Perhaps you should look up how many kcals a sandwich actually has.
An open faced ham sandwich has about 120 kcals, perhaps you should try reading what I said.
Also: we are talking about burning fat. It is a complete different thing of burning a sandwich you just have floating in your stomach or burning fat on your belly.
If you take in 1500 calories, but burn 2000 calories where do you think your body gets those other 500 calories?
To burn the energy of a big mc you need a day, not an hour. You must be extremely bad at math.
Big mac is 563 calories a 125 pound guy running for an hour burns 557 calories. If you weigh more you'll burn more calories. Someone here is definitely bad at math but I'm not sure it's me.
The effect of exercises is neglectible. You need to be an Athlet to influence the burning of energy in a way that you can eat more.
Are you joking? Just running a mile burns around 130 calories. That's an open faced ham sandwich, run another mile and you can close the sandwich and add a piece of cheese. No you don't get condiments at those numbers but learn to live without seasoning the piss out of your food and you'll find losing weight is a whole lot easier. Go a whole hour and you're in big mac territory.
Actually, burning muscle before fat in that case is exactly what would happen. If you starve your body of too many calories, it turns to burning muscle as it costs more energy to maintain.
Only if you aren't overweight.
In the study, an example of a lean subject studied after death from starvation: it can be deduced that loss of body fat accounted for 28-36% of the weight loss and fat-free mass 64-72%. In obese individuals, the proportion of energy derived from protein (Pcal%) is only 6% compared to 21% in the lean individual. More than half the weight loss in the obese is fat, whereas most of the weight loss in the lean individual is fat-free mass.
Is it just too fucking hard for you to use your imagination a little bit and imagine what it must be like to be somebody who can't stop gaining weight even while eating 300-600 calories per day?
You know they've done scientific studies and found that the starvation mode decrease never completely offsets the drop from their normal BMR. Their metabolic rate may go as low as 40% of the normal BMR but it will always decrease by less than the actual caloric decrease. If their normal BMR is not 300-600 kcal per day then they absolutely will lose weight at 300-600 kcal per day. Read https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode/ for more information on this. You won't actually gain weight in starvation mode unless you ramp up your caloric intake. He lays out why exactly you're wrong and cites peer reviewed studies to prove your wrong. Cut out the insulting people because you can't grasp the concept of science.
Besides, tabs SAVES memory (compared to firing up new instances) so it actually counters your whole argument.
I'm not aware of any browsers from that era that used a new instance for every window, hence why in IE when one page crashed all of the windows would close too. Tabs cost more memory because you're more likely to open more tabs than you are multiple windows.
Yes and it works better for doing complex/large designs with more than 4Gb of ram. As does things like photo editing, pagination, hell even doing spreadsheets is improved with more ram. Sure you can do it with 16Mb of ram but you'll swap a whole lot less with 32Gb.
Changes are happening in Debian's development branches which will make older versions of the 32-bit architecture obsolete.
It doesn't say dropping all 32-bit just older versions of the 32-bit architecture. It also clarifies it even further.
"Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the i386 architecture to 686-class in the Stretch release cycle.
Yes if you just read one poorly quoted line from the summary and fill in the blanks with random gibberish it looks like debian is dropping support for all cpus and will only run on your neighbors abacus. If you read the actual summary it specifies minimum of 686-class for 32-bit intel debian install. Nothing about dropping i386 support just moving it up to 686-class processors.
And in the first line of the story it says "An anonymous reader shares DistroWatch's report that the Debian distribution will soon be dropping support for older, 32-bit processors."
Which isn't what the distrowatch headline says at all, and further in the summary it clarifies that with:
Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the i386 architecture to 686-class in the Stretch release cycle
Technically Geode Processors should work, They're not missing anything from the official 686 spec. But certain combinations of build tools rely on the NOPL instruction which they are missing (but isn't part of the actual 686 spec).
Except now we're using h264 and h265 which provide far greater quality than vcd or dvd, and the tv card is 1080p on modern computers, your display resolution on modern computers is higher. All of these things drastically increase how much ram and cpu your system needs. Web browsing also now includes things like tabs, spellchecking, h264 video built in, built in audio, 3d rendering. All things that the old 95/98 boxes didn't do on a stock install.
"Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the i386 architecture to 686-class in the Stretch release cycle. This means dropping support for 586-class and hybrid 586/686 processors.
No they're dropping support for older cpus as the headline says. Those 30 year old cpu designs won't be supported in debian. No where in the headline does it imply debian 9 will be 64-bit only.
"Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the i386 architecture to 686-class in the Stretch release cycle. This means dropping support for 586-class and hybrid 586/686 processors.
It says right there minimum 686-class, so as long as you have a cpu with a design thats no older than 20 years old you're good.
So does testing and unstable debian as long as you have 686 class or better cpu.
Try reading the summary it says right there 32-bit is supported as long as you have a cpu that was made in the past twenty years (The first 686 class cpu was made in 1995)
Slashdot Mirror
Perhaps you should look up how many kcals a sandwich actually has.
An open faced ham sandwich has about 120 kcals, perhaps you should try reading what I said.
Also: we are talking about burning fat. It is a complete different thing of burning a sandwich you just have floating in your stomach or burning fat on your belly.
If you take in 1500 calories, but burn 2000 calories where do you think your body gets those other 500 calories?
To burn the energy of a big mc you need a day, not an hour. You must be extremely bad at math.
Big mac is 563 calories a 125 pound guy running for an hour burns 557 calories. If you weigh more you'll burn more calories.
Someone here is definitely bad at math but I'm not sure it's me.
Not the guy you're responding to but here I'm not AC and im citing something other than reddit
https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode/
Just to clarify. I can run an hour without issue and I definitely don't qualify as an athlete right now with a hernia and all.
