Do most programs need to know the birth date of the user?
362 karma · joined August 10, 2017
It feels like your begging the question here, I don’t think this follows from any of your arguments. Except for maybe where you state you believe sentience can’t be defined, which again, begs the question.
Though admittedly I don’t see much of a traditional argument — your conclusion is interesting, could you try supporting it?
Throwing information out like this (w/o source and at best poorly replicated), that CICO is useless because of digestion rate, is incredibly dangerous because it falsely legitimizes that hopelessness. It traps people. And it maybe only applies in <1% of cases, where you have not just obesity but also compounding, very specific digestive issues. The opposite is also true — you don’t just drink coffee to knock off enough cal absorption to make a diff — you take laxatives you don’t need and have extremely abnormal, frequent BMs.
Anyone and everyone can lose the weight. It’s just CICO. You gotta figure out your input and output to account for the minor individual variances, and lock in a lifestyle to do it. But it’s just CICO at the end of the day.
Again, the digestion point seems to reinforce CICO. If you gain weight because your digestion is slower (let’s grant the point), it’s not because your body some how treats calories differently, it’s that you’re getting more calories from your food. Your calories in are higher.
Not to mention that diet products have existed to game your digestive system to absorb less calories from your food. With the rationale being… less CI in CICO. See also: folks abusing laxatives for this purpose
If you want someone to gain weight, do the same calc, tell 'em to eat 100 more calories. Not gaining? 200. Really not gaining? Wow, fast metabolism, shock 'em with 500 extra. Anecdata, but the only time I saw someone not slowly gain on 200 extra, there ended up being a lot of walking we weren't accounting for in our maintenance cal calculation. Our O in CICO was off. For reference, 200 cals is like a 16 oz of coke, or 2-3 apples. Decently precise.
The variance between a fast and slow metabolizer isn't 20% of daily calorie burn, maybe 10% on the high end. Guesstimation, probably more like 5%. Well within the tolerances that are used for weight modulation (up or down).
If it weren't the case, why are so many body builders (natty or enhanced) able to run repeated bulking and cutting cycles? Are they genetic outliers?
Can you calculate it 100%? Nope -- so many variables, probably tons we don't even know about yet. But it's accurate enough to be very effective, and very simple to implement.
E.G. it’s examples of the Maasai and Inuit eating higher calories make a lot of sense when you consider their exposure to temp extremes and additional cal burn coming from thermoregulation (along with probably elevated levels of daily activity).
Most of the nuance I’ve seen around CICO that holds isn’t that CICO isn’t true, it’s that the intake and output are hard to calculate when you look at nutrient absorption and lifestyle
I don’t think any other social media came close to how purely good Facebook was in its golden years. I’d love for someone to write a book on how it declined.
For context, reasons I have asked colleagues to “slow down”:
- they were making many mistakes or suboptimal choices, sometimes really bad mistakes, and weren’t correcting when given feedback. Most of these cases, they seemed blissfully unaware of the work they were creating and the negative value they were adding.
- they were good engineers, but obviously burning out and miserable, which made it hard to give any criticism or suggest alternate approaches. See also “heroes”, the always-mega-swamped, and the perennially grumpy (these are different classes, but can be mixed). They also weren’t always aware of their effect on others.
- they were sidelining other peoples views and autonomy, demanding changes in other peoples components, making decisions outside their scope and domain of expertise, informally managing other folks work who were perfectly capable. This was usually done with a nice professional sheen — for example, “demanding changes” often takes the form of 1) writing full on features in another component, 2) making their own work kinda depend on that feature, 3) (finally) starting a very late convo with the maintainer of that component and putting them in a rough spot if the change was a bad idea from a broader perspective. Again, usually unaware.
It’s very easy to make the above mistakes — I have, most engineers probably have teetered, and I’ve seen it a bunch in my relatively short career.
I can say, I have never asked someone to slow down when they were hitting home runs, collaborating well, and making me look bad (please, I love to work with folks I can learn from, that’s engineering). It has always been a complex but totally salvageable performance problem I’m trying to guide back on track.
Truthfully, from the bottom of my heart, I love hacker news
I’d imagine flexion also ain’t great to press with, but excessive extension seems to be way more common (and in common push up technique, the norm)
This is really something I think of as “fitness fluff”. It’s not really science, it’s a simple training plan that’ll probably work for >50% of the reasonably fit population. It’s also a training plan to accomplish a specific thing, do a handstand. It doesn’t really feel like a discussion on whether handstands are good and what regressions to apply where; why judge it so.
The bs and “real” science on nutrition and exercise both face a replicability crisis. The salt you take with all this bs (or studies, advice) will also help you achieve bigger pumps during hypertrophy training.
p.s. Don’t take the “bro” in bs too literally. It comes from all genders and identities equally. Anecdotally the biggest purveyor of bs in my life was a woman who went to med school. I still hear and say plenty of bs in my circle of crunchy climbers. You apply it moderately and trust your gut on what’s reasonable in the face of _massive_ complexity.
But I am excited to be back in office on some hybrid schedule, because there was a social component to work that I very much missed. I enjoyed the work part of the work the same, but missed the occasional coffee with a coworker, full-fledged in person brainstorming session, off hand conversations about zany ideas, lunch at the cafe, etc.
It's not that my social fulfillment declined at all overall with WFH -- other social activities filled the time -- but the specific social activity of bonding in person with folks I worked with definitely decreased, and it's nice to have that come back. That's not a reason to force folks back in the office (this is at no-one's expense, as I've seen it suggested), but it's a nice benefit.
Your team sounds awful though.
This isn't to say that you don't write code which runs at framerate with a web framework, but often this is abstracted behind layout and user interaction concepts.
I’m not sure it’s a general trend, really gotta be weary of the “couple people in my life do x” -> “why do {general class} do x?” movement