evol262

What's your daily caloric intake, though? It's not just sugar that's negative. Traditional diets which are high in either carbohydrates or fats are broadly ok, it's the combination which is problematic, because it's all the caloric consumption of fats at 9kcal/g along with ghrelin/insulin spiking/dropping with carbohydrates (at 4kcal/g) which is an issue, because all of a sudden daily caloric intake is much higher.

I would, too, but the barrier to entry is much higher.

This has been discussed ad-nauseum, but "getting started" with nix (or home-manager, or devshell) is an experience worse than trying to do anything with Linux in 2005.

Cobbling together a bunch of blogposts and docs which kind of, sort of, might let you piece together a config which works after enough iterations and unreadable backtraces is far more difficult than it needs to be, and that's before you get into cases like "I want Python linters in my environment, so I need Python, but I also need access to some modules from Python on the system, which aren't installable (let's say `python-apt`, which cannot be installed from pypi), and..."

For probably the 500th time someone has said it on HN this week, nix will never be really usable or gain wider adoption until someone puts together solid documentation, or even a solid "getting started -- intermediate" guide which can bridge between "let me set up a trivial env" and "I'm running nixos and it's nix all the way down"

Let me know when eBPF can probe into ring-1 hypercalls into a different kernel other than generically watching timing from vm_enter and vm_exit.

Yes, there is a difference between "eBPF can probe what is happening in L0 of the host kernel" and "you can probe what is happening in other kernels in privileged ring-1 calls".

No, this is not what you think it is.

Bringing the features of one to the other is exactly what microvms means.

Virtualization is not just "perceived" security over containerization. From CPU rings on down, it offers dramatically more isolation for security than containerization does.

This isn't about 'what most users care' about either. Most users don't really care about 99% of what container orchestration platforms offer. The providers do absolutely care that malicious users cannot punch out to get a shell on an Azure AKS controller or go digging around inside /proc to figure out what other tenants are doing unless the provider is on top of their configuration and regularly updates to match CVEs.

"most users" will end up using one of the frameworks written by a "big boy" for their stuff, and they'll end up using what's convenient for cloud providers.

The goal of microvms is ultimately to remove everything you're talking about from the equation. Kata and other microvm frameworks aim to be basically jsut another CRI which removes the "deep plumbing" you're talking about. The onus is on them to make this work, but there's an enormous financial payoff, and you'll end up with this whether you think it's worthwhile or not.

> I doubt it. High standards are rare in journalism, most will go along with high profile figures if it serves their own interests.

The debasement of "journalism" to the point where it applies to Joe Rogan and/or "news networks" which have actively fought (and won) court battles on the basis that no reasonable person would believe the statements were actually true, or news radio which for decades gave equal airtime to "both sides" even if one of those sides believed in a Hollow Earth does not mean that "journalism" has lost high standards, merely that the term has been horrifyingly diluted in the United States.

> If you want to bring Nazis into this then how about all of the practically fawning interviews that US media had with Adolph Hitler right up until he invaded France?

Whataboutism is an intellectually bankrupt argument. Nobody is defending those journalists, but if you're going to try to make a whataboutist argument, apples-to-apples works a lot better than "with the benefit of hindsight, we know that Hitler was bad and that Ford would have actively led a fifth column if he could have, so they were bad". You could equally say "if you want to bring Dwayne Johnson into this, then how about all of the love for Cosby as America's Dad?"

The known facts are different.

If you want to assert that a comparison to Nazis (and I used Goebbels as an example because he was principally a radio propagandist rather than Goering, Himmler, Heydrich, etc; he's the sort of person who would have seemed like a harmless marketing geek) is bad in a whataboutist sense, you would do much better to say "if you want to bring Nazis into this, then how about Speer? He wasn't (actively) involved in the Holocaust and he could have had a lot of interesting things to say about architecture and designing an imperial capital?"

> Do you think you would get his 11-12 million listeners to agree with you on what society should expect? Who gets to decide that?

I'm not sure why you presume that "we, as society, should expect better" means "this applies only to Joe Rogan listeners and we need to convince them." It's a general stance on how society ought to operate, and the use of "ought" is in the "how ought one live?" question raised by ethics.

