I suppose it depends on how you define a problem. It could also be cooincidence. The point is we will never really know.
Look, I had a project manager get all over my case once for having 100% variance in number of forecast hours to actuals. I let her vent at me, and then I said calmly "how many hours are we talking about?"
She paused, then started laughing. It was 1 hour. She was so used to dealing with large (300+ hour) estimates that 100% variance sent her off into thinking it was a big deal. We knew each other well, and this was really a non issue. But I always remember that when someone tells me a percentage of something - always check the numbers behind it.:)
I really had no idea about any of this. And yet, it still doesn't change the fact that I care zero about what he thinks about the presidential race. I don't care if he supports a re-animated Hitler for president. He makes a cartoon that I used to read and find very enjoyable. That is pretty much the end of Scott Adams' influence on my life.
The opinions of celebrities or well-known people carry no more weight to me than if it were an average person on the street. It is unfortunate that this has turned into people's opinions of the candidates instead of talking about their positions on issues. What really makes me sad is that whoever is elected, a large portion of the country will really hate them. I just don't understand it.
There is nothing unique about this story. From reading the article, there is absolutely nothing that hasn't happened a thousand times over in other companies.
Review systems are inherently flawed at large companies. That's how people are able to hang out for years, just hiding in the woodwork. As long as you keep your head down, you can skate by for your whole career. It can take years to get someone fired, as long as they don't do anything terribly wrong. I once came into manage a team and inherited someone that never should have been hired, but there they were 5 years later and had always gotten "satisfactory" performance reviews. Usually it's because weak managers don't want to deal with problem employees. And you can't fire someone unless they have been on a performance plan. So technically they had 5 years with no problems. Nobody wanted to work with this person, they weren't given anything important to do, etc. It took over a year to get them out of there. (they refused to step up and improve). Why so long? Well, you have to wait until the annual review cycle to give someone a review. I joined in Oct, and the reviews were pretty much set for the year and I was just learning the team. So that person couldn't get a "not meeting expectations" until the NEXT year's review. Then you have to put them on a performance plan, and document everything and prove that they weren't meeting expectations. Then and only then are you allowed to fire them. You can try to encourage them to leave, but you can't fire them. If they are lucky, there are re-orgs (as there always are in big companies) and they get a new manager somewhere during this process, and the fun starts again.
The article talks about upper management changing ratings? Yeah, happens all the time for various reasons. It could have been that they had to fit people into the pre-defined bell curves. (e.g. 10% bad ratings, 80% ok or good, 10% great) As you roll up the ratings for a large organization, management has to do horse-trading and ranking of people. Top, bottom, and middle performers are safe - it's the ones on the edge of great and bad that usually get their rating changed. THEN if you throw in execs with biases, it adds layers of fun to all the built-in BS.
I have seen men and women get promoted for inexplicable reasons, and I have also seen people fired for no good reason (even despite the process I described above). And then there are the people that are just gone one day with no explanation. The corporate world sucks, and while I only know about this story what I read in the article, nothing in there sounds surprising. Even if it were true that she was doing a male purge, so what? Even in the male dominated IT world, I have seen women get fired because of the boy's club mentality. It's big business, don't try to make any sense of it.
Am I the only one who thinks that it's possible that he was able to claim losses like that through shady (or quite possibly legitimate) ways? You're assuming that by claiming losses, he ACTUALLY lost that money. I have more confidence that businessmen know how to cheat their way out of having to pay taxes, like hiring accountants/lawyers to find ways to shield their money. After all, the wealthy are the ones who pay to have laws passed that benefit them. So really all that a tax return is a CLAIM that he had a billion in losses. That doesn't make it so. And we all know Trump has no issue claiming things that aren't true.
HOW they are doing fine, I have no idea. I know I sound old, mainly because I am, but I am quite astonished what my nearly-teen daughter listens to. It's not that I don't get it... some of it catchy. But so much of it is just terrible in every way. I pull songs off of youtube for her, mainly because I can then monitor what she listens to and I can look up the lyrics as well. Also, she listens to things like parodies of songs and other things that aren't necessarily under the thumb of the music industry.
The other reason I can't believe they doing fine is because the entertainment industry has never really embraced digital music. If they had done so back in '98, '99, 2000, etc. they would have been able to capitalize on the desire for it. Instead, they fought against it. Just like VCRs, cassettes, CDR, DVDR, etc. They just can't loosen their grip on trying to maintain complete control. This is no different.
And I will say, I do listen to youtube at work, it's easy to just pull up some music. And if there is a particular old album out there that I don't have... it wouldn't be inconceivable to just download it from youtube, rip the audio, and run mp3splt with silence detection to get individual tracks.
You're confusing a diet strategy with physiological facts. Changing your diet can be effective because you feel full with fewer calories and because you can avoid rapid rises in blood glucose. Calorie counting often fails because hunger is a strong drive and people tend to cheat, so they take in more calories than they count (or should).
