Re:Java's regexp support is yucky
on
Beyond Java
·
· Score: 1
I agree the Java syntax is more awkward. But if you use it often (and I do) you get just as familiar with it as the Perl syntax.
I believe you can shortcut your Java code as:
import java.util.regex.*;
Matcher matcher = Pattern.compile("(?i)Email\\s*:\\s*([^\\s]*).*?Nam e\\s *:\\s*([^\\s]*)").matcher(text);
// matcher.find();// this may be required ???
String email = matcher.group(1);
String name = matcher.group(2);
I'm pretty sure the (?i) directive makes the pattern case insensitive.
Now don't pick it up at breakfast, lunch, dinner, or other opportunity for your next 44,000 meals (assuming you have about 30 years of life left).
This isn't smoking, where you never need to handle another cigarette. This isn't alcohol, when you never need to drink a beer again. This is food. So to slim down, you have to stop eating while you still feel hungry at every meal for the rest of your life.
So get over yourself and your self-righteous arrogance.
If a disease lowers the energy requirements of the body, the cure is to eat proportionally less.
The primary problem is right there in your hypothesis, and you're not giving it the attention it deserves. Take your current calorie intake, whatever it is. The intake level you have probably eaten, more or less, every day of your adult life.
Now imagine trying to make yourself eat 20% less than that every day for the rest of your life. You must never, ever resume the habits you had for the past years, or the fat will come right back.
In combating obesity, the presence or absence of a virus isn't a problem. The problem is getting obese people to eat less than they are inclined to eat indefinitely. Like many other obese people, I've lost a substantial amount of fat through diet and exercise on several separate occasions and then reverted to my older eating habits (I still exercise) and gained all of the fat back.
You are obfuscating the arguments of ID because it is much easier to simply equate them with Creationism (especially young-Earth creationism) than to come up with fossil evidence or genetic proof of the evolution of the flagella; or the eye; or any of the other examples that ID purports to show design.
Please don't put words in my mouth. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it isn't possible to get fossil evidence of anything other than bones. That makes genetic proof of many things impossible. Since Intelligent Design stays outside the realm of science (i.e. testable theories and research), it still cannot be offered as a scientific alternative.
More importantly, please take the time to read on the subject. Many things that don't seem to have an evolutionary explanation at first glance actually do. If I recall correctly, the theory is that eyes first evolved from cells that sensed warmth in multi-cellular organisms, because certain temperature ranges are required for organisms to live. Then they evolved into cells that sense the presence or absence of light - because organisms that used photosynthesis to create food were attracted to light and other organisms that preyed upon them would gain an evolutionary advantage if they followed them to well lit areas. Then they evolved to sense the intensity of the light, and so forth, and so on. I believe there has been studies of microscopic multicellular organisms with specialized cells that represent one step or another on the evolutionary progression towards sight.
Electric eels, for instance, first evolved their shock abilities as a very tiny electric field that helped to detect nearby items. Sharks have this, and it helps them find prey in murky water. Again, there are other smaller animals that have similar electric field capabilities to a greater or lesser extent.
And intelligent design fails to answer for tonsils, the appendix, men's nipples, the extinction of species through natural selection, and a host of other byproducts of evolution. If there is Intelligent Design behind evolution, whether from a Judeo-Christian God or something else, why did the Intelligence behind it all make all of these mistakes? Shouldn't it be called "Somewhat Intelligent Design" or "Not Quite Ignorant Design"?
I in no way stated that Intelligent Design and Creationism are equivalent. I stated that the advocates of both have obfuscated the definition of evolution.
Just because two groups share a common action, that does not make them equal. I'm sorry if you interpreted my post as such.
And for the record, I can respect (but not adopt) intelligent design as a belief. I think creationism is absurd.
I think the Intelligent Design/Creationism advocates have done a superb job obfuscating this. I don't know whether it's intentional conspiracy or unintentional ignorance.
I was arguing with a former coworker about how absurd it is to doubt evolution. I said, "If there isn't evolution, how do children inherit physical traits and diseases from their parents? How did cows get to be domesticated? How do people breed new variants of fruit flies or create new breeds of dogs by selective breeding?" His response was that those things aren't evolution. (!) Somehow he thought that natural selection, genetic drift, and the combination of DNA from two parents in sexual reproduction was totally unrelated to the theory of evolution. In his mind, that was totally separate from the idea that humans evolved from predecessor species.