We get to decide that as society. This isn't a new concept. Society would not have advanced to a point that we were capable of having this conversation at all if "we" had not already agreed on basic principles, such as "you should not steal", and "you should not murder", and "be generally honest in your dealings with others if you want to keep your reputation". These are all inherent rules of society which you implicitly follow in order to be part of it.

Holding public figures who have a louder voice to a standard of behavior which does not actively undermine society by giving credence to disinformation isn't some horrible leap or infringement upon your freedom. It's avoiding the Gracchi.

> You invoked Godwin's law twice.

Mentioning Nazis isn't Godwin's Law. Feel free to substitute some other bogeyman who you feel giving an unfiltered platform to would deteriorate society.

> What sort of argument are you going to win by invoking Nazis and worst case scenarios? Surely the slipper slope fallacy applies here?

No, it doesn't. Honestly, I'm getting the sense that you've never engaged in any kind of philosophical discourse before, which this is sort of veering into, and throwing out the names of fallacies doesn't mean they apply.

The point is, as I said in my last post, a reductio ad absurdum. It is constructing a contrapositive. It is saying "if we follow your reasoning to its logical conclusion, this is where it leads; verify whether that's true or false, less black and white."

And it was false/shades of grey. Clearly there is some level at which even ardent JRE listeners believe giving people a platform is harmful. So the question is "what are the guidelines for when something is too much?"

My position is, as repeatedly restated, that those with a greater platform have a duty to not do harm to society by allowing crackpots to talk without being challenged, whether that's denying climate change, believing lizard people run the government, believing we are secretly in contact with aliens, taking veterinary antiparasitics on the advice of one person rather than the guidance of literally every medical organization on Earth, etc.

It has no been made clear anywhere what the position of Joe Rogan defenders is other than "he's just a comedian; you shouldn't take him seriously; people can think for themselves; he doesn't have any obligation to question them". But again, it's apparent that having Nazis or murderers on with an unfiltered platform would cross some line. So where is that line? Where are Joe Rogan defenders drawing the line of what is "too much" to air? What is the basis for drawing it there and not somewhere else?

> The ethical obligation exists only in your own mind.

Normative ethics really don't just exist in one person's head.

This is not a question of whether or not people can think for themselves or whether they believe what they hear, and whether he's a comedian, politician, or astronaut has no bearing on what our ethical standards should be as a society.

We should expect better.

> You are arguing in bad faith and trying to inflame the discussion.

The fact that you have seemingly never really read philosophy or considered what we, as society, should expect from public figures does not mean the argument is in bad faith or inflammatory.

It is, very simply, a reductio ad absurdum. If your position is that the "rest of us" are capable of thinking for yourselves, who we allow to influence/control public discourse/thought should be up to individuals, then surely there's nothing wrong with having Nazis or mass murderers given airtime.

If you do have a problem with this, then you draw the line somewhere, and it's just a matter of determining where. If you have a problem with it, then you believe that some discourse is antithetical to the principles of a well-functioning society, and that we have a duty to shield people from it.

The question is where you draw that line, and why "he's just a comedian" (with 11-12 million listeners who see him as having "interesting conversations" with people who are not comedians) absolves him of a duty not to use his platform to spread dangerous misinformation. Not that he does it all the time, but it does happen sometimes, and the same normative ethics apply all the time.

Kind of the thing with being in mass media with an enormous audience is that you lose the ability to just do what you've always been doing. I mean, he can, by abandoning his platform and starting over with something else, but the piles of money are too attractive.

Public figures who can heavily influence discourse and thought have an ethical obligation to not give unchallenged credence and a drastically increased audience to their nonsense. If Rogan thought that Goebbels was interesting and let him do his thing for hours to an audience of millions, he would be held to a higher standard. If Rogan thought that Ted Bundy was interesting and let him tell "his side of the story" without challenging it with the truth, he would be held to a higher standard.

This is a basic which we should expect of our society.

Ronnie was never less than 1% body fat, or even 1%. Stage ready bodybuilders are more like 3-5%. People are just poor at estimating bodyfat, and the media throwing out nonsense numbers doesn't help.

> You can't imagine there are a few million people like that out of the billions in the world, and that we might want to give effective medical care to those people also?

