Those guys feed off each others angst and depression and eventually some of them start shooting people who they blame for their predicament.
Pretty sure that a much bigger influence on Mercer's shooting spree were his family outings with his mom, with whom he "shared a love for guns", to a shooting range. Along with his mental issues, again fostered in great deal by his mother who talked about him and herself as having Asperger's. And who "involuntarily institutionalized" him after he went off his medication. And there's that thing where between them, he and mom had 14 (fourteen) guns at home. Just in case Brits invade again, I guess.
Now... I can't speak for everyone else, but had MY mother ever "institutionalized" me, there would probably be no sharp objects of any kind at home for years later - let alone would she take me to a shooting range. Telling a disturbed kid "You're a lunatic" (by putting him in a mental institution) while handing him a gun... That's a pretty big hammer for any kind of nail one may face out there.
Also... What other cases of "THEM feeding off of each other until THEY start shooting people" do you have to make your theory valid regarding "them"? As in... multiple cases? Up until... well... let's say now? Who are these "them" you are talking about? In relation to r9k, as you've described this particular case to be. Not in relation to his mom keeping him at home or in a mental institution "for his protection" while letting him own and keep buying multiple people-killing machines.
They imply that some guy messing around in his basement will "innovate" something and only later will the principles behind it be understood.
The Will of the Force will impregnate a poor slave-woman and she shall give birth to one who will bring balance to the Force.
The implications of this new way of seeing technologyâ"as an autonomous, evolving entity that continues to progress whoever is in chargeâ"are startling. People are pawns in a process. We ride rather than drive the innovation wave. Technology will find its inventors, rather than vice versa.
Technology creates itself apparently. I'm guessing somewhere along the way we came up with both AI and perpetuum mobile and they have since then been hiding somewhere in the jungle and fucking their transistors out, spawning new tech. Occasionally, a random person will get "abducted by aliens", implanted necessary information and let loose to "invent" new technology.
So, I'm not saying it's aliens. It's actually AI invented by the Will of the Force.
They are taking naps 7% of days in the winter (i.e. about every 14 days) and 22% in the summer (about every 4-5 days).
Which they have measured by the fact that the wrist bracelet wasn't moving for periods longer than 15 minutes. On 94 people, across 2 continents and 3 countries, in groups of 5 to 15 people.
But regardless of those sketchy definitions and methodology the point is that they are actually reporting 1.2 - 1.4 longer daily sleep periods than those listed in summary and the npr article. That's a lot of time being motionless on a kudu or an impala skin on the floor of the hut for someone not sleeping. They are sleeping much closer to 6.9 - 8.5 hours - NOT just 5.7 - 7.1.
And then there's the crappy measurement tool they are using.
This study that Philips lists as the proof of actigraphy units being "a gold standard" shows moderate correlations at best (but mostly weak to moderate) with more accurate methods of measurement - if you measure sleeping patterns of patients suffering from depression and insomnia. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
This one on the other hand, cited by the study in question shows a MUCH HIGHER correlation between actigraphy and PSG. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu... A sensitivity (both methods showing sleep at the same time) with a 0.965 correlation and accuracy (total proportion correct) with a 0.863 correlation, while specificity (both methods showing awake at the same time) being rather weak at a mere 0.329.
Still, pretty good results - if you are fine with p values of 0.363, 0.389 and 0.195 for sensitivity, accuracy and specificity, respectfully. I.e. More than 1 in 3 chance of false positives. About 1 in 5 for being awake.
Which is why sleep time measurements in the hunter-gatherer study, which they average out to 6.4, have deviations as high as +/- 1.39 hours. On average, that 6.4 hour average of theirs has a 0.87 hour deviation. So, while that particular 5.9 hour measurement (one with deviation of 1.39 hours) varies from 4.51 - 7.29 hours, many others go as high as 7.5 hours. Which is pretty damn close to the 6.9 - 8.5 average of 7.7. Adding their sleep and wake onsets to that - and it's about 8 hours.
I.e. They are interpreting readings from an inaccurate tool, with a known overestimation bias as an overestimation EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT ONE - due to high rate of false positive built-in into the tool. Those people are lying motionless on the skin of an impala, on the floor of the hut (during the rain season - otherwise in open air), with things buzzing, flying and crawling around... And the algorithm is telling them "No, no... an insomniac in a bed in North Carolina would not be asleep yet."
They sleep 7-8.5 hours a day, have long siestas and take naps. NPR article's author misunderstood the original article due to ignorance of the topic he chose to write about.
The team asked 94 people from these groups to wear Actiwatch-2 devices, which automatically recorded their activity and ambient-light levels. The data revealed that these groups all sleep for nightly blocks of 6.9 and 8.5 hours, and they spend at least 5.7 to 7.1 hours of those soundly asleep. That's no more than what Westerners who have worn the same watches get; if anything, it's slightly less.
And then it sets around 6 PM. All year round. They have nearly no fluctuation of daylight time - unlike most of the rest of the world where daylight regularly lasts for two thirds of day for some parts of the year, same as darkness during other parts of the year.
On top of that - they are FUCKIN HUNTER GATHERERS who are up until 9 AM - then sit in the shade. If you had a siesta every day from 9:00 until 15:00, you too could sleep... hold on... 7-8.5 hours? What?
The team asked 94 people from these groups to wear Actiwatch-2 devices, which automatically recorded their activity and ambient-light levels. The data revealed that these groups all sleep for nightly blocks of 6.9 and 8.5 hours, and they spend at least 5.7 to 7.1 hours of those soundly asleep. That's no more than what Westerners who have worn the same watches get; if anything, it's slightly less.
While they nap "only" for "7 percent of winter days and 22 percent of summer ones."
Oh... someone at NPR doesn't understand the concept of deep sleep vs. light sleep and thinks all sleep is just sleep.
While many drivers may THINK they are "skilled", the mere fact that there is no "Are you a retard?" test when buying a car or getting a driver's license and the physical test is mostly concerned with "Are you blind?" and NOT with one's hand-eye coordination or reflexes - indicate that the level of "skill" among the general population is mostly imaginary.
Traffic needs to be rigorously coordinated with special roadside signals and marks, special laws and regulations are created to manage traffic, even special roads are there because most people suck at driving and pedestrian walkways on the side of the road are elevated ABOVE the level of the road so it would be harder for drivers to drive on them - almost all infrastructure BUILT FOR DRIVING is built with intention to LIMIT driver's ability to drive wherever and however he/she likes. Driving infrastructure is engineered with an assumption that MOST PEOPLE SUCK AT DRIVING.
Hint: Half of all the drivers are below average - because Gauss. Only the upper 16% or so have "skill", and a rather significant number of those are professional drivers working in human and cargo transport and having actual driving skills and experience required to hold that position. Everyone else is either slightly better than average (with only about a quarter of population being better enough for it to count), an "average driver" or among the wast armies of below average drivers.
