defaultname

We've known for decades that cigarettes are addictive. We've known that opiates are addictive. We know that alcohol in excess can be addictive.

Loads of people took in that information and never became addicted (at least until the medical industry tricked them into addiction). The information "if you don't want to be addicted don't do the thing that is sure to get you addicted" is very good advice. It is irrefutable advice.

Once you're addicted it's an entirely different, much more difficult problem. But it isn't a better understanding of addiction to say "Whoa, look I used heroin at a bunch of parties and now I crave heroin, therefore you shouldn't tell people to not do drugs". It doesn't follow.

Obesity has an extremely high correlation with poor health. But that's irrelevant as this thread is specifically on weight.

"that in a vacuum has no effect of calories out except generally a negative effect (your body will adapt and try to burn less calories)"

This is comically overstated. No, your body doesn't magically become super efficient. This is, again, feel good pablum to make people feel better about their situation, sure it is an unwinnable battle without Magic Product or System ("buy my new book and subscribe to my It's Everyone Else's Fault newsletter!"). But the feel good stuff clearly is astonishingly ineffective. This tact hasn't worked.

Find any person who is overweight but claims they starve themselves and log and count calories. In 100% of cases you will find a calorie excess, likely significant. Find someone who is a healthy weight but claims they "eat anything they want". In 100% of cases -- okay 99.9% maybe they have a big tapeworm -- they will have a lower caloric intake.

The latter is someone who likely skips meals. They don't snack. They don't drink giant sugary drinks. And then when it's pizza day they have four slices and all of the high BMI sorts lament how they wish they had such a "high metabolism" and that they can "eat anything". It's all bullshit.

There is a significant, very difficult psychological component to eating in excess. It is a very hard problem. But I'll take every angry downvote by people who seriously want to refute the core, fundamental truth about calories, likely while parroting nonsensical myth.

I read the article to the point where it awaits the next, sure-fire cure-all outing. It is filled with the same delusions and misrepresentations that virtually every snake-oil, magical diet fix is.

Haven't people gotten a little less gullible about this stuff yet?

Look, some tribe had fruit on the ground and they weren't obese. Stuff that pizza is your mouth while we get to the bottom of this.

The reality is that calories have never been as available and cheap. And there is an absolutely lock-step correlation between dietary calories and obesity rates. No, it isn't the great mystery that it is held as. Indeed, this article spends most of its time debunking "it isn't the calories" dietary trends -- low fat, low carb, low sugar, low fat.

The point is that it's entirely unsurpising. It's the most basic, trivial thing possible.

But there are massive industries[1] that exist to tell people that no, it's really that you aren't eating enough food that is red. Or that fell to the ground. Or whatever. Whatever magical, simple fix means that they can still eat an excess of calories. These diets have a failure rate approaching 100%. The US is the most diet focused country in planetary history, yet also one of the fattest.

Maybe pretending that the basic thermodynamics are just some unachievable mirage is a really profoundly stupid approach?

And yes, people who have actually lost weight (or, more often than not, not gain it in the first place) simply ate less (it's magnitudes harder to burn more calories to any meaningful amount). Virtually universally.

But this makes obese people angry. It always makes them angry.

[1] - And authors. This paper cites Stephen Guyenet casually dismissing "CICO". The guy makes his living pitching easy "AHA" moments to fat people. It is, ironically, his bread and butter.

But it's the fundamental, most basic truth.

If there is anything that people who want to lose weight should do, it's eat less. Skip the snack. Smaller portions. That's incredibly hard to do, of course, and easier said than done, but ultimately it is behind virtually all successful weight loss. What is behind an enormous number of failed weight loss attempts are waving that away and believing some specific macronutrient is really the cause, if you just subscribe to whatever the current trend is.

People get really upset about the calories reality.

And indeed if you compare caloric intake between say 1970 and 2010, there was a significant jump in the average diet. Grain products rose, but not nearly as much as fats and oils rose. People ate more and they got fatter. When excess accumulates over time, the increase doesn't have to be large. More calories in, BMI increased.