There's not a good reason to think that those people are not already getting effective medical care. Medical practitioners are interested in their patients' health and longevity. Obesity and good long-term health outcomes have negative correlations. Here is one of many studies:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3963496/

If there is such a population comprising even 1% of the world population (and that figure has almost no backing in any literature unless you include age 18-30 in that cohort, who are broadly too young to have seen longitudinal health effects from obesity affect their health yet), it's unfortunate that occam's razor may impede the quality of their care, but this is very much a hypothetical question without any meaningful evidence to the contrary.

> Is this an actual question asking about the state of the research, or do you think that it's unimaginable that science could ever be able to directly manipulate people's insulin levels?

Uh, that's what insulin pumps and injectable insulin do. We really don't have to imagine it. But beta cells in the pancreas can literally get worked to death in type 2 diabetes, and type 1 diabetics never produced enough (or any) in the first place. So exogenous insulin is administered because without it (and sometimes with it), glucose will acidify the blood and cause neuropathy or ketoacidosis in the worst cases, and it impedes healing, so reduced feeling causes a small injury which heals more slowly to lead to an enormous ulcer and infiltration which the patient still may not feel, until amputation is a necessary lifesaving measure.

Science can directly manipulate lots of hormone levels, but it all has side effects versus letting your body manage itself, most of them profoundly negative.

> I get the impression from most of the top level comments on this thread that some people would be upset if fat people's mortality could be reduced or normalized without weight loss. Like there's an urge to see fat people punished rather than happy and healthy.

I don't think anyone in this thread wants to see fat people punished instead of happy and healthy. Rather, it's that obesity and being happy and healthy are incompatible in the long term, and this study doesn't change that at all. There's no moralizing or proselytizing in this thread, just a "hey dude, this isn't gonna work out in the long run, and you shouldn't fool yourself or others that it is".

If this were a study indicating that lung cancer actually wasn't linked to smoking, but was instead due to some environmental effect, and people were out here saying "wait, wait -- the study says that it was actually elevated levels of blood CO that caused it, but the number of people sucking on exhaust pipes is so low it doesn't move the needle, and this doesn't change COPD, heartattack, etc", nobody would be saying 'it's like there's an urge to see smokers punished rather than happy and healthy".

I used this as an example because the obesity rate in the US is that kind of public health crisis, with side effects that bad. Impotence, amputation, and blindness (among others) are nothing to minimize.

> Then my father is irrelevant, being diagnosed with prediabetes at 6', 165lb.

BMI is a population-level metric, and population-level analyses of health risks, from an epidemiological perspective to inform healthcare providers and public health officials of risks, frankly, don't care about your father.

Yes, it's irrelevant numerically, and it's irrelevant numerically because there's little evidence that any significant portion of the population (much less millions of people) falls into this category, whereas we are one of the fattest countries on Earth, which has absolutely no need to minimize or downplay the health effects of that.

----

Edit (ugh):

> TFA mentions that it is negatively correlated when you control for two things that are positively correlated with BMI.

Kinda the point is that TFA is mathematical gaming which doesn't yield any actionable results for healthcare providers.

> So, while the study doesn't say that high BMI reduces mortality (it in fact observes the opposite), nobody claimed it did.

You did, a bit:

> It also means that if we can control people's reactions to sugar, their weight becomes irrelevant (or possibly even protective.)

There is a range in which increased BMI provides increased survivability from catastrophic events, since the body has energy reserves and some protection from trauma, but then it drops off a cliff. It's not going to be "irrelevant" for health outcomes, much less protective very far outside of the overweight range.

> are largely irrelevant to the mortality of the obese relative to the thin, and inflammation and insulin resistance are decisive.

Yeah, ok. I guess a bunch of things which every significant health organization on Earth calls out as leading causes of mortality and linked to obesity are actually due to inflammation and insulin resistance, which must also have an effect on how hard it is to push a tube into an obese patient's throat, to find a vein to get a line in, the amount of pressure their weight exerts on their lungs, the amount of medication it takes to keep them anesthetized, how much fat accumulates in their liver, plaque buildup inside arterial walls, etc. Definitely just inflammation.

> it's saying that high BMI as a cause of premature death is likely just a proxy for high fasting insulin and inflammation and is not _by itself_ life shortening.

No, it is not. We should be very clear that high BMI is, in fact, life shortening.