And when it doesn't matter how skilled you are if the guys in front and back of you and on all sides are below average (well... the guy on your left might be an "average or better" driver) - you're far better off if everyone is being piloted around by a computer. And nothing of skills will be lost.
Was your daughter used as poster child, representing an ethnic and racial AND "gender" minority whose poster child persona was used to promote "hilarious and creative greatness" of her team - while poster boys talked shop in their posters?
Would you question a representation of your daughter's career choice summed up with her photo and "My team is great. Everyone is smart, creative and hilarious." - while REAL doctors talked about saving lives and helping people in their representations of their careers, right next to hers? What about if she was the only young and good looking female in the campaign while guys were all older and fatter and... well, to male eyes certainly - uglier? How much of her med school knowledge could be gleaned from such a poster?
Again... SJWs made that ONE SINGLE critique of a marketing campaign quote into "Whatcha mean 'look like'?" storm over a supposed "lots of people" assault at her looks, sex, gender... The ONE SINGLE poster questioned if that is what is aimed at women as a representation of what women believe that a female engineer TALKS LIKE and looks like - or if that is what is aimed at men as "sexy nerd girl". Pretty, young, friendly and interested... but not really someone with much expert knowledge and experience.
As for her name... Bah... It stood for thousands of years as a name of a goddess. She could do a lot worse. And whatever the case... Going after her for her NAME would be quite a literal ad hominem. And a childish one at that. I know. Nobody teased me about mine (Denis rhymes with penis in my language) since... the '80s?
That ONE single post she quotes as an example of "Lots of people" went like this (retyped for your reading pleasure):
This is some weird haphazard branding. I think they want to appeal to women, but are probably just appealing to dudes. Perhaps that's the intention all along. But I'm curious people with brains find this quote remotely plausible and if women in particular buy this image of what female software engineer looks like. Idk. Weird.
The post never questions whether she is an engineer OR what an engineer should look like. It questions a trite marketing-lingo quote ("My team is great. Everyone is smart, creative and hilarious.") - which was at the center of the puns aimed at the campaign poster before SJW's showed up... ...and a stereotypical image of a representation of a female techie - when supposedly aimed at women, but actually aimed at "dudes".
E.g. Young (no witches), thin (no fatties), "foreign" (Janie can't tech), handsome (no uglies) and that old staple - glasses because glasses==smart. That last bit is made even more obvious with her "everyday" photo in her post where she clearly doesn't wear glasses at work. But is still young and pretty... but not nerdy. Sorry. Can't use THAT photo cause women need such guiding symbols to know that she is a techie. Stereotypes... Some of them are true. Like what marketing drones think that a representation of a "smart" female SHOULD look like.
Now, while one would have to really be looking for an excuse to find that post to be representative of "solid examples of the sexism that plagues tech"... from her own words... "socially-accepted, 'smart' and 'normal' guys" and definitely "not bad people" do this:
- I've had men throw dollar bills at me in a professional office(by an employee who works at that company, during work hours). - I've had an engineer on salary at a bootcamp message me to explicitly 'be friends with benefits' while I was in the interview process at the school he worked for.
One of these things is not like the other... Now... I may be overacting a bit... but I'm pretty certain that those are NOT "not bad people" and that such acts would earn that someone an immediate and permanent injury where I live. From the "object" of their "attention", not some self-righteous crusader for societal justice. At the very least a scene noticeable from a radius of at least several kilometers. Which would include some light physical "attention". Like a slap, punch, kick or having something significantly harder than a dollar thrown at the culprit. And I'm not talking Euros.
A more civilized society might get them a lawsuit or a cardboard box to take their belongings in while being escorted out to the gate. But certainly, THAT would not be "not bad people" and "normal guys" or "socially-accepted".
But... she thinks THAT is fine and OK, while a rather neutral post is... "solid example of the sexism that plagues tech". Now... I can't say I'm a mind reader... But, while that blog post (from August 1st) about reaction to a marketing campaign has all that HASHTAGsexism HASHTAGiLookLikeAnEngineer HASHTAGonlineActivism... there's this bit:
If the average IQ is 100 (and it is, by definition), that means for everyone with a 160 IQ, there has to be someone with a 40 IQ, or two people with 70 IQ, or four with 80...
There is an incredible number of stupid, uneducated idiots in this world, right around you.
IQ curve is a normalized bell curve. Equal on both sides, reaching into infinity on both sides. BUT... There is neither infinite IQ nor 0 intelligence. Neither of those would be a living human being. So right there, the curve itself is a broken representation. If taken in such a simplistic "or two people with 70 IQ, or four with 80" way.
Back in reality, those numbers actually mean something. Anything in the 71 - 84 range is considered "Borderline Intellectual Functioning". These are people with difficulties learning to read, write, do math or solve complex problems. People who don't get "When is a door not a door? When it's ajar." jokes. 70 and below is Mental Retardation. At 50 - 70 range - reading, writing and basic math is an accomplishment, while communicating is a difficulty.
Do you REALLY see many people like that around you? Cause those are only about 2% of population. And nobody is including their opinions in pols as they are incapable of understanding such complex questions or formulating meaningful answers.
Meanwhile, that curve represents ALL HUMANS. Including kids and babies. And senile old people. So, a lot of those low IQ numbers are actually AGAIN people unable to understand or answer such questions.
At the same time, that right part of the curve are actual people too. 100+ IQ, and going up to 160 and more... Major difference being that THOSE people really ARE intellectually functional. Some of them MAY lack education or they may have prejudices and biases preventing them in reaching accurate or logical conclusions - but IQ is there. Present and accountable.
And then there is a part where those IQ numbers actually have a +/- error built in due to the nature of the test. And when the test favors those with higher IQ, who can breeze through the test faster, scoring more points, making less errors... guess which group gets penalized the most from pondering about the solution a bit longer? Hint: It ain't the IQ 85 and below crowd. They hit their ceiling early on. Never get to the point where seconds mean additional IQ points.
Again, curve is a broken representation. In reality, it is a lot flatter in the middle and steeper on the left side. Cause while those standard deviations are rather arbitrary (representation of a measuring tool - not the measured value) - there IS a real cut off line below which it is obvious that people have problems with intellectual functioning.
Your view is distorted by the fact that you are probably standing a bit low (indicating higher IQ) on the right side of the curve, looking up-curve at all those people below you and going "OMG! There are SO MANY of them." So you don't see that in actuality, most of those people are actually on your side of the curve. Closer to you, than to those below IQ 85.
Education on the other hand... that's a different matter. And so are biases and prejudices and simply faulty information and reasoning. No one is immune to that. Just remember Linus Pauling, his double Nobels and his ideas about vitamin C. Or any person still believing in the dude in the sky, working in mysterious ways while murdering babies in Africa. Those people can't be all below average. There are simply too many of them for that. And the curve is broken.
It's a resealable glass of clean water that you can buy anywhere and carry in your pocket.
