We can't count the monkey at a typewriter who accidentally types out Othello as a great creative playwright.
ok, but what about the monkey that repeatedly cranks out great plays? when does it stop being an accident?
We may be able to see a machine's product as great, but if we know that the output is merely the result of some arbitrary act or algorithmic formalism, we cannot accept it as the expression of a vision for human good.
who's to say that we all aren't just performing arbitrary acts of algorithmic formalism, based on our past experiences and chemical reactions in our brains? this fundamentally boils down to free will and thinking we have some magical divine spark inside us, instead of us just being unimaginably complex meat computers. the jury's still out on that one.
one of the primary arguments against UBI, in fact probably the biggest one, is what you stated in your initial post - "It's the "give a man a fish" proverb gone backwards" - if you give people free money, they will sit on their butt and wont look for jobs
the results of this study refute that pretty strongly
now you've switched to talking about (presumably means-tested) welfare? what does that have to do with UBI or looking for work?
author is focused on the overall market or societal impact
Which of course doesn't matter at all to the founders & investors.
blitzscale is the 'greedy' approach. entrepreneurs and investors typically just care about their own company succeeding, and to hell with what that means for the market in general or consumers. they WANT to build a monopoly, duh.
If they are not processing the calories, then it is not impacting their blood sugar, glucose or hormonal balances either. You can swallow a balloon filled with sugar, you wont gain weight from it, post dump, and it won't keep your energy up.
yes that was my entire point. how fucking stupid are you? some people will be able to extract more calories from their food, and they will gain more weight. other people will extract less calories, and find it easier to stay thin.
furthermore, some gut bacteria produce lipopolysaccharide, which can increase blood sugar & insulin. this causes the body to try and store more calories as fat, instead of using it for energy or to build muscle. thus lowering metabolism & causing feelings of lethargy, and making exercise less effective at building muscle mass
on the other hand, some gut bacteria strengthen the gut barrier, reducing inflammation & insulin resistance, which leads to lower blood sugar, more available energy, and less tendency for the body to store fat.
I would put up ten grand on a one month inpatient study against your ten grand. The 200+# patient is given 1500 nutritionally balanced calories, a multi vitamin and 2 mandatory sessions a day of 20 minutes on a low impact recumbent bike at 70+% max heart rate average. The patient will be provided with study materials, books, and exercise equipment to occupy the rest of their time. The patient will lose at least 2% of body weight, likely 4%. FYI 8% is max recommended loss rate for that period.
this is a stupid study. of course they will lose weight, but they will be exhausted and hungry and miserable the entire time. you can FORCE people to do lots of things they otherwise wouldn't do themselves. nobody is claiming weight loss is impossible, just that it can be incredibly difficult.
you're way too hung up on assigning blame, as if that is the only thing that matters here - pointing fingers at folks.
you're also still ignoring the impact of gut bacteria, which we are learning is incredibly influential in how you absorb nutrients and put on weight. TDEE is only the second half of the equation - calories burned - but calories absorbed is just as important.
yes, anyone can eat less, exercise more, and lose weight. that is not under debate. but it will take some people WAY, WAY more effort than others.
it's easy for someone to sit up on their high horse and say 'just eat less and exercise more, duh!' as if that is an easy thing to do. the number of obese people in our society, and the percentage of people who regain weight within a few years even if they do manage to lose weight, is a pretty good indicator that it can be incredibly difficult.
100 calories is not 100 calories TO THE PERSON EATING IT and that is the only fucking thing that matters. everyone will shit some of those calories out, and the amount they shit out can vary significantly from person to person.
i never argued against the conservation of energy.
capitalizing the first word of sentences is for little bitches. and work emails. since you're not paying me, you don't get capitalization.
but some people can extract more energy from the same amount of food as other people.
