dota_fanatic

You can resolve this for yourself experimentally. Or just look at the math (pulled from google's nutrition facts):

Eat two cups of cooked white rice, ~412 calories, 316 g.

A day later with the same starting conditions, eat 316 g of butter, or ~2,265 calories. I bet you're going to feel way more full after eating the same "amount" of butter vs rice.

As for 500 calories of rice vs 500 calories of butter, hopefully someone else can chime in with references, but again, do the experiment for yourself: how soon after eating an entire meal of rice vs butter do you find yourself getting hungry? This is complicated by what kind of macro ratios a given person's gut is used to, but generally, I find myself ready for more after the rice much sooner.

Are there any quality brands that have a vent that can be directed outdoors? We're renovating our kitchen in the next year and are planning on doing this, but haven't had any luck finding a natural gas stove which is made to vent outdoors.

I don't have counter evidence on hand but assuming the oven is vented outdoors, my understanding is that a hood should be relatively low-powered, not high, in order to then capture emissions from the stove top. It should be a function of size, height from the stove top, noise constraints, etc.

Having just built an addition which needed its own HVAC system, I was surprised to find the cost of an American Standard ERV to be several thousand dollars, prohibitively expensive for us given all the other costs. :/

Definitely. Still though, many modern games' players would be well served by the FAQs of old instead of ad-laden, poorly researched wikis. And even for those games frequently updated, eventually they do tend to crystallize into a final version after 3-5 years. It's only games like Dota 2 which are constantly getting balance* patches which are a constant sync battle of development and documentation.

* more like humans are incapable of balancing a game of Dota 2's complexity. The cynic in me thinks they don't want to balance it, that that's part of their monetization strategy. Long term I think a balanced game is more fun for everyone, though.

Perhaps React is just as complex as it needs to be solve the problems it tries to solve. Is that a true statement? Probably not. Close to true? Maybe.

Whatever the case, just because we wish solutions to those problems were easier to understand doesn't mean reality owes us that. I suspect React in particular, being in the web dev space, has a lot of people working with it who have very little CS background. Because they don't understand how React works under the hood or even above the hood is "something wrong with React"? I'm not sure I buy it.

I've seen a lot of really poor React code that breaks all kinds of best practices, many of them explicitly laid out in the docs. Even before hooks came along. In fact it's been hard to find examples of people who understand the dom well, much less React. I will continue to suspect there's something wrong with most of the people using React, not React itself, which from my perspective has only become better over time.

Fwiw, we have a stable admin client that uses Formik. One month, I went to update dependencies. Since the admin client was stable, I only updated its deps for minor versions. Four weeks or so later I get a bug report for that client. Nothing obvious or non-obvious jumped out at me in the component of concern and its blame. After git bisecting, it turns out the minor version bump to Formik had a breaking change.

I've only touched that package a few times since but it never fails to make me wish the original lead hadn't used Formik. I dunno, forms in react have never given me tears, but contrary to Formik's slogan it has been painful, even aside from this versioning fiasco, so I'm not sure this endorsement is as strong as you think it may be.

A better system is to only get in bed when you feel sleepy, like you could fall asleep in the next 10 minutes, and wake up at the same time every day. If you get in bed and don't fall asleep in the next ten minutes, get up and don't come back to bed until you feel sleepy again. Strongly associate the environment of a bedroom with sleeping.

Forcing yourself to get in bed even when you're not sleepy can potentially lead to just lying there thinking, conditioning yourself negatively, especially if the character of those thoughts is "argh I should be asleep why am I not sleepy I'm going to be so tired in the morning what's wrong with me..."

Although we're far from figuring out the mind in general, much less specifically to certain individuals, there's growing evidence that minds are a collective of sub-units which vie for conscious attention but are nonetheless active in subconscious even if "you" don't know it.

As an example, one part of your mind could be extremely conditioned to want to please and be with someone who is (objectively) abusing you and so you think you're having a good time when they do show you attention, while another part of your mind hates them for hurting you. There are countless examples of how different parts of a single mind can be at odds with each other, and depending on when you think deeply about an experience, can both have enjoyed and not enjoyed an experience.

It's not unreasonable to think that similar mechanics are at play with more subtle, less social-based mechanics. Food (and drugs) have a lot of this going on too.

Dreem is the only thing I know of. Pricy though. https://dreem.com/en

We seem to be talking past each other as at this point I suspect we're in agreement. My initial claim was that punching, kicking, and stabbing were ineffective at breaking up dog fights and make them worse. I back-pedaled slightly to say that stabbing (lethal actions) is effective if it's a scenario where non-lethal tools prove ineffective.

My biggest issue from the start was the socialization of "three bystanders took part simultaneously in kicking and punching the pit bull to get it to release," which failed, predictably, and I didn't want anyone to think that that was a good thing to try in the first place.

Except for when someone states their intent?

> "My intent was to kill it at that point, but I was unsuccessful. That is my only regret in the situation."