Saying "it makes no sense whatsoever to buy bottled water... For people who live in first-world countries with proper sanitation and water treatment"... It is like saying the same thing about cloth handkerchiefs vs. paper tissues or paper towels vs. cloth towels.
With proper sanitation - why not just wash your ass and use a cloth towel afterwards instead of toilet paper? You can take it with you everywhere, in a small plastic box. And if a toilet has no bidet attachment, just use that bottled water to wash your ass.
I'm only half joking here. It is all perfectly doable. Have done it on camping and such. Apart from carrying a towel with me. No, I don't hitchhike. But doing all that to avoid toilet paper or paper tissues would be rather inconvenient on a regular basis. Same as having MY dedicated 20$ aluminum-whatever-alloy water bottle I'd keep forgetting, losing or lugging around when I don't need or don't want to be lugging it around (i.e. when I need my hands or pockets free or busy with something else).
I've refilled my store-bought water bottle with local tap water IF it was good (where I live it really isn't) but then I'd just dump the bottle in the trash when I don't need it anymore. Convenience. Of use and disposal. Plus a guaranteed clean source of drinkable water. Available at every news stand kiosk.
A presidential candidate's demonstrated incompetence in a leadership position is "stuff that matters". So is major corporate executive's, since it helps dispell the lingering idea that leaders get paid more than underlings because they're worth more, rather than just more powerful. The remains of the myth of the divinely appointed kings are hindering our democracies by making the decision-making positions extremely attractive to psychopaths, narcissists and people with other mental issues, and need to die.
One - incompetence has NEVER stopped anyone getting elected. Nobody cares about incompetence. Neither the people at the voting booth NOR the people in the party pushing that person for office. People care about "Is he/she like me?". Can they identify with the candidate and his/her ideas or in other words - do they LIKE the candidate. It's a popularity contest.
Just a while ago US had an incompetent lunatic with a history of substance abuse problem who believes he talks to god, with god giving him instructions on how to run the country - running the country and starting decades long wars. Remember that time when an undiagnosed Alzheimer's patient ran a country, with plans to "win" a nuclear war with USSR by using "lazors"? Remember that airhead from Alaska being and actual presidential candidate? Remember that other guy being "a robot" and "not cool" to be president? Remember that certain senator from Kansas being "too old"?
It's a popularity contest. People vote for whom they like more based on their public image. Hint: A sex scandal does not mean someone is incompetent at their job - except in politics. People don't care about competence. If they did, there'd be a test and an "experience in office" requirement for political positions. You know... something to show that a politician actually knows how government works. Imagine THAT crazy thing - politicians with actual governing GRADES and stats.
Instead, elections are about the ability to pretend to be everything to everyone. Which is what's "making the decision-making positions extremely attractive to psychopaths, narcissists and people with other mental issues" - not a myth of divine kings.
Thus, elections being a popularity contest... "Jobs fucked Fiorina" is irrelevant historical information (over a decade old) which, were elections about competence, would actually indicate more that she was a high stakes player who once lost to Divine Steve. But it's not. It's a cheap, "dirty laundry" attempt at painting old news as relevant in order to affect someone's popularity by labeling them as "totally tricked" and "outsmarted" instead of what they are - incompetent at running a company.
Which might actually mean that she has great chances - in politics. After all... People loved that other MBA who kept ruining businesses he ran. Maybe she should get herself a baseball team?
Thus gossip about a stuuuuupid presidential candidate's former business deal (from 2004) with an asshole who's been dead since 2011 - is suddenly click-worthy "news".
It suggests 3 (three) separate trips for what can be achieved by 1 (one). Namely, getting astronauts to Mars surface for a prolonged stay and an extensive scientific mission.
First, send astronauts to hop around on Phobos in 2033. Then, send astronauts to land on Mars in 2039 - and fuck off back to Earth almost immediately. Then, in 2043, send astronauts for a year-long stay on Mars.
Supposedly, (paper is paywalled) "each mission campaign would build on previous campaigns, leaving a legacy and new capabilities for those that follow."
Except the cost of all three missions is in getting to Mars orbit and back. And if the last mission is supposed to last a whole year on Mars, a full DECADE after the first mission, and 4 years after the second one - they are NOT carrying ANY supplies or building ANY infrastructure on or near Mars surface. For a simple reason that you can't rely on anything still being there in working order 10 years in the future. Or 6. Or 4. You can't even use the SAME FUCKING PEOPLE as they will be a decade older and maybe dead or maybe doing another job. Astronauts have to eat too, you know.
Further, anything done on Phobos has fuck all to do with any following mission. They are not gonna build a base there or store supplies - it's a hop-around mission. And should a second mission happen, only reason why not to stay there for a whole year is - SUPPLIES! Or the lack there of. Which won't be there because... "Meh... not this time. We'll bring it the next time. Not right now. Later."
This is NOTHING like an Apollo missions to the Moon. This is like swimming to America from Scotland, getting to Liberty Island, eating a sandwich brought with you, then swimming back home. Then, 6 years later, do the same thing - only climbing out of the water in New York Harbor, sleeping over night in Central Park, eating another sandwich in the morning (again brought from back home) and swimming back to Europe. THEN, 4 more years later, you take another swim across the ocean, only instead of taking a sandwich, this time you take a credit card and you spend a year living in USA.
Oh and yeah... Each trip there is a team of thousands of people and dozens of boats sailing right next to you and keeping you safe from the sharks and tigers (You don't know... maybe there are tigers along the way... better safe than sorry.), tweetering your progress online and whatnot.
I'm guessing they don't just use that filter all the time because they don't want to wear out a (presumably) much more expensive filter?
Moms with kids diagnosed (or more likely presumed to be) asthmatic or allergic. Followed by various adults diagnosed (or presumed to be) asthmatic or allergic, buying the car for themselves.
In both those cases that filter will be a major deciding factor for purchase and a much used feature. Screw the doors. That "most ridiculous feature" will sell thousands of cars all on its own. Hypochondria is a real thing. Particularly among the OCD-hand-washing crowd.
people will trot out Rosa Parks as an example. Funny, I never see them trot out Pablo Escobar or MS13.
This is Slashdot.
There's no 13 and MS is spelled M$. Tagged with a "Billgatus of Borg" icon. In a story about M$ "just practicing civil disobedience". You know... like Mussolini.
and fresh allegations that the company would act as a "criminal organization" by offering a platform for taxi rides without license (read: without the authorities earning money from the practice)
Nice one there.
Get the anti-gubermint crowd by emphasizing the criminal organization definition of Uber. (YEAH! Fuck you Holland and your German laws! You don't get to decide what constitutes a legal definition of a criminal organization in your country!).
Then get the pro-regulation crowd by insinuating that paying taxes, tariffs etc. and submitting to regulation is somehow just a legal racket by "the authorities". (YEAH! Fuck you regulatory gubermint bodies! I WANT to live in a Blade Runner-like dystopia. Minus the tech, replicants, flying cars, Vangelis soundtrack and unicorns.)