Your daughter has and uses your Apple account, and you're surprised that she can reset the password? I'm really confused by this story, much less how Apple is in any way to blame or this is at all surprising.

As an aside, what you described is serviced by Family Sharing now. I have my wife and my four kids in my Family -- literally and from an Apple account perspective -- and they all have access to my purchases (and each others, unless the product specifically forbids it which is rare), my Apple One Premiere, etc. It's a wonderful system.

The two options are basically city-level or country but same TZ level. e.g. Toronto, or somewhere in Canada in Eastern time (which I mean would almost certainly be limited to Toronto -- presumably these options make more sense on say the East Coast for the US where there are a number of possible major locations that fit)

There are clearly some bugs. Occasionally I, in Canada, get routed through the US. This guy got routed through the US. Neither case should happen by Apple's description. Apple is quite intentionally trying to avoid their relays getting around geo-restrictions (likely to avoid them getting blacklisted).

We've had providers pop up that have only served the major cities, where people would get a lower fee but have roaming if they go basically anywhere outside the ultra-dense areas. The rates were still astronomical compared to many European countries.

Providers in Canada are a cartel in every definition of the word. The three major cartel members can "compete" in a province and amazingly all have identically bad pricing and policies. Then they go to Quebec or Manitoba (or maybe it was Saskatchewan?) where there is a location-specific alternative and their pricing is significantly better.

Having said all of that, I should be fair and note that some of the providers have "infinity plans" now. So if you got a Rogers 5GB plan and have used 5GB by day one, you still have free data for the rest of the month at a speed of 512Kbps (again, amazingly all three of the major providers have identical policies). Which is still an entirely workable speed for a lot of things.

"You call it sour grapes and then describe how someone is stealing something of value."

This is absurd, and this is just circular. I feel like many of the open source arguments, particularly GPL-based, are predicated on detached bullshit.

I understand the intent of the GPL, and the reasoning behind its creation. I'm not arguing about that. It isn't accidental that I am arguing around that point.

I'm talking specifically about the notion of people making money off of open source -- whether BSD, GPL, etc. You cannot possibly make a penny off of what is freely and openly available. It's economic market value is $0.00. It's human value is considerable, but again the market value is $0.

This is lost on all of these sour grapes "wah, they're stealing" arguments.

The argument of big tech "exploiting" or stealing has always rang untrue to me.

If Microsoft took the source code to Nano and made a Nano+ that reads word files or something, closed-source, selling it for big bucks, etc, the value of what they're offering cannot possibly be more than the delta from what is freely and openly available. They didn't make the original any less available, and a user is only possibly going to pay if the features are different enough to merit the cost over the freely available version. Similarly, if Amazon has a product based on an open source product, what they charge can only possibly be for the values that they've brought to it. They haven't stolen anything.

A lot of GPL advocacy seems to be based in sour grapes and it's offputting.

The sedentary thing is orthogonal. I have worked from home for years and remain far more active than I could be in an office without being weird. Having an Apple Watch -- or any similar fitness tracker for that matter -- can definitely help towards this.

I love working from home. However it is a constant battle to ensure that others understand that it really is working. That I don't have flex time to do anything at any time. I might have the agency to be able to, but I also have goals and inertia and focus that I want to feed and that are very important to me.

As to interruptions, that really is case by case. I completely shut out peers when I want to (to be frank, fuck your noisy, useless, attention sucking slack chat/discord/IRC and anything else where anyone has expectations of synchronous responses), and have been lucky to be in a position to do so. I also just shut my phone off when I don't want calls. If I couldn't do that, work interruptions would be a disaster. However it's a bit more tough on the family front where my wife, for instance, feels pretty slighted if I can't engage in a conversation whenever something comes to her. However many calm explanations have occurred, if you're in the same house it's tough for people to perceive you as unavailable.

His/her comment was clearly in regards to Poland taking a pretty stark curve to the right. Which also has absolutely nothing to do with the benefits the person above mentioned, just as it isn't a "distraction" in San Francisco (what a ridiculous canard that should be pounded down into transparency).

