Assuming that HIIT workouts are 100% vigorous activity (unlikely), then a "few" instances would only add up to around 24 minutes of vigorous activity, which is far short of the minimum recommended 75 minutes of vigorous activity.
If you are short on time then performing HIIT for 15 minutes five days a week will get you much closer to the minimum requirements.
4-minute HIIT run (30s full/5s walk, repeat) makes you vomit and not feel your legs. 15 minutes of HIIT 5-times a week is a wishful thinking. It's not your typical "vigorous" activity. At my athletic very best I could at most chain 3 HIITs in a row and be destroyed for a few days.
Fair enough, I don't think it changes my the conclusion though.
On that basis, I would say that someone whose entire exercise regime is doing HIIT a few times a week for 8 minutes (24 minutes in total) is not going to be hitting the 6x multipler required for an equivalent of regular 150 minutes of exercise.
If that is the entirety of their training regime, I will simultaneously be amazed and change my opinion.
However, I still maintain that if someone is _only_ doing 8 minutes of HIIT 3x times a week, it is not equivalent of a getting 150 minutes of regular exercise per week.
Without further context, it's impossible to comment further.
Vigorous activity is defined as something like > 75-80% max heart rate, or > 6.0 METS, not as an absolute, all out sprint. It's actually quite far from what you expect
The paper indicated the Active group has doing at least 150 minutes of moderate-intensity physical activity throughout the week, or 75 minutes of high intensity activity activity (matching WHO guidelines[0]), and have done so for at least six months.
Anecdotally, I and several other people have found smart watches good for keeping track of intensity minutes.
Any of the 1L PCs from Dell, HP, or Lenovo. They sip power (5~10 watts), and take up minimal space. I've got a 6 or 7 VMs running on one, and it barely breaks 5% CPU usage.
This, when I was a student and had to live frugal (2001-2008 or so), I got a second-hand Dell, put it on top of a high cupboard in my dorm room, and installed a bunch of services (e.g. Trac was very popular in the day for hosting projects).
It won't give you 99.999% uptime, but for that stage in my life it was just stellar. I even had an open source project (Slackware fork) where I collaborated with someone else through that little machine.
Second-hand hardware is also a great way to get high-quality enterprise hardware. E.g. during the same time period I had a Dell workstation with two Xeon CPUs (not multi-core, my first SMP machine) and Rambus DRAM (very expensive, but the seller maxed it out).
Agree. If low cost and maximum value is you're goal, grab a used one of these or similar speed laptop (and you sort of get battery back up in that case)
Really, any machine from the last decade will be enough, so if you or someone you know have something lying around, go use that
The two main points to keep in mind are power draw (older things are usually going to be worse here) and storage expandability options (you may not need much storage for your use case though). Worse case you can plug in a USB external drive, but bare in mind that USB connection might be a little flaky
Maybe it depends on where you live, but no probably not illegal, just incredibly frown upon. I am member of a mens only sports club. We do have a few women, who we sort of had to allow as members, because they had no where else to go and we felt bad about that, but that only for one special program.
If you mention that the club is men only, some women becomes really aggressive and instantly want to become a member or have our public subsidy removed. The only fucking way to calm them down is to point out that there is a women only club right next door. Men doesn't try to invade spaces created for women by women, but women sure as hell cannot leave a mens only space alone. It triggers something in small group of women and they become obsessed trying to force their way in or have the thing shutdown.
You can have a private club with gym equipment that is exclusively for men. But when you're a business open to the public you cannot discriminate based on certain characteristics. Bob's Burgers can't sell just to men. But Bob's Boys Club that happens to have a kitchen which sells burgers to its "private" membership can absolutely keep women out.
> You can have a private club with gym equipment that is exclusively for men. But when you're a business open to the public you cannot discriminate based on certain characteristics.
You can if those certain characteristics are currently in favor.
Bonafide clubs can discriminate against anything, including protected classes. Might not be a good look, PR-wise, but it's been confirmed in court cases.
I like the idea in general principle - but if I lived in the right city/country, and didn't already have something similar, my first thought based on the landing page pictures would be;
"This is only for white guys in their twenties."
I don't know if that's intentional, but if I was in the location target market, I'd close the tab at that point.
