulator would touch social media regulation because of how that looks, however if it enables people dieing at a unprecedented rate then regulators may feel their hand is forced to do something.(facebook/instagram right now is in hot water with regulators too) I doubt anything regulation wise would help or even be good, this is just youtube making sure it looks like the market is regulating itself.

I think also this is to signal to other users 'see we don't pick favourites anyone can get banned'

Comparing messy AI that will demonetize/remove historic retellings of traumatic events, wars, and hate crimes to 'censoring' Ron Paul is ridiculous.

Most of them moved to because of demonetization... Where swearing can demonetize a video as well as mentioning rape or murder in contexts explicitly. Yes that is horrible to punish literal historians talking about these events that really happened that we should be educated on but, how do you separate those from actually hateful content so charmin/coke/corporation still will pay you to run ads?

Letting people think the vaccine is dangerous without scientific proof when they could die without it, isn't government regulation friendly.

edit: to day I learned there's a down vote feature lol. Didn't know acknowledging a private company has interests beyond letting people saying w/e when want when it can negatively impact their bottom line would be so controversial. Also banning him for being conservative is very different from banning spreading vaccine misinformation. Then grouping that with removing historians incomes due to messy AI implementation to save YouTube's ad friendliness to keep their bottom line is just a victim complex.