It's not about tricking your body into feeling full. You touched on it when you said glucose. It's about regulating your hormones. The most effective way to do that is through your diet! I know because I have been doing it for four years. Low-carb, high-fat (saturated), no grains (or grain products), or sugar, NO restrictions or even consideration of calories. I lost 15 lbs in the first month and it has stayed off. (I was only 170) No rigorous exercise plan. Joint pain - gone. Back pain - gone. I am not starving myself, I am not hungry. I am often in a mild state of ketosis, or can get there easily. Without 'punishing' myself. I can fast for 24 hours and feel great. I am telling you, calories are a red herring. They play a role, but if you focus on what is important, you can ignore them.
Stop putting things into quotes that I didn't actually say. I said that exercise "influences hormone levels". That is, the amount of calories you burn off with exercise is not that important; what is important is the improvements in mood and physiological changes it causes.
Exercise is great for you, and does influence hormone levels. But you can lose weight without it, it is not required. You can get healthy without it. Your diet is so much more important than exercise in losing weight and being healthy. I didn't mean that to be me quoting you, it was me quoting the phrase "burn off calories" because that phrase is misleading and very simplistic statement around a complex system. Moreover, it's not necessary! Because people think that you have to exercise heavily to burn burn burn away fat. You don't. The oft prescribed "diet and exercise" rarely works because exercising makes you hungry. (work up an appetite) So you eat more (usually carbs) and that gets stored as fat. It's a never-ending cycle, a battle. It doesn't have to be. All you have to do is retrain your body to not rely on carbs for energy. THEN it will use your fat as energy and you will lose it. It's how we came to be, it's in our genes. It's not starvation, it's not tricks. It's pure and simple science.
Fat accumulation is mainly driven in our bodies by hormones, most notably insulin. Learn how that works and what affects it. That's it.
Lucky, then, that you can influence hormone levels through what you eat, how much you eat, and how much you exercise.
You can lose weight and keep it off by changing your diet alone. The others influence it, but to much lesser degrees. If you change WHAT you eat the amount (in quantity or calories) is largely irrelevant. Exercise is good for you, but you don't have to kill yourself trying to "burn off calories"
Knowing your weight, or your physical activity level, means nothing about weight loss. Nothing.
Knowing your weight means determining whether the dietary changes you made in order to lose weight are working. That's important because different bodies react differently to diets and exercise.
Again, hung up on the old "diet and exercise" shtick. Diet, YES - but not "dieting". You don't need a scale to know or help you lose weight.
Calories-in/Calories-out is a small portion of the story,
No, they are actually the entire story: every food calorie that has been absorbed by your body either needs to be burned or stored (primarily as fat).
*sigh* It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss out on all the heavenly glory.
Look at human history - allllll the way back. Do you think any of these fads helps us survive as humans? Do you have ANY idea how many generations of people have lived? How did they do it without scales and digital trackers?
Most of those generations lived in an environment of food scarcity and they frequently starved. And obesity isn't usually going to kill you before your reproductive period is over, which is why evolution has erred on the side of gaining weight. (They also lived without antibiotics, but that doesn't mean that antibiotics are useless.)
You really haven't looked at the numbers, have you? Let's roughly estimate.... over 2.5 million years of human evolution, if the average lifespan was 50 years that means that within 100 years there would be 3 full generations. (year 0 - 50 is one, year 25 - 75 is two, year 50 - 100 is three). 2.5MM / 100 = 25,000 * 3 generations = 75,000 generations. [and they overlap, since at year 100, the next generation would have started already] And would be just one "family", which would have obviously grown and spread over time, so if I thought about it longer and harder I am thinking the number would be bigger. So you're saying "most of these generations lived in an environment of food scarcity and they frequently starved". What is this based on? On the fact there were no McDonalds? From what we can tell, we as a people only started agriculture 10,000 years ago. That is a tiny, miniscule part of 2.5 million years! How did we as humans not only survive, but THRIVE and evolve during this time? It wasn't because we could get fat. It was because we weren't relying on grains, starches, processed fats (like vegetable/bean oils) and sugars for fuel. Our bodies haven't adapted to these things well enough yet, which is why we have so much sickness today. (heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer,....) The bad science, pseudo-science, and pure lies behind our dietary guidelines are making us sicker and sicker.
Knowing your weight, or your physical activity level, means nothing about weight loss. Nothing. If anyone has any interest in weight loss or getting healthier, should learn more about the science behind our bodies. "Exercise more and lose weight" isn't the answer. Calories-in/Calories-out is a small portion of the story, at best. Low-fat is dangerous. Portion control is a red herring. Fad diets are stupid.
Fat accumulation is mainly driven in our bodies by hormones, most notably insulin. Learn how that works and what affects it. That's it.
Look at human history - allllll the way back. Do you think any of these fads helps us survive as humans? Do you have ANY idea how many generations of people have lived? How did they do it without scales and digital trackers?
Someone should tell my organs... because I have been grain and sugar free for 4 years now, eat high (good) fats, am in great health, have maintained a consistent weight, and feel fantastic.
Quentin Thomas ("QT") Wiles was brought in to turn around the company, and his high-pressure 'management style' led to disaster for the company.