This comment inadvertently reveals why clubs like this can't exist: there's always someone counting races and genders in photos. High functioning male social clubs generally have implicit rules, like "straight-acting gay guys are fine but don't make it weird" or "no weird lefties". But you can't have those rules anymore. So "male social clubs" get overrun with board game types who are OK with accepting everyone. Which means high status guys, the kind of guys who are trend setters, tend to stay away.
> High functioning male social clubs generally have implicit rules, like "straight acting gay guys are fine but don't make it weird" or "no weird lefties".
I think that whole conformation thing is why they don't work. Nobody wants to hang out with people pretending to be someone else so they fit in. Any social connection you make is then fake too.
> Which means high status guys, the kind of guys who are trend setters, tend to stay away.
The board games types can also be high status trend setters, just not in your circle. That's fine though. Nothing wrong with seeking out people that are like yourself.
But there's plenty of places where you can find what it sounds like you're looking for. Like sports bars. Won't find the board games types there and not many women either.
Huh? "Conformist" is the most common type of person on Earth and conformists prefer hanging out with conformists. Social clubs are entirely a conformist phenomena, almost by definition. All those Elk clubs and bowling clubs and so on were chock full of conformists.
I don't agree. If you choose the right club you don't have to conform and you can just be yourself. Especially in the cities there's a scene for everyone. In the countryside it's slim pickings of course so you do have to conform.
Maybe that's one of the reason people in small towns are so different, the social dynamic is stricter because there's just not enough people around to form groups of people that are different. City people like me, if we don't fit in we'll just find another place to go so we're more aligned. We can choose our community because a city isn't a community, it's a big box of lots of different ones. If you live in a small town you don't get to do that (not as much anyway)
But the idea that there's no community there at all is not correct. I live in a big city but I keep running into the same people :)
Ps I don't think one is better than the other, just more suitable to some people than others. I'm a city guy and I moved to the town of my girlfriend for a decade but I couldn't stick it. She couldn't stick the city with me, not for more than a holiday. That's ok too. Just meant we had to go our separate ways.
Edit: But yes when I said "Nobody wants to conform" I was just talking about myself. I guess there are people that want that. Thanks for the correction.
It's a subtle matter. Seeking acceptance and validation subconsciously and being willing to conform to get those is probably a much more common pattern compared to a conscious desire to compromise and to conform.
Really? Back in my day, there were all sorts of nerd groups, which were often plagued with horrible social dysfunction.[0] People just muddled through.
That's not too geek-specific. I've seen that at almost all kinds of volunteer-driven organisations. Like a local radio station, student fraternity, backpacker houses. Disorganisation, feuding, usually because several people put more effort than the rest but feel like they also are more important than the rest. Coupled with usually not very strictly defined roles and responsibilities this is a recipe for discord and fighting.
I've seen it at typical geek places too like makerspaces but it's certainly not limited to the geek communities.
At the groups I'm part of the vast majority is neurodivergent but things go really smoothly. We rarely have incidents.
They're not neurodivergent-focused groups but there's just a (much) larger percentage of us attracted to events that stray a bit further from the mainstream.
In my experience people do not just muddle through anymore. I don't want to speculate about why that might be, but I have seen so many weird behaviour explosions at these sorts of events myself that leads to people being ostracized
I could speculate, it was partially because of that blog post. The more social nerds are encouraged to cast out the antisocial stinky ones. Instead of a whisper campaign, there's a social media ejection.
(Nerds in particular have been lured into fake socializing with fake friends on a discord or something. I've seen this where someone disappears and it's like "i dunno, maybe he got busy with life". None of their 'friends' really care if he's dead or not, because if he really did get "get busy", that is an indictment on them.)
> there's just not enough people around to form groups of people that are different.
That's certainly part of it, although I think the bigger factor is that people who are different just leave. Small towns are conformist because of survivorship bias.
But high status guys by definition wouldn't be seen dead in clubs like these to begin with. They are socially successful ladder climbers already, that's part and parcel of being high status.
I think a gracious reading here is a "boardgame type" is the sort of person you would only encounter at your friendly local game store etc. GP has a point, but I know plenty of 'high(er) status' groups include 'non-straight-acting' and 'weird lefty' guys, but they are cool guys to hang out with, and not like weirdos who slithered out of their mother's basement.
