baccheion

Such can be muted with proper nutrition. The brain runs on carbs. Efficient diet keeps blood from being redirected to digestion while still getting energy and nutrition?

Further, acetylcholine and nootropics switch to protein burning (makes more carbs instead of burning fat) when carbs run low. That is, the brain has better and more consistent fuel.

Steady blood sugar, stable digestion, easy digestion, and acetylcholine/protein- based backup fueling, and proper nutrition makes it easier to work through marathons. Same with creating a good work environment.

Many aren't even nutrient sufficient. That is, they have deficiencies and aren't meeting all RDAs. See: CRON-o-meter. Common ones are vitamin D3 (+ K2) and magnesium, net alkaline PRAL score, and more calcium than phosphorus.

The equity strategy is used at least among software engineers.

They have high turnover across the board. Another reason they don't do the typical 25%/year stock vest. 5% vests each of the first 2 years, with a catch up at year 3.

Many do it by 38-42. Less and less likely to happen, given what's transpired in the last decade or 2.

I wonder if they really think the powers that be will allow them to retire early. Most will be working until 75+, unless the socialism/automation conspiracy theory comes to fruition.

Need to save at least 50% of take-home salary into a high-yield investment account. One-way street. Even during retirement, you'd be scraping out only the interest/DRIP. Further, always pay cash (ie, avoid debt). Even for a car. Even for an education. Even for a house.

Then you can see the truth.

They do have some basic algorithm that weighs each review/reviewer. The average shown isn't a raw one. Some reviews count more than others. Then add in fakespot.com..

Consider a raw milk diet for a while. Maybe probiotics and prebiotics. CRON-o-meter. There's such a thing as stool transplant.

Yes. In areas of Africa with higher milk drinking, more have the gene mutations leading to lactase persistence.

Does Great Lakes gelatin have the same "random assortment" issue?

Many would desire elite teams. On the other hand, such capable programmers are not the norm. Most are stuck with what they get and have to make it work.

I dislike sacrificing purity, but I am capable of doing it.

Most software is a hogpile of sh*t destined to rot. It simply won't last. Those sections that do (if it never has to be touched, it also didn't last) are usually subpar. Especially with accumulating "ship ship ship" modes, costs, and competing via speed, it'll only get worse.

Most time spent cleaning up code and improving architecture is time wasted. The startup will fail, the startup will get bought and shutdown, the project will get scrapped, the service will no longer be used, etc. What little survives will be in a state of constant turnover, one that leads to the same junk.

Any optimizations/streamlining/elegance would be to address near-term usability issues. That is, the code is unwieldy to adjust each day and so needs to be reworked. Otherwise, it's wasted effort. Further, if it will linger, then would be the time to clean and file away. On the other hand, companies may still fear refactoring at that time as it risks introducing bugs.

Most code sections that linger are not foreseen as being worthy. By then, it's too late. Other sections never matter, as they end up untouched.

They'll slowly begin to realize it all and the well will further dry up for "bottom" 80% men. I do not discount the lower prioritisation of logical reasoning by most women.

In any event, the top 20% is where they really want to be and they'd just settle there if they could. To the extreme they'd rather share one (ie, get cheated on) than be caught dead elsewhere. Look at the extremes they go to, bypassing all logic and sensibility. On the other hand, they get old or are seeking someone to help raise their child.

The main means of imprisonment/trapping of women in prior generations was financial dependence and being seen with scorn (mostly by other women, as they had the same happen to them) if not married (, a teacher, or nurse) by 21.

As women grow more financially independent, they are less dependent on males. That leaves only/mainly the top 20%. For play and impregnation. The bottom 2/3rds of women have a harder time grabbing a top 20% male. Older women have the same experience. On the other hand, the pool that does not have a problem is the same as the pool most men desire. That is, all viable women are increasingly out of reach with time.

Keep trusting or even hearing what a woman says. Even if they aren't trying to be misleading, what they are saying is unusable and is to be ignored.

Men that are a part of the top 20% have the same experience as women.

If you're married/involved and she is attractive to you, great! Most don't get that far, especially after the first 2-3 years.

It being 20% is stable. And mostly overlapping. It doesn't affect much. Women have a different set of measures compared to men, but both have a top 20%.

The first site I visited was porn.com. 1998.

The online skew was brought to life. Most of those pairings aren't a committed relationship. That is, most people roam freely until older (and setup to realize that at most 5-10% of romantic pairings can be minimally mutually satisfying).

The gender skew really made possible the accessing of the top 20% by the last slice of viable women. The top 80% of women have always gone after the top 20% of males. The top 20% (hot) and top 3rd (hot + outright attractive) generally succeeded, leaving the rest of the top 50% (viable) for everyone else. With this skew and overall warping of the mind/perception, now the top 50% often succeed at procuring a male in the top 20%. That is, all viable women are generally gone before getting to the other 80% of males.

As it gets even clearer to women, it'll keep getting worse. Women want to be with AND to be impregnated by the top 20%. If they realize that longer-term relationships are bogus anyway and they start being able to financially support themselves (as the prevailing norm), the "bottom" 80% of males simply won't exist. Most of the action gotten by them came from the 1/6th above the line and below the top 3rd.