When hard drive salesmen were rewarded for great performance and punished for less-than-great performance, some managers didn't handle the pressure well. "the managers rented a second warehouse in Colorado where they personally packed 26,000 bricks into hard drive boxes and shipped them to Singapore in order to shore up the inventory count. After the count was complete, they recalled those serial numbers as defective units, but instead of writing them off, they checked them into inventory, along with other failed drives that had been returned."
You would think that this DASH process by Wiles was abandoned, but I've seen it used today... for IT projects! Although the pressure as far as I can tell has been reasonable.
I think this is a big opportunity for some of the up and coming brands to grab some market share. I have a BLU Life One X and I am not sure how "vanilla" it is, but it's definitely not bloated. It's affordable ($150) has good specs, dual sim, and is unlocked. Why would I want an iPhone or Nexus?
It's kind of a shame that people only think there are a couple of choices when it comes to phones.
I agree, at this point the i for injected is somewhat a leftover. They have a pretty long history at making cars, and have stuck with it. I actually haven't kept up with their model for the past 10 years or so. I've had a few BMWs. A 1988 528e sedan (5 series, e = efficient instead of performance), a 1997 318i sedan (3 series, 1.8 liter), and a 1988 M3. -- that one is special.:)
Yes, they haven't always strictly held to the naming convention, but you know basically what you are getting. If you say a BMW 3-series, you have a general idea what it is. The years for a model are designated by a generation you may hear about... e.g. E30 (3-series from 1982-1994) or E28 (5-series from 1981-1988). It's a pretty good system, and scales much easier than names do. But it can get pretty abstract. I have never heard of the model you mentioned.... but I would guess it is a 2-series (smaller than the 3 series, so likely a coupe - whereas the 3 is either coupe or sedan), not sure about the engine but you covered that... and xdrive I would guess is all-wheel-drive. They used to put an x in the badge for that back in the 80s.
Just because someone might find this in the future... the issue was that I had bound my interface in my smb.conf file to eth0. In Mint18 the interface is now called enp0s20, so once I updated my smb.conf with that, everything was fine.
However, it's all too tempting to double-click that csv file that is associated with Excel. How could it not work - THERE IS AN EXCEL ICON RIGHT THERE !:)
I find out that Samba isn't working on the new install. I have to figure out WTF systemd is doing and no solutions others have found are working for me. I use it to sync folders from my phone to my computer over wireless. *sigh*
It's not like Excel alters the underlying data, all you have to do is correctly change the column type.
Oh! but it does - once you save it.
If you open a CSV with Excel by default, it will simply read in the values and format it how it sees fit. Then if you save it, even as a csv, it will give you a warning saying something like "some of the features are not compatible with this format type" If you proceed, your file is now changed. I have seen scientific notation changed like this. Many columns and rows, you may miss a malformatting and save it as csv. Boom, your data is now toast.
It is why I always look at my CSV files with a text editor first, and only open copies in Excel. And if you use a real editor like vi, even opening files with millions of rows isn't an issue.
Carriers would find a way around this. e.g. "you have to own the phone before you are eligible for security updates" T-Mobile does the "pay $20 a month" for a new phone, so you wouldn't really own it until your contract was up. That's why I think that "other" brands will start making real inroads into the market - BLU, Huwei, Xiaomi, etc. I have a BLU, and love it. Dual sim, unlocked, octacore, 2GB ram, gorilla glass, for $150. Why would I buy some $600 phone? As long as the manufacturers control the updates, I might as well get a good phone that I can afford to either root or replace in a couple of years.
I ditched Windows back in 1998 and installed RedHat 5.1. It was awesome! Then I upgraded. Wow, what a nightmare. Dependency hell. I struggled with it for a few years, but hung in there because I just loved it and had no interest in going back to Windows. Macs make my brain hurt.
Then along came Mandrake which took away some of the pain. That was great as well, really liked KDE. Upgrades were still painful, but much better.
Then I started hearing a lot about Ubuntu so I made the leap to Kubuntu 6.06. I went through about 8 in-place upgrades over time (minorly painful) until I finally things got unstable enough that I did a fresh install. Things were much better... but I kept having issues with KDE wigging out on me and pegging my cpu.
So I installed XFCE on top of Kubuntu. XFCE spoke to me - I realized all the UI flash didn't matter to me. I would flip back to KDE, but the problem kept happening and I was happy with XFCE. Eventually I heard about Mint around 2011, and had to try Mint XFCE - I have been there since. I have decided to not do rolling installs anymore, but I am configured pretty well to do full installs. I just installed over my Mint 17 XFCE release and was up and running on Mint XFCE 18 in about an hour. (my / partition is 55 GB and only uses about 12, and I have a separate partition for home). This was the smoothest linux system update I have ever had - even no issues with the Nvidia proprietary drivers!
Installs aside, my Linux system does everything I want it to do. Seeing all the various applications on it grow and blossom, and really cool things like bootable distros to embedded linux to mini systems to android. It has really been great to see it all flourish.
