Read up on the faeces link again that I posted earlier. The 30% microbes cannot be ignored, as I mentioned earlier. Different species of microbes act on different macro nutrients, like I mentioned earlier. No one knows for sure the relative efficiency of different species of microbes in the gut - someone saying they are guaranteed to be equally efficient will need to cite away to glory.
Our own sucrase makes sure we don't need the little bugs to tackle most sugars. Which means we don't share our food with "friends" like good children should. So god punishes us with obesity. Sorry, just listened to relatives talking to their kids. But yes, the point stands that more of sugar comes as ATP than slower food like starch, fat etc.
"Calorie is a calorie", and similar statements are poetry. Good to preach to the choir, useless for contradicting someone.
You didn't deserve the benefit of doubt, because of other sentences you posted exposed that you did really mean "eat" , and you did NOT mean "eat, digest, and metabolize".
This is already accounted for in food labelling. The calories on the label all get metabolized, and the calories that don't get metabolized aren't listed on the label.
So no, it is definitely a retrospective change you made to your own sentence. While I don't mind educating someone, even for free, you can't convince me you meant this from the start.
which is a very pedantic way of phrasing my original claim
Which is good, because useless statements disguised as simple actionable statements are dangerous.
My original objection was to the sentence "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same". To which you have already made one retrospective change without an apology, while using the universal arithmetical addition operator in a non-standard way and not even objected on my earlier interpretating it thus. Moreover, this is not a minor change because the original sentence pretended to be useful, was falsifiable, actionable - and I pointed out many ways in which it is either wrong, or needs citation.
The new sentence does not have these qualities (except of incorrectness). Even so, when you have turned your sentence into such a useless sentence, I can still prove it to be wrong - or at least in desperate need of citation. But I think you will again change it retrospectively, so it would be best if you put down the sentence which you now want to replace your aforementioned original sentence with, and I will address only that.
I'll try multiple sentences, just to see how you take it now.
This is a white lie -
The very first sentence of my reply is "I draw more conclusions than warranted from unrelated factors that I didn't bring up?", itself a clear reference to the second sentence of your post.
Reasoning is mentioned clearly here. Google the words you don't have enough information on.
The context of your homework I was helping with you with was about summation working differently on pizza and kale. No, summation works the same. Since you have only yet hopefully understood the milk fat in pizza shit and not in kale shit, let us ignore the other differences for the time being :
Pizza calories available to increase body fat : 12000 eaten, say 11500 digested, and say 11500 metabolized. (500 calories in milk fat excreted). Summation 12000+11500+11500 = 35000
Kale calories available to increase body fat : 12000 eaten, say 12000 digested , and say 12000 metabolized. (effects other than fat excretion ignored). Summation 12000+12000+12000 = 36000
You will note that 35000 is not same as 36000. So the sentence "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same" remains false even if you add up eaten, digested and metabolized calories, and even if your ignorance is taken into account.
I'll kindly take you up on your offer for homework help, though. I'm working on fusing gyroscope and accelerometer data with a Kinect sensor's color and depth streams using a Kalman filter. Why isn't fakenect working?
We have just started using multiple sentences. Wait a decade or 2.
You have been seen to be unable to read up to second sentence in a single post, but I could successfully help you through some of your homework by putting small points at a time.
As a reply to my post about your conclusion from the study, your asking me about your conclusions from 3 different things in different words clearly shows you didn't read it properly.
Opportunities for violent crime are much much more in cities than in rural areas. Say e.g. one person lives completely alone - who would he commit a violent crime against? In a city of n people, opportunity of crime is nC2 i.e. n*(n-1)/2. But actual crime is much less than proportionate when compared to rural areas. Some crimes take more than 2 people, say m, - for them it should be nCm.
In that interpretation, it is true that cities have lower crime but just more people. Remember to divide crimes by nC2, not n.
I agree with the argument of having limitless strings - KISS principle is followed in C correctly, but only because limitless strings are desirable.
