Depends what you’re writing to be honest.
540 karma · joined April 1, 2015
Completely different energy systems, <90% anaerobic, and has a level of skill acquisition that distance running doesn’t have.
Sport with a high mobility requirement? Things like weightlifting, gymnastics, ballet etc.
The Silicon Valley world would do well to learn some things from finance. You’d never write a horizontally scaled order matching engine.
Running is terrible exercise. Terrible because it’s extremely hard on the body unless you’re on the lower end of the BMI scale. If you do any sport with a high mobility requirement, you can feel how tight a single run makes you.
The killer in old age is immobility, of your knees and hips. Running really doesn’t help.
Now before people point me to some article debunking how running isn’t in fact bad for your knees, that’s not what I’m saying. Efficient running is all about maximising power through a very small range of motion. Runners by and large have terrible hip mobility for athletes.
Twitter is likely going to try to pivot towards being a crypto driven fintech. If he succeeds in turning Twitter into a P2P payments platform that holds custody of funds you get to be at ground zero in creating a digital bank with millions of users.
The downside is it might fold in a year or so.
It just adds yet another layer.
Just as an FYI it’s very hard to be convicted of under FCPA if you’re just operating in a personal capacity. So don’t worry about bribing policemen in foreign counties.
There are endless things that distance this from the trolley problem, but mainly starving someone to death isn’t inaction, it’s a conscious clinical choice.
It’s utterly bizarre in my mind that is what the USA settled on as a grotesque compromise. Particularly so because outside the medical setting this would still be homicide by starvation.
Such an absurd and institutionally biased policy, the USA has on many occasions in the last decade vigorously endorsed the outcomes of clearly rigged elections as a matter of policy. Iraq and Afghanistan come to mind.
Will big tech remove valid accusations of ballot stuffing because it aligns with US policy?
For all of the fitness tracking that exists, perceived exertion and relative pace to your max is better.
But despite all this, it’s far better than any digital piano because it still fills the room with beautiful sound. And the playing the with slight inconsistencies of the action is part of learning the particular instrument. Though I’m sure this would be annoying to a concert pianist who has to learn the idiosyncrasies on demand, but nonetheless the action feels more delicate and responsive than any electric piano I’ve played. Also ivory keys are superior to plastic in their cold hard tactility.
Fully worth it if you like to play and you have the space. The price of a relatively new and workable condition grand piano is similar to a very good digital one.
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/164358912741 1990s - 9k GBP
Very old ones tend to be cheaper:
> https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284979656880 1890s - 4k GBP
The only person I knew who died on that hill would insist on doing two queries to the database, and then would insist on doing a client side cartesian join.
Most marathon runners are terrible athletes who have terrible training goals and usually stop running due to self-inflicted soft tissue injury. This isn't expensive to treat since normally it's only rest is required to heal from ITB-syndrome or even shin splints. So they're rarely able to turn it into a lifestyle. Those who are able to continue probably are at a higher risk of osteoarthritis. I still stand by these people just cost less to provide healthcare for in old age (and I don't think there's selection bias at play here).
> Pre-ACA, some folks found themselves shoved off into "high risk pools", which often made them functionally unable to access healthcare.
Like I completely agree with this, that it solves this problem.
I was more so trying to raise the moral point about socialised healthcare (and I mean socialised in that loose sense) demanding a sacrifice from those who do take care of themselves. People are willing to suspend notions of natural inequalities to a point because most people still feel they live in a society. But there is a limit to this where people feel their burden is so disproportionate that they seek to emancipate themselves from it. The bonds of society are only so strong.
Don’t be so lazy as to argue that a marathon runner makes comparable choices to an overweight layabout. It’s just not true that people’s lifestyles are in aggregate equal. Health insurance companies know this and are legally forbidden to charge obese people more under the ACA. It’s cold hard actuarial fact.
Rather than trying to falsify reality to fit your moral viewpoint, try to argue why he should subsidise.
That just isn’t true. Advances in nutritional science have had a major impact. Vitamin C made transatlantic shipping empires far more viable. The discovery of folate eliminated a whole class of birth defects. Fluoride improved the oral health of nations. The whole reason that nutritional science has any credulity today is that it had an unequivocal positive effect on mankind’s quality of life at barely any cost.
That has to be trivial to bypass. Maybe as an added bonus you can turn it on with a button.