jmpetroske

As you gain weight, your base metabolic rate also increases. Having fat means you inherently burn more calories, even if you don’t exercise any more.

Take one person, say they eat 2000 calories to maintain bodyweight. If they start eating 2500 calories a day, they won’t gain 1lb of fat a week forever. As they gain fat, their body naturally burns more calories due to the increased body weight, and eventually a stable weight (higher than their original weight) will be reached.

So yeah if you’re eating 500 calories above your metabolic weight, you’ll theoretically gain weight forever. But in this case your metabolic rate is rising over time, so you would be eating more and more calories per day.

I think there are 2 different ways to interpret the title. First, is AI itself replacing workers - article is referring to this case says no. 2nd case is what you are mentioning, the AI race has companies reducing hiring in non-AI areas in order to prioritize hiring for developing AI.

Alright bub, I guess the dying Canadian fisheries you have second-hand experience with are exactly representative of everything that’s going on. I’m glad we can give up looking into why fish aren’t doing well, now that you figured it out.

Fisheries definitely can be mismanaged. Furthermore, there are issues like international waters, where regulations are hard to create even when they are desperately needed.

It’s unclear to me what your conclusion is, is it that all commercial fishing is bad? Fisheries are definitely not always managed to keep fishermen happy, they are often frustrated with regulations. If you talk to a crabber, they will complain that they are not aloud to crab anymore due to the biologists saying there is not a sustainable crab population. They might go on to say the biologists are incorrect, but they aren’t able to change the regulations to their liking. Talk to an Alaska salmon fisherman during a poor salmon year and they will complain the biologist is not giving them enough open periods and they are losing make money. Even on a good year, captains will complain about the regulations the biologists set. In general, Alaska fisheries are often regarded as the most sustainably harvested in the world. I’m not saying they are perfect, but that fish can be harvested in a sustainable manner. The biologists DO want to ensure the long term viability of these fisheries.

My point is that: - we should continue to research when and why fish are struggling - forgoing fishing completely is most likely not the solution. As long as it is done in a sustainable manner, wild caught fish IS an environmentally friendly sliver of our food supply.

Yeah there’s definitely regulatory changes that need to be made, it is insane to see that some practices are still legal. I just disagree with the notion that all fishing is harmful

If you’re implying that fishing is the main culprit, I’d invite you to do some further reading. These fisheries are carefully managed to ensure that salmon are able to spawn. Granted, there is the existence of trawling boats which do cause real harm. Yet, almost all commercial fishermen detest the practice of bottom trawling due to the harm it causes.

41 millions pounds of sockeye were caught in Bristol Bay this season. I was up there working on a boat myself. Yet, the rivers were still thick with sockeye at the end of the season. It is not a free-for-all where people are allowed to catch fish in any manner they want, the rules and regulations are there to ensure that fishing is not impacting the long-term viability of these runs.

Would love to read into this research if you have a link or something to search

Yeah that’s my point

Is the TikTok debacle not a way higher profile case?

I don’t ever expect everything to be perfectly efficient or even close to it, but how many jobs are there that really truly matter? A job “mattering” is binary either, a doctor is probably essential, and an artist isn’t, but it still matters.

I personally don’t think wages always correspond to how essential a job is, but for the sake of the argument let’s pretend that wages match the necessity of a job, its difficulty, educational requirements, etc.. In this case, I’d expect that we would see people move to jobs that are more essential than their prior job. I think this is more complex that just “poaching”.

Correction to myself, I believe we have more than enough people to provide the labor.

I really don't mean to get into the nitty gritty details - I'm not an economist and I'm not providing solutions, just stating what I see as the problem. I believe that we have enough resources, and there are issues getting those resources to where they need to go.

Example: Assume we do have a shortage of elderly care workers. Why is this the case? Could this be fixed by increasing their wages? Then that implores the question of who is paying for these increased wages, which is the question I'm not answering and I don't know enough to answer.

I just don't really believe that keeping the birth rates high is the answer to this economic problem. It might be a solution, but it's more of a band-aid than truly facing the issue. If you have a inefficient engine you can either figure out how to produce more gasoline (babies), or you can figure out how to produce a more efficient engine.

My take is that saying the problem is birth rates is misguided. Surely we have enough labor to provide for the elderly, why can’t our economy be structured to get this labor to the people who need it?

Yeah I guess part of my point is that such market would probably be better served by owning a car instead. Most of these trucks with tiny beds I see have roll top covers or canopies on them anyways. If you need 4 seats and a some cargo space, there's tons of cars that fill that niche. Maybe I'm missing something in my understanding of people's desires, but I don't think its possible to have 4 seats, normal length truck bed, and not be a oversized gas guzzler

I live in a town/area that has a high percentage of truck owners, definitely higher than i.e. west coast cities. An area with lots of people who do outdoor activities that a truck is nice or necessary for, and with people who do use their truck for work, and with people who drive trucks because it is what they are accustomed to. Among my friends and people I talk to, there is definitely some desire for more reasonably sized trucks. As another example, older used trucks (which are smaller) fetch a premium here compared to other areas. Nationwide, you can also look at the success of the Ford Maverick and even possible the Hyundai Santa Cruz. Personally, I don't understand these truck models, as they seem to be an inconvenient 4 door car with a truck bed that isn't really usable for much, but they indicate that manufactures are somewhat succeeding with the concept.