Popular people like other popular people, because that's how you throw a party.
Anyway I wish OP the best. But in the grand tradition of internet meetups, "these people are really fucking weird."
> But high status guys by definition wouldn't be seen dead in clubs like these to begin with.
The problem with joining a club is not that it’s a club but that it’s a club governed by Title IX legislation and the Damoclesian threat of getting cancelled for telling the “It’s too white in here” college liberal that he’s no longer welcome to attend.
I guess it depends if you are after a club with men to help you climb some status ladder, or if you are after a club that helps you make male friends, regardless of where they come from.
Not on laptops, which you'll be using if you are on call. It's even worse if you don't the eyes of a 20 something year old and have the text scaled up a bit.
Somewhat offtopic, but I call these articles "parading the idiot". Where a newspaper or other media outlet runs an article interviewing a person where the subject is clearly out of step with everyone else in their assumptions.
See also articles where a property investor complains about how hard they are doing financially because they have to sell one of their eighteen investment properties.
My take for SE roles is that it's a combination of AI giving enough gains[0] to reduce head count requirements, combined with the higher interest rates cutting off the tap of free money for startups that never really made economic sense.
There's also the absolute flood of CS graduates in recent years contributing to the number of applicants. I know governments have been screaming for more STEM graduates, but I suspect the numbers are far higher than what is actually required.
IMHO, the outcome of all this is that those devs who can't actually code are going to be pushed out of the SE market, and things will normalise in 12-36 months.
(I say this all this sitting on the couch waiting for the results of second of three interviews after submitting my 30th application - I've literally never had to submit more than five - and that was where I didn't get poached directly.)
[0] I'm not going to say it's a _massive_ gain, but even a 10-20% increase in productivity from something off the shelf like Github Co-pilot would show up in employment numbers
With respect to hiring, of the two points you mention - AI productivity gains for SWE and "no more free money" - I'm confident it's solely the latter, that higher interest rates cut off free money from startups, so they need to be more careful about who they hire. Additionally, there was substantial overhiring during COVID which combined with the interest rate changes lead to a lot of layoffs, and subsequently lead to the conservative hiring in a lot of companies. This leads to a lot more competition than there was previously, both to even get an interview in the first place and to get to the end with an offer.
It's possible that AI may have some kind of impact on the industry too with respect to productivity, but I'd bet that it's nowhere near a 10-20% gain and it's not a factor at all in the difficulty of finding a job.
I agree. Working as a manager in the industry my take is that AI has had a near-zero actual increase in SE productivity. That’s not to say the C-level perception matches that actual number though. It hasn’t happened at my company but I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that some layoffs from big companies were driven by that perception. I would interpret more as an excuse to get rid of low performers in general.
I think LLMs spitting out code will probably supercharge the "if engineering showed a toy demo, that means we're 90% done and can start taking pre-orders" problem.
I seem to remember a story that there was a lot of “defensive hiring” — you would hire a lot of technical people to keep them from starting or joining a disruptive startup. This would be a corollary of your higher interest rates pushing down employment by not allowing funding to flow to startups, but the end of such defensive hiring would serve to amplify the drop in hiring beyond just startup personnel.
> It's possible that AI may have some kind of impact on the industry too with respect to productivity, but I'd bet that it's nowhere near a 10-20% gain and it's not a factor at all in the difficulty of finding a job.
I'm not going to make any claim on the actual gain in productivity. My sample size of one for what was sometimes quite repetitive work is a very bad sample.
However, regardless of all other factors (let alone combined with them), I would say that AI has made getting a job far more difficult as AI gives people far more ability to shotgun every single job ad out there.
I recently spoke to a recruiter who indicated that for a Senior Golang Dev role in Australia, he had received 400 applications. There is no-where near 400 spare senior Golang devs in this city.
I second this explanation. In fact its not just startups but also a lot of big tech companies were rationally taking advantage of the low interest rates to pursue speculative bets/product features. Tech CEOs were being richly rewarded via inflating stock prices for chasing the potential for future cashflows.
When the macro changed, those bets no longer made rational sense.
