Like every Gore-Tex product.
268 karma · joined January 13, 2021
Citation needed. They are absolutely going to be benefited from weight loss.
"What is becoming increasingly clear is that we need to continue to strongly advocate weight loss for all our patients, regardless of the severity of their OSA or adherence to our other therapies. The benefits of weight loss are, to a degree, unquestionable. This study highlights that tangible benefits can be obtained with weight-loss interventions. The challenge, as always, lies in the implementation of our lofty goals."
https://jcsm.aasm.org/doi/10.5664/jcsm.8384
"Results: Relative to stable weight, a 10% weight gain predicted an approximate 32% (95% confidence interval [CI], 20%-45%) increase in the AHI. A 10% weight loss predicted a 26% (95% CI, 18%-34%) decrease in the AHI. A 10% increase in weight predicted a 6-fold (95% CI, 2.2-17.0) increase in the odds of developing moderate-to-severe SDB. "
"What is becoming increasingly clear is that we need to continue to strongly advocate weight loss for all our patients, regardless of the severity of their OSA or adherence to our other therapies. The benefits of weight loss are, to a degree, unquestionable. This study highlights that tangible benefits can be obtained with weight-loss interventions. The challenge, as always, lies in the implementation of our lofty goals."
https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/31/Supplement_2/S3...
I'd like a source on that. AFAIK the leading factor is so called "near activities", or more specifically, lack of "far activities" (i.e. lack of looking at a distance, which makes your eyeballs get and keep proper shape and characteristics).
> In that regard cellphones (since they can be used outdoors) are a huge improvement over e.g. television.
Again, environment brightness, AFAIK, is way less important than the distance at which you are looking. Hence, looking at the TV is better than at your phone. And I suspect both are better than reading a paper book.
Classic (i.e. in paper) reading/writing is much worse than screens.
> It's only me and the other two boys who spend all the time and money on online video games
the most important factor, AFAIK, is "outside time", i.e. the amount of "medium/far distance looking" that you do every day. A lack of it has been proven to cause myopia.
And books, too.
I've always had a natural ability to remember my dreams. And one of the most curious things about my dreams is that I can recall (as in right now) dreams I had decades ago. I can often remember them until late in the day. I can also know when I had a dream I already had years ago (it happens often). It's almost like a deja vu.
I never had a dream diary, but I would like to make one just to find these repetitions, connections, relations, etc.
My happiest relationship with film was when I was able to go to the movies every week (some weeks even twice!). I was going alone, during the week, to independent movie theaters that charge 4-5€. It's a great experience, even if you don't love the movie. It never feels like a ripoff.
The main problem IMO is that people don't want to get out of their comfort zone (and lack time/interest to find new stuff they might like). But of course when tickets are 15€ instead of 4€ people are much less willing to take the risk.
They're often not, just choosing whatever gets more promoted.
Complaining about the lack of good new "x" (be it movies, music, books, etc.) is more a reflection of the complainer than of reality. Assuming you live in the US, around 800 new movies are released every year in theaters alone. If we include movies that go directly to streaming, and international movies that don't release in the US due to distribution rights issues (or just lack of interest), we are well in the thousands.
So, unless you did watch those 800 movies, you lack the authority and grasp on reality to claim "just about every new movie that comes out is predictable and boring". Again, the sentence is a reflection of your tastes and habits of media consumption (and of course of those of the general society in which you live), not of reality. No offense intended.
The miniaturization and democratization of technology has made extremely affordable and easy the creation of new movies and music. There are lots of new garbage, of course, but just about anyone in a Western country can create a masterpiece. The prime example is Kevin Smith financing Clerks with his credit card.
Probably "hundreds of good movies are made every year, but if you don't move your ass and try to find them they won't magically land on your lap".
The author has identified these problems himself (point 5) but looks like he just doesn't want to put in the effort.
But we do have instantaneous access to good films from everywhere in the world, and good tools to discover them.
But not (only) because they lack a good catalog. It's mainly because they don't (want you to) have the tools to find content you'd truly like. They're focused on promoting new and trending content. The proper approach is to have a list outside content providers and not use providers as discovery tools. (Edited a typo.)
I'm sorry but that's not true at all. Paella allows for some variations, but there's a clear line separating paella from "arroz con cosas". Just because it has rice and is cooked in a wide and short pan doesn't make it paella.
> My relatives in Madrid have chorizo, shrimp, shellfish, rabbit, chicken, sausage as far as meats I've seen in the paellas they've made.
I don't think you can call an orange juice "paella" just because "that's how you cook it".
So you're saying only enthusiasts have smartphones?
From the report: "We currently lack data to indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary."