It's OK to refuse to tolerate intolerance. Indeed, it's something you need to do.
What does "it's OK" mean? Is that a moral statement? A legal statement? A political statement?
What does "tolerate" mean? Is that a statement about legal rights? About proper behavior? About your political preferences?
How do you personally apply your statement in practice in your own life? Do you stop talking to people who you consider "intolerant"? Do you filter your judgments through the usual critical theory filters, in which supposedly "powerless groups" can simply do no wrong?
Face it: your statement amounts to meaningless drivel and platitudes, intended to appeal to people of a particular partisan persuasion, nothing more.
Unless you're black. Or Hispanic. Or an immigrant. Or Muslim. Or a woman. Or gay. Or the rest of the LGBTQ team
Being several of those things myself, I find the idea that Hillary stands up for my interests laughable.
Or don't want random wars.
Are you kidding? Look at Hillary's actual record, not the fiction her campaign has fabricated for her.
So yeah, if you're well isolated from any possible problem, you'll do ok, no matter who wins. If you aren't, you really only have one option
Which is why so many privileged white males and billionaires support Hillary.
As for Hillary's political program, it's a joke: most of if is wishful thinking or simple hubris; it's a bunch of empty promises to gullible voters like you, designed by political strategists and pollsters.
Both Hillary and Trump are so despised by Congress and the public that they are lucky if they don't get impeached and manage to get a basic budget passed.
this is certainly a fine opinion from the perspective of a privileged white male but the rest of us see a vast difference when it comes to the rights of minorities.
Yeah, you're right: if Clinton wins, she'll continue to wreak havoc in minority communities with her corrupt and dysfunctional social policies. She'll continue lying to the LGBTQ community about her support and support homophobic, misogynistic, and racist regimes if they only pay her enough. And she'll continue pandering to illegal immigrants while legal and skilled immigrants have to deal with a dysfunctional immigration system. And while she's at it, she'll hurt the economy a bit, start a war or two, raise taxes, and drive up medical costs to pay off her buddies in the insurance and medical industries. That's just the kind of woman she is. And, of course, she is a favorite with privileged white male voters.
Yeah, at this point, I will probably vote third party for president. I think it's important to vote mainly for the other parts of the ballot, in particular, the initiatives.
Even if we are just considering foreign policy, there are not many people I would want in the white house less than Hillary Clinton. But the republican party somehow managed to find a person that would make me *want* HIllary to win. And that person is a 70-year old man-child who (as much as a despise crooked Hillary) cannot in good conscience trust with the nuclear codes. And no, I don't want to see Hillary succeeding in pushing her corrupt agenda. If she is elected, I sincerely hope everything she wants to do is stopped. And yet, I still find this situation preferable to potential carnage that Donald Trump has convinced me he is capable of.
I think at this point, it's really a guessing game of which of the two is more dangerous. My reading is that with Trump, I'm seeing his stupidity and incompetence fully exposed; I don't think the man is capable of holding anything back. Hillary has learned to play her cards close to the chest, and I think there is a power-hungry psychopath hiding behind her public persona. I suspect she would have no qualms ordering someone killed if it served her political purposes and she felt she could get away with it. Hillary has screwed up badly as SoS, and shown that she is rather resistant to advice. And the Clinton political machine also has enormous power, both domestically and abroad. On balance, Hillary still scares me more than Trump.
I think the other factor, though, is simply to go by the issues. When I take the isidewith.com questionnaire, Hillary comes dead last for me after Johnson, Trump, and Stein.
Well, it's still a few weeks until this circus is over and a lot can happen.
Government intervention in education and health care produces results in literally every other developed country, frequently results better than ours.
The problem with that argument is that the US already spends a lot more per student and regulates its education more strongly than many countries that perform better (like, for example, the country I immigrated from). The same is true for health care. So the US is actually a counterexample to the idea that more government intervention in education and health care produces better outcomes. The problem with the US is arguably that it spends and regulates so much that it is getting negative returns.
Providing something like universal basic income and decent health care would even the scales a lot, and lead to better allocation of national resources.
Experience in Europe and the US suggests otherwise. Several European nations have strongly restricted their welfare benefits in recent years precisely because they discovered that guaranteeing people a basic livelihood with no strings attached leads to the creation of a permanent, government-dependent underclass. And that is also a long-standing problem we see among some populations in the US. The implicit argument underlying your suggestion also confuses correlation and causation and assumes a model of human behavior that is unrealistc.