100 calories is not the same for everyone. no machine is 100% efficient. for a quantity of food that we think of as '100 calories,' the average adult may only be able to absorb 80 calories of energy from it. other individuals might be able to get 90 calories of energy from it, due to differences in gut flora.
now factor in metabolism as well. some individuals burn more calories than others, even while performing the same exact level of physical activity.
add the two together and you will see that the statement 'eat less calories + burn more calories exercising = weight loss' is broadly true but a wildly incomplete view of the situation - some people may need to exercise MUCH MORE and eat MUCH LESS just to maintain the same level of body weight as other people. don't be so fucking smug.
you're pretty smug for someone that is so terribly fucking wrong
'100 calories' is not the exact immutable block you think it is. calories as it pertains to human diet are an inexact & best-guess science. 100 calories for you may not be 100 calories for someone else.
differences in gut bacteria can have drastically different effects in nutrient & energy absorption. differences in metabolism can affect the amount of calories burnt by two individuals performing the same actions.
two different people could eat the exact same food, perform the exact same physical activities, and one could gain weight while the other lost weight.
Germany already had strict gun laws under the Weimar Republic, before the Nazis were in power. The Nazis actually RELAXED gun laws - mostly for those in the party, yes, but remember that described a pretty significant chunk of the populace
no, but the electoral college system does a pretty good job of giving voting power to all those cows and rocks in montana, at the cost of voters in california, NY etc
"With market-based pricing finally permitted, we could see new entrants to the industry because it might make economic sense for the first time to innovate. The growing competition will lead, over the long run, to innovation and falling prices."
false. net neutrality was only passed recently, in 2015. the industry had plenty of time to 'innovate' before then.
"Net Neutrality... had the quiet support of the leading Internet service providers Comcast and Verizon."
false. Comcast and Verizon have been spending small fortunes to FIGHT net neutrality.
"Netflix, Amazon, and the rest don’t want ISPs to charge either them or their consumers for their high-bandwidth content. They would rather the ISPs themselves absorb the higher costs of such provision."
false. content providers and end users are ALREADY paying for the amount of bandwidth that they use. net neutrality is what prevents ISPs from charging ADDITIONAL fees based on the TYPE of content being supplied, or the company the content is coming from.
"Net neutrality closed down market competition by generally putting government and its corporate backers in charge of deciding who can and cannot play in the market. It erected barriers to entry for upstart firms while hugely subsidizing the largest and most well-heeled content providers."
false. net neutrality ensures that upstart firms can pay the same rates for internet access and bandwidth as the big guys - all they need is standard internet connection, and they can push their content to anyone for no additional cost. in PREVENTS barriers from being erected. without net neutrality, if i wanted to start a new video streaming service. the ISPs could block or deprioritize my traffic unless i pay them additional licensing fees.
Any other species whether predator, prey, or somewhere in between will just multiply endlessly with the only thing limiting their growth being the ability for the environment to support the population.
well the problem is that we are way too smart and way too successful, and also have modern medicine. other species grow to fill what their environment will support. we, on the other hand, just keep changing our environment (and ourselves!) to support more and more of us. and those changes are becoming more and more worrisome. we are also terribly adaptable, and when one food source dries up we start exploiting a new one. it is not a sustainable pattern and at some point we are going to be well and truly fucked.
the military could have simply refused to pay for elective procedures like gender reassignment.
but that's not what happened; Trump simply banned all transgender folks, including folks that have already had surgury, and folks that don't want the surgury.
so again, i say: this has absolutely nothing to do with money, and is entirely about scapegoating and creating a wedge issue.
Slashdot Mirror
We can't count the monkey at a typewriter who accidentally types out Othello as a great creative playwright.
ok, but what about the monkey that repeatedly cranks out great plays? when does it stop being an accident?
We may be able to see a machine's product as great, but if we know that the output is merely the result of some arbitrary act or algorithmic formalism, we cannot accept it as the expression of a vision for human good.
who's to say that we all aren't just performing arbitrary acts of algorithmic formalism, based on our past experiences and chemical reactions in our brains? this fundamentally boils down to free will and thinking we have some magical divine spark inside us, instead of us just being unimaginably complex meat computers. the jury's still out on that one.
one of the primary arguments against UBI, in fact probably the biggest one, is what you stated in your initial post - "It's the "give a man a fish" proverb gone backwards" - if you give people free money, they will sit on their butt and wont look for jobs
the results of this study refute that pretty strongly
now you've switched to talking about (presumably means-tested) welfare? what does that have to do with UBI or looking for work?
so you acknowlege that your original post was completely wrong, and this WAS a subject worth investigating, and the results are very interesting?
author is focused on the overall market or societal impact
Which of course doesn't matter at all to the founders & investors.
blitzscale is the 'greedy' approach. entrepreneurs and investors typically just care about their own company succeeding, and to hell with what that means for the market in general or consumers. they WANT to build a monopoly, duh.
if only there were some way to spoof your geolocation
https://chrome.google.com/webs...