It's almost as if both the "anonymous reader" and Soulskill love watching their mom being double-teamed so much they just can't get the idea of getting it both ways out of their head. What? It's a flamebait story and topic. Decorum and protocol dictate the mention of management's and submitters Nazi whore mothers.
You missed the point completely. Reread what I said.
Poster used to promote movie is without any kind of emotional or factual or logical information. And what IS there - is contradictory or meaningless.
"Bring him home."
Bring who home? Why? From where? Whose home? What for? Is this a commercial for something? For what? Who is this emotionless, expressionless guy and why should I care? Is he an actor? A historical figure? Is he real? A robot? What is he selling? Is he the product? Who? What? How? Where? When? Why? WHY? WHY?
I am not a character in the movie. I'm audience. The guy in the poster is NOT Mark Whatever - it's an actor called Matt Damon. That poster is supposed to be informing ME about the movie and establishing SOME connection, usually emotional, with me to induce me to pay for the ticket. Without me knowing jack shit about the story. And there is NOTHING THERE to do that. All that's there is an ACTOR looking bored or retarded, with meaningless words across his face.
Damon is capable of expressing emotion. Humans ARE capable of writing better slogans or even sentences. That thing was intentionally made that way cause it made PERFECT logic to people already engrossed with the production - but with nothing there for people who are supposed to pay for that movie. That's a symptom of detachment from reality.
They are running the production of the story on their own, internal logic which makes sense only to them because they are engrossed in metadata and metalogic of the project - which they've clearly omitted to relay to the audience. This is the stuff that creates movies like Prometheus and The Room. Both those movies made perfect sense to the people who made them and OKayed them.
I've only read fragments of the book and seen the trailer. But the writing... Your 15-year-old boy writer may be having some development issues. E.g. That bit about "space pirate"... that's just... retarded. I get the context, really I do. And I'm not even gonna go into the whole "The Egg" thing.
But a grown human acting like that in that situation would NOT be in that situation cause that human would not pass the psych tests. Besides that... It is twaddle that serves no other purpose but to make the character out as a "funny guy" and as an attempt at fan service.
Except, if he's talking to himself about how either awesome or charming and funny he is, he is NOT a funny guy. He is either insane, or one of them assholes full of themselves who THINK that they are awesome and funny. And the whole thing REEKS of MarySueism.
Which carries over to the movie to the point that someone thought how that face shot of Damon looking emotionless or vaguely retarded, with "BRING HIM HOME" printed across his face - someone thought that was a GREAT idea for a movie poster.
Seriously, WHY? Why "bring him home"? Who gives a fuck about him? Why should anyone care about bringing HIM home at this point? There's no attachment for the audience to that character. Emotional or otherwise. Poster tells NOTHING about that character. It goes out of its way to say nothing with that face expression of his, or the lack thereof. Unless the idea is that we should "bring him home" because "Matt Damon"? And that's just... stupid. Like cheering when Amon Goeth murders Jews because "OMG! Ralph Fiennes is SO FIIIINEEEES!"
Why should someone who hasn't read a book or seen the movie care about bringing that mongoloid home?
Another thing this reeks of is "Mythbusters on Mars". "Science the shit out of this" while looking at the audience. Yeah... That. "Eat my shit Neil Armstrong"... or whatever he actually throws at Neil Fucking Armstrong. "I'm the bestest plant guy on this planet, getit you idiots, its a funny, ha-ha laugh."
That kinda ad hominem nonsense just creates a faulty "argument" that her theories would have been more valid if she were younger and thinner. Wind the time back and she's this nerdy chick with raven hair and pretty eyes who's into robots. How cool is that, right?
The woman is pushing 40(ish) and has excess weight. Yeah... no one on slashdot has ever been or will ever be in those shoes. We're all fit and perma-young. Should she lose weight and get sexier lighting, background and clothes - will her theories suddenly become more valid? How about if she were a guy?
I know, I know... It's a joke. But it's a lame one and it opens the door to the whole "her theory is laughed at on account of her being a woman" argument.
When the real reason it is laughable is cause it is based on a faulty premise of humans being nothing but sex-bots made of flesh and then making a bunch of logical leaps based on premises as faulty as that one. I.e. This is some wonderful circular thinking:
The vision for sex robots is underscored by reference to prostitute-john exchange which relies on recognizing only the needs and wants of the buyers of sex, the sellers of sex are not attributed subjectivity and reduced to a thing (just like the robot).
Sex robots are like prostitutes. Which is bad. Cause prostitution treats prostitutes like robots. Ergo, treating robots like prostitutes is bad - CAUSE THAT WOULD BE TREATING ROBOTS LIKE ROBOTS!
Just to be clear, I am not any where close to being in the US - OR eating US portions. I was referring to the fact that "bowl" and "portion" are not really exact measurements, just like other descriptive measurements based not so much on measurable quantities but on personal perception. And as people do not all come in one size... that may not really mean much.
As for what I describe above, it is actually either a low calorie smaller meal for someone doing a lot of physical exercise - or a solid full meal for someone trying to game the satiety part of the equation. All that stuff takes a while to digest and it's full of fiber.
In comparison, 100 grams of white bread (about 3 slices) is about the same amount of calories as oats+milk above - but 2 minutes later you don't even remember you ate it.
A typical UK cereal with milk is in the 125-150 calorie range. Even the worst sugar laden ones are only about 350 calories per bowl.
I don't know the size of your bowl but 60 grams of oat flakes (that stuff in muesli) plus 80 grams of 0.5% milk is 253 calories.
No added sugar, flavor or anything. You want extra flavor, add fruit or a couple of spoons of fruit yogurt. At about 84 calories per 100 grams for those yogurts which don't contain extra fructose for taste. Slice an average peach into it and that's about 40 more calories per 100 grams, or about 1 peach. Or a banana for 90 calories per 100 grams, or about 110 calories per banana.
So, a bowl of "healthy", raw, low calorie fruit and unprocessed cereals with low fat milk is in the range of 290-370 calories, for about a 200 ml bowl. I'm guessing that your "typical" bowl might actually be a "small" bowl and OP's bowl may be a "medium" to "large" bowl.
Slashdot Mirror
Those guys feed off each others angst and depression and eventually some of them start shooting people who they blame for their predicament.
Pretty sure that a much bigger influence on Mercer's shooting spree were his family outings with his mom, with whom he "shared a love for guns", to a shooting range.
Along with his mental issues, again fostered in great deal by his mother who talked about him and herself as having Asperger's.
And who "involuntarily institutionalized" him after he went off his medication.
And there's that thing where between them, he and mom had 14 (fourteen) guns at home. Just in case Brits invade again, I guess.
Now... I can't speak for everyone else, but had MY mother ever "institutionalized" me, there would probably be no sharp objects of any kind at home for years later - let alone would she take me to a shooting range.
Telling a disturbed kid "You're a lunatic" (by putting him in a mental institution) while handing him a gun...