At work I use Windows 10, and I get by. But it brings me no joy. At home I run Linux, and it brings me joy. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to it.
I'd argue that very few people's productivity is measured in how efficient their file operations are. It's sort of like believing you're going to be vastly more efficient as a programmer if you memorize a bunch of keyboard shortcuts or type 60wpm instead of 30. Unlike the movies [hackertyper.com], programming isn't about how fast you type.
I think it's more about learning how to work efficiently, and keeping an "efficient" mindset in whatever you do. Example: I use pine for my email, I have since around 2000. I use fetchmail to pull in a few accounts locally. If I want to check my email, it's faster for me to ssh to my home machine and check it rather than scan across several emails on my phone (I do use K9 to pull them into one app though). Now, if I want to view and attach pictures to emails, or look at attachments, then a GUI is better. But most of the time I am just reading the text and ssh/pine is much more efficient.
Another example: at work someone on my team was trying to generate a 2 million row csv file for testing. She was trying to do it in Excel, and it was very cumbersome and slow. Using an example row, i created a script that was able to generate a million rows in about 5 minutes. Then I used a couple of other tools (sed/cat/vi) to copy the million row file, modify it, and cat them back together. She had her 2 million row csv file in about 15 minutes. She was amazed. Since then I have worked on several other large files like this because people think they have to use Excel to view csv files. And vi kicks notepads ass in editing.
These are just two examples of doing something efficiently. Yes, it was comfortable for me to use these things, but there was no other good solution for this particular problem because people were locked into what they knew. Back on topic, I can certainly use other desktops, but I moved to XFCE many years ago when KDE kept eating my CPU for some unknown reason... and I have simply grown to prefer it. MintXFCE is my sweet spot now, and I don't have any plans to switch.
Back in the early 90s I worked at the big cellphone company. We worked on Unix workstations, and I learned a lot of what to do and what not to do. We used an in-house built bug system built to use sccs. I managed the build shell scripts. The only way to get code into the build was to enter a CR (Change Request) and link the source files to it. Then the build would examine all the CRs for a weekly build, check out that code, ftp it to the target platform (tandem), build it. If all went well, 8 hours later you would have a successful build, which I would then write to 9 track tapes, and THEN install it on the target system testing platform.
So the bug system I mentioned used flat readable text files to store all the info. There was a gui front-end but it was kind of slow.
Out of necessity to quickly look things up, I wrote a shell script that would allow you to search and view CRs on the command line. Bad built on top of bad, but it worked pretty well. Other people on my team started using it too.
It worked so well in fact that somewhere around 2006 I was living across the country, having been at a few other companies since then. An old colleague still at my first company got in touch with me, and someone was asking about me and the tool I created. They saw my email in the header of the script, and wanted to get in touch with me to see if I would let them edit it. They were still using it! What I created for myself others found so useful that it was still chugging along doing its job on the command line. I don't know if it made me proud or sad, but it was humorous to me. I haven't heard anything from them since then, but it would be very interesting if they were still using that same process and those shell scripts I created so long ago.
I'll say it again: it is not the technology or capability that is at issue. In a free society governed by the rule of law, it is the LAW that is paramount.
In theory, law is paramount, but we are governed by the rule of lawmakers not law. Our entire society is strangled by our self-fulfilling legal system. Look at how... well... EVERYTHING runs. EULAs. Disclaimers. TV commercials that flash miniscule paragraphs on the screen. Mountains of paperwork to do anything. Lawsuits lawsuits lawsuits. We are steeped in a society that lawyers have created, and manage, and ensure that we stay that way. Don't like something? Create a new law to make it legal. (not you or me... people with power) Everything is based on precedent. If someone got away with it once, it's probably OK to do again - and the opposite holds true as well. A police officer can chase you and if you run, you have broken the law (fleeing). Laws laws laws laws. I GUARANTEE YOU that these spy planes are legal according to some law that was passed at some point. Don't think so, well, you'll have to prove it. By then the laws will have been changed.
He is not a published scientist of any repute. There, I think I covered the facts of your response. He is a medical doctor. But there are lots of those, right? What he does well is encourage people to read the research, and to become critical thinkers.
Your post reeks of some vendetta against him. If I had to put money on it, I would guess you are a vegetarian/vegan.
Fine, you don't like him there are other doctors and researchers out there who are researching the same things, and he references them in what he publishes and talks about. You probably already know that, but only want to stick to your ideology instead of looking at the science behind it.
If your doctor wants you on a statin, it's time to start eating healthier because you have atherosclerosis.
WOW. This is exactly what is wrong. Doctors prescribe statins because someone has high cholesterol, not atherosclerosis! And they only do that because they think that "high cholesterol is bad". I know what you are thinking - there is "good and bad" cholesterol... which is grossly over-simplified. That is precisely the shallow-minded unquestioning thinking that causes unhealthy FADS like low-fat diets to take root and prosper. And mis-information that statins are to treat atherosclerosis. Yet with one of the most prescribed drugs ever in statins, heart disease is still on the rise.