(or u can just use chrome dev tools if you dont trust browser extensions)
in short, no. labor is typically 20% to 30% of a business' operating costs. so, doubling wages won't come close to doubling the cost of products.
you can't LIE about such things as a public company.
if he'd actually had the funding secured, which was entirely plausible, he'd have been in the clear.
DC v Heller, from 2008?
Chicago v McDonald, from 2010?
Tell me more about these innate rights that have always existed and are not at all recent interpretations of our current society & NRA lobbyists.
If they are not processing the calories, then it is not impacting their blood sugar, glucose or hormonal balances either. You can swallow a balloon filled with sugar, you wont gain weight from it, post dump, and it won't keep your energy up.
yes that was my entire point. how fucking stupid are you? some people will be able to extract more calories from their food, and they will gain more weight. other people will extract less calories, and find it easier to stay thin.
furthermore, some gut bacteria produce lipopolysaccharide, which can increase blood sugar & insulin. this causes the body to try and store more calories as fat, instead of using it for energy or to build muscle. thus lowering metabolism & causing feelings of lethargy, and making exercise less effective at building muscle mass
on the other hand, some gut bacteria strengthen the gut barrier, reducing inflammation & insulin resistance, which leads to lower blood sugar, more available energy, and less tendency for the body to store fat.
I would put up ten grand on a one month inpatient study against your ten grand. The 200+# patient is given 1500 nutritionally balanced calories, a multi vitamin and 2 mandatory sessions a day of 20 minutes on a low impact recumbent bike at 70+% max heart rate average. The patient will be provided with study materials, books, and exercise equipment to occupy the rest of their time. The patient will lose at least 2% of body weight, likely 4%. FYI 8% is max recommended loss rate for that period.
this is a stupid study. of course they will lose weight, but they will be exhausted and hungry and miserable the entire time. you can FORCE people to do lots of things they otherwise wouldn't do themselves. nobody is claiming weight loss is impossible, just that it can be incredibly difficult.
you're way too hung up on assigning blame, as if that is the only thing that matters here - pointing fingers at folks.
you're also still ignoring the impact of gut bacteria, which we are learning is incredibly influential in how you absorb nutrients and put on weight. TDEE is only the second half of the equation - calories burned - but calories absorbed is just as important.
yes, anyone can eat less, exercise more, and lose weight. that is not under debate. but it will take some people WAY, WAY more effort than others.
it's easy for someone to sit up on their high horse and say 'just eat less and exercise more, duh!' as if that is an easy thing to do. the number of obese people in our society, and the percentage of people who regain weight within a few years even if they do manage to lose weight, is a pretty good indicator that it can be incredibly difficult.
nobody will get 101 calories from 100.
but nobody will get 100 calories from 100, either. you are not 100% efficient. you poop calories out.
some people poop out more calories than others. get it now?
100 calories is not 100 calories TO THE PERSON EATING IT and that is the only fucking thing that matters. everyone will shit some of those calories out, and the amount they shit out can vary significantly from person to person.
i never argued against the conservation of energy.
capitalizing the first word of sentences is for little bitches. and work emails. since you're not paying me, you don't get capitalization.
nobody can create energy out of thin air.
but some people can extract more energy from the same amount of food as other people.