That's a pretty big hammer for any kind of nail one may face out there.
Also... What other cases of "THEM feeding off of each other until THEY start shooting people" do you have to make your theory valid regarding "them"?
As in... multiple cases? Up until... well... let's say now?
Who are these "them" you are talking about?
In relation to r9k, as you've described this particular case to be.
Not in relation to his mom keeping him at home or in a mental institution "for his protection" while letting him own and keep buying multiple people-killing machines.
They imply that some guy messing around in his basement will "innovate" something and only later will the principles behind it be understood.
The Will of the Force will impregnate a poor slave-woman and she shall give birth to one who will bring balance to the Force.
The implications of this new way of seeing technologyâ"as an autonomous, evolving entity that continues to progress whoever is in chargeâ"are startling. People are pawns in a process. We ride rather than drive the innovation wave. Technology will find its inventors, rather than vice versa.
Technology creates itself apparently.
I'm guessing somewhere along the way we came up with both AI and perpetuum mobile and they have since then been hiding somewhere in the jungle and fucking their transistors out, spawning new tech.
Occasionally, a random person will get "abducted by aliens", implanted necessary information and let loose to "invent" new technology.
So, I'm not saying it's aliens. It's actually AI invented by the Will of the Force.
No. He (Shkreli) is hiking prices AND shorting biotech.
...all those underage boys on the beach?
They are taking naps 7% of days in the winter (i.e. about every 14 days) and 22% in the summer (about every 4-5 days).
Which they have measured by the fact that the wrist bracelet wasn't moving for periods longer than 15 minutes.
On 94 people, across 2 continents and 3 countries, in groups of 5 to 15 people.
But regardless of those sketchy definitions and methodology the point is that they are actually reporting 1.2 - 1.4 longer daily sleep periods than those listed in summary and the npr article.
That's a lot of time being motionless on a kudu or an impala skin on the floor of the hut for someone not sleeping.
They are sleeping much closer to 6.9 - 8.5 hours - NOT just 5.7 - 7.1.
And then there's the crappy measurement tool they are using.
This study that Philips lists as the proof of actigraphy units being "a gold standard" shows moderate correlations at best (but mostly weak to moderate) with more accurate methods of measurement - if you measure sleeping patterns of patients suffering from depression and insomnia.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...
This one on the other hand, cited by the study in question shows a MUCH HIGHER correlation between actigraphy and PSG.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pu...
A sensitivity (both methods showing sleep at the same time) with a 0.965 correlation and accuracy (total proportion correct) with a 0.863 correlation, while specificity (both methods showing awake at the same time) being rather weak at a mere 0.329.
Still, pretty good results - if you are fine with p values of 0.363, 0.389 and 0.195 for sensitivity, accuracy and specificity, respectfully.
I.e. More than 1 in 3 chance of false positives. About 1 in 5 for being awake.
Which is why sleep time measurements in the hunter-gatherer study, which they average out to 6.4, have deviations as high as +/- 1.39 hours.
On average, that 6.4 hour average of theirs has a 0.87 hour deviation.
So, while that particular 5.9 hour measurement (one with deviation of 1.39 hours) varies from 4.51 - 7.29 hours, many others go as high as 7.5 hours.
Which is pretty damn close to the 6.9 - 8.5 average of 7.7.
Adding their sleep and wake onsets to that - and it's about 8 hours.
I.e. They are interpreting readings from an inaccurate tool, with a known overestimation bias as an overestimation EVEN WHEN IT IS NOT ONE - due to high rate of false positive built-in into the tool.
Those people are lying motionless on the skin of an impala, on the floor of the hut (during the rain season - otherwise in open air), with things buzzing, flying and crawling around...
And the algorithm is telling them "No, no... an insomniac in a bed in North Carolina would not be asleep yet."
They sleep 7-8.5 hours a day, have long siestas and take naps.
NPR article's author misunderstood the original article due to ignorance of the topic he chose to write about.
The team asked 94 people from these groups to wear Actiwatch-2 devices, which automatically recorded their activity and ambient-light levels.
The data revealed that these groups all sleep for nightly blocks of 6.9 and 8.5 hours, and they spend at least 5.7 to 7.1 hours of those soundly asleep.
That's no more than what Westerners who have worn the same watches get; if anything, it's slightly less.
And then it sets around 6 PM. All year round.
They have nearly no fluctuation of daylight time - unlike most of the rest of the world where daylight regularly lasts for two thirds of day for some parts of the year, same as darkness during other parts of the year.
On top of that - they are FUCKIN HUNTER GATHERERS who are up until 9 AM - then sit in the shade.
If you had a siesta every day from 9:00 until 15:00, you too could sleep... hold on... 7-8.5 hours? What?
The team asked 94 people from these groups to wear Actiwatch-2 devices, which automatically recorded their activity and ambient-light levels.
The data revealed that these groups all sleep for nightly blocks of 6.9 and 8.5 hours, and they spend at least 5.7 to 7.1 hours of those soundly asleep.
That's no more than what Westerners who have worn the same watches get; if anything, it's slightly less.
While they nap "only" for "7 percent of winter days and 22 percent of summer ones."
Oh... someone at NPR doesn't understand the concept of deep sleep vs. light sleep and thinks all sleep is just sleep.
While many drivers may THINK they are "skilled", the mere fact that there is no "Are you a retard?" test when buying a car or getting a driver's license and the physical test is mostly concerned with "Are you blind?" and NOT with one's hand-eye coordination or reflexes - indicate that the level of "skill" among the general population is mostly imaginary.
Traffic needs to be rigorously coordinated with special roadside signals and marks, special laws and regulations are created to manage traffic, even special roads are there because most people suck at driving and pedestrian walkways on the side of the road are elevated ABOVE the level of the road so it would be harder for drivers to drive on them - almost all infrastructure BUILT FOR DRIVING is built with intention to LIMIT driver's ability to drive wherever and however he/she likes.
Driving infrastructure is engineered with an assumption that MOST PEOPLE SUCK AT DRIVING.
Hint: Half of all the drivers are below average - because Gauss.
Only the upper 16% or so have "skill", and a rather significant number of those are professional drivers working in human and cargo transport and having actual driving skills and experience required to hold that position.
Everyone else is either slightly better than average (with only about a quarter of population being better enough for it to count), an "average driver" or among the wast armies of below average drivers.
And when it doesn't matter how skilled you are if the guys in front and back of you and on all sides are below average (well... the guy on your left might be an "average or better" driver) - you're far better off if everyone is being piloted around by a computer.
And nothing of skills will be lost.
Was your daughter used as poster child, representing an ethnic and racial AND "gender" minority whose poster child persona was used to promote "hilarious and creative greatness" of her team - while poster boys talked shop in their posters?
Would you question a representation of your daughter's career choice summed up with her photo and "My team is great. Everyone is smart, creative and hilarious." - while REAL doctors talked about saving lives and helping people in their representations of their careers, right next to hers?
