It's great that you found a diet that worked for you, but it's strange to say that the article is remiss to not include your specific diet - unless you also think it should include every diet. For any given diet, you can find people whom it helped tremendously, and the carnivore diet is no different. There's also very little evidence for its effectiveness (which is not to say it's not effective, just that it's not particularly well-studied). Personally, I could eat enough meat daily to get very fat if I wasn't counting my calories. When my compliance is struggling, I find high-fiber diets to be the most effective in curbing hunger.
Agreed. Besides, modern meat is also hyper palatable since it’s engineered to have increasingly high fat content. Also seems weird to talk about what our ancestors ate while buying saran wrapped meat from the market as if you’re going caveman mode. Or that it will give you some magical defense against the explosion of available calories in the modern food economy.
Most social media dietary discourse focuses on magic-trick memes instead of the basic principles. Twitter and HN acts like it’s the hamburger bun and some pasta alfredo making us fat and not the 4000 calories we eat per day altogether. How about eat less, move more, avoid calorie dense foods.
For example, eating out is 1000+ calories. Unless you curb one of your other three meals and don't snack, you're going over your 2300 calorie (or whatever) budget right there.
Is the point here that we already can't control civilization, so we don't have to worry about AI interfering with our ability to control civilization? Is it really impossible to imagine us having even less control over civilization - and that being a bad thing?
Generally the advantage of a bishop over a knight is its increased mobility. The bishop pair is more mobile than N+N or B+N and can control both color complexes. To exploit the mobility advantage, good players tend to try to "open up" the position more to increase the scope of the bishops. A classic example of a strategic goal if you want to play for an open position is to keep the pawn structure fluid (as opposed to locked up), which can be too subtle for weaker players.
Can you point to a single usage in the context of property prices where "being down X%", without specifying that X is referring to a YoY increase, means what you say?
I think it goes without saying that if the small countries near the edge of the world are the only ones participating in free trade, there's not a whole lot of free trade going on. Not to mention the astronomical increase in shipping costs that would occur if the world stops collectively deciding that intercepting container ships is off-limits.
Why would you choose to jump to your facile conclusion?
I originally mentioned there were 11 other countries, and the countries were listed in the links given. I did add the list of other countries into my comment, in response to your rather superficial comment.
I don't understand this at all. Do you also think like this about the "future you" that might have to shit themself on the bus ride if you don't go to the bathroom before you leave?
I don’t think you understood what the GP said, but then you claimed as much…
That said, even with your interpretation, imagine that if you didn’t do something, somebody else would have to shit on the bus —- you’d have to be pretty selfish not to spend a bit of time to spare the other person of the embarrassment.
There are myriad other examples where you can take action now to avail yourself of a future mild inconvenience that you might not take if the inconvenience were experienced by someone else instead. And I can't imagine that you think telling me I don't understand what GP said, without offering clarification of your own, is a useful comment.
Why set your future self up for success if your only connection to that person is a story in your head? What is supposed to change when you take this view of being disconnected with your future self?
Yeah, which is baffling. It's not possible to invest in decreasing your foreign currency price. Price is an exogenous variable in a competitive market. You can invest in the production process so that production becomes more cost-effective and this allows you to lower prices, but that has nothing to do with devaluations, and certainly is not the mechanism through which exports prices fall when a currency depreciates.
sounds like the theory is that keeping it going over a long period of time keeps the metabolism up vs a short walk? tbh I'm skeptical, but my point is more that "go for a walk" isn't really the answer for weight loss. serious cardio (hiit appears to work well from last time i looked at literature) and some heavy lifting work way better, but it's still mostly a "calories in" problem.
>There is almost no amount of physical activity that can offset excess consumption.
Very odd statement to make without quantifying how much "excess" there is in the "excess consumption". If walking a couple extra hours a day on vacation burns (say) 500 calories, that's a pretty large buffer of extra food you can eat - a 20% increase if you're eating 2500 calories per day. But of course a determined glutton can out-eat this.