I wonder how many opponents of teaching evolution theory would switch sides if they actually knew the correct definition.
Pursuing a higher share price means bettering the company.
Not necessarily. Assume I am appointed CEO to a company that has been selling $100 items with a 5 year average use for $150. I discover that we can substitute $30 items for the $100 items, provided we are willing to accept a 70% failure rate within 2 years. I make the substitution, profits skyrocket, share values skyrocket, I cash out with millions of dollars.
Within five years, the entire customer base is furious over the shoddy quality of the new products, and they take their business elsewhere. The company folds.
In short, this "stock price is everything" strategy often leads to short-sighted thinking. "Penny wise and pound foolish", and all that entails.
For a perfect example, look at General Motors. They had some of the best rated cars in the world 40 years ago. They rested on their laurels, maximized shareholder profit, and let the Japanese automakers devour their marketshare by not spending nearly enough money on reliability, quality, and technology. Now GM is working very hard to close the quality and technology gap, but they have such a poor reputation most buyers won't even consider their products. Short term gain, long term loss.
Steam cars require combustion to run. So the car would have a fuel burner to create the steam, the steam itself to move the pistons (and thus, the crankshaft and the wheels), and the electric motor.
But it would not use internal combustion inside the pistons (like in traditional gasoline and diesel automotive engines).
I think it's at least possible we could see a steam-electric hybrid.
To my knowledge (and naturally, this being slashdot, I could be totally off base), the two primary reasons for the steam car not to be adopted for common use is that they required high maintenance to prevent rust and a few minutes to generate sufficient steam pressure before use. Performance and efficiency was never a problem - the Alfred Doble steam cars of the 30s and 40s got up to 20 miles per US gallon (spectacular for their time) and had nearly 1000 pound feet of torque.
Modern materials could fix the rust problem and make them low maintenace. An electric system to power the car until the steam pressure was high would allow the 'get in, turn the key, and go' behavior the modern consumer expects from their vehicle.
If people would stop buying new cars every two years,
Crash safety. In some 2006 model year cars you can avoid tricky situations that would have smashed up a 1970s car even if a Formula One driver was behind the older car's wheel. And between seat design, over the shoulder belts, airbags, and crumple zones, your chances of survival if you are actually hit is worlds better.
My current car is the safest new vehicle I could afford in 2001. When it rusts out from underneath me in a few years, I will purchase the safest new vehicle I can afford at that time.
why is there still this cultural "feel good" sensation about google?
Google has two tremendous advantages over Microsoft for the average consumer. First, Google makes revenue from advertisers. Users never have to pay Google money directly, and they also never encounter software licensing problems. Plus, Google uses text advertising instead of annoying pop-ups.
Second, Microsoft deals with stand alone operating systems. Operating systems are incredibly complex by themselves. Plus there are thousands of possible user settings, devices, and third party software to support. Plus there are security issues. Plus Microsoft cannot make people upgrade or stop them from installing poorly built or just plain maliciously designed software. Google's internal search engine network has got to be hugely complicated, but Google controls all of it. The consumer can change search preferences and a few other settings, but everything resides on Google's servers and they have ultimate control over everything. A search engine can't give a virus or a blue screen of death.
Until/unless Google starts giving people bad user experiences and charging directly for common services, they'll always have more user support. It's the nature of their business area.
You're right, I sounded a lot more like an ass than I planned.
My main point, which I completely failed to convey, is that listing your accomplishments on an internet forum comes across as childish. If you can't prove what you've written, you sound like you're inventing things to impress people.
Another $100 billion more for the poor, and there will still be poor. Another $100 billion for space exploration, and we've got another planet to explore and colonize.
That's an easy statement to make, considering you aren't among those that would be helped by the $100 billion.
I assume your main intent is to point out that we can't solve all of our problems on earth and a space presence will bring countless benefits. I do appreciate that. But your choice of words came off as callous, even vicious.
'm in high school (yes, high school), and I taught myself how to program in different languages since I was 8. Now I'm writing security software for Linux for a major corporation as a security consultant, but I've been dabbling in the hardware whenever I have the time. Hell, I've even designed and built a 30 chip logic circuit from scratch in my free time (my 23 year old brother who is a CS major hasn't even done that!). My point is, even if you really really enjoy one end, be it software or hardware, you should give the other a go in your spare time, because it can be fun, too.