Interesting that you and other comments took mine to mean how to train a dog, which is irrelevant to the situation under consideration. Did any of y'all mean that in good faith?

No, it's about how to de-escalate a severe situation without loss of life. (Good) policemen don't break up a fight between an 18 yr old and 10 yr old by viciously beating and then stabbing the 18 yr old. My point was only that the instincts of those involved made the situation worse before it was made better. And based on the new facts, starting with the owner.

Just as with humans, there's a well understood hierarchy of severity of tools for handling situations such as that one, though only a small minority of dog owners know them. It's incredibly unfortunate that dog lives are more or less toys for humans to play with, otherwise this fight is likely to never have happened if it was a severe as you say before it turned into a five animal brawl.

Bottom line the three of you DID make it worse before it was made better. The punching and kicking won't help in all probability. It's simply not on the spectrum of effective tools. Killing is on the far end, so I'm not begrudging your actions, I'm begrudging the behavior before it: yelling (probably), kicking, and punching instead of forcing the bite, wheelbarrowing, and other environmental tools that may have been available. Y'know, the things that animal behaviorists have figured out, how to cause specific behaviors, like stopping a dog from biting another during a fight.

I'm not sure why I wrote this comment since apparently your only regret is not achieving your intent which was to kill the dog. You managed to stop the fight without causing death, a huge win, but you wish otherwise. I sincerely hope your future is brighter than your past.

No respected dog behaviorist would ever advise kicking, punching, or stabbing to break up a dog fight regardless of breed. Y’all made it worse.

"Half my chili is gone!" "Sorry, I ate it."

"it" in that construction means "half my chili". Just as in "My southern, three-day-cooked chili is gone", "it" is "(their) southern, three-day-cooked chili".

"This chili is no good!" "What's wrong with it, I ate (some of) it?"

The parenthetical is omitted but implied. Unless they're referring to the chili that is inside your digestive tract?

Hopefully a professional chimes in but I believe it does imply that he ate it all. Your example isn't one to one because you refer to it as "I ate chili" instead of "I ate it". Same way people wouldn't be confused if he had said, "He ate Salmon that night but" .

Similar examples: I painted it last night. (Painted a painting) I beat it last night. (Beat a game) I ran it last year. (Ran a marathon)

"Where's the chili?" "Oh, I ate it last night, sorry." (Ate the chili)

"Mmm, this chili is good, isn't it?" "Sure is, I had some last night." (Ate some of the chili)

Not the original source, but better? ;)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSgiXGELjbc

I've always found this incentive structure perverse. Take Peter Norvig and place him in LA vs Louisville. In either case he's a remote employee working from a home office. <very profitable company> will want to pay him differently depending on where he lives and depending on where their HQ is. And yet his output is the same. Let's say he prefers less dense cities, maybe then his output is even higher in Louisville, as the lower cost of living affords him a better home setup and a social circle that all can afford to live nearby each other.

Society seems to want to cram people into as small a space as possible near work places, optimizing for business progress. Seems to me to make sense in the short term and fail in the long term. Here's to hoping a silver lining of the pandemic is better utilization of space towards human happiness and the health of the global ecology. :)

Why / how will the virus peak soon?

Global population is ~7.8 billion and yet presumably only 10-100s of millions have caught it so far.

I think this is a bait, but, I'm curious: if BOTW is average, could you provide me with ~25 above average games? I would love to add them to my library and play them. Or even just 15?

Thank you so much for the reference and especially the link. I tried it last night before going to sleep and it felt great. You can bet this is going into my daily wind down routine. :)

That is interesting. I haven't used any of the Apple watches so I can't speak to the effectiveness of its HRV calculations for me. One of the Oura C-level guys spoke in a podcast that doing those kinds of calculations isn't as reliable because of differences in vascularity / fit on the wrist vs a finger but who knows how true that is. Maybe it's true only for the existing monitoring tech?

I've seen my average vary from 10-50 and HRV max from 50-140 depending on sickness, exercise routine, hydration, drug use, etc. The quality of that average is interesting to observe as well, ie two nights' average of 40 can look very different depending on the peaks and valleys.

It is challenging though to suss out what effects various things have. It requires a whole lot of normality in my lifestyle so as to limit the number of variables as best I can.

The only thing I can recommend that's helped me significantly in a rigorous way is tracking HRV overnight (heart rate variability). This is an objective indirect measure of HPA axis activity (parasympathetic vs sympathetic nervous systems). Having that data to form a feedback loop is priceless in helping you determine what things you're doing in the day that is actually having an effect on your stress levels one way or the other. As I'm sure you can imagine, my best sleep is on nights when my HRV is high. I no longer drink alcohol or work on software after 7PM in general after seeing just how much those activities would wreck my body's ability to sleep well.

I use an Oura ring for this but I bet there are cheaper methods, perhaps with a heart rate chest strap, though there's an additional bonus with the ring in that it tracks sleep phases as well.*

*to some degree of accuracy (~66%?) I use it directionally only since the values have big error bars.