There is 100% still a large market for big trucks, but I wonder how the truck market will change in the future. My first car was an old ford ranger, which was in many ways the perfect vehicle for me. Reasonably sized, 2 doors, okay gas mileage, okay for light towing, and a bed that was usable. The modern small trucks are a completely different design, catering to a super cab design that can easily fit 4 people, and sacrificing bed space, and still end up significantly larger than older pickup trucks. This still seems completely non-functionable to me. It seems manufactures are realized customers want smaller trucks, but it is just catering to people who want a truck but don't actually need a truck? Will we ever see normal-sized functional pickup trucks in the US again?

Safety standards do change for the better, but insurance and legal risks do have gyms on edge. I think his point is that gyms tend to be overly strict in areas that do not matter, but are easy to regulate/check. I.e requiring you have an unnecessary “backup” knot above your figure 8, requiring 2 Tri-locking carabiners for autobelay in response to accidents where people simply didn’t clip into the autobelay, knowing your gyms mnemonic for checking your knot, and disallowing wearing a single earbud when autobelaying (saying you won’t be able to hear if there is an emergency). These are all things I’ve seen required in gyms that IMO do not actually improve safety. Having friends that work in gyms, I’ve heard a lot of these policies are due to demands by insurance companies.

Meanwhile, I very frequently see people belaying in manners where their climber would hit the ground if they fell (usually the first 3-4 bolts up). The difference is, this is much harder for gym staff to notice and correct. Furthermore, I’m sure most of these climbers are capable of using better technique and do so when taking a belay test, but then get complacent afterwards.

This sounds like more correlation than causation to me. There’s a similar statistic people like to quote in regards to backcountry skiing - that you are more likely to be in an avalanche if you have taken an avalanche safety course. Sure, there’s a correlation. But when basically everyone who backcountry skis regularly has taken such a course, and the people who backcountry ski infrequently are less likely to have taken a course, you can imagine why such statistic is true. Furthermore, advanced backcountry skiers are way more likely to be venturing into more complicated avalanche terrain that has more inherent danger.

It would be better to measure the accident rate in a more controlled setting, like accidents per gym route climbed. I can only surmise on what the results here would be. I don’t doubt that experienced climbers get complacent, but new climbers also are new to it and likely lack some knowledge to keep things safe.

I suspect that with experienced climbers, they are probably climbing way more frequently than inexperienced climbers (which you would need to account for to suggest causation), and also doing more dangerous routes. New climbers are less likely to do alpine routes where you encounter climbing when fatigued/sleep deprived, weather concerns, rock fall hazards, complicated descents, etc. And brand new climbers are hardly ever climbing trad routes, especially with marginal protection.

Side note, but as someone who nerds out on reading accident reports, climbing accidents are hardly ever caused the gear failing. Even old ropes damaged by the sun are super strong, and it’s typically quite obvious when gear is wearing out.

Look, you’re taking my response out of context. I’m just stating that the reason Hilbert failed is not that he didn’t have a computer. Lean devs aren’t trying to do what Hilbert was.

The reason Hilbert failed is because it’s mathematically impossible (Gödels incompleteness theorem).

I don't quite agree with your conclusion. When these companies get as huge as they are, it's quite easy for them to abuse their size in ways that harm consumers and smaller businesses. This is different than just critiquing them for being large companies.

In the case of Google, I (and the DOJ) believe they clearly are/were suppressing other search engines. Additionally, with Chrome, its not just as simple as using a different browser. Keep in mind Google has control of Chromium and can do things like pushing manifest v3 that benefit them. Their control over Chromium also allows them to essentially dictate what will become web standards. If you think web standards should be change to allow users more privacy, there's nothing you can do because Google leverages their power to prevent that.

In the case of Apple, I don't think there's many people hating because they make nice products. You don't have to agree, but people are arguing that things like their app store policies are unfair, NOT that apple doesn't deserve to be large and make a profit. Apple is is a position of power, that is OK. What is not OK is them taking advantage of that in an anti-consumer manner.

I think the issue is not that there are huge companies, and it also is not that these huge companies are for-profit institutions. It's that these companies are using their size to make a profit, and sometimes this is in ways that make the world a worse place.

These institutions are beholden to their shareholders to try and make a profit. They are only trying to fulfill this duty. It is difficult for a company to grow to massive scale and not sometimes seek profit in ways that negatively impact consumers and smaller businesses. If we want these large businesses to fulfill their fiduciary duty in a way that does not negatively impact us, it is the duty of government to provide regulation/guidance/action.

I’m summarizing, the details of the suit are widely available.

Bud lights and coca colas activity isn’t enough to suppress competition. Google’s is, and the U.S. justice system clearly thinks so.

You can look up details of the lawsuit, but the idea is that Google paying Apple to be the default search engine prevents other search engines from competing with Google search. The default search selection has been shown to be quite important. Anti-trust law is built around the idea of maintaining competition - “monopolies” aren’t inherently illegal.

It would be a tall feat to suppress close to a third the population from voting!

There are no longer fines in your taxes for not having insurance. That law was revoked

It’s always cases like this that make question if the dictionary is wrong, or if everyone speaking the language is wrong.

Yeah there’s some controls, but they are much less granular than what ad-tech exposes. I’ve just never really been sure why Google/meta/etc. choose to expose this information differently for ads vs content.

Yes but it _appears_ that there are very different algorithms/classifications used for which ads to recommend vs what content to recommend. Opening up this insight/control for content recommendations (instead of just ads) would be a good start.

> People who self-describe as contrarians, independents, or skeptics are consistently associated with lower education, lower information, and lower analytical skills than others without these self descriptions.

This is an awfully large claim to make without any backing research. Some quick googling hasn't led me to anything backing this up, but I would be curious to read anything that says so.