But you are still a kid. That's why you turn a post encouraging people to pursue both sides of the computer industry into a short list of your accomplishments.
I don't want to take the wind from your sails. Those are impressive feats and your spelling and grammar also pass muster. Just remember you can impress people more by demonstrating average competence than you ever could from describing your superior achievements.
It's a biological law that if you exercise and reduce your food intake you will lose weight like magic. I agree.
But it's also been demonstrated in several studies that programs involving both diet and exercise have a much higher dropout rate than programs that are just exercise with no change to diet or just diet with no change to exercise.
An inefficient program that you can stick with trumps a superior program you can't, and most people don't have both the time and the ambition to do what you did. Good for you.
for example, you can't say "I believe that being Homosexual is a behavioral issue just like being an Alcoholic is and that it should be cured." and hoped to get moderated +1 insightful on Slashdot
You can't hope to get moderated +1, Insightful because the idea is absolutely counter-intuitive. Could you ever choose to change your sexual preference? I can't. I'm straight, and it doesn't matter if you offered me a billion dollars, I couldn't decide to want to have sex with another man.
If you weren't offering the statement as a hypothetical question, I have to ask - what makes you think people can choose their sexual preferences?
Obviously that can't be the only factor, or else all of the football playing guys would be mathematical prodigies too.
But outside of sports, which activities involving rational reasoning, logic, and strategy are young women encouraged to follow? You have dolls, dance, cheerleading...
Guys have to know numbers and some rudimentary math to understand cars, engines, baseball statistics, football statistics, etc... etc...
First, unless the professor raised his daughter in total isolation, the act of giving her trucks instead of dolls becomes a very small factor in her social development.
And I do assume at least a portion of this gender gap is a problem and not just the result of predisposition. In particular, I tutored a girl who spent half of our time together bemoaning her stupidity and the rest producing elegant proofs to advanced problems. I could have gone to graduate school for mathematics, she was clearly better with math than I am, and she kept insisting she was an imbecile.
My own sister aced mathematics courses in high school and the introductory calculus courses in college, but decided to pursue a history major because she didn't think she was smart enough for other math classes.
My experiences naturally do not constitute a scientific study. But in my opinion, there are at least some women with above average mathematical aptitude that have, through their socialization, erroneously taken the attitude that they are too stupid to understand mathematics.
That does not mean I necessarily believe most women have good mathematical aptitude, just that many who do still fail to pursue it. I view that as a tragic loss.
I think it's misleading to say 'open liberals'. I'm a liberal, and that doesn't mean I reject out of hand the idea that women and men might have different predispositions when it comes to academics.
But a big part of the problem - not necessarily all of it - is probably just socialization. Most boys are given blocks, and trucks, and made to compete and engage in games with at least some rudimentary strategy (football, basketball, etc..) while most girls are given dolls, and dresses, and made to focus on social interaction. To make matters worse, most young girls just won't feel comfortable in a class room full of young men.
Again, I'm not saying the gender difference is 100% from social upbringing and cultural influence. I'm just saying that they are a factor.
The problem with losing fat by starving is that you don't learn how to eat properly.
If you figure out that your maintenance level of calories when you weigh 175 pounds would be 2400 calories per day, and you get used to eating 2400 calories per day, you're all set. Your excess weight will come off slowly, but once it's all gone you'll be in the habit of eating the exact amount of food you need. You can keep eating at that level indefinitely.
If you just stop eating until you reach your target mass, once you start eating again you will resume the same bad eating habits that made you overweight in the first place. It's highly likely you will just regain all of the lost fat, because you never acquired the habit of eating a proper diet.
If you can handle 100 pounds at your first workout, use 50. If you can handle 50, use 25. If you can handle 25, use 10. For your first week or so, workout at least every other day and make it so easy you feel like you're wasting your time. Then, slowly work your way up to whatever level of exertion you want to use over the next 1 to 2 weeks.
You'll have all the time in the world to run yourself into the ground after your body adjusts.
For every gym rat success story there's at least one other person who went all-out on the first or second day and then spent the next week unable to move. It doesn't matter how hard you work out in your first week, you won't look like Adonis the following Tuesday. So just start slow and be patient.
You can easily reverse your theory on midnight snacks.