Got a source for that 60%? I'd be interested in following up.
Easy. Of course, next thing you'll probably dismiss NPR as some kind of alt-right hate blog, right? Note that NPR still tries to spin the data ("windfall from a home sale"), but that is misleading, since the criterion is "two or more years", and capital gains from the sale of a primary residence are not considered income anyway.
Are you claiming that the US can't be made great?
I don't want to live in a "great" country. Napoleonic France was "great". Bismarck's Germany was "great". The British Empire was "great". Trump and Clinton both behave like little wannabe Napoleons or Bismarcks (respectively) and "make America great again".
What I want to live in is a free country, like the US used to be. I don't want the US to turn into the kind of stagnant statist states that you find in Europe.
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.
Physiologically, all that matters is your caloric intake vs your energy expenditure. If you get 1500 calories (and otherwise have no deficiencies), it doesn't matter what those calories come from, you'll lose the same amount of weight. In the lab or weight loss clinics or institutional settings, any diet based on caloric restrictions and defined exercise works. In the real world, for many people, low-carb, high-fat diets seem to work better, but there are numerous other factors and individual variations.
If you reduce carbs far enough, you may be shifting your body into ketosis, which changes the analysis somewhat. Ketosis is different from merely a low-carb diet and generally quite effective for weight loss. Some people tolerate it well, while others don't. You can test whether that applies to you with a blood test.
Because there is so much variation and so many possibilities, the most important thing to do is to keep track of what you are doing with your diet and measure its effect. A scale is a good instrument for that. If you are also building muscle, add a pair of calipers and a tape measure. If you're actively trying to achieve ketosis, you should verify that it's working with a regular blood test.
Exercise is great for you, and does influence hormone levels. But you can lose weight without it, it is not required
I never said it was "required". But it is certainly useful for many people, and it may be essential for some. One of the functions of exercise is that it depletes the glycogen stores in muscles: after exercise, glucose will get stored not as fat, but as glycogen. That gives you a safety margin for carb intake. That is, if you exercise before meals, you don't have to be as strict about reducing your carb intake.
Trump owned the Birther movement. With all of its inherent racism.
The "racism" was inherent in Hillary's 2008 campaign already, where she tried to portray Obama as someone foreign to the US and disconnected from US values. It's unclear why you would refer to this as "racism" anyway; people would dislike Francois Hollande or Margrethe Vestager for the same reason they disliked Obama: they are technocrats and statists. I would say that people also reject Clinton for the same reason, but Clinton's problem is actually much simpler: she is corrupt, manipulative, and a pathological liar.
Note that none of this implies any endorsement of Trump. But the idea that Clinton is somehow clearly the lesser of two evils is ludicrous. At this point, the two major candidates are both beyond the pale.
His accusation last week that Hilary started the Birther campaign was not just pants on fire. More like pants undergoing nuclear fusion.
Hillary's campaign clearly tried to portray Obama as foreign and un-American; that's clear from both documents and speeches. Hillary tries to draw a distinction between that and the birther issue, but such a distinction is meaningless: the "birther" issue was never about Obama's legal qualifications (since he would have been qualified based on his mother's citizenship anyway), it was about exactly what Hillary's campaign strategy was all about: to portray Obama as foreign and un-American. Saying that "she started the birther campaign" is hyperbole, but it sums up her despicable behavior while running against Obama pretty well.
(And given Clinton's political machinery and astuteness, I think it is likely that she indirectly encouraged and supported "conservative bloggers" to spread the birther issue all the while calling up the Obama campaign headquarters and denying that she had anything to do with it.)
What they (and you) fail to notice is that the national average for college degrees is 30%, so on average Trump supporters are more educated than the national average.
The way the argument works is...
If they are less educated than Clinton supporters, they are uneducated rednecks voting for Trump because they are stupid and don't know what's good for them.
If they are more educated than Clinton supporters, they are evil, selfish capitalists who want to exploit the working class.
It's like the witch argument in Monty Python.
(The real reason people hold their noses and vote for Trump is, of course, because Hillary is even worse.)
And yet Hillary shows 22% True on politifact, while trump is at 4% True
That refers to factoids candidates spice their political speeches with. It doesn't tell you anything about what the candidates will actually do.
So, because Hillary may correctly state "the sky is blue" and Politifact counts that as "mostly true" doesn't mean that Hillary is truthful about "I will not raise middle-class taxes".