The silver lining for guys like Jon Bach (as described in the intro) is that with the abundance of free agents and SF/SV office space, it's probably the a great time to form/find an ambitious team and help try to bootstrap the next Google.
Surely the section 174 changes in Trump's tax bill have to be a part of this as well. Since engineer salaries now have to be deducted as an expense amortized over 5 years rather than in the same year they were incurred, smaller companies with revenue that may not be profitable will still be taxed as if they are.
The use of Copilot and similar tools has been explicitly banned where I worked - we tested it out and the gains were minimal if any, and the possible cost of liability and licensing considered not worth it. There is no short-term intent to re-assess this either.
I was recently laid off with "Efficiencies gained by AI" explicitly stated as one of the reasons.
Either it's complete PR BS (most likely), or C-level execs are putting the cart before the horse - preparing for "productivity gains" that haven't actually materialized.
I have found Copilot to be useful enough to use if someone else pays for it. In some cases it was useful (writing Golang functions that perform basic SQL CRUD functions). Others times, not so much.
As I said above, I'm not claiming it's a massive increase, only that it is there. If AI moved the productivity needle 2%, and a given market has 100,000 software engineers, then that's possibly 2000 devs that are spamming the heck out of every job out there.
> Either it's complete PR BS (most likely), or C-level execs are putting the cart before the horse - preparing for "productivity gains" that haven't actually materialized.
Honestly, I suspect the industry I'm in (System Software/Driver Development) is a poor fit for the current state of "AI Assistants" - there's too much specific that's just not got the depth of training data to "learn" from, it's a mature system so not much "boilerplate" needs to be generated, and much of the real complexity is managing the state of the hardware interface and expectations from a constantly-changing documented-mostly-in-some-hardware-engineer's-head-only specification. Or time debugging why the stated specification doesn't actually match the behavior of the hardware.
I don't think anyone in our group who was asked to trial it had much positive to say about it in that situation.
> My take for SE roles is that it's a combination of AI giving enough gains[0] to reduce head count requirements
It is not giving enough gains. It is only giving ammunition to board members and execs to cut headcount.
What is really happening is that the current cohort of tech companies has been living in the era of free money for so long that they have forgotten competent practices. They only thing they learned was more headcount==more revenue. This was partially possible by delivering large number of features and charging for each one of them e.g. AWS has a ton of useless crap services.
Of course that is horseshit logic that only worked in the era of free money. And of course market caps going up, up, and away was fantasy. At some point, markets shift and cannot be tapped any further. And that is what is causing headcount reduction - there are no saleable features to produce.
There is still a large amount of maintenance to do. But companies loathe paying for maintenance. They'd rather have customers suffer and quit than pay up front for headcount to maintain what has been built in the last decade. They would much rather scam customers with poor billing practices than provide quality and support.
Thus, we end up with lower headcount, lower quality, and a generally third world quality existence - all because execs want to protect margins over anything else aka shareholder primacy.
Everyone has been trying to get into tech for the last 4 years.
My wife works in healthcare. There are whole facebook groups dedicated to healthcare workers trying to transition into tech. A lot of these people are clinicians (Occupational Therapists, Physical Therapists, Speech Pathologists, etc).
There are a lot of people looking for WFH jobs and tech seems to be where they turn first. Honestly, I blame the glut of low effort "Day in the life of a Software Engineer" youtube videos where the "worker" spends most of the video walking their dog and going for a casual afternoon jog while fast forwarding through the actual work. There has been a lot of glamorizing of tech jobs on social media that doesn't typically really match reality.
Obviously, we all know about the trend of bootcamps promising six figure jobs after 2 months (though that seems to have tapered off a bit).
I've read a lot of resumes over the last 4 years and I feel like I've seen it all. I've had multiple senior developer openings and I've seen resumes with just about every background you can think of. Waiters, fast food workers, mechanics, pest control, construction workers. No actual real word programming experience, only a list of a few bootcamp group projects with a link to a github profile where they pushed their bootcamp homework. It was especially bad if you included React in the job description at all (I noticed a dramatic reduction in these types of resumes when the job description focused on backend work).