The causes of atherosclerosis are not definitively known. Seriously, look it up. Here are some key words for you though - oxidation and inflammation. I know it's Attia's site, but read the content... it's a 10 part series that delves in to cholesterol and atherosclerosis... Jump to Part 10 that summarizes things very well. Sorry if there are big sciency words. Read back through all 10 posts. It is a few years old, but it's pretty clear this guy is not a marketing shill.
Slashdot Mirror
I suppose it depends on how you define a problem. It could also be cooincidence. The point is we will never really know.
Look, I had a project manager get all over my case once for having 100% variance in number of forecast hours to actuals.
I let her vent at me, and then I said calmly "how many hours are we talking about?"
She paused, then started laughing. It was 1 hour. She was so used to dealing with large (300+ hour) estimates that 100% variance sent her off into thinking it was a big deal. We knew each other well, and this was really a non issue. But I always remember that when someone tells me a percentage of something - always check the numbers behind it. :)
I really had no idea about any of this.
And yet, it still doesn't change the fact that I care zero about what he thinks about the presidential race.
I don't care if he supports a re-animated Hitler for president. He makes a cartoon that I used to read and find very enjoyable. That is pretty much the end of Scott Adams' influence on my life.
The opinions of celebrities or well-known people carry no more weight to me than if it were an average person on the street. It is unfortunate that this has turned into people's opinions of the candidates instead of talking about their positions on issues. What really makes me sad is that whoever is elected, a large portion of the country will really hate them. I just don't understand it.
There is nothing unique about this story. From reading the article, there is absolutely nothing that hasn't happened a thousand times over in other companies.
Review systems are inherently flawed at large companies. That's how people are able to hang out for years, just hiding in the woodwork. As long as you keep your head down, you can skate by for your whole career. It can take years to get someone fired, as long as they don't do anything terribly wrong. I once came into manage a team and inherited someone that never should have been hired, but there they were 5 years later and had always gotten "satisfactory" performance reviews. Usually it's because weak managers don't want to deal with problem employees. And you can't fire someone unless they have been on a performance plan. So technically they had 5 years with no problems. Nobody wanted to work with this person, they weren't given anything important to do, etc. It took over a year to get them out of there. (they refused to step up and improve). Why so long? Well, you have to wait until the annual review cycle to give someone a review. I joined in Oct, and the reviews were pretty much set for the year and I was just learning the team. So that person couldn't get a "not meeting expectations" until the NEXT year's review. Then you have to put them on a performance plan, and document everything and prove that they weren't meeting expectations. Then and only then are you allowed to fire them. You can try to encourage them to leave, but you can't fire them. If they are lucky, there are re-orgs (as there always are in big companies) and they get a new manager somewhere during this process, and the fun starts again.
The article talks about upper management changing ratings? Yeah, happens all the time for various reasons. It could have been that they had to fit people into the pre-defined bell curves. (e.g. 10% bad ratings, 80% ok or good, 10% great) As you roll up the ratings for a large organization, management has to do horse-trading and ranking of people. Top, bottom, and middle performers are safe - it's the ones on the edge of great and bad that usually get their rating changed. THEN if you throw in execs with biases, it adds layers of fun to all the built-in BS.
I have seen men and women get promoted for inexplicable reasons, and I have also seen people fired for no good reason (even despite the process I described above). And then there are the people that are just gone one day with no explanation. The corporate world sucks, and while I only know about this story what I read in the article, nothing in there sounds surprising. Even if it were true that she was doing a male purge, so what? Even in the male dominated IT world, I have seen women get fired because of the boy's club mentality. It's big business, don't try to make any sense of it.
Am I the only one who thinks that it's possible that he was able to claim losses like that through shady (or quite possibly legitimate) ways?
You're assuming that by claiming losses, he ACTUALLY lost that money. I have more confidence that businessmen know how to cheat their way out of having to pay taxes, like hiring accountants/lawyers to find ways to shield their money. After all, the wealthy are the ones who pay to have laws passed that benefit them. So really all that a tax return is a CLAIM that he had a billion in losses. That doesn't make it so. And we all know Trump has no issue claiming things that aren't true.
There is a reason the wealthy stay wealthy.
I am really looking forward to seeing this cutting-edge technology when they complete it in 2025.
The music business is doing fine
HOW they are doing fine, I have no idea. I know I sound old, mainly because I am, but I am quite astonished what my nearly-teen daughter listens to. It's not that I don't get it... some of it catchy. But so much of it is just terrible in every way. I pull songs off of youtube for her, mainly because I can then monitor what she listens to and I can look up the lyrics as well. Also, she listens to things like parodies of songs and other things that aren't necessarily under the thumb of the music industry.
The other reason I can't believe they doing fine is because the entertainment industry has never really embraced digital music. If they had done so back in '98, '99, 2000, etc. they would have been able to capitalize on the desire for it. Instead, they fought against it. Just like VCRs, cassettes, CDR, DVDR, etc. They just can't loosen their grip on trying to maintain complete control. This is no different.