Loads of places have all of those freedoms and inclusions, but also have little to no homelessness, crime, or police brutality. It is a complete non-sequitur.

San Francisco has loads of problems. A serious housing problem. A wealth disparity problem. An "activist" police force that is basically fundamentally incompetent and incapable of doing even a modicum of their job, intentionally trying to burn the city to the ground to make some right wing point. Mental health issues.

It isn't because they are inclusive or considerate.

What's the truth in the title? It says he tested and explored it. Eh.

Maybe it's a problem on 8GB units (and to that Richie video, my assessment about 8 vs 16 is that 8 shouldn't exist. That just isn't enough memory). On my 16GB device I've written 5TB despite installing all the OS betas, and pounding on XCode 13 betas all day. That puts it at 1% wear. I'm not too concerned.

18:26, with multiple ad breaks, lead in ads, etc. Reminds me of that Rene Ritchie video where he spends 10 minutes telling the "truth" about 8 vs 16GB, where the "truth" (according to him) could be condensed down to "get more if you can afford it or need it".

Ain't no one got time for that.

What is the penalty for the USPTO if they grant patents that shouldn't have been granted?

The answer, of course, is absolutely nothing at all. If someone wants to force a review, the USPTO actually charges to give a patent a second, more thorough look, effectively double dipping.

It is a profoundly broken system, and people do just push tonnes and tonnes of nonsense patents. This includes the major companies (Apple, Microsoft, Google) who start shoveling patents in the notion that they'll have a warchest of bullshit if push comes to shove.

This works shockingly well. Full controller support.

Playing Xbox games with a PS5 Dual Sense controller in this "web app" on an iPad is a bit mind blowing.

They do tell you (broadly at a minimum) what the strike was for. RWW claims that two strikes were levied for videos in April, but give no details on what these strikes were for (details that they do know). It would provide more context on whether this is justified.

If RWW is posting content that otherwise would be barred from YouTube (e.g. hate speech, etc) -- effectively rehosting -- it makes sense that it would get strikes. e.g. If you started a "LiveLeak Watch" and reposted gruesome videos under the notion that it's a critique, that would get a ban too.

Apple has 1.65 billion active devices (iPhone, iPad, Mac). 1 billion active iPhones alone.

That's neither here nor there, though, and I would hardly say that means that Apple "reigns supreme", or remotely close. It seems like they're an important player among important players.

Microsoft, Apple, Google (with a subscript of Samsung), and to a much lesser degree Sony dictate our digital life now.

I tried moving my Apple TV to another room and relying upon "Chromecast with Google TV" on the main set. Not only is the device laggy, but everything just looks worse. It claims to support HDR, 4:2:2, etc, but the end result is that I immediately found the experience far inferior.

Add that the AppleTV has long had sound synchronization, now it has automatic color correction as well.

It's a very nice device. The remote was absolutely trash before -- good god I hate that remote -- but the new one looks significantly improved. And you can connect a controller to it and play a pretty wide variety of fairly decent games if you want, which is an experience that I imagine will improve over time.

The 747 wing is at a 2° incidence angle relative to the body, which allows the body to be level with the direction of travel at cruising altitude/speed. An Airbus A320 has an incidence angle of about 5° at the body, twisting to -0.5° at the tip (many aircraft have such complex wings, but the aggregate is an important incidence angle). Every Cessna has a significant incidence angle.

The overwhelming majority of aircraft have an incidence angle relative to the body for the reason stated. So rather by "typically", could you name a single aircraft that doesn't have such an incidence angle? An SR-71?

As to "0 degrees angle of attack lift", such lift is close to negligible. Maybe you mean the body of the aircraft is zero degrees, but then we loop back to the core point again.

Every aircraft has the wing set at an incident angle relative to the axis of the fuselage. Usually to generate enough deflection force for level (relative to the fuselage) flight at cruising speed.

Upside down flight requires you to basically inverse this deflection, but it isn't because of Bernoulli lift.

A sizable number are never going to read the article or judge its merits. Instead they'll click an arrow based on whether the title matches their biases. "Yup, people I don't like have psychological issues..."