High BMI is, in fact, strongly correlated with atherosclerosis. It is, in fact, strongly correlated with decreased lung volume and risk pulmonary edema. It is correlated with clot formation and stroke. It is correlated with fatty liver disease. It is correlated with decreased bone density, which leads to a heightened risk of throwing embolism-causing clots if a fall leads to a break. It is correlated with a variety of cardiac events, mostly around hardening valves and fat buildup in cardiac tissue causing lessened output while there is more circulating blood volume. It is correlated with difficulties administering anesthesia or intubating patients in case of emergency. It is correlated with...

Being obese is still horrifyingly unhealthy even if high fasting glucose is just a proxy for some of those factors (which it is not, as this study is terrible).

The percentage of people with normal BMIs and type 2 diabetes or prediabetes is so small that is irrelevant from a mass health perspective.

There are a plethora of studies correlating a change in diet with improved blood markers for fasting blood glucose and insulin response. Sugar "problems" are resolved by diet, and resolving diet goes along with reversing weight loss. It cannot be any other way.

There is no evidence that obese BMIs are negatively correlated to mortality, only the opposite. Obese BMIs still come with increased arterial plaque, complications in anesthesia and surgical healing for medical interventions, fatty liver disease, ocular pressure, lung function, cardiovascular health, and so on.

Obesity is up with smoking as a cause of preventable death. Let's not try to put a pretty face on it. A spade is a spade.

Insulin resistance/high fasting glucose and obesity are inseparable peas in a pod.

There aren't people who are fat from salads, except for the loosest definition of the word.

Weight gain is caused by an overconsumption of calories, barring a narrow range of medication side effects.

Insulin tells your body to uptake glucose into cellular bodies. If glycogen stores aren't depleted (in the liver from normal/basal metabolism, in muscular tissue from activity) and there's nowhere for it to go, it's converted via de novo lipogenesis and stored in adipose tissue. If there's no free room, new fat cells are created. Lipogenesis and the creation of new adipose tissue are not instantaneous processes.

Insulin resistance is because your body has continued to see that blood glucose is high because it cannot be taken up quickly enough, so it sends out more insulin. As high circulating levels become more normal, the alpha channel on the insulin receptor requires more insulin to activate a signal transduction pathway to open the GLUT4 transporter for glucose.

Very strictly, excess blood glucose causes insulin resistance. That excess blood glucose is caused by caloric overconsumption, which causes obesity. It is not the inverse.

Carbohydrates have poor satiety, so when the stomach is empty (fats and proteins have a longer processing time in the stomach), ghrelin is released, which stimulates hunger, and the person eats again. Probably more simple carbohydrates, possibly before the previous ones have been taken up by cells.

Caloric overconsumption -> obesity

Insulin resistance is a side effect here, one which is seen because simple carbohydrate consumption is part and parcel of obesity in the western world. It's very hard to become clinically obese without cheap sugar. The same mechanisms (overconsumption of calories) cause obesity and insulin resistance, so they're two sides of the same coin.

No, really. Insulin resistance and elevated fasted blood are clinical markers of diabetes and prediabetes. There is no arguing this.

Yes, non-obese individuals with type 2 diabetes exist, though they are rare. Obese individuals who are not prediabetic or already have pathological type 2 diabetes are unicorns.

Patients are already having their blood sugar monitored in a clinical setting, especially diabetic ones or ones likely to be prediabetic. And those patients are... obese.

There is no getting around his fact.

Non-obese patients also have this checked regularly. Clinicians frequently ask for fasting the night beforehand to check blood values. They are checking for this. Nothing here is new, even remotely.

It means that you aren't insulin resistant and it actually does its job.

Key takeaway: higher fasting insulin and higher fasting blood sugar are both signs of being prediabetic or having type 2 diabetes, which is correlated with obesity.

This takeaway is basically "the increase in mortality that has been attributed to fluid in the lungs is likely due to a lack of blood oxygenation rather than being submerged underwater".

> There was an article a while ago that said that American history since the civil war made much more sense if you assumed the South won, and made a reasonable case for them actually winning the peace, even if they technically lost the war.

Do we have enshrined slavery and a system of states' rights so strong that the national-level government apparatus is vestigial? No? Then the South didn't win. This is awful revisionist history for the author to sound "smart" purely through cynicism.