And I will say, I do listen to youtube at work, it's easy to just pull up some music. And if there is a particular old album out there that I don't have... it wouldn't be inconceivable to just download it from youtube, rip the audio, and run mp3splt with silence detection to get individual tracks.
It's not about tricking your body into feeling full. You touched on it when you said glucose. It's about regulating your hormones. The most effective way to do that is through your diet! I know because I have been doing it for four years. Low-carb, high-fat (saturated), no grains (or grain products), or sugar, NO restrictions or even consideration of calories. I lost 15 lbs in the first month and it has stayed off. (I was only 170) No rigorous exercise plan. Joint pain - gone. Back pain - gone. I am not starving myself, I am not hungry. I am often in a mild state of ketosis, or can get there easily. Without 'punishing' myself. I can fast for 24 hours and feel great. I am telling you, calories are a red herring. They play a role, but if you focus on what is important, you can ignore them.
Exercise is great for you, and does influence hormone levels. But you can lose weight without it, it is not required. You can get healthy without it. Your diet is so much more important than exercise in losing weight and being healthy. I didn't mean that to be me quoting you, it was me quoting the phrase "burn off calories" because that phrase is misleading and very simplistic statement around a complex system. Moreover, it's not necessary! Because people think that you have to exercise heavily to burn burn burn away fat. You don't. The oft prescribed "diet and exercise" rarely works because exercising makes you hungry. (work up an appetite) So you eat more (usually carbs) and that gets stored as fat. It's a never-ending cycle, a battle. It doesn't have to be. All you have to do is retrain your body to not rely on carbs for energy. THEN it will use your fat as energy and you will lose it. It's how we came to be, it's in our genes. It's not starvation, it's not tricks. It's pure and simple science.
You can lose weight and keep it off by changing your diet alone. The others influence it, but to much lesser degrees. If you change WHAT you eat the amount (in quantity or calories) is largely irrelevant. Exercise is good for you, but you don't have to kill yourself trying to "burn off calories"
Again, hung up on the old "diet and exercise" shtick. Diet, YES - but not "dieting". You don't need a scale to know or help you lose weight.
*sigh* It's like a finger pointing away to the moon. Don't concentrate on the finger or you'll miss out on all the heavenly glory.
You really haven't looked at the numbers, have you? Let's roughly estimate.... over 2.5 million years of human evolution, if the average lifespan was 50 years that means that within 100 years there would be 3 full generations. (year 0 - 50 is one, year 25 - 75 is two, year 50 - 100 is three). 2.5MM / 100 = 25,000 * 3 generations = 75,000 generations. [and they overlap, since at year 100, the next generation would have started already] And would be just one "family", which would have obviously grown and spread over time, so if I thought about it longer and harder I am thinking the number would be bigger. So you're saying "most of these generations lived in an environment of food scarcity and they frequently starved". What is this based on? On the fact there were no McDonalds? From what we can tell, we as a people only started agriculture 10,000 years ago. That is a tiny, miniscule part of 2.5 million years! How did we as humans not only survive, but THRIVE and evolve during this time? It wasn't because we could get fat. It was because we weren't relying on grains, starches, processed fats (like vegetable/bean oils) and sugars for fuel. Our bodies haven't adapted to these things well enough yet, which is why we have so much sickness today. (heart disease, obesity, diabetes, cancer, ....) The bad science, pseudo-science, and pure lies behind our dietary guidelines are making us sicker and sicker.
Please, explain.
Perhaps you were hoping for a Funny mod.
Knowing your weight, or your physical activity level, means nothing about weight loss. Nothing.
If anyone has any interest in weight loss or getting healthier, should learn more about the science behind our bodies. "Exercise more and lose weight" isn't the answer. Calories-in/Calories-out is a small portion of the story, at best. Low-fat is dangerous. Portion control is a red herring. Fad diets are stupid.
Fat accumulation is mainly driven in our bodies by hormones, most notably insulin. Learn how that works and what affects it. That's it.
Look at human history - allllll the way back. Do you think any of these fads helps us survive as humans? Do you have ANY idea how many generations of people have lived? How did they do it without scales and digital trackers?
Someone should tell my organs... because I have been grain and sugar free for 4 years now, eat high (good) fats, am in great health, have maintained a consistent weight, and feel fantastic.
Quentin Thomas ("QT") Wiles was brought in to turn around the company, and his high-pressure 'management style' led to disaster for the company.
When hard drive salesmen were rewarded for great performance and punished for less-than-great performance, some managers didn't handle the pressure well.
"the managers rented a second warehouse in Colorado where they personally packed 26,000 bricks into hard drive boxes and shipped them to Singapore in order to shore up the inventory count. After the count was complete, they recalled those serial numbers as defective units, but instead of writing them off, they checked them into inventory, along with other failed drives that had been returned."
Miniscribe on Wikipedia
More on QT Wiles and MiniScribe bankruptcy
You would think that this DASH process by Wiles was abandoned, but I've seen it used today... for IT projects! Although the pressure as far as I can tell has been reasonable.
AC signs his post as someone who "still buys desktop PCs with floppy drives"... which isn't likely and almost impossible.