What about if she was the only young and good looking female in the campaign while guys were all older and fatter and... well, to male eyes certainly - uglier?
How much of her med school knowledge could be gleaned from such a poster?
Again...
SJWs made that ONE SINGLE critique of a marketing campaign quote into "Whatcha mean 'look like'?" storm over a supposed "lots of people" assault at her looks, sex, gender...
The ONE SINGLE poster questioned if that is what is aimed at women as a representation of what women believe that a female engineer TALKS LIKE and looks like - or if that is what is aimed at men as "sexy nerd girl".
Pretty, young, friendly and interested... but not really someone with much expert knowledge and experience.
As for her name...
Bah... It stood for thousands of years as a name of a goddess. She could do a lot worse.
And whatever the case... Going after her for her NAME would be quite a literal ad hominem.
And a childish one at that. I know. Nobody teased me about mine (Denis rhymes with penis in my language) since... the '80s?
That ONE single post she quotes as an example of "Lots of people" went like this (retyped for your reading pleasure):
This is some weird haphazard branding. I think they want to appeal to women, but are probably just appealing to dudes.
Perhaps that's the intention all along. But I'm curious people with brains find this quote remotely plausible and if women in particular buy this image of what female software engineer looks like. Idk. Weird.
The post never questions whether she is an engineer OR what an engineer should look like.
...and a stereotypical image of a representation of a female techie - when supposedly aimed at women, but actually aimed at "dudes".
It questions a trite marketing-lingo quote ("My team is great. Everyone is smart, creative and hilarious.") - which was at the center of the puns aimed at the campaign poster before SJW's showed up...
E.g. Young (no witches), thin (no fatties), "foreign" (Janie can't tech), handsome (no uglies) and that old staple - glasses because glasses==smart.
That last bit is made even more obvious with her "everyday" photo in her post where she clearly doesn't wear glasses at work.
But is still young and pretty... but not nerdy. Sorry. Can't use THAT photo cause women need such guiding symbols to know that she is a techie.
Stereotypes... Some of them are true. Like what marketing drones think that a representation of a "smart" female SHOULD look like.
It's not about whether someone is an #engineer but what a female engineer SHOULD be like.
Because that is what ads do - unless there is an explicit "NO!", ad is an idealized representation of what something SHOULD look/be/act like.
So... While a female should comment about creative and hilarious teams... you know... girly stuff...
B3ard0 has the autonomy to get things done while "foreign dude" secures data of Fortune 500 companies with his code.
Now, while one would have to really be looking for an excuse to find that post to be representative of "solid examples of the sexism that plagues tech"... from her own words... "socially-accepted, 'smart' and 'normal' guys" and definitely "not bad people" do this:
- I've had men throw dollar bills at me in a professional office(by an employee who works at that company, during work hours).
- I've had an engineer on salary at a bootcamp message me to explicitly 'be friends with benefits' while I was in the interview process at the school he worked for.
One of these things is not like the other...
Now... I may be overacting a bit... but I'm pretty certain that those are NOT "not bad people" and that such acts would earn that someone an immediate and permanent injury where I live.
From the "object" of their "attention", not some self-righteous crusader for societal justice.
At the very least a scene noticeable from a radius of at least several kilometers. Which would include some light physical "attention".
Like a slap, punch, kick or having something significantly harder than a dollar thrown at the culprit. And I'm not talking Euros.
A more civilized society might get them a lawsuit or a cardboard box to take their belongings in while being escorted out to the gate.
But certainly, THAT would not be "not bad people" and "normal guys" or "socially-accepted".
But... she thinks THAT is fine and OK, while a rather neutral post is... "solid example of the sexism that plagues tech".
Now... I can't say I'm a mind reader...
But, while that blog post (from August 1st) about reaction to a marketing campaign has all that HASHTAGsexism HASHTAGiLookLikeAnEngineer HASHTAGonlineActivism... there's this bit:
My stories have become such a source of inspi
If the average IQ is 100 (and it is, by definition), that means for everyone with a 160 IQ, there has to be someone with a 40 IQ, or two people with 70 IQ, or four with 80...
There is an incredible number of stupid, uneducated idiots in this world, right around you.
IQ curve is a normalized bell curve. Equal on both sides, reaching into infinity on both sides.
BUT... There is neither infinite IQ nor 0 intelligence. Neither of those would be a living human being.
So right there, the curve itself is a broken representation. If taken in such a simplistic "or two people with 70 IQ, or four with 80" way.
Back in reality, those numbers actually mean something.
Anything in the 71 - 84 range is considered "Borderline Intellectual Functioning".
These are people with difficulties learning to read, write, do math or solve complex problems.
People who don't get "When is a door not a door? When it's ajar." jokes.
70 and below is Mental Retardation.
At 50 - 70 range - reading, writing and basic math is an accomplishment, while communicating is a difficulty.
Do you REALLY see many people like that around you? Cause those are only about 2% of population.
And nobody is including their opinions in pols as they are incapable of understanding such complex questions or formulating meaningful answers.
Meanwhile, that curve represents ALL HUMANS. Including kids and babies. And senile old people.
So, a lot of those low IQ numbers are actually AGAIN people unable to understand or answer such questions.
At the same time, that right part of the curve are actual people too. 100+ IQ, and going up to 160 and more...
Major difference being that THOSE people really ARE intellectually functional.
Some of them MAY lack education or they may have prejudices and biases preventing them in reaching accurate or logical conclusions - but IQ is there.
Present and accountable.
And then there is a part where those IQ numbers actually have a +/- error built in due to the nature of the test.
And when the test favors those with higher IQ, who can breeze through the test faster, scoring more points, making less errors... guess which group gets penalized the most from pondering about the solution a bit longer?
Hint: It ain't the IQ 85 and below crowd. They hit their ceiling early on. Never get to the point where seconds mean additional IQ points.
Again, curve is a broken representation.
In reality, it is a lot flatter in the middle and steeper on the left side.
Cause while those standard deviations are rather arbitrary (representation of a measuring tool - not the measured value) - there IS a real cut off line below which it is obvious that people have problems with intellectual functioning.
Your view is distorted by the fact that you are probably standing a bit low (indicating higher IQ) on the right side of the curve, looking up-curve at all those people below you and going "OMG! There are SO MANY of them."
So you don't see that in actuality, most of those people are actually on your side of the curve. Closer to you, than to those below IQ 85.
Education on the other hand... that's a different matter.
And so are biases and prejudices and simply faulty information and reasoning.
No one is immune to that. Just remember Linus Pauling, his double Nobels and his ideas about vitamin C.
Or any person still believing in the dude in the sky, working in mysterious ways while murdering babies in Africa.
Those people can't be all below average. There are simply too many of them for that. And the curve is broken.
It's a resealable glass of clean water that you can buy anywhere and carry in your pocket.
Saying "it makes no sense whatsoever to buy bottled water... For people who live in first-world countries with proper sanitation and water treatment"...