It is not true that this is simpler than storing size separately. If storing size separately is a complication, inability to store \0 in a string is a limitation. We can work-around it by escaping, but then it adds complication, which was supposedly avoided by not storing size.
So it was a choice between 2 kinds of complications, one of the complications was chosen because limitless strings were more useful than the ability to store evere possible byte in a string. Not an unconditional KISS.
Saying "Well, then, don't use it" is unhelpful and unrealistic.
Ignorant people always suffer. Law of nature. They get suckered into eating bad, buying bad, into paying more for most things, electing bad representatives, visiting websites which are out to screw the users.
Knowledge is the solution to many of these problems. Including this particular one.
It is still a strength. Perhaps extracting money or making people genuflect is the purpose for which it is not a strength. But guess what - that is not everyone's purpose.
If the purpose is to give people a useful / fun / powerful / cheap piece of software, it is a strength.
Since the statement "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same"
is false as demonstrated earlier, statement including that around thirty five thousand number of eaten + metabolized + digested calories would also be false.
No mechanism. But question is not of metabolized calories. Question is the of calories you "eat" - which includes metabolized calories and excreted calories.
Remember : "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same."
Slashdot Mirror
Read up on the faeces link again that I posted earlier. The 30% microbes cannot be ignored, as I mentioned earlier. Different species of microbes act on different macro nutrients, like I mentioned earlier. No one knows for sure the relative efficiency of different species of microbes in the gut - someone saying they are guaranteed to be equally efficient will need to cite away to glory.
Our own sucrase makes sure we don't need the little bugs to tackle most sugars. Which means we don't share our food with "friends" like good children should. So god punishes us with obesity. Sorry, just listened to relatives talking to their kids. But yes, the point stands that more of sugar comes as ATP than slower food like starch, fat etc.
"Calorie is a calorie", and similar statements are poetry. Good to preach to the choir, useless for contradicting someone.
You didn't deserve the benefit of doubt, because of other sentences you posted exposed that you did really mean "eat" , and you did NOT mean "eat, digest, and metabolize".
Take your post's sentence :
This is already accounted for in food labelling. The calories on the label all get metabolized, and the calories that don't get metabolized aren't listed on the label.
So no, it is definitely a retrospective change you made to your own sentence. While I don't mind educating someone, even for free, you can't convince me you meant this from the start.
which is a very pedantic way of phrasing my original claim
Which is good, because useless statements disguised as simple actionable statements are dangerous.
My original objection was to the sentence "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same". To which you have already made one retrospective change without an apology, while using the universal arithmetical addition operator in a non-standard way and not even objected on my earlier interpretating it thus. Moreover, this is not a minor change because the original sentence pretended to be useful, was falsifiable, actionable - and I pointed out many ways in which it is either wrong, or needs citation.
The new sentence does not have these qualities (except of incorrectness). Even so, when you have turned your sentence into such a useless sentence, I can still prove it to be wrong - or at least in desperate need of citation. But I think you will again change it retrospectively, so it would be best if you put down the sentence which you now want to replace your aforementioned original sentence with, and I will address only that.
I'll try multiple sentences, just to see how you take it now.
This is a white lie -
The very first sentence of my reply is "I draw more conclusions than warranted from unrelated factors that I didn't bring up?", itself a clear reference to the second sentence of your post.
Reasoning is mentioned clearly here. Google the words you don't have enough information on.
The context of your homework I was helping with you with was about summation working differently on pizza and kale. No, summation works the same. Since you have only yet hopefully understood the milk fat in pizza shit and not in kale shit, let us ignore the other differences for the time being :
Pizza calories available to increase body fat : 12000 eaten, say 11500 digested, and say 11500 metabolized. (500 calories in milk fat excreted). Summation 12000+11500+11500 = 35000
Kale calories available to increase body fat : 12000 eaten, say 12000 digested , and say 12000 metabolized. (effects other than fat excretion ignored). Summation 12000+12000+12000 = 36000
You will note that 35000 is not same as 36000. So the sentence "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same" remains false even if you add up eaten, digested and metabolized calories, and even if your ignorance is taken into account.
