"But you don't seem to grasp that for many it would have to be a lifelong practice, not just while you drop a few pounds."
I can't comprehend why you believe this.
"You seem quite willing to have others live that way, but you object to even a short period of that level of denying a biological drive for yourself."
I do not know what delusional affliction you have to think this: reaching and maintaining a target weight for me is an ongoing challenge.
What I deny, categorically, is that this is something outside of my control. Gut flora, heredity, environment, you name it, are *all* secondary to my own personal drive and motivation. A.
"If anything is stupid, it's expecting someone to be successful at denying a basic drive for the rest of their natural life even while giving in to it just enough to be somewhat functional."
I am sorry, but I maintain that living 'just a little bit hungry' (a temporary condition necessary to reduce weight) is not the same - in any reasonable measure - as not breathing. To attempt to equate the two things is to venture into the theater of the absurd, and there is no point in going there.
"Since you seemed unable to comprehend keeping yourself hungry"
What possesses you to think that this is the case? This is *exactly* what I described as 'not easy', but 'doable'.
So you deny that eating is a basic biological drive?"
Are you deliberately trying to look ridiculous?
"Name anyone who died because they kept forgetting to eat."
You're demonstrating your own foolishness. Nobody dies because they forget to eat. Forget to breath (silly as that may be) and you're dead. Attempting to equate these two things is just *stupid*.
I'm sorry, but you are trying to claim that the biological need for calories is the same as breathing. I think this is Absurd. Ridiculous. Stupid. Pick your word, I think it's silly.
" Meanwhile, the level of willpower needed for someone with different gut fauna may be more comparable to sjames' example - beyond that of the typical person."
I grant that it might be possible for the situation you describe to exist, but honestly I believe we have a "culture of failure", e.g. "math is hard", when it comes to personal health.
I read about endless reasons why we will fail to lose weight et al, and I cannot help but consider that we are the victims of our own expectations - we believe it to be hard or impossible so it becomes so.
" These days, if I were to teach a kid any language, it would be Python. It has the easy syntax of BASIC with the added advantages of (a) a rich enough API set for everything from web development through machine learning (b) being an actual marketable skill in places like Silicon Valley."
Not to mention that whole "white space is significant" aspect, so as to give them early knowledge of the arbitrary nature of working with business types in the future...
Well, I'm in the 'just eat less' camp. I acknowledge that it may not be easy for everyone, but I can hit whatever weight target I choose simply by making dietary choices.
Make no mistake, I am not claiming that is is always easy - "what, you say I have to stop drinking?", but it is always doable.
"The truth is. Our present problems are not technical. They are organizational."
I'm sorry, but no. Our present problem is that as a community, people *suck*. There is no technical, organizational, or practical problem keeping us from feeding, housing, or caring for the unfortunate. We just don't *want* to. People suck.
I believe you mean well, but using a phrase like this implies we don't know how to distribute our resources, i.e. that is is a technical issue we do not know how to solve. That's not the case - we've been engaging in land wars since the beginning of time - we know how to get stuff where it is needed.
I believe the problem is multi-faceted, but it boils down to:
1) Not my problem 2) Not in my back yard 3) Not with any contribution from me
- all while sitting complacently on our piles of gold like Smaug.
"...we already have enough tech to feed a stable world population, so scientists should really be tasked with effective education and resource distribution before..."
Do you seriously believe that this is a *technical* problem?
Let me be blunt. The only reason the world is not fed, clothed, housed, etc. is because there is a significant percentage of the population that does not want that to happen.
This is a social/political problem, not a technical one.
"And I take my stand that this is a vile statement that devalues actual rape"
This. A thousand times this.
Using a hotword like rape to generate an emotional reaction to support your cause does a disservice to everyone, especially to those who are victims of actual rape.
I am replying only because you were tragically upvoted.
"Fear is a very, very bad advisor. It makes you massively overestimate rare risks, while you get blinded for real risks because they are familiar."
Hello, complete comprehension failture: I was referring to parents of children who *have* a potentially deadly allergy. When your child can die as a result of a cafeteria milk splash, fear is a perfectly reasonable reaction.