You could make the argument that the fundamental mistake Americans made was in assuming that Reconstruction (aborted as it was) made enough of a dent that after a couple of generations, it would vanish. Then again for the civil rights movement in the 60s. It's become clear enough that American never "solved" the problem of getting everyone to agree on what rights and liberties the Constitution protects, but that's not the South winning, that's just complacency.

That isn't the South winning, it's the nature of government. Without "permanent revolution" which constantly keeps issues at the forefront to change their state of affairs, they are eroded. If you wanted to make another cynical, smart-sounding argument, it would be that rights in America make much more sense if you assume that conservatives are Trotskyists. The conservative party (Democratic, then Republican after the party flip) never accepted that the status quo was the final state of affairs.

> I'd guess a similar argument could be made for the Nazis.

Did the Nazis get Lebensraum, depopulate the East, form a 1000-year Reich, return the "Germanic people" to their ideal state as farmers on the land, etc? No? Then they did not win.

> It's easy to look back and think the North had our modern values, and were fighting against 19th Century racists, when really it was (broadly speaking) 19th century racists vs 19th Century racists, so it's not surprising that the 19th century racists won.

This is an argumentum ad absurdum when there were concrete differences between the factions.

> Similarly, Nazi Germany wasn't being fought by modern liberals, it was being fought (from the west) by people who were generally more positive about Hitler destroying trade unionists than they were about the Russian Revolution deposing monarchs.

As above. It was also being fought by people who were initially unwilling to believe that another European conflict would be prosecuted so soon after the last one -- a war which France's population numbers still had not recovered from -- at a time where information was far less democratized. It is not a reasonable position to assume that the West knew the extent of Nazi Germany's crimes or activities, particularly before the war. Even where intelligence reports gave some indication, it was harder to verify.

> So, it's not really a surprise that the corporate-rich-military complex 'won', because they were on both sides. Though for a few decades afterwards, the average man in the street was needed to fend off wars, so got treated a little better than before, which could have seemed like massive and inevitable progress.

There was not a corporate-rich-military complex on either side. The Nazi economy's only "complex" was plunder with "pie in the sky" budgeting from every direction which the financials did not support. The West developed a strong military-industrial complex only after the war, and even then, there was a strong push that the fruits of that labor should be free to the public. Eisenhower's warning was meant as a canary in the coalmine, not a statement of how things already were.

Do not say "which could have seemed like massive and inevitable progress" and devalue the accomplishments made and gains achieved. Progress is not inevitable, but the decisions made (the NHS was founded while the UK was bankrupt, Johnson's passage of the Civil Rights Act consciously surrendered the presidency, etc) and the sacrifices/struggles of the litany of people involved in the Civil Rights movement in the US, codification of many rights by the Warren Court, and a million other things. It was not an illusion. It was a not a completion, either; like Jim Crow appeared post-Reconstruction, the "emergency" mindset faded from the public eye, and some common acceptance of the notion that it was "solved" now pervaded the national consciousness.

That we have taken these as a given rather than something which must be constantly asserted does not mean they did not happen, that it was window dressing to ensure a supply of soldiers (the overlapping timelines of the Department of Defense realizing that drafted troops were nowhere near as effective as volunteer troops and the Warren Court expanding guaranteed rights is undeniable), or that it was an illusion.

It means only that manipulative actors can follow the same playbook as Goring's famous Nuremburg quote from Nuremburg of "why of course the people don't want war...", or Niemoeller's "first they came for..." eligy

> According to Louie Simmons, strength athlete at top shape can lose about 20% of 1RM weight in two weeks of inactivity.

Westside was a very specific training methodology, and neurological adaptations matter, and Louie cared a lot more about performance in competition (which has a fair amount to do with one's mental state) than whatever the science says.

Supercompensation is a real thing: https://www.google.com/search?q=supercompensation+strength+w...

That is -- a period of NO or virtually no activity for a week can actually increase performance above the peak for a small window where your body has had time to repair the muscular damage but the neurological adaptations haven't faded. Two weeks is just about the end of that window, but it's completely at odds with what Louie believed.

Louie and or the Conjugate Method have absolutely nothing to do with Abadjhiev or the Bulgarian/Soviet methods, despite whatever his claims are. The Soviets/Bulgarians never used any of the things Conjugate is known for (bands, chains) or the periodization. Those nations focused on the classic/olympic lifts, or the sport of "weightlifting". Bands and chains are antithetical to everything they'd do there.