It is like saying the same thing about cloth handkerchiefs vs. paper tissues or paper towels vs. cloth towels.
With proper sanitation - why not just wash your ass and use a cloth towel afterwards instead of toilet paper?
You can take it with you everywhere, in a small plastic box.
And if a toilet has no bidet attachment, just use that bottled water to wash your ass.
I'm only half joking here. It is all perfectly doable. Have done it on camping and such.
Apart from carrying a towel with me. No, I don't hitchhike.
But doing all that to avoid toilet paper or paper tissues would be rather inconvenient on a regular basis.
Same as having MY dedicated 20$ aluminum-whatever-alloy water bottle I'd keep forgetting, losing or lugging around when I don't need or don't want to be lugging it around (i.e. when I need my hands or pockets free or busy with something else).
I've refilled my store-bought water bottle with local tap water IF it was good (where I live it really isn't) but then I'd just dump the bottle in the trash when I don't need it anymore.
Convenience. Of use and disposal. Plus a guaranteed clean source of drinkable water.
Available at every news stand kiosk.
A presidential candidate's demonstrated incompetence in a leadership position is "stuff that matters". So is major corporate executive's, since it helps dispell the lingering idea that leaders get paid more than underlings because they're worth more, rather than just more powerful. The remains of the myth of the divinely appointed kings are hindering our democracies by making the decision-making positions extremely attractive to psychopaths, narcissists and people with other mental issues, and need to die.
One - incompetence has NEVER stopped anyone getting elected.
Nobody cares about incompetence. Neither the people at the voting booth NOR the people in the party pushing that person for office.
People care about "Is he/she like me?". Can they identify with the candidate and his/her ideas or in other words - do they LIKE the candidate.
It's a popularity contest.
Just a while ago US had an incompetent lunatic with a history of substance abuse problem who believes he talks to god, with god giving him instructions on how to run the country - running the country and starting decades long wars.
Remember that time when an undiagnosed Alzheimer's patient ran a country, with plans to "win" a nuclear war with USSR by using "lazors"?
Remember that airhead from Alaska being and actual presidential candidate?
Remember that other guy being "a robot" and "not cool" to be president?
Remember that certain senator from Kansas being "too old"?
It's a popularity contest. People vote for whom they like more based on their public image.
Hint: A sex scandal does not mean someone is incompetent at their job - except in politics.
People don't care about competence. If they did, there'd be a test and an "experience in office" requirement for political positions.
You know... something to show that a politician actually knows how government works.
Imagine THAT crazy thing - politicians with actual governing GRADES and stats.
Instead, elections are about the ability to pretend to be everything to everyone.
Which is what's "making the decision-making positions extremely attractive to psychopaths, narcissists and people with other mental issues" - not a myth of divine kings.
Thus, elections being a popularity contest...
"Jobs fucked Fiorina" is irrelevant historical information (over a decade old) which, were elections about competence, would actually indicate more that she was a high stakes player who once lost to Divine Steve.
But it's not.
It's a cheap, "dirty laundry" attempt at painting old news as relevant in order to affect someone's popularity by labeling them as "totally tricked" and "outsmarted" instead of what they are - incompetent at running a company.
Which might actually mean that she has great chances - in politics.
After all... People loved that other MBA who kept ruining businesses he ran. Maybe she should get herself a baseball team?
Thus gossip about a stuuuuupid presidential candidate's former business deal (from 2004) with an asshole who's been dead since 2011 - is suddenly click-worthy "news".
In other news... Pangea broke up. Suck it.
Also, a budget padding enthusiasts wet dream.
It suggests 3 (three) separate trips for what can be achieved by 1 (one). Namely, getting astronauts to Mars surface for a prolonged stay and an extensive scientific mission.
First, send astronauts to hop around on Phobos in 2033.
Then, send astronauts to land on Mars in 2039 - and fuck off back to Earth almost immediately.
Then, in 2043, send astronauts for a year-long stay on Mars.
Supposedly, (paper is paywalled) "each mission campaign would build on previous campaigns, leaving a legacy and new capabilities for those that follow."
Except the cost of all three missions is in getting to Mars orbit and back.
And if the last mission is supposed to last a whole year on Mars, a full DECADE after the first mission, and 4 years after the second one - they are NOT carrying ANY supplies or building ANY infrastructure on or near Mars surface.
For a simple reason that you can't rely on anything still being there in working order 10 years in the future.
Or 6. Or 4.
You can't even use the SAME FUCKING PEOPLE as they will be a decade older and maybe dead or maybe doing another job.
Astronauts have to eat too, you know.
Further, anything done on Phobos has fuck all to do with any following mission. They are not gonna build a base there or store supplies - it's a hop-around mission.
And should a second mission happen, only reason why not to stay there for a whole year is - SUPPLIES! Or the lack there of.
Which won't be there because... "Meh... not this time. We'll bring it the next time. Not right now. Later."
This is NOTHING like an Apollo missions to the Moon.
This is like swimming to America from Scotland, getting to Liberty Island, eating a sandwich brought with you, then swimming back home.
Then, 6 years later, do the same thing - only climbing out of the water in New York Harbor, sleeping over night in Central Park, eating another sandwich in the morning (again brought from back home) and swimming back to Europe.
THEN, 4 more years later, you take another swim across the ocean, only instead of taking a sandwich, this time you take a credit card and you spend a year living in USA.
Oh and yeah... Each trip there is a team of thousands of people and dozens of boats sailing right next to you and keeping you safe from the sharks and tigers (You don't know... maybe there are tigers along the way... better safe than sorry.), tweetering your progress online and whatnot.
I'm guessing they don't just use that filter all the time because they don't want to wear out a (presumably) much more expensive filter?
Moms with kids diagnosed (or more likely presumed to be) asthmatic or allergic.
Followed by various adults diagnosed (or presumed to be) asthmatic or allergic, buying the car for themselves.
In both those cases that filter will be a major deciding factor for purchase and a much used feature.
Screw the doors. That "most ridiculous feature" will sell thousands of cars all on its own.
Hypochondria is a real thing. Particularly among the OCD-hand-washing crowd.
people will trot out Rosa Parks as an example. Funny, I never see them trot out Pablo Escobar or MS13.
This is Slashdot.
There's no 13 and MS is spelled M$. Tagged with a "Billgatus of Borg" icon.
In a story about M$ "just practicing civil disobedience". You know... like Mussolini.
HA! You thought I was gonna say Hitler.
and fresh allegations that the company would act as a "criminal organization" by offering a platform for taxi rides without license (read: without the authorities earning money from the practice)
Nice one there.
Get the anti-gubermint crowd by emphasizing the criminal organization definition of Uber.
(YEAH! Fuck you Holland and your German laws! You don't get to decide what constitutes a legal definition of a criminal organization in your country!).
Then get the pro-regulation crowd by insinuating that paying taxes, tariffs etc. and submitting to regulation is somehow just a legal racket by "the authorities".