I think this is a big opportunity for some of the up and coming brands to grab some market share.
I have a BLU Life One X and I am not sure how "vanilla" it is, but it's definitely not bloated. It's affordable ($150) has good specs, dual sim, and is unlocked.
Why would I want an iPhone or Nexus?
It's kind of a shame that people only think there are a couple of choices when it comes to phones.
but in general, yes, it means Performance. :)
I agree, at this point the i for injected is somewhat a leftover. They have a pretty long history at making cars, and have stuck with it. :)
I actually haven't kept up with their model for the past 10 years or so. I've had a few BMWs. A 1988 528e sedan (5 series, e = efficient instead of performance), a 1997 318i sedan (3 series, 1.8 liter), and a 1988 M3. -- that one is special.
Yes, they haven't always strictly held to the naming convention, but you know basically what you are getting. If you say a BMW 3-series, you have a general idea what it is. The years for a model are designated by a generation you may hear about... e.g. E30 (3-series from 1982-1994) or E28 (5-series from 1981-1988). It's a pretty good system, and scales much easier than names do. But it can get pretty abstract. I have never heard of the model you mentioned.... but I would guess it is a 2-series (smaller than the 3 series, so likely a coupe - whereas the 3 is either coupe or sedan), not sure about the engine but you covered that... and xdrive I would guess is all-wheel-drive. They used to put an x in the badge for that back in the 80s.
I'm rooting for the dog then.
Just because someone might find this in the future... the issue was that I had bound my interface in my smb.conf file to eth0. In Mint18 the interface is now called enp0s20, so once I updated my smb.conf with that, everything was fine.
Good point, I will have to remember that.
However, it's all too tempting to double-click that csv file that is associated with Excel. How could it not work - THERE IS AN EXCEL ICON RIGHT THERE ! :)
I find out that Samba isn't working on the new install.
I have to figure out WTF systemd is doing and no solutions others have found are working for me.
I use it to sync folders from my phone to my computer over wireless. *sigh*
It's not like Excel alters the underlying data, all you have to do is correctly change the column type.
Oh! but it does - once you save it.
If you open a CSV with Excel by default, it will simply read in the values and format it how it sees fit.
Then if you save it, even as a csv, it will give you a warning saying something like "some of the features are not compatible with this format type"
If you proceed, your file is now changed. I have seen scientific notation changed like this. Many columns and rows, you may miss a malformatting and save it as csv. Boom, your data is now toast.
It is why I always look at my CSV files with a text editor first, and only open copies in Excel.
And if you use a real editor like vi, even opening files with millions of rows isn't an issue.
Carriers would find a way around this. e.g. "you have to own the phone before you are eligible for security updates" T-Mobile does the "pay $20 a month" for a new phone, so you wouldn't really own it until your contract was up. That's why I think that "other" brands will start making real inroads into the market - BLU, Huwei, Xiaomi, etc. I have a BLU, and love it. Dual sim, unlocked, octacore, 2GB ram, gorilla glass, for $150. Why would I buy some $600 phone? As long as the manufacturers control the updates, I might as well get a good phone that I can afford to either root or replace in a couple of years.
I ditched Windows back in 1998 and installed RedHat 5.1. It was awesome! Then I upgraded. Wow, what a nightmare. Dependency hell. I struggled with it for a few years, but hung in there because I just loved it and had no interest in going back to Windows. Macs make my brain hurt.
Then along came Mandrake which took away some of the pain. That was great as well, really liked KDE. Upgrades were still painful, but much better.
Then I started hearing a lot about Ubuntu so I made the leap to Kubuntu 6.06. I went through about 8 in-place upgrades over time (minorly painful) until I finally things got unstable enough that I did a fresh install. Things were much better... but I kept having issues with KDE wigging out on me and pegging my cpu.
So I installed XFCE on top of Kubuntu. XFCE spoke to me - I realized all the UI flash didn't matter to me. I would flip back to KDE, but the problem kept happening and I was happy with XFCE. Eventually I heard about Mint around 2011, and had to try Mint XFCE - I have been there since. I have decided to not do rolling installs anymore, but I am configured pretty well to do full installs. I just installed over my Mint 17 XFCE release and was up and running on Mint XFCE 18 in about an hour. (my / partition is 55 GB and only uses about 12, and I have a separate partition for home). This was the smoothest linux system update I have ever had - even no issues with the Nvidia proprietary drivers!
Installs aside, my Linux system does everything I want it to do. Seeing all the various applications on it grow and blossom, and really cool things like bootable distros to embedded linux to mini systems to android. It has really been great to see it all flourish.
At work I use Windows 10, and I get by. But it brings me no joy. At home I run Linux, and it brings me joy. Thank you to everyone who has contributed to it.
I'd argue that very few people's productivity is measured in how efficient their file operations are. It's sort of like believing you're going to be vastly more efficient as a programmer if you memorize a bunch of keyboard shortcuts or type 60wpm instead of 30. Unlike the movies [hackertyper.com], programming isn't about how fast you type.