"That account you read was published exactly because it was an exceptionally rare event."
Wow. Despite not knowing the subject, the author, or the publication in which the account was published, you somehow know the nature of the condition and the reason for documenting the event. Just wow.
Possibly, but be careful here: for people with the allergies, this is very real.
After reading an account of doctors fighting to save the life of a child who was given a *teaspoon* of milk - in a controlled hospital setting - I have a new appreciation for the fear these parents have.
A. (not to mention that the tone of your post leads one to believe that you would be the first to demand restrictions if it turned out that your child was the one with a deadly allergy and "fuck people who want to bring peanuts to school")
Slashdot Mirror
"However, trying to make "7 billion people are miserable" my personal, relatable problem, is a fool's errand."
Sorry, my cowardly friend, but I never said anything about 7 billion people. That's your straw man, you can keep it.
A convenient small-town example of 'not in my backyard', this reads like a whole lot of suck to me:
http://www.bostonmagazine.com/...
The tl;dr summary quote (paraphrased) is "they [the homeless] really would be better served in the next town over.
A.
"Your medal's in the mail."
Well aren't you helpful.
Look, if I could go delete the entire sub-thread, I would. It was clearly not useful for anyone, and I try not to get dragged into such things.
I was, at least, sincere.
A.
"It sounds very similar to me."
Except in one case you'll die within minutes, and in the other you can survive for weeks*.
Attempting to equate the two does nobody any favors.
A.
* http://www.bbc.com/news/magazi...
"What you don't get is that you got off easy."
So you claim.
I suggest that it is just as hard for me to lose weight as it is for you, I simply do not succumb to the 'fail mentality'.
A.
( who is, make no mistake, several pounds over 'target weight' )
"But you don't seem to grasp that for many it would have to be a lifelong practice, not just while you drop a few pounds."
I can't comprehend why you believe this.
"You seem quite willing to have others live that way, but you object to even a short period of that level of denying a biological drive for yourself."
I do not know what delusional affliction you have to think this: reaching and maintaining a target weight for me is an ongoing challenge.
What I deny, categorically, is that this is something outside of my control. Gut flora, heredity, environment, you name it, are *all* secondary to my own personal drive and motivation.
A.
"If anything is stupid, it's expecting someone to be successful at denying a basic drive for the rest of their natural life even while giving in to it just enough to be somewhat functional."
I am sorry, but I maintain that living 'just a little bit hungry' (a temporary condition necessary to reduce weight) is not the same - in any reasonable measure - as not breathing. To attempt to equate the two things is to venture into the theater of the absurd, and there is no point in going there.
"Since you seemed unable to comprehend keeping yourself hungry"
What possesses you to think that this is the case? This is *exactly* what I described as 'not easy', but 'doable'.
A.
So you deny that eating is a basic biological drive?"
Are you deliberately trying to look ridiculous?
"Name anyone who died because they kept forgetting to eat."
You're demonstrating your own foolishness. Nobody dies because they forget to eat. Forget to breath (silly as that may be) and you're dead. Attempting to equate these two things is just *stupid*.
A.
I'm sorry, but you are trying to claim that the biological need for calories is the same as breathing. I think this is Absurd. Ridiculous. Stupid. Pick your word, I think it's silly.
A.
"Name any period of time in modern history that any society has found long or even medium term weight loss to be easy."
I at no time said anything was "easy". You're projecting. Again.
A.
You asked me to try something incomparable for a week. What you suggest is not remotely similar to the discussion at hand.
Moreover, I'm not asking others to do *anything*. That's a projection on your part.
Last, but not least, comparing caloric intake to oxygen intake is absurd. Stupid. Ridiculous. Dumb. Words fail me.
A.
" Meanwhile, the level of willpower needed for someone with different gut fauna may be more comparable to sjames' example - beyond that of the typical person."
I grant that it might be possible for the situation you describe to exist, but honestly I believe we have a "culture of failure", e.g. "math is hard", when it comes to personal health.
