crooked-v

Way back, working for the 2010 Census, I had an ex-Navy coworker who did something like that: whenever he was bored in the office, he would do a couple of push-ups before looking for new work to do.

It sounds like you want a Slate: https://www.slate.auto/en The closest it gets to an infotainment system is a tablet mount.

Part of that is that Japan actually builds housing, while literally every major US metro area has a massive self-inflicted shortage of housing (https://www.fanniemae.com/research-and-insights/perspectives...).

In SF, the apartment vacancy rate was approaching an absurdly low 3% earlier this year (https://www.sfgate.com/local/article/san-francisco-rent-surg...). Usual estimates put apartment vacancies at at least 5% just to accomodate people moving in and out of buildings in the first place.

If it was just self-interest from those homeowners, they would welcome densification because that would make land values skyrocket. You can see some of that already in areas under the recent round of city zoning changes, where housing prices shot up significantly in potentially upzonable areas the second the new law was passed, even with zero actual practical changes so far.

To me it feels much more like just a significant cadre who resist any change, of any kind, for any reason, who can ignore the personal side effects because of Prop 13 and because their family bought a house in the 80s and they don't give a shit about anyone else who wants or has to live in the city.

> Not really sure how rents are skyrocketing when every 3rd person I know in tech has been laid off in the last year.

Simple: the amount of available housing really is just that low.

SF in particular is wild. There are so many people who oppose any and all new housing because "it isn't affordable", as if just not constructing anything, ever, will let anyone afford anything.

Why not? If it doesn't have immediate side effects for a given person it's unlikely to have them later, and it will be dirt cheap as soon as the patents run out.

I have to wonder what small claims court judges would think of it. Get a few hundred cases filed across the US and the travel expense for Sony could be significant.

See also: various defining works of ancient Greek literature featuring the same characters, that are almost certainly fanfics of earlier works, like the Telegony.

Culture has been reworking existing culture since the idea of culture existed.

It's about 1800 KCal, give or take, on a day of sedentary office work. I'm deeply familiar with it after years of calorie tracking. My grocery shopping and meals, most cooked from scratch on a daily basis, are designed around it to keep at a stable weight.

If what you actually mean to say is "you're wrong, there's no way you could eat like that", the response is "give me nothing but heads of lettuce with salt and pepper, and there are days when I could still continue eating them the entire day whenever my stomach isn't literally full".

They're incredibly cheap to manufacture. Everyone and their dog will be able to afford an infinite supply the second the patents expire, and black market supply is already cheap even with the extra overhead of it being illegal and impossible to market properly.

I personally think that once the patents expire, it will be about as universal as antihistamines, or if not, only because of the larger side effects like rapid weight loss causing gallstones.

My meaning was more that indulging in that hunger would result in me just eating an exorbitant number of calories, way past anything it would be reasonable to burn off without spending 4 hours a day every day in the gym... but you're completely right that even if I did spend that time in the gym it wouldn't help with the calories-in-calories-out equation, because it would just make me more hungry.

> it goes away when you fix your diet.

Anecdotally: no, it doesn't. Maybe it did for you. I spent most of a year once on a predesigned meal plan, and the only thing it changed about the low-key but constant food noise was better knowing when I had a safe margin to indulge a little bit.

I am a person like that. There is no "calorie deficit" involved. I can, if I let myself, eat 2000 calories of moderately bulky, high-protein food in a sitting and be vaguely hungry again in six or eight hours once my stomach's emptied out. The only reason I'm not whale-sized is active calorie-counting of every meal, every day.

If it "wasn't that hard", obesity rates would be much lower.

> But if the changes it causes are universally good, why didn't evolution already make your body work that way?

We evolved in an environment where every bit of food took hours of effort and food preservation was impossible, so the only logical thing to do with extra food was feast and store up as much fat as possible for lean times. We're still many generations away from evolving to compensate for the discovery of fire, let alone everything that came after that.

Being aware that there are deceptively calorie-dense foods doesn't help the basic equation there. Anecdotes are not data, but my anecdotal experience is that if I ate nothing but bulk vegetables whenever my hindbrain wanted food, I would still be eating over my maintenance calories every day.

> Simply putting them on drugs for life isn't a solution.

Plenty of people are on drugs for life for a variety of things that have less health impact than being overweight.

For many people, the "underlying issue" is fundamentally just being too hungry for how they live. GLP-1s absolutely treat that.

Etsy has plenty of stuff like that, though you do have to do some filtering through the clones and the drop-shippers.

Exercise will burn calories, yes. But my life doesn't fit the several hours of exercise a day, every day, forever, that would be needed as an already-small person to burn the 1000+ excess calories a day my body is constantly hungry for.

I'm not on GLP-1s, but I've been looking at very seriously because something I can't "fix on my own" is just... always feeling hungry. That's just how my body works. Exercise doesn't help; there's no reasonable amount of exercise that will help with my office-worker stomach wanting 3000 calories a day. So far through my life I've just lived with it and managed my diet as best I can and it just absolutely sucks.

Plenty of people have lifelong drug use of, say, caffeine, or aspirin as a blood thinner, or various antihistamines. Why is this somehow worse? Particularly keeping in mind that it's very easy to make, so once the patents expire, it's going to be dirt cheap as generics everywhere.

I'm curious if this post will also have the same phenomena I've seen before of people springing out of the woodwork to post moralizing comments about people shouldn't rely on drugs, about how actually GLP-1s are bad because they don't fix problems indefinitely with a single dose, about how people should fix their problems by just having more willpower, talking about 'but what about the unknown side effects?' of drugs that have been in use for twenty years already, etc.

We already know the downsides (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5397288/). The family of drugs has been in use since 2005 for controlling glucose with diabetes. The only new thing is the mass-market use when it turned out to also reduce the physio-mental effects of cravings (food but also apparently other things) in general.

The lack of effort is the point. The intent is to automate the entire pipeline and churn out huge numbers of these for whatever the top selling topic of the week is.

> Why are there differences at all?

Reality has a liberal bias, but if your LLM says "yes, climate change is real", the Trump administration won't pay for it. Every company ends up with a different method to try to compensate for that with neutral corpo-speak.

The Democratic Party is a center-right conservative† party by the standards of much of the world.

† As distinct from the wildly regressive stated policies of the "conservative" Republicans.