I know some thin retired people in excellent health because they have all the time in the world to sleep, eat right, and exercise.
At least some fat people, especially parents, are just too busy between their jobs, their partner, and their kids to devote the proper amount of time to an exercise routine and healthy eating habits.
Slashdot Mirror
I agree the Java syntax is more awkward. But if you use it often (and I do) you get just as familiar with it as the Perl syntax.
m e\\s *:\\s*([^\\s]*)").matcher(text);
// matcher.find(); // this may be required ???
I believe you can shortcut your Java code as:
import java.util.regex.*;
Matcher matcher = Pattern.compile("(?i)Email\\s*:\\s*([^\\s]*).*?Na
String email = matcher.group(1);
String name = matcher.group(2);
I'm pretty sure the (?i) directive makes the pattern case insensitive.
Put down the sandwich.
Now don't pick it up at breakfast, lunch, dinner, or other opportunity for your next 44,000 meals (assuming you have about 30 years of life left).
This isn't smoking, where you never need to handle another cigarette. This isn't alcohol, when you never need to drink a beer again. This is food. So to slim down, you have to stop eating while you still feel hungry at every meal for the rest of your life.
So get over yourself and your self-righteous arrogance.
The primary problem is right there in your hypothesis, and you're not giving it the attention it deserves. Take your current calorie intake, whatever it is. The intake level you have probably eaten, more or less, every day of your adult life.
Now imagine trying to make yourself eat 20% less than that every day for the rest of your life. You must never, ever resume the habits you had for the past years, or the fat will come right back.
In combating obesity, the presence or absence of a virus isn't a problem. The problem is getting obese people to eat less than they are inclined to eat indefinitely. Like many other obese people, I've lost a substantial amount of fat through diet and exercise on several separate occasions and then reverted to my older eating habits (I still exercise) and gained all of the fat back.
Please don't put words in my mouth. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe it isn't possible to get fossil evidence of anything other than bones. That makes genetic proof of many things impossible. Since Intelligent Design stays outside the realm of science (i.e. testable theories and research), it still cannot be offered as a scientific alternative.
More importantly, please take the time to read on the subject. Many things that don't seem to have an evolutionary explanation at first glance actually do. If I recall correctly, the theory is that eyes first evolved from cells that sensed warmth in multi-cellular organisms, because certain temperature ranges are required for organisms to live. Then they evolved into cells that sense the presence or absence of light - because organisms that used photosynthesis to create food were attracted to light and other organisms that preyed upon them would gain an evolutionary advantage if they followed them to well lit areas. Then they evolved to sense the intensity of the light, and so forth, and so on. I believe there has been studies of microscopic multicellular organisms with specialized cells that represent one step or another on the evolutionary progression towards sight.
Electric eels, for instance, first evolved their shock abilities as a very tiny electric field that helped to detect nearby items. Sharks have this, and it helps them find prey in murky water. Again, there are other smaller animals that have similar electric field capabilities to a greater or lesser extent.
And intelligent design fails to answer for tonsils, the appendix, men's nipples, the extinction of species through natural selection, and a host of other byproducts of evolution. If there is Intelligent Design behind evolution, whether from a Judeo-Christian God or something else, why did the Intelligence behind it all make all of these mistakes? Shouldn't it be called "Somewhat Intelligent Design" or "Not Quite Ignorant Design"?
I in no way stated that Intelligent Design and Creationism are equivalent. I stated that the advocates of both have obfuscated the definition of evolution.
Just because two groups share a common action, that does not make them equal. I'm sorry if you interpreted my post as such.
And for the record, I can respect (but not adopt) intelligent design as a belief. I think creationism is absurd.
I think the Intelligent Design/Creationism advocates have done a superb job obfuscating this. I don't know whether it's intentional conspiracy or unintentional ignorance.
I was arguing with a former coworker about how absurd it is to doubt evolution. I said, "If there isn't evolution, how do children inherit physical traits and diseases from their parents? How did cows get to be domesticated? How do people breed new variants of fruit flies or create new breeds of dogs by selective breeding?" His response was that those things aren't evolution. (!) Somehow he thought that natural selection, genetic drift, and the combination of DNA from two parents in sexual reproduction was totally unrelated to the theory of evolution. In his mind, that was totally separate from the idea that humans evolved from predecessor species.
I wonder how many opponents of teaching evolution theory would switch sides if they actually knew the correct definition.