I read about endless reasons why we will fail to lose weight et al, and I cannot help but consider that we are the victims of our own expectations - we believe it to be hard or impossible so it becomes so.
A.
"Try this: Hold your breath."
What an absurd comparison.
I can reach, and maintain, most any weight goal I choose. I have done this. As I said previously, it is not always *easy*, but it is always doable.
A.
" These days, if I were to teach a kid any language, it would be Python. It has the easy syntax of BASIC with the added advantages of (a) a rich enough API set for everything from web development through machine learning (b) being an actual marketable skill in places like Silicon Valley."
Not to mention that whole "white space is significant" aspect, so as to give them early knowledge of the arbitrary nature of working with business types in the future...
A. (only 1/2 a :-)
"If there is no drive (i.e. "I just want to learn how to 'program'") they will learn nothing."
One should not discount the motivations of others. "I want to learn how" can be just as effective as "I want to mod minecraft" (if not *more* so).
A.
Well, I'm in the 'just eat less' camp. I acknowledge that it may not be easy for everyone, but I can hit whatever weight target I choose simply by making dietary choices.
Make no mistake, I am not claiming that is is always easy - "what, you say I have to stop drinking?", but it is always doable.
A.
Thank you for illustrating the problem so succinctly.
A.
"The truth is. Our present problems are not technical. They are organizational."
I'm sorry, but no. Our present problem is that as a community, people *suck*. There is no technical, organizational, or practical problem keeping us from feeding, housing, or caring for the unfortunate. We just don't *want* to. People suck.
A.
"...but a distribution problem"
I believe you mean well, but using a phrase like this implies we don't know how to distribute our resources, i.e. that is is a technical issue we do not know how to solve. That's not the case - we've been engaging in land wars since the beginning of time - we know how to get stuff where it is needed.
I believe the problem is multi-faceted, but it boils down to:
1) Not my problem
2) Not in my back yard
3) Not with any contribution from me
- all while sitting complacently on our piles of gold like Smaug.
A.
"Humans are complex machines. Establishing how they work and fixing their faults is a technical problem."
That's one point of view. I prefer this one:
"If there is such a phenomenon as absolute evil, it consists in treating another human being as a thing."
-- John Brunner, The Shockwave Rider.
A.
"...we already have enough tech to feed a stable world population, so scientists should really be tasked with effective education and resource distribution before..."
Do you seriously believe that this is a *technical* problem?
Let me be blunt. The only reason the world is not fed, clothed, housed, etc. is because there is a significant percentage of the population that does not want that to happen.
This is a social/political problem, not a technical one.
A.
If you have been paying attention over the past five years, you know that anyone writing about what technology will be like in ten years is an idiot.
A.
Please read "I Will Fear No Evil" to see how all this turns out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A.
"And I take my stand that this is a vile statement that devalues actual rape"
This. A thousand times this.
Using a hotword like rape to generate an emotional reaction to support your cause does a disservice to everyone, especially to those who are victims of actual rape.
A.
I am replying only because you were tragically upvoted.
"Fear is a very, very bad advisor. It makes you massively overestimate rare risks, while you get blinded for real risks because they are familiar."
Hello, complete comprehension failture: I was referring to parents of children who *have* a potentially deadly allergy. When your child can die as a result of a cafeteria milk splash, fear is a perfectly reasonable reaction.
"That account you read was published exactly because it was an exceptionally rare event."
Wow. Despite not knowing the subject, the author, or the publication in which the account was published, you somehow know the nature of the condition and the reason for documenting the event. Just wow.
A.
"Nut allergies are mostly mass hysteria"
Possibly, but be careful here: for people with the allergies, this is very real.
After reading an account of doctors fighting to save the life of a child who was given a *teaspoon* of milk - in a controlled hospital setting - I have a new appreciation for the fear these parents have.
A.
(not to mention that the tone of your post leads one to believe that you would be the first to demand restrictions if it turned out that your child was the one with a deadly allergy and "fuck people who want to bring peanuts to school")