I think it's more about learning how to work efficiently, and keeping an "efficient" mindset in whatever you do. Example: I use pine for my email, I have since around 2000. I use fetchmail to pull in a few accounts locally. If I want to check my email, it's faster for me to ssh to my home machine and check it rather than scan across several emails on my phone (I do use K9 to pull them into one app though). Now, if I want to view and attach pictures to emails, or look at attachments, then a GUI is better. But most of the time I am just reading the text and ssh/pine is much more efficient.
Another example: at work someone on my team was trying to generate a 2 million row csv file for testing. She was trying to do it in Excel, and it was very cumbersome and slow. Using an example row, i created a script that was able to generate a million rows in about 5 minutes. Then I used a couple of other tools (sed/cat/vi) to copy the million row file, modify it, and cat them back together. She had her 2 million row csv file in about 15 minutes. She was amazed. Since then I have worked on several other large files like this because people think they have to use Excel to view csv files. And vi kicks notepads ass in editing.
These are just two examples of doing something efficiently. Yes, it was comfortable for me to use these things, but there was no other good solution for this particular problem because people were locked into what they knew. Back on topic, I can certainly use other desktops, but I moved to XFCE many years ago when KDE kept eating my CPU for some unknown reason... and I have simply grown to prefer it. MintXFCE is my sweet spot now, and I don't have any plans to switch.
Back in the early 90s I worked at the big cellphone company. We worked on Unix workstations, and I learned a lot of what to do and what not to do. We used an in-house built bug system built to use sccs. I managed the build shell scripts. The only way to get code into the build was to enter a CR (Change Request) and link the source files to it. Then the build would examine all the CRs for a weekly build, check out that code, ftp it to the target platform (tandem), build it. If all went well, 8 hours later you would have a successful build, which I would then write to 9 track tapes, and THEN install it on the target system testing platform.
So the bug system I mentioned used flat readable text files to store all the info. There was a gui front-end but it was kind of slow.
Out of necessity to quickly look things up, I wrote a shell script that would allow you to search and view CRs on the command line. Bad built on top of bad, but it worked pretty well. Other people on my team started using it too.
It worked so well in fact that somewhere around 2006 I was living across the country, having been at a few other companies since then. An old colleague still at my first company got in touch with me, and someone was asking about me and the tool I created. They saw my email in the header of the script, and wanted to get in touch with me to see if I would let them edit it. They were still using it! What I created for myself others found so useful that it was still chugging along doing its job on the command line. I don't know if it made me proud or sad, but it was humorous to me. I haven't heard anything from them since then, but it would be very interesting if they were still using that same process and those shell scripts I created so long ago.
I'll say it again: it is not the technology or capability that is at issue. In a free society governed by the rule of law, it is the LAW that is paramount.
In theory, law is paramount, but we are governed by the rule of lawmakers not law. Our entire society is strangled by our self-fulfilling legal system. Look at how... well... EVERYTHING runs. EULAs. Disclaimers. TV commercials that flash miniscule paragraphs on the screen. Mountains of paperwork to do anything. Lawsuits lawsuits lawsuits. We are steeped in a society that lawyers have created, and manage, and ensure that we stay that way. Don't like something? Create a new law to make it legal. (not you or me... people with power) Everything is based on precedent. If someone got away with it once, it's probably OK to do again - and the opposite holds true as well. A police officer can chase you and if you run, you have broken the law (fleeing). Laws laws laws laws. I GUARANTEE YOU that these spy planes are legal according to some law that was passed at some point. Don't think so, well, you'll have to prove it. By then the laws will have been changed.
He is not a published scientist of any repute. There, I think I covered the facts of your response. He is a medical doctor. But there are lots of those, right? What he does well is encourage people to read the research, and to become critical thinkers.
Your post reeks of some vendetta against him. If I had to put money on it, I would guess you are a vegetarian/vegan.
Fine, you don't like him there are other doctors and researchers out there who are researching the same things, and he references them in what he publishes and talks about. You probably already know that, but only want to stick to your ideology instead of looking at the science behind it.
If your doctor wants you on a statin, it's time to start eating healthier because you have atherosclerosis.
WOW. This is exactly what is wrong. Doctors prescribe statins because someone has high cholesterol, not atherosclerosis! And they only do that because they think that "high cholesterol is bad". I know what you are thinking - there is "good and bad" cholesterol... which is grossly over-simplified. That is precisely the shallow-minded unquestioning thinking that causes unhealthy FADS like low-fat diets to take root and prosper. And mis-information that statins are to treat atherosclerosis. Yet with one of the most prescribed drugs ever in statins, heart disease is still on the rise.
The causes of atherosclerosis are not definitively known. Seriously, look it up. Here are some key words for you though - oxidation and inflammation.
I know it's Attia's site, but read the content... it's a 10 part series that delves in to cholesterol and atherosclerosis... Jump to Part 10 that summarizes things very well. Sorry if there are big sciency words. Read back through all 10 posts. It is a few years old, but it's pretty clear this guy is not a marketing shill.