Of course, most of Hillary's political program is so awful that you better hope that she is lying about it.
He will change his mind 15 times, not even remember what his position was
That's better than Hillary, who sells out to Wall St and Saudi Arabia, and tells the American people what polls suggest she should say in order to get elected.
Even if he wins the election, we will be too busy dealing with WW3 to care about internet oversight.
I doubt he'll start WW3, that's bad for business. He will probably pick lots of fights with Congress and insult foreign leaders, which will stymie any residual political agenda he has, whatever it may be. Personally, I consider that preferable to Hillary actually succeeding at her crony capitalist domestic agenda and continuing her horrible foreign policy track record.
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.
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).
But whatever tricks you use to reduce calorie intake, ultimately, your weight is still determined by your balance of calories; physiologically, the only two things that happen with calories that you absorb are that you burn them or that you store them as fat.
Diet, YES - but not "dieting". You don't need a scale to know or help you lose weight.
You need a scale simply to know whether whatever you are doing is actually working: there are many ways in which you can change your diet, and some of them work for some people, and others work for others. You won't know which one is working for you if you don't check.
Exercise is good for you, but you don't have to kill yourself trying to "burn off calories"
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.
OK, but then Uber surge pricing isn't "exclusively for rich people". Certainly, surge pricing makes Uber unaffordable for some people, but for many regular riders, it remains affordable enough in an emergency.
I await an explanation as to how a lack of government intervention guarantees everyone access to quality education and health care,
I never claimed that "lack of government intervention" guarantees that. Nor is it clear that that is necessary or desirable either, since "quality education and health care" are rather ill-defined concepts. What is, however, crystal clear from decades of experience is that presence of government intervention fails to guarantee access to quality education and health care.
and why the disposable worker concept promotes family stability.
I view workers like a business of size one, that is, people who make deals for their own labor. You seem to view them as indentured servants, which is of course what the social welfare state is trying to turn them into.
You also seem to assume that someone who is hard working will normally achieve a middle-class income, which is dubious at best.
Not at all. 60% of Americans will be in the top 20% income bracket for at least a few years of their lives. So, not only do hard working people make it into the middle class, they make it into the upper middle class in the US.
I went from 325 pounds to 400 pounds when I lifted weights at the gym for a year. I lost fat and gained muscle, but not in the right way
Unless you did hydrostatic or X-ray body composition testing, how would you know? You're saying that you put on more than 75 pounds of muscle, and that seems unlikely. You may be able to gain 10-20 pounds of muscle per year if you work really hard.
Although I've been on a low carb diet for the last five years, I reduced my calorie intake to 1,500 calories per day two months ago. This month I weighed 348 pounds.
Even if you keep that up consistently, it's probably going to take you about three years to get down to 200 pounds.
In any case, tracking your progress is a good way of seeing whether whatever you're doing is working. And it's probably best to stick with aerobic exercise, if not for any other reason that you won't be tempted to attribute lack of progress to gaining muscle.
If you exercise a bit more, you'll likely lose some fat and put on some muscle.
That's wishful thinking. Putting on significant amounts of muscle requires more than "exercising a bit more", and not usually the kinds of exercises people do for weight loss; it doesn't happen by accident. If you do that, you'll already know how to track your progress (calipers, tape measures, maximum lift, etc.) in addition to using a scale.
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.
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.
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).
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.)
... is to force any cell divisions that occur in the organism in question to *always* perform a 100% identical copy, with no error.... ever.
Not at all. Cancerous and pre-cancerous cells arise in the body all the time. It's the body's ability to eliminate such cells that protects you from cancer, but sometimes those mechanisms fail.
I've been in situations where I could spare $50 for something important but not $120. Your statement makes sense only if wealth came as a binary attribute: poor or not-poor.
Quite the opposite: 91degrees argued as if wealth was a binary attribute. I pointed out that if you (ordinarily) can afford to take a $50 Uber, then you can (occasionally, when there are emergencies) afford to take a $120 Uber. That is, 91degrees' view that poor people could afford $50 Ubers and "excluslively rich people" could afford $120 Ubers is absurd.
There's much more to how parents raise their children at play here, and it's at least arguable that the best way to raise children in the bad parts of town is different from the best way to raise them in, say, my neighborhood. Some things that aren't really in the parents' control anyway are quality of education, health care, and security and stability.