I'll kindly take you up on your offer for homework help, though. I'm working on fusing gyroscope and accelerometer data with a Kinect sensor's color and depth streams using a Kalman filter. Why isn't fakenect working?
We have just started using multiple sentences. Wait a decade or 2.
You have been seen to be unable to read up to second sentence in a single post, but I could successfully help you through some of your homework by putting small points at a time.
That will need me to use multiple sentences (!!!) and you won't reach the second onwards.
AGW is NOT climate change.AGW is the increased trapping of heat
Have you ever thought what the A stands for in AGW ?
Described fully linked which second sentence I meant here, to which you replied with a white lie.
Again, I didn't even read the study (or TFA), so it's not possible for me to have formed conclusions based on it.
Nor had you read the post of mine you were replying to.
As a reply to my post about your conclusion from the study, your asking me about your conclusions from 3 different things in different words clearly shows you didn't read it properly.
However much you might want to pretend that "unrelated factors that I didn't bring up" can mean the study, it doesn't and you know it.
From your long reply to my this post it was clear that you didn't reach second sentence of the very same post to which you replied.
Since then, because of your utter inability to reach even the second sentence of a post, I have to reduce my posts to extremely simple ones.
Opportunities for violent crime are much much more in cities than in rural areas. Say e.g. one person lives completely alone - who would he commit a violent crime against? In a city of n people, opportunity of crime is nC2 i.e. n*(n-1)/2. But actual crime is much less than proportionate when compared to rural areas. Some crimes take more than 2 people, say m, - for them it should be nCm.
In that interpretation, it is true that cities have lower crime but just more people. Remember to divide crimes by nC2, not n.
I am pointing out your reply in context of my post. Do you think reply to a post should have some relation to it, or not?
I say
" I brought it up because you are drawing unwarranted conclusions from the study"
and you reply
I draw more conclusions than warranted from unrelated factors that I didn't bring up?
So it is clear to anyone with 2 brain cells to rub together whose inability is causing what.
I agree with the argument of having limitless strings - KISS principle is followed in C correctly, but only because limitless strings are desirable.
It is not true that this is simpler than storing size separately. If storing size separately is a complication, inability to store \0 in a string is a limitation. We can work-around it by escaping, but then it adds complication, which was supposedly avoided by not storing size.
So it was a choice between 2 kinds of complications, one of the complications was chosen because limitless strings were more useful than the ability to store evere possible byte in a string. Not an unconditional KISS.
How much good exactly (in kilograms?) is "that much good"? And why does " that much good " matter?
It is a strength, and helps achieve one's purpose.
Saying "Well, then, don't use it" is unhelpful and unrealistic.
Ignorant people always suffer. Law of nature. They get suckered into eating bad, buying bad, into paying more for most things, electing bad representatives, visiting websites which are out to screw the users.
Knowledge is the solution to many of these problems. Including this particular one.
Did you discover this just now?
It is still a strength. Perhaps extracting money or making people genuflect is the purpose for which it is not a strength. But guess what - that is not everyone's purpose.
If the purpose is to give people a useful / fun / powerful / cheap piece of software, it is a strength.
"Specifically because" is not true. You understand only one point at a time so we have only reached that part yet.
Since the statement "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same"
is false as demonstrated earlier, statement including that around thirty five thousand number of eaten + metabolized + digested calories would also be false.
Not when adding up all three.
eat+digest+metabolize will be roughly 35 thousand calories when 12 thousand calories are eaten.
No mechanism. But question is not of metabolized calories. Question is the of calories you "eat" - which includes metabolized calories and excreted calories.
Remember : "Whether you eat 12 thousand Calories in pizza or 12 thousand Calories in kale, the impact on your weight will be the same."