Bulgarian was, specifically: snatch or clean to a max for the day, do 5 singles, drop 10% and do 3 triples || drop 5% and do 3 doubles, do a power/hang/block variant of the lift you didn't do earlier, same scheme but higher reps, some squat variant (front/back), some pull variant (snatch/clean).

For the vast majority of people -- those who are not training for competition, or those who are not training to compete at an elite level -- all of this is useless and borderline counterproductive. Competing in (or training to compete in) a sport WILL eventually cause injuries.

The best advice you can give to people is "find something in the gym you enjoy enough to keep you going until it becomes a routine", because after 5+ years, if you're not aiming to win medals/break records (locally, state-level, nationally, whatever), the best overall outcomes will be from those who stayed in the gym, and getting injured is a big deterrent to that.

It still makes a .idea folder to add to .gitignore or clean up, just as .vscode makes a .vscode folder.

I don't see this as a lot different than MacOS spraying .DS_STORE files everywhere. It's not a big deal to add to .gitignore, but it does leave a fingerprint. It's just that tries to determine reasonable defaults if the path doesn't exist instead of Netbeans/Eclipse/whatever forcing you to pick them with a wizard if you want any of the "real" features to work.

I'm not suggesting cloudflare or public cloud by any means. It is not hard to run your own infrastructure on a small scale. However, you can play around with k8s/k3s without making it the lynchpin of the network infrastructure.

I mentioned BIND being the reference implementation for a reason. Every single DNS feature will be supported in BIND. In X years when something new and cool comes and/or k8s/k3 becomes somewhat "legacy" and people move onto the "next" infrastructure, CoreDNS has a very real chance of becoming something like Designate. It works. It's fine. BIND will keep ticking. I haven't had to adjust my named.conf (other than adding hooks for things like the sig-external-dns addon) in over a decade.

Do whatever you want with most of it. DNS in particular should be boring, stable, and able to run on a potato.

This is a great idea, but the author is making a mistake (well, "all eggs in the k8s/k3s basket is also a mistake") in banking on CoreDNS.

BIND is THE reference DNS server. It is the RFC, and the k8s external-dns sig to dynamically create record for services is the right way to go here, with delegation of some subdomain to k8s if you really want to. BIND's ocnfiguration is a relatively tiny text file and some RNDC keys. You could practically run it on on an Arduino, and adding secondaries is mindblowingly simple.

BIND supports every single part of the DNS spec. BIND will work with k8s/k3s plus whatever infrastructure is added later, out of the box, with no changes, in plain text files. Drive failure? Just grab stuff from git. It is 100% the right solution.

K8s/k3s are fine, but the authors are dramatically overestimating how far "we admin some websites" is going to take them during major version changes changes which adjust the arguments to kubelet/kube-admin, tryint to get some legacy/future software working, etc. Either use Kubevirt or, if I were starting this in 2022, I'd use a system like Nomad as the base and delegate things which belong in k8s to k8s so your core infrastructure doesn't depend on the hip tech.

Core infrastructure should be boring, stable, and "just work". PSQL is great. BIND and isc-dhcpd on whatever embedded boards you feel like will run forever, the config will probably never have breaking compatibility changes, and integrate with everything. Layer other things on top of that.

Ceph/Rook are great. Until you run out of storage. Shared nothing for DNS/dhcpd (let them handle transferring themselves). If you need "real" shared storage, pick whichever one you think you can recover when it catastrophically fails, because it WILL catastrophically fail. Ceph will run out of free inodes or the ratio will get too high and nodes will fail to start until you add capacity or recover manually with ceph-osd/ceph-bluestore-tool/etc.

Like k8s, don't select tools which are built to be monitored/managed by a team of dedicated people for your more or less hobby project in your free time. Pick something boring and stable.

If you want to build it like the internet, run it like the internet.

The SSL concerns can easily be mitigated. So can whatever weird TLD issues this is talking about with appending "/". Host a private DNS namespace. This has been done for decades. Your DNS servers (BIND) will be authoritative. Users of your network will need to disable DNS-over-http. Or make BIND do it. As mentioned, use Name Constraints for the CA.