Correct. And to a large part, it is government intervention that has robbed parents of this control.
at a time when health care expenses are growing (and the usual working poor jobs don't come with group insurance) and college is becoming more necessary and more expensive.
College and health care costs are exploding because these sectors of the economy are being subsidized and regulated by government. Most US health care dollars are wasted, and college is mainly becoming "more necessary" to compensate for the failing public education system.
Relative to the upper classes, the working poor have lost ground. This isn't good.
To translate this into less tendentious language: young unskilled workers just starting out ("the working poor") now make significantly more than they did 50 years ago, and when they reach the end of their careers and their peak earnings ("the rich") they make disproportionately more than they did 50 years ago. Higher starting salaries and more income growth during people's careers are both good things.
There's an additional constraint, which is that the autoinjector is intended to be used by untrained people. It has to be, literally, idiot proof.
I don't see where that "constraint" comes from. Commercially prefilled syringes eliminate the risk of overdose and ensure sterility, and are very easy to use. Certainly, any public school employee could administer them with minimal instruction. And I suspect even entirely untrained people would likely find it no harder to inject a prefilled syringe compared to an EpiPen.
We need reform of the laws that facilitate monopoly-like entrenchment and reform of the culture that looks at misfortune as a lottery ticket.
How is that possible when, in the same article, you advocate and defend "monopoly-like entrenchment" with the same arguments that the monopolists make?
For example, a gas station in Georgia jacked its prices up during Katrina - but ended up out of business due to outrage. On the other hand, places with vigorous anti-gouging laws would have prevented that from happening.
So you are saying that you want to use the power of government regulations in order to keep vultures and psychopaths in power. Thanks for clearing that up.
Personally, I prefer business owners that misbehave to go out of business so that they can be replaced by more responsible people.
Slashdot Mirror
What does "it's OK" mean? Is that a moral statement? A legal statement? A political statement?
What does "tolerate" mean? Is that a statement about legal rights? About proper behavior? About your political preferences?
How do you personally apply your statement in practice in your own life? Do you stop talking to people who you consider "intolerant"? Do you filter your judgments through the usual critical theory filters, in which supposedly "powerless groups" can simply do no wrong?
Face it: your statement amounts to meaningless drivel and platitudes, intended to appeal to people of a particular partisan persuasion, nothing more.
Being several of those things myself, I find the idea that Hillary stands up for my interests laughable.
Are you kidding? Look at Hillary's actual record, not the fiction her campaign has fabricated for her.
Which is why so many privileged white males and billionaires support Hillary.
As for Hillary's political program, it's a joke: most of if is wishful thinking or simple hubris; it's a bunch of empty promises to gullible voters like you, designed by political strategists and pollsters.
Both Hillary and Trump are so despised by Congress and the public that they are lucky if they don't get impeached and manage to get a basic budget passed.
Yeah, you're right: if Clinton wins, she'll continue to wreak havoc in minority communities with her corrupt and dysfunctional social policies. She'll continue lying to the LGBTQ community about her support and support homophobic, misogynistic, and racist regimes if they only pay her enough. And she'll continue pandering to illegal immigrants while legal and skilled immigrants have to deal with a dysfunctional immigration system. And while she's at it, she'll hurt the economy a bit, start a war or two, raise taxes, and drive up medical costs to pay off her buddies in the insurance and medical industries. That's just the kind of woman she is. And, of course, she is a favorite with privileged white male voters.
Yeah, at this point, I will probably vote third party for president. I think it's important to vote mainly for the other parts of the ballot, in particular, the initiatives.
I think at this point, it's really a guessing game of which of the two is more dangerous. My reading is that with Trump, I'm seeing his stupidity and incompetence fully exposed; I don't think the man is capable of holding anything back. Hillary has learned to play her cards close to the chest, and I think there is a power-hungry psychopath hiding behind her public persona. I suspect she would have no qualms ordering someone killed if it served her political purposes and she felt she could get away with it. Hillary has screwed up badly as SoS, and shown that she is rather resistant to advice. And the Clinton political machine also has enormous power, both domestically and abroad. On balance, Hillary still scares me more than Trump.
I think the other factor, though, is simply to go by the issues. When I take the isidewith.com questionnaire, Hillary comes dead last for me after Johnson, Trump, and Stein.
Well, it's still a few weeks until this circus is over and a lot can happen.