Cooling your body down before going to bed will have the opposite effect if your goal is to go to sleep. By cooling your body it will start to try and warm itself and trigger a stress reaction. Eating and working out before bed will similarly raise your heart rate and sympathetic nervous system activity, the opposite of what you want. Sleeping pills are also bad for sleep, ask any sleep doctor. They are great and knocking you out, but that's not what sleep is.

Saying you did "meditation" for a year doesn't tell us much, just the same as you saying you "exercised" for 4.5 hours a week doesn't tell us much. Both of those terms can mean a great number of things qualitatively speaking.

Counter-intuitively you could warm yourself 1-2 hours before bed with a hot bath or sauna session. This triggers the body to bring blood closer to the surface and extremities to shed heat, in effect "helping" the body cool itself as it approaches bedtime.

Based on these observations I think maybe you haven't tried "absolutely positively everything". And even with all the environmental and body things you've tried, the mental aspect cannot be understated.

EDIT: based on some of the replies about temperature. The hot bath method because it will help your body cool in a physiological way while a cold bath will do the opposite. A cool environment will do the same while a hot one will do the opposite. So hot bath 1-2 hours before bed and lower the room temp for the best of both worlds. Some people go further with chilled blankets such as the Ooler.

Overall good advice! But trying to touch your toes, while not inherently a bad thing to do, is one of the last things a typical person should be doing in terms of hips, shoulders, etc.* Similar kind of thing going on with planks, reverse planks are going to help a lot more for most people.

*https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i69PC4PJdAQ

Don't you think these things are directly related?

A friend of mine had some minor mental health issues going into their 20s. Lack of meaningful opportunity paired with obscenely expensive and inaccessible healthcare helped drive those to become major health issues, including drug addiction, due to intoxicating themselves to "help" distract from their grim reality.

Absolutely I think it would have been different had they had access to general preventative healthcare from the start so they could get routine dental, physical, etc. Would they be cured of their mental health problems? Probably not. Would the effects have been less destructive? Yeah, I would bet on it.

The software has changed as well as society's coupling to that software.

Identical twins share a womb, and therefore even if you separate them at birth have already been subjected to identical "nurture" for ~9 months.

Let's say you had four, all identical, split into two groups ran in parallel simulations. Two in the same womb then split at birth, the other two split at conception implanted in two separate mothers. Of the two borne to separate mothers, one mother is heavily stressed, chronically exposes the fetus to cortisol, while the other is very stable.

When looking at outcomes between these pairs, how do you account for the difference in nature vs nurture when almost all of our twin studies rely on a shared womb, shared first 9 months of nurture?

> Similar to a mechanical device that wears out faster with heavy use, the depth of discharge (DoD) determines the cycle count of the battery. The smaller the discharge (low DoD), the longer the battery will last. If at all possible, avoid full discharges and charge the battery more often between uses. Partial discharge on Li-ion is fine. There is no memory and the battery does not need periodic full discharge cycles to prolong life. The exception may be a periodic calibration of the fuel gauge on a smart battery or intelligent device.[1]

Why should we trust your statements over ones like these which seemingly are backed by more data and and explanations of the underlying physics?

[1] https://batteryuniversity.com/learn/article/how_to_prolong_l...

I don't think you understood the previous paragraph; the view I'm espousing that Alexander laid out is universal and objective. It has nothing to do with culture, but everything to do with physical systems, it is a lens by which to measure the nature of order, or in other words, life itself as a universal quality of configurations of matter.

We are not sustainably increasing order on the planet Earth, and if current trends continue, we will see an incredible amount of life / order disappear into entropy. That's a fair prediction given current evidence. Your statement about my worldview is akin to saying 2 + 2 = 4 is not universal, never mind that that formalism is dependable in this universe. Maybe in some other universe 2 + 1 = 4, but not in this one.

You can disagree with the model that Alexander lays out, but the correctness of that sentiment has nothing to do with "20th century cultural angsty baggage".

Since reading Christopher Alexander's Nature of Order series (verbose, probably could be trimmed down quite a bit), I find it much more natural to view everything as living to various degrees across all sizes / compositions of matter, which he argues for on a mathematical basis. Here's a snippet from the first volume, lifted from the linked wiki page:

> Centers are those particular identified sets, or systems, which appear within the larger whole as distinct and noticeable parts. They appear because they have noticeable distinctness, which makes them separate out from their surroundings and makes them cohere, and it is from the arrangements of these coherent parts that other coherent parts appear. The life or intensity of one center is increased or decreased according to the position and intensity of other nearby centers. Above all, centers become most intense when the centers which they are made of help each other.

Unfortunately, this perspective makes mankind's treatment of nature all the more repellent as the horror of our actions towards the rest of life (and ultimately, ourselves) is so, so self-defeating. We just can't seem to evolve past self-interest where self is defined by the boundary of our body / family / tribe. :(

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Alexander

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nature_of_Order