100 calories is not the same for everyone. no machine is 100% efficient. for a quantity of food that we think of as '100 calories,' the average adult may only be able to absorb 80 calories of energy from it. other individuals might be able to get 90 calories of energy from it, due to differences in gut flora.
now factor in metabolism as well. some individuals burn more calories than others, even while performing the same exact level of physical activity.
add the two together and you will see that the statement 'eat less calories + burn more calories exercising = weight loss' is broadly true but a wildly incomplete view of the situation - some people may need to exercise MUCH MORE and eat MUCH LESS just to maintain the same level of body weight as other people. don't be so fucking smug.
you're pretty smug for someone that is so terribly fucking wrong
'100 calories' is not the exact immutable block you think it is. calories as it pertains to human diet are an inexact & best-guess science. 100 calories for you may not be 100 calories for someone else.
differences in gut bacteria can have drastically different effects in nutrient & energy absorption. differences in metabolism can affect the amount of calories burnt by two individuals performing the same actions.
two different people could eat the exact same food, perform the exact same physical activities, and one could gain weight while the other lost weight.
Germany already had strict gun laws under the Weimar Republic, before the Nazis were in power. The Nazis actually RELAXED gun laws - mostly for those in the party, yes, but remember that described a pretty significant chunk of the populace
'hey stupid people - stop being stupid!'
that's you. that's what you are doing. good luck!
california has nearly 4x the population & GDP of ohio. it SHOULD have more power & representation, because it is a much bigger chunk of the country.
that red in the middle of the country is mostly all empty space. land shouldn't get a vote, only people should. the electoral college sucks.
rural areas are the opposite of powerless - rural areas disproportionally affect the outcome of the house, senate, and presidential elections.
you want an accurate election results map? obligatory XKCD - https://www.xkcd.com/1939/
no, but the electoral college system does a pretty good job of giving voting power to all those cows and rocks in montana, at the cost of voters in california, NY etc
that article is a flaming ball of garbage.
"With market-based pricing finally permitted, we could see new entrants to the industry because it might make economic sense for the first time to innovate. The growing competition will lead, over the long run, to innovation and falling prices."
false. net neutrality was only passed recently, in 2015. the industry had plenty of time to 'innovate' before then.
"Net Neutrality... had the quiet support of the leading Internet service providers Comcast and Verizon."
false. Comcast and Verizon have been spending small fortunes to FIGHT net neutrality.
"Netflix, Amazon, and the rest don’t want ISPs to charge either them or their consumers for their high-bandwidth content. They would rather the ISPs themselves absorb the higher costs of such provision."
false. content providers and end users are ALREADY paying for the amount of bandwidth that they use. net neutrality is what prevents ISPs from charging ADDITIONAL fees based on the TYPE of content being supplied, or the company the content is coming from.
"Net neutrality closed down market competition by generally putting government and its corporate backers in charge of deciding who can and cannot play in the market. It erected barriers to entry for upstart firms while hugely subsidizing the largest and most well-heeled content providers."
false. net neutrality ensures that upstart firms can pay the same rates for internet access and bandwidth as the big guys - all they need is standard internet connection, and they can push their content to anyone for no additional cost. in PREVENTS barriers from being erected. without net neutrality, if i wanted to start a new video streaming service. the ISPs could block or deprioritize my traffic unless i pay them additional licensing fees.
yeah he should definitely pay an extra $150 for a smaller screen with a notch cut out of it. excellent idea!
false equivalence. if you eat junk food, it will only kill YOU.
if you text and drive, you could very well kill SOMEONE ELSE.
Any other species whether predator, prey, or somewhere in between will just multiply endlessly with the only thing limiting their growth being the ability for the environment to support the population.
well the problem is that we are way too smart and way too successful, and also have modern medicine. other species grow to fill what their environment will support. we, on the other hand, just keep changing our environment (and ourselves!) to support more and more of us. and those changes are becoming more and more worrisome. we are also terribly adaptable, and when one food source dries up we start exploiting a new one. it is not a sustainable pattern and at some point we are going to be well and truly fucked.
yeah cuz 'dont ask dont tell' was such a big hit right?
the military could have simply refused to pay for elective procedures like gender reassignment.
but that's not what happened; Trump simply banned all transgender folks, including folks that have already had surgury, and folks that don't want the surgury.
so again, i say: this has absolutely nothing to do with money, and is entirely about scapegoating and creating a wedge issue.