The problem with that argument is that the US already spends a lot more per student and regulates its education more strongly than many countries that perform better (like, for example, the country I immigrated from). The same is true for health care. So the US is actually a counterexample to the idea that more government intervention in education and health care produces better outcomes. The problem with the US is arguably that it spends and regulates so much that it is getting negative returns.
Experience in Europe and the US suggests otherwise. Several European nations have strongly restricted their welfare benefits in recent years precisely because they discovered that guaranteeing people a basic livelihood with no strings attached leads to the creation of a permanent, government-dependent underclass. And that is also a long-standing problem we see among some populations in the US. The implicit argument underlying your suggestion also confuses correlation and causation and assumes a model of human behavior that is unrealistc.
Easy. Of course, next thing you'll probably dismiss NPR as some kind of alt-right hate blog, right? Note that NPR still tries to spin the data ("windfall from a home sale"), but that is misleading, since the criterion is "two or more years", and capital gains from the sale of a primary residence are not considered income anyway.
I don't want to live in a "great" country. Napoleonic France was "great". Bismarck's Germany was "great". The British Empire was "great". Trump and Clinton both behave like little wannabe Napoleons or Bismarcks (respectively) and "make America great again".
What I want to live in is a free country, like the US used to be. I don't want the US to turn into the kind of stagnant statist states that you find in Europe.
Physiologically, all that matters is your caloric intake vs your energy expenditure. If you get 1500 calories (and otherwise have no deficiencies), it doesn't matter what those calories come from, you'll lose the same amount of weight. In the lab or weight loss clinics or institutional settings, any diet based on caloric restrictions and defined exercise works. In the real world, for many people, low-carb, high-fat diets seem to work better, but there are numerous other factors and individual variations.
If you reduce carbs far enough, you may be shifting your body into ketosis, which changes the analysis somewhat. Ketosis is different from merely a low-carb diet and generally quite effective for weight loss. Some people tolerate it well, while others don't. You can test whether that applies to you with a blood test.
Because there is so much variation and so many possibilities, the most important thing to do is to keep track of what you are doing with your diet and measure its effect. A scale is a good instrument for that. If you are also building muscle, add a pair of calipers and a tape measure. If you're actively trying to achieve ketosis, you should verify that it's working with a regular blood test.
I never said it was "required". But it is certainly useful for many people, and it may be essential for some. One of the functions of exercise is that it depletes the glycogen stores in muscles: after exercise, glucose will get stored not as fat, but as glycogen. That gives you a safety margin for carb intake. That is, if you exercise before meals, you don't have to be as strict about reducing your carb intake.
The "racism" was inherent in Hillary's 2008 campaign already, where she tried to portray Obama as someone foreign to the US and disconnected from US values. It's unclear why you would refer to this as "racism" anyway; people would dislike Francois Hollande or Margrethe Vestager for the same reason they disliked Obama: they are technocrats and statists. I would say that people also reject Clinton for the same reason, but Clinton's problem is actually much simpler: she is corrupt, manipulative, and a pathological liar.
Note that none of this implies any endorsement of Trump. But the idea that Clinton is somehow clearly the lesser of two evils is ludicrous. At this point, the two major candidates are both beyond the pale.
Hillary's campaign clearly tried to portray Obama as foreign and un-American; that's clear from both documents and speeches. Hillary tries to draw a distinction between that and the birther issue, but such a distinction is meaningless: the "birther" issue was never about Obama's legal qualifications (since he would have been qualified based on his mother's citizenship anyway), it was about exactly what Hillary's campaign strategy was all about: to portray Obama as foreign and un-American. Saying that "she started the birther campaign" is hyperbole, but it sums up her despicable behavior while running against Obama pretty well.
(And given Clinton's political machinery and astuteness, I think it is likely that she indirectly encouraged and supported "conservative bloggers" to spread the birther issue all the while calling up the Obama campaign headquarters and denying that she had anything to do with it.)
The way the argument works is...
If they are less educated than Clinton supporters, they are uneducated rednecks voting for Trump because they are stupid and don't know what's good for them.
If they are more educated than Clinton supporters, they are evil, selfish capitalists who want to exploit the working class.
It's like the witch argument in Monty Python.
(The real reason people hold their noses and vote for Trump is, of course, because Hillary is even worse.)
FTFY
That refers to factoids candidates spice their political speeches with. It doesn't tell you anything about what the candidates will actually do.