For the few that might it is generally worth knowing whether it's actually worth the time. If the writer is someone considered and knowledgeable, on a credible venue, for instance. I know nothing about this site/writer so I'm not commenting on that, but generally that is an input before one spends the time on an essay.

How does "resource exploitation on their land" play a part in this discussion. Seems like quite the non-sequitur.

The way the residential school program was implemented was gross (it was massively underfunded leading to absurdly neglectful conditions and crowding, should never have been put in the hands of people who felt that Christianity was the purpose, and most importantly should have been voluntary), and was driven entirely by prejudice. However if you have essentially a people that time forgot in far flung locations while the rest of the world is rapidly progressing...it's a tough situation. There are people involved in the residential school program who probably really did have good intentions. They weren't a part of some broad "steal `their' resources" evil plot.

And we face the echos of this problem to this day. Remote, extremely low density aboriginal groups. No, they don't want to "live off the land" (and the reserve is full of snowmobiles, pick up trucks and guns, and we have regular newspaper articles complaining that watermelons are expensive or that there isn't piped water). Suicide and substance abuse are endemic -- up to 9x the non-aboriginal rate -- not because people are sad about something that happened a hundred years ago, but because they live in the middle of nowhere, with no prospects, and suddenly the things that amazed and entertained their ancestors four hundred years ago isn't engaging to kids who have an awareness that the rest of the world exists.

In a normal, functioning world, yeah their "indigenous culture" wouldn't be so defensively guarded and a part of their identity. I come from Scottish and Irish culture. I have never worn a kilt. I have never played a bagpipe. I have never eaten haggis. I have never flown scottish or irish flags, or concerned myself whatsoever with whatever happens there. Because I'm a part of a multicultural, rich, integrated society. I identify with the whole, not for some uniqueness that I demand be identified.

And I'll take the inevitable downvotes by the "yeah you're white you don't have a say" crocodile tear crowd, but this is all spot on.

Which device is this? Focus control has been a pretty basic API element since v1. Unless the device is reporting that it has a fixed lens erroneously, that is super weird.

Having said that, the Camera subsystem is most certainly subpar on Android. It is crash prone, only recovering after a full system reset, which makes developing anything novel a giant pain in the ass. It also is full of random bullshit even if you're using Google's anointed, in-house devices. I remember an update suddenly randomly yielding frame rate capability values multiplied by 1000, chaos monkey style. Code ends up being littered with "If this bullshit device on this bullshit version, then...". It's a gigantic waste of time.

And then as Google started trying to differentiate their own devices with exclusive imaging features, things really started going off the rails.

"It’s propaganda."

In reality there was a single class in a single school in BC that had such an assignment. Trying to broadly wash that is propaganda. Tiny, isolated case on the other side of the country. Neat.

Again with the troll patterns. This is embarrassing.

Before there was a dense scientific paper. Now they've released an incredibly simple tool that lets anyone draw photorealistic images with simple strokes.

Saying that is repackaging something into an easier-to-use tool seems like quite a stretch. They didn't put a GUI on curl or something.

Ah, the "you've engaged in this discussion, ergo that invalidates your engagement in this discussion" ruse. Always a go to for a boring troll.

"I can’t even begin to fathom"

While there is zero sincerity in your trolling comment, for anyone else involved it's important to view all players as intelligent, rational, negotiating, and ultimately selfish human beings. It's important not to treat aboriginals as childlike, brainless caricatures like mrow84 does (e.g. the "noble savage").

"Use some basic reasoning"

It is impossible to be Canadian without having been thoroughly exposed to the realities of the residential school system. There have been multiple government inquiries. There were reparations paid. There was a truth and reconciliation commission. This is not at all new news.

But it's being presented as new news making people think this is some new discovery, as if unknown murder pits have been exposed. As if it's in addition to what everyone already knew about the residential school system. But it isn't.

Aside from some exaggerated, unverified numbers, there is literally nothing new in these claims. And it has become essentially a PR vehicle, so it's going to percolate for months to come.