Not necessarily. Assume I am appointed CEO to a company that has been selling $100 items with a 5 year average use for $150. I discover that we can substitute $30 items for the $100 items, provided we are willing to accept a 70% failure rate within 2 years. I make the substitution, profits skyrocket, share values skyrocket, I cash out with millions of dollars.
Within five years, the entire customer base is furious over the shoddy quality of the new products, and they take their business elsewhere. The company folds.
In short, this "stock price is everything" strategy often leads to short-sighted thinking. "Penny wise and pound foolish", and all that entails.
For a perfect example, look at General Motors. They had some of the best rated cars in the world 40 years ago. They rested on their laurels, maximized shareholder profit, and let the Japanese automakers devour their marketshare by not spending nearly enough money on reliability, quality, and technology. Now GM is working very hard to close the quality and technology gap, but they have such a poor reputation most buyers won't even consider their products. Short term gain, long term loss.
Steam cars require combustion to run. So the car would have a fuel burner to create the steam, the steam itself to move the pistons (and thus, the crankshaft and the wheels), and the electric motor.
But it would not use internal combustion inside the pistons (like in traditional gasoline and diesel automotive engines).
I think it's at least possible we could see a steam-electric hybrid.
To my knowledge (and naturally, this being slashdot, I could be totally off base), the two primary reasons for the steam car not to be adopted for common use is that they required high maintenance to prevent rust and a few minutes to generate sufficient steam pressure before use. Performance and efficiency was never a problem - the Alfred Doble steam cars of the 30s and 40s got up to 20 miles per US gallon (spectacular for their time) and had nearly 1000 pound feet of torque.
Modern materials could fix the rust problem and make them low maintenace. An electric system to power the car until the steam pressure was high would allow the 'get in, turn the key, and go' behavior the modern consumer expects from their vehicle.
If people would stop buying new cars every two years,
Crash safety. In some 2006 model year cars you can avoid tricky situations that would have smashed up a 1970s car even if a Formula One driver was behind the older car's wheel. And between seat design, over the shoulder belts, airbags, and crumple zones, your chances of survival if you are actually hit is worlds better.
My current car is the safest new vehicle I could afford in 2001. When it rusts out from underneath me in a few years, I will purchase the safest new vehicle I can afford at that time.
why is there still this cultural "feel good" sensation about google?
Google has two tremendous advantages over Microsoft for the average consumer.
First, Google makes revenue from advertisers. Users never have to pay Google money directly, and they also never encounter software licensing problems. Plus, Google uses text advertising instead of annoying pop-ups.
Second, Microsoft deals with stand alone operating systems. Operating systems are incredibly complex by themselves. Plus there are thousands of possible user settings, devices, and third party software to support. Plus there are security issues. Plus Microsoft cannot make people upgrade or stop them from installing poorly built or just plain maliciously designed software. Google's internal search engine network has got to be hugely complicated, but Google controls all of it. The consumer can change search preferences and a few other settings, but everything resides on Google's servers and they have ultimate control over everything. A search engine can't give a virus or a blue screen of death.
Until/unless Google starts giving people bad user experiences and charging directly for common services, they'll always have more user support. It's the nature of their business area.
I always liked "Unseen Pervert" and "Wall of Non-Dairy Creamer"
You're right, I sounded a lot more like an ass than I planned.
My main point, which I completely failed to convey, is that listing your accomplishments on an internet forum comes across as childish. If you can't prove what you've written, you sound like you're inventing things to impress people.
Another $100 billion more for the poor, and there will still be poor. Another $100 billion for space exploration, and we've got another planet to explore and colonize.
That's an easy statement to make, considering you aren't among those that would be helped by the $100 billion.
I assume your main intent is to point out that we can't solve all of our problems on earth and a space presence will bring countless benefits. I do appreciate that. But your choice of words came off as callous, even vicious.
'm in high school (yes, high school), and I taught myself how to program in different languages since I was 8. Now I'm writing security software for Linux for a major corporation as a security consultant, but I've been dabbling in the hardware whenever I have the time. Hell, I've even designed and built a 30 chip logic circuit from scratch in my free time (my 23 year old brother who is a CS major hasn't even done that!). My point is, even if you really really enjoy one end, be it software or hardware, you should give the other a go in your spare time, because it can be fun, too.