Deploying them is easy. Figuring out the correct incantations to bind a load balancer or ingress port to redis/kafka/mysql/whatever and/or expose them in some way other than "let the ingress figure out the host from headers/SNI and map to some thing in the Service" is somewhat less than intuitive.

Sure, you could argue that you shouldn't expose backend services like that without an API endpoint at all, because one application->one namespace, or you could use a service mesh/consul to expose it to the things that need it, but it's an entirely different mindset from "I have a postgres cluster in public/private cloud"

No, the point of this study is "those who claimed they reduced caloric intake but did not lose weight did not actually reduce it -- they're poor at estimations, so they got it wrong, and this actually works".

"What is glycemic index?"

This isn't "crank science". This is just lack of knowledge. High fibre "carbs" have a lower glycemic index. Fats have essentially none, and protein is low.

Food -> glucose -> insulin release -> glycogen update by liver/muscles -> leptin release for satiety

Simultaneously:

lower blood sugar -> ghrelin release -> hunger

This is just the difference between burning gunpowder and charcoal.

Track how many calories you are eating. If your weight is stable, you are burning that many. It is literally that simple. If you reduce calories, you will lose weight. If you increase them, you will gain weight.

Individual metabolism makes a difference here, as does body composition.

There are essentially zero papers which show anything even remotely resembling this. In basically every controlled environment, CICO more or less works, albeit not with perfect efficiency. It's not until prolonged starvation periods or massive overfeeding periods that any sort of genetic/epigenetic limiters come in (overfeeding tends to be prisoner studies, the MN starvation experiment is the most commonly cited/most data from long-term starvation).

If dieting works in controlled environments, the obvious conclusion is that dieting does not work in uncontrolled environment precisely because of the poor food choices, and because we, as humans, tend to discount the amount of calories in small things through out the day, nor do we rigorously measure.

All a "NEAT decrease" is saying is "people are more lethargic when dieting". It would be unsurprising if this were due to crash dieting, but this cannot "negate" a diet. Reduce calories further until the scale starts to move. Or be more active, despite lethargy.

It's almost like your body has a bunch of internal processes to maintain homeostasis around crucial functions, and maintaining the appropriate osmotic pressure is essential to life. Yes, this feedback loop has a little lag, so you can die from water intoxication, and/or hold water weight from a particularly salty meal (or one with a lot of carbohydrates if you don't often consume them, since cell volume is largely water, and increased glycogen storage will knock it out of balance for a bit). Assuming your diet is reasonably homogenous, your body is not packing on 400% of the weight of carbohydrates in added water. It's using the carbohydrates to replenish glycogen stores in your liver and muscles via insulin. If those stores are not depleted, it'll get converted into fatty acids via de novo lipogenesis. When you're asleep or between meals, glucagon will take glycogen back out of your liver for use, and if that depletes, some catecholamine will trigger lipolysis to do it from stored triglycerides made from the fatty acids.

It does not assume that every molecule is metabolized homogenously, nor that your body is perfectly efficient, and not even that everyone's body has the same level of efficiency.

It more or less means "track how many calories you are eating to get a baseline number. If you want to lose weight, decrease that number. If you want to gain weight, increase that number. Continue tracking until you establish a baseline number for whatever weight you wantwhen you have reached it".

Your digestive system generally does NOT "happily pass unwanted calories without absorption". Ingested fat is broken down into long chain fatty acids, which can be stored directly in adipose tissue with no further metabolic changes. If you consume a ton of fats at one time, there flat-out may not be enough bile salts released to emulsify it all down, and/or not enough pancreatic lipase released to turn all of the emulsified fats into fatty acids, and/or not enough time for them all to be absorbed in your small intestine. Statements like that are more or less like saying "Battletoads players will happily smash into barriers on bikes/surfboards/planes/clinger-winger", or "internal combustion engines will happily pass unburned fuel". It's a system in motion with a limited point of insertion (the common bile duct at the beginning of the duodenum), and hopefully long enough to finish the job. The fact that this is not always true just means that the system has been overloaded.

Gluconeogenesis from proteins is such a metabolically expensive process that your body does actually try to avoid that one, but it will if it has to, which is why rabbit starvation is true.

This post is peak overconfidence based on an amazingly shallow depth of knowledge.