Women like commitment, so maybe it'll linger anyway. It's already the case that 80% of white people over 40 have been married at least once. 80% of women over 40 have had at least 1 child. 57% for males over 40.

Get it? During the roaming days, they ideally want the top 20% There doesn't have to be enough to gobble up ALL women, as only the top half are seen as viable by males anyway. Beyond that, the ideal choice for males (ie, top 3rd) are already gobbled up by the top 20%. Further, the rest are had by extending to the top 3rd. The bottom 2/3rds of males never existed. Now it's the bottom 80% and total inaccessibility of women in the top 50%. The last 1/6th deals the most noticeable blow.

Confusion primarily stems from difference in measure used to create the top 20%. Women have a different measure, but males often assume they are primarily about aesthetics.

Maybe you are seen as more attractive by women? I don't really get any matches, something said to be a common situation. Unsure if true.

Men should approach. That's expected. Women only approach when males are top 20%.

Incels are due to gender skew being realized. Appearing larger than true, mainly due to marketing and lumping in with males who weren't getting any anyway (, are shy/insecure, and/or still in high school).

There are twice as many males on Tinder compared to women. Further, women swipe less often. 1 out of 2 people are at least unattractive, 1 out of 3 are outright attractive, and 1 out of 5 are hot.

The top half is typically seen as viable by males when they stretch (and women explicitly seek the top 20%). That is, all viable 50/100 women are gobbled up by the top 50/200 (ie, 25%) males. Not even out of "attractive" males and the viable women are already gone. The top 20% of males then end up being enough due to the swipe skew.

Some woman. Is the reason the gender skew was realized on Tinder. Paving the way for the dating situation (and large vs. normal pool of incels) among youths today.

Then Bumble. By the same woman. Targeting women (first), but then better for males actually. As the skew is less via attracting more women.

Funny.

I don't believe gains are that fragile. IGF-1 has a longer half-life.

More important is overall surplus (hard gainers need more), nutrition, regular gym time, and low stress/catabolism. Normalize cortisol, insulin, and thyroid/HPTA/metabolism.

There is a ratio. 5 mg + 0.5 * PUFA. For example, 20g PUFA = 15 mg vitamin E. It gets specific, as more is needed with longer chain PUFAs like DHA.

Lipid peroxidation can also be handled with more vitamin A and 1g+ vitamin C (to recycle the oxidized vitamin A).

Sustained-release melatonin before bed (minimum dose to maintain youthful serum; eg, REMfresh). Balance with vitamin D3 (+ K2) in the morning. Meet all RDAs with just a variety of whole quality foods. Last meal 3-4 hours before bed or earlier to not ruin hGH/IGF-1 release during first few hours of sleep. 2:2:1-2 calcium:phosphorus:magnesium ratio.

Waste.

At smaller companies, engineers eventually need some time to vent.. "energy".

After the first ~2-3 years, most go to work in order to then go home. They have been given the education and realize there's nothing. Further, whatever they do is owned by the company. That is, only garbage would really get pushed.

They've been cycling BS at least 10 years now since I left. Some should face the inescapable truth: no one cares. Another year and it's the same BS without change. As is the plan.

At the advent of anything, it won't matter. They'll just be some place.

People want to work there still? Separate from just wanting to work (who wants to be unemployed)? Why? It was stupid to be that way as far back as 2003, as they had already IPO'd by then. Stupid like an idiot trying to buy once/since a stock started to surge upward. Stupid. Anything after is in a class by itself.

I wonder how they are viewed among young people now. Both college students and those with 2 or so years of experience. Hmmm..

Maybe it's still the same.

Sustained-release melatonin. Minimum dose. Last meal 3-4 hours before bed or earlier. Blocker glasses. Etc.

Melatonin blunts much of degeneration triggers that occur with age and is balanced by vitamin D3 (+ K2; ensure magnesium sufficiency) in the morning.

"Engineers are boring, though" ...

Many swiping on women are bots or males that swipe on everyone. A bit of an illusion. On the other hand, women do have an easier time. For example, even on OkCupid from back in the day women had a higher response rate when sending the first message (compared to men sending the first message).

The thing most beneficial for women online (in addition to being prey rather than predator) is the gender skew. There are usually 2x as many males compared to females, leaving the top 50% of women (the ones seen as viable) gobbled up by the top 25% of males. With a bit of a skew in the swipe ratio, the top 20% of males (ones the top 80% of women are chasing) are enough to take all viable/acceptable women.

People are and can be naturally good looking. Many override average/mediocre genetics with makeup, money, status, gym time, etc. Unless extremely disfigured by genes, being appealing (enough) is a matter of time and effort.

What are you talking about?

A better work environment doesn't have any effect on tenure. Only the extremes make a difference. That is, lower when extremely bad and a bit longer when extremely good.

According to the BLS, median tenure is 2.x years for those 25-34. For those 35-44, it's 4.x years. Keeps going up with age, peaking at 10.x years starting in the 50s.

Not much seems to change it in a relevant way, maybe another many companies are blah in this regard: not worth the money/time/effort. Just mumble some BS to look good to the world, then repeat as the same dead company. The BS isn't even mumbled to recruit, as it also doesn't have any effect there.

The only ones in a position to be affected by such marketing are new grads, a group typically viewed as worthless and that have to take what they get. It's all just air in the winds.