It reminds of that anecdote about stock bubbles: when your taxi driver is giving you stock tips then you know its time to sell. Well, when your waiter is talking to you about JavaScript because you wore an AWS shirt to dinner, you know that we're in a tech hiring bubble that is going to pop.
There are/were a lot of people looking for tech jobs that frankly have no business doing so. Some of them may have spent 5 figures on a bootcamp of dubious value.
Doesn't match reality at all. If only these people can see the daily insanity. I just got through 2 weeks, where at the end the owner of the company had to ask me why I haven't had much progress and trying to explain that everyday for the last two weeks he has shifted the requirements so much, anything I wrote had to get thrown out the window. Literally, get updated requirements, get 75% of the way through implementation. Bam, email in my inbox telling me to forget what was last said and do something completely different.
The best way to deal with such insanity is to slow down: get requirements, "design" for a few days, if requirements change "design" a few more days etc. Furious coding just burns you out, and not much progress is made in any case.
Yeah these people graduating from boot camps are super naive from my experience. Every single project is a ruby on rails twitter clone. Yawn. What happened to doing something novel or applying code to a personal interest? If you love to hike or bike, make some snazzy app with GIS involved. If you like to tinker with smart home stuff, show me something interesting with arduino or pi.
Sadly, HR doing pre-screening does not understand GIS or PI/Arduino, they do keyword match over known things, mostly known PL, popular framework, something stating that said tech were used in some activities.
If they can’t pass through pre-screen, what use is the cool projects? Besides, bootcamps must make life easy and fun, teaching anything outside packaged topics will scare away the students and the revenue.
If I were Waymo, I’d try to gain some market majority(or competitive majority, e.g. taxi vs uber), and then slowly start test pilot of showing ads while the ride is running…
Or even audio ads works, pretend it to be radio fully generated with generative AI and inject subtle ads.
Providing stock tips have zero revenue possibilities, but could be useful to have a channel talking about stock market movement today and what the experts are thinking.
Let alone startups - the higher interest rates are hurting everyone across the board. For example in my world - Telco Infra and MSPs which did a lot of Capex spend in light of 5G deployments aren't able to keep up with the interest rate hikes putting pressure on repayments for cash raised for the spectrum auction spend and the like. 5G FWA may be in the industry news, but there hasn't been a killer application that has allowed for revenue growth to match those payments. Only way to handle that has been layoffs.
I've been thinking about the AI gains a lot. If individual developers became, say, 20 percent more efficient at coding, the organization would potentially see even more gains, because all of the reduction in time spent coordinating between people. I.e. a 2-man task that needed 20 man-hours of work, 8 of which hours of work were just communicating, becomes a 1-man 10 hour task. Kind of an extreme example, but communication and coordination is extremely inefficient a lot of the time!
After 24 months of LLM code seeding very subtle and confusing bugs into production codebases, the cracks will start to show, and we’ll probably need to hire 2x as many engineers to unwind the mess.
> There's also the absolute flood of CS graduates in recent years contributing to the number of applicants. I know governments have been screaming for more STEM graduates, but I suspect the numbers are far higher than what is actually required.
Alot of these grads want fancy silicon valley free lunch ping pong jobs. Those are super competitive. Cities across the US have plenty of "boring" software jobs - in medical billing software, at insurance companies, at credit unions, for hospitals, in defense, etc. But those aren't in SF bay area or Seattle or NYC or wherever these young people want to live.
Parent poster a-french-anon may be wrong or at least is making unsubstantiated wishful claims about costs and benefits - "the errors would be extremely rare" - would they really? And would they be evenly spread over in-groups and out-groups?
But at least the question "how is that acceptable?" is in fact a question of a moral nature. It's unacceptable, but it is unacceptable because it is immoral.
How is any error rate, no matter how small, acceptable when it comes to locking people up for the rest of their lives?
While I don't like the death penalty I don't think it's that different from a very long sentence. I don't think it makes sense to say that any punishment needs an absolutely perfect error rate.
Assuming that HIIT workouts are 100% vigorous activity (unlikely), then a "few" instances would only add up to around 24 minutes of vigorous activity, which is far short of the minimum recommended 75 minutes of vigorous activity.
If you are short on time then performing HIIT for 15 minutes five days a week will get you much closer to the minimum requirements.