So, because Hillary may correctly state "the sky is blue" and Politifact counts that as "mostly true" doesn't mean that Hillary is truthful about "I will not raise middle-class taxes".
Of course, most of Hillary's political program is so awful that you better hope that she is lying about it.
That's better than Hillary, who sells out to Wall St and Saudi Arabia, and tells the American people what polls suggest she should say in order to get elected.
I doubt he'll start WW3, that's bad for business. He will probably pick lots of fights with Congress and insult foreign leaders, which will stymie any residual political agenda he has, whatever it may be. Personally, I consider that preferable to Hillary actually succeeding at her crony capitalist domestic agenda and continuing her horrible foreign policy track record.
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).
But whatever tricks you use to reduce calorie intake, ultimately, your weight is still determined by your balance of calories; physiologically, the only two things that happen with calories that you absorb are that you burn them or that you store them as fat.
You need a scale simply to know whether whatever you are doing is actually working: there are many ways in which you can change your diet, and some of them work for some people, and others work for others. You won't know which one is working for you if you don't check.
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.
OK, but then Uber surge pricing isn't "exclusively for rich people". Certainly, surge pricing makes Uber unaffordable for some people, but for many regular riders, it remains affordable enough in an emergency.
I never claimed that "lack of government intervention" guarantees that. Nor is it clear that that is necessary or desirable either, since "quality education and health care" are rather ill-defined concepts. What is, however, crystal clear from decades of experience is that presence of government intervention fails to guarantee access to quality education and health care.
I view workers like a business of size one, that is, people who make deals for their own labor. You seem to view them as indentured servants, which is of course what the social welfare state is trying to turn them into.
Not at all. 60% of Americans will be in the top 20% income bracket for at least a few years of their lives. So, not only do hard working people make it into the middle class, they make it into the upper middle class in the US.
Unless you did hydrostatic or X-ray body composition testing, how would you know? You're saying that you put on more than 75 pounds of muscle, and that seems unlikely. You may be able to gain 10-20 pounds of muscle per year if you work really hard.
Even if you keep that up consistently, it's probably going to take you about three years to get down to 200 pounds.
In any case, tracking your progress is a good way of seeing whether whatever you're doing is working. And it's probably best to stick with aerobic exercise, if not for any other reason that you won't be tempted to attribute lack of progress to gaining muscle.
That's wishful thinking. Putting on significant amounts of muscle requires more than "exercising a bit more", and not usually the kinds of exercises people do for weight loss; it doesn't happen by accident. If you do that, you'll already know how to track your progress (calipers, tape measures, maximum lift, etc.) in addition to using a scale.
Lucky, then, that you can influence hormone levels through what you eat, how much you eat, and how much you exercise.
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.
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).
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.)
Desperately.
Not at all. Cancerous and pre-cancerous cells arise in the body all the time. It's the body's ability to eliminate such cells that protects you from cancer, but sometimes those mechanisms fail.
A better gadget for losing weight is... A scale
Quite the opposite: 91degrees argued as if wealth was a binary attribute. I pointed out that if you (ordinarily) can afford to take a $50 Uber, then you can (occasionally, when there are emergencies) afford to take a $120 Uber. That is, 91degrees' view that poor people could afford $50 Ubers and "excluslively rich people" could afford $120 Ubers is absurd.
Correct. And to a large part, it is government intervention that has robbed parents of this control.
College and health care costs are exploding because these sectors of the economy are being subsidized and regulated by government. Most US health care dollars are wasted, and college is mainly becoming "more necessary" to compensate for the failing public education system.
To translate this into less tendentious language: young unskilled workers just starting out ("the working poor") now make significantly more than they did 50 years ago, and when they reach the end of their careers and their peak earnings ("the rich") they make disproportionately more than they did 50 years ago. Higher starting salaries and more income growth during people's careers are both good things.
I don't see where that "constraint" comes from. Commercially prefilled syringes eliminate the risk of overdose and ensure sterility, and are very easy to use. Certainly, any public school employee could administer them with minimal instruction. And I suspect even entirely untrained people would likely find it no harder to inject a prefilled syringe compared to an EpiPen.
How is that possible when, in the same article, you advocate and defend "monopoly-like entrenchment" with the same arguments that the monopolists make?
So you are saying that you want to use the power of government regulations in order to keep vultures and psychopaths in power. Thanks for clearing that up.
Personally, I prefer business owners that misbehave to go out of business so that they can be replaced by more responsible people.