The effect of exercises is neglectible. You need to be an Athlet to influence the burning of energy in a way that you can eat more.
Are you joking? Just running a mile burns around 130 calories. That's an open faced ham sandwich, run another mile and you can close the sandwich and add a piece of cheese. No you don't get condiments at those numbers but learn to live without seasoning the piss out of your food and you'll find losing weight is a whole lot easier. Go a whole hour and you're in big mac territory.
Actually, burning muscle before fat in that case is exactly what would happen. If you starve your body of too many calories, it turns to burning muscle as it costs more energy to maintain.
Only if you aren't overweight.
In the study, an example of a lean subject studied after death from starvation: it can be deduced that loss of body fat accounted for 28-36% of the weight loss and fat-free mass 64-72%. In obese individuals, the proportion of energy derived from protein (Pcal%) is only 6% compared to 21% in the lean individual. More than half the weight loss in the obese is fat, whereas most of the weight loss in the lean individual is fat-free mass.
from: https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode/
Is it just too fucking hard for you to use your imagination a little bit and imagine what it must be like to be somebody who can't stop gaining weight even while eating 300-600 calories per day?
You know they've done scientific studies and found that the starvation mode decrease never completely offsets the drop from their normal BMR. Their metabolic rate may go as low as 40% of the normal BMR but it will always decrease by less than the actual caloric decrease. If their normal BMR is not 300-600 kcal per day then they absolutely will lose weight at 300-600 kcal per day. Read https://www.caloriecount.com/forums/weight-loss/truth-starvation-mode/ for more information on this. You won't actually gain weight in starvation mode unless you ramp up your caloric intake. He lays out why exactly you're wrong and cites peer reviewed studies to prove your wrong. Cut out the insulting people because you can't grasp the concept of science.
Raspberry Pi does all of the fancy stuff like h264 decoding in hardware using the GPU. The machines of 95/98 could not decode h264 in real time.
Besides, tabs SAVES memory (compared to firing up new instances) so it actually counters your whole argument.
I'm not aware of any browsers from that era that used a new instance for every window, hence why in IE when one page crashed all of the windows would close too. Tabs cost more memory because you're more likely to open more tabs than you are multiple windows.
It's the historical name debian uses for 32-bit intel cpus. It's not a reference to the generation but rather to the capabilities.
Yes and it works better for doing complex/large designs with more than 4Gb of ram. As does things like photo editing, pagination, hell even doing spreadsheets is improved with more ram. Sure you can do it with 16Mb of ram but you'll swap a whole lot less with 32Gb.
The summary clearly says
Changes are happening in Debian's development branches which will make older versions of the 32-bit architecture obsolete.
It doesn't say dropping all 32-bit just older versions of the 32-bit architecture.
It also clarifies it even further.
"Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the i386 architecture to 686-class in the Stretch release cycle.
Yes if you just read one poorly quoted line from the summary and fill in the blanks with random gibberish it looks like debian is dropping support for all cpus and will only run on your neighbors abacus. If you read the actual summary it specifies minimum of 686-class for 32-bit intel debian install. Nothing about dropping i386 support just moving it up to 686-class processors.
And in the first line of the story it says "An anonymous reader shares DistroWatch's report that the Debian distribution will soon be dropping support for older, 32-bit processors."
Which isn't what the distrowatch headline says at all, and further in the summary it clarifies that with:
Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the i386 architecture to 686-class in the Stretch release cycle
as in 686 is the minimum.
Technically Geode Processors should work, They're not missing anything from the official 686 spec. But certain combinations of build tools rely on the NOPL instruction which they are missing (but isn't part of the actual 686 spec).
Except now we're using h264 and h265 which provide far greater quality than vcd or dvd, and the tv card is 1080p on modern computers, your display resolution on modern computers is higher. All of these things drastically increase how much ram and cpu your system needs. Web browsing also now includes things like tabs, spellchecking, h264 video built in, built in audio, 3d rendering. All things that the old 95/98 boxes didn't do on a stock install.
Pentium 2 is 686 class so they're safe. I believe k6-2 are 686 as well.
Other than the guys doing things like CAD, you know office work... sure.
Arch has been 686 only longer than debian so.....
It just said older cpus in the headline from the time I saw it. Which was when it had 0 comments and was just posted.
Debian Dropping Support For Older CPUs
It doesn't say anything about 32 bit or i686 in the headline.
Just says older cpus.
"Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the i386 architecture to 686-class in the Stretch release cycle. This means dropping support for 586-class and hybrid 586/686 processors.
No they're dropping support for older cpus as the headline says. Those 30 year old cpu designs won't be supported in debian. No where in the headline does it imply debian 9 will be 64-bit only.
Did you try reading the summary?
"Last year it was decided to increase the minimum CPU features for the i386 architecture to 686-class in the Stretch release cycle. This means dropping support for 586-class and hybrid 586/686 processors.
It says right there minimum 686-class, so as long as you have a cpu with a design thats no older than 20 years old you're good.
or arch they still do 32 bit.
So does testing and unstable debian as long as you have 686 class or better cpu.
Try reading the summary it says right there 32-bit is supported as long as you have a cpu that was made in the past twenty years (The first 686 class cpu was made in 1995)
xp supports 32 bit so does 7 8 and 10.
So does debian.
its way to early to be killing off 32 bit support
They're not.
as low end machines where all 32 bit until just a few years ago so many are still in use.netbooks embedded etc.
I guess it's a good thing debian isn't killing off 32 bit support isn't it?
Did you try reading the summary? It says right there, minimum 686 class. Not that they're killing 32 bit support.
Google got sued because they were logging more than just SSID and location. They were getting packet dumps of unencrypted networks.
But that achievement doesn't exist, so how is it snapchats fault?