(YEAH! Fuck you regulatory gubermint bodies! I WANT to live in a Blade Runner-like dystopia. Minus the tech, replicants, flying cars, Vangelis soundtrack and unicorns.)
It's almost as if both the "anonymous reader" and Soulskill love watching their mom being double-teamed so much they just can't get the idea of getting it both ways out of their head.
What? It's a flamebait story and topic.
Decorum and protocol dictate the mention of management's and submitters Nazi whore mothers.
You missed the point completely. Reread what I said.
Poster used to promote movie is without any kind of emotional or factual or logical information.
And what IS there - is contradictory or meaningless.
"Bring him home."
Bring who home? Why? From where? Whose home? What for? Is this a commercial for something? For what?
Who is this emotionless, expressionless guy and why should I care? Is he an actor? A historical figure?
Is he real? A robot? What is he selling? Is he the product? Who? What? How? Where? When? Why? WHY? WHY?
I am not a character in the movie. I'm audience. The guy in the poster is NOT Mark Whatever - it's an actor called Matt Damon.
That poster is supposed to be informing ME about the movie and establishing SOME connection, usually emotional, with me to induce me to pay for the ticket.
Without me knowing jack shit about the story.
And there is NOTHING THERE to do that.
All that's there is an ACTOR looking bored or retarded, with meaningless words across his face.
Damon is capable of expressing emotion. Humans ARE capable of writing better slogans or even sentences.
That thing was intentionally made that way cause it made PERFECT logic to people already engrossed with the production - but with nothing there for people who are supposed to pay for that movie.
That's a symptom of detachment from reality.
They are running the production of the story on their own, internal logic which makes sense only to them because they are engrossed in metadata and metalogic of the project - which they've clearly omitted to relay to the audience.
This is the stuff that creates movies like Prometheus and The Room.
Both those movies made perfect sense to the people who made them and OKayed them.
And seriously, if you answer to "Why?" with "Semper Fi!"... you might need to recheck your bullshit meter.
I've only read fragments of the book and seen the trailer.
But the writing... Your 15-year-old boy writer may be having some development issues.
E.g. That bit about "space pirate"... that's just... retarded.
I get the context, really I do. And I'm not even gonna go into the whole "The Egg" thing.
But a grown human acting like that in that situation would NOT be in that situation cause that human would not pass the psych tests.
Besides that... It is twaddle that serves no other purpose but to make the character out as a "funny guy" and as an attempt at fan service.
Except, if he's talking to himself about how either awesome or charming and funny he is, he is NOT a funny guy.
He is either insane, or one of them assholes full of themselves who THINK that they are awesome and funny.
And the whole thing REEKS of MarySueism.
Which carries over to the movie to the point that someone thought how that face shot of Damon looking emotionless or vaguely retarded, with "BRING HIM HOME" printed across his face - someone thought that was a GREAT idea for a movie poster.
Seriously, WHY? Why "bring him home"? Who gives a fuck about him? Why should anyone care about bringing HIM home at this point?
There's no attachment for the audience to that character. Emotional or otherwise.
Poster tells NOTHING about that character. It goes out of its way to say nothing with that face expression of his, or the lack thereof.
Unless the idea is that we should "bring him home" because "Matt Damon"?
And that's just... stupid. Like cheering when Amon Goeth murders Jews because "OMG! Ralph Fiennes is SO FIIIINEEEES!"
Why should someone who hasn't read a book or seen the movie care about bringing that mongoloid home?
Another thing this reeks of is "Mythbusters on Mars".
"Science the shit out of this" while looking at the audience. Yeah... That.
"Eat my shit Neil Armstrong"... or whatever he actually throws at Neil Fucking Armstrong.
"I'm the bestest plant guy on this planet, getit you idiots, its a funny, ha-ha laugh."
That kinda ad hominem nonsense just creates a faulty "argument" that her theories would have been more valid if she were younger and thinner.
Wind the time back and she's this nerdy chick with raven hair and pretty eyes who's into robots. How cool is that, right?
The woman is pushing 40(ish) and has excess weight.
Yeah... no one on slashdot has ever been or will ever be in those shoes. We're all fit and perma-young.
Should she lose weight and get sexier lighting, background and clothes - will her theories suddenly become more valid?
How about if she were a guy?
I know, I know... It's a joke.
But it's a lame one and it opens the door to the whole "her theory is laughed at on account of her being a woman" argument.
When the real reason it is laughable is cause it is based on a faulty premise of humans being nothing but sex-bots made of flesh and then making a bunch of logical leaps based on premises as faulty as that one.
I.e. This is some wonderful circular thinking:
The vision for sex robots is underscored by reference to prostitute-john exchange which relies on recognizing only the needs and wants of the buyers of sex, the sellers of sex are not attributed subjectivity and reduced to a thing (just like the robot).
Sex robots are like prostitutes. Which is bad. Cause prostitution treats prostitutes like robots.
Ergo, treating robots like prostitutes is bad - CAUSE THAT WOULD BE TREATING ROBOTS LIKE ROBOTS!
How many people studied math in school?
Everyone. You can't get through elementary school without math.
How many people use anything more advanced than multiplication and division?
How many of them are actual mathematicians?
Now... How many people HATE math cause they either never had aptitude for it OR due to the way they were taught math?
Besides that... What's the use of a half the humanity of below average programmers?
Just to be clear, I am not any where close to being in the US - OR eating US portions.
I was referring to the fact that "bowl" and "portion" are not really exact measurements, just like other descriptive measurements based not so much on measurable quantities but on personal perception.
And as people do not all come in one size... that may not really mean much.
As for what I describe above, it is actually either a low calorie smaller meal for someone doing a lot of physical exercise - or a solid full meal for someone trying to game the satiety part of the equation.
All that stuff takes a while to digest and it's full of fiber.
In comparison, 100 grams of white bread (about 3 slices) is about the same amount of calories as oats+milk above - but 2 minutes later you don't even remember you ate it.
A typical UK cereal with milk is in the 125-150 calorie range. Even the worst sugar laden ones are only about 350 calories per bowl.
I don't know the size of your bowl but 60 grams of oat flakes (that stuff in muesli) plus 80 grams of 0.5% milk is 253 calories.
No added sugar, flavor or anything.
You want extra flavor, add fruit or a couple of spoons of fruit yogurt.
At about 84 calories per 100 grams for those yogurts which don't contain extra fructose for taste.
Slice an average peach into it and that's about 40 more calories per 100 grams, or about 1 peach.
Or a banana for 90 calories per 100 grams, or about 110 calories per banana.
So, a bowl of "healthy", raw, low calorie fruit and unprocessed cereals with low fat milk is in the range of 290-370 calories, for about a 200 ml bowl.
I'm guessing that your "typical" bowl might actually be a "small" bowl and OP's bowl may be a "medium" to "large" bowl.
I guess what we have here is a case of the "Big Egg" lobby.
Gettin ostricher and ostricher at our expense.