But you are still a kid. That's why you turn a post encouraging people to pursue both sides of the computer industry into a short list of your accomplishments.
I don't want to take the wind from your sails. Those are impressive feats and your spelling and grammar also pass muster. Just remember you can impress people more by demonstrating average competence than you ever could from describing your superior achievements.
It's a biological law that if you exercise and reduce your food intake you will lose weight like magic. I agree.
But it's also been demonstrated in several studies that programs involving both diet and exercise have a much higher dropout rate than programs that are just exercise with no change to diet or just diet with no change to exercise.
An inefficient program that you can stick with trumps a superior program you can't, and most people don't have both the time and the ambition to do what you did. Good for you.
I disagree. I've read quite a bit of both, and Howard gives more visceral action with fewer words.
Besides, Gemmell's characters have deux ex machina help so often they may as well sit in a chair and let other people finish the story.
for example, you can't say "I believe that being Homosexual is a behavioral issue just like being an Alcoholic is and that it should be cured." and hoped to get moderated +1 insightful on Slashdot
You can't hope to get moderated +1, Insightful because the idea is absolutely counter-intuitive. Could you ever choose to change your sexual preference? I can't. I'm straight, and it doesn't matter if you offered me a billion dollars, I couldn't decide to want to have sex with another man.
If you weren't offering the statement as a hypothetical question, I have to ask - what makes you think people can choose their sexual preferences?
Obviously that can't be the only factor, or else all of the football playing guys would be mathematical prodigies too.
But outside of sports, which activities involving rational reasoning, logic, and strategy are young women encouraged to follow? You have dolls, dance, cheerleading...
Guys have to know numbers and some rudimentary math to understand cars, engines, baseball statistics, football statistics, etc... etc...
First, unless the professor raised his daughter in total isolation, the act of giving her trucks instead of dolls becomes a very small factor in her social development.
And I do assume at least a portion of this gender gap is a problem and not just the result of predisposition. In particular, I tutored a girl who spent half of our time together bemoaning her stupidity and the rest producing elegant proofs to advanced problems. I could have gone to graduate school for mathematics, she was clearly better with math than I am, and she kept insisting she was an imbecile.
My own sister aced mathematics courses in high school and the introductory calculus courses in college, but decided to pursue a history major because she didn't think she was smart enough for other math classes.
My experiences naturally do not constitute a scientific study. But in my opinion, there are at least some women with above average mathematical aptitude that have, through their socialization, erroneously taken the attitude that they are too stupid to understand mathematics.
That does not mean I necessarily believe most women have good mathematical aptitude, just that many who do still fail to pursue it. I view that as a tragic loss.
I think it's misleading to say 'open liberals'. I'm a liberal, and that doesn't mean I reject out of hand the idea that women and men might have different predispositions when it comes to academics.
But a big part of the problem - not necessarily all of it - is probably just socialization. Most boys are given blocks, and trucks, and made to compete and engage in games with at least some rudimentary strategy (football, basketball, etc..) while most girls are given dolls, and dresses, and made to focus on social interaction. To make matters worse, most young girls just won't feel comfortable in a class room full of young men.
Again, I'm not saying the gender difference is 100% from social upbringing and cultural influence. I'm just saying that they are a factor.
The problem with losing fat by starving is that you don't learn how to eat properly.
If you figure out that your maintenance level of calories when you weigh 175 pounds would be 2400 calories per day, and you get used to eating 2400 calories per day, you're all set. Your excess weight will come off slowly, but once it's all gone you'll be in the habit of eating the exact amount of food you need. You can keep eating at that level indefinitely.
If you just stop eating until you reach your target mass, once you start eating again you will resume the same bad eating habits that made you overweight in the first place. It's highly likely you will just regain all of the lost fat, because you never acquired the habit of eating a proper diet.
Try cooking healthy meals and exercising daily when you have a kid, or more than one kid, to take care of.
The trick with exercising is the ease into it.
If you can handle 100 pounds at your first workout, use 50. If you can handle 50, use 25. If you can handle 25, use 10. For your first week or so, workout at least every other day and make it so easy you feel like you're wasting your time. Then, slowly work your way up to whatever level of exertion you want to use over the next 1 to 2 weeks.
You'll have all the time in the world to run yourself into the ground after your body adjusts.
For every gym rat success story there's at least one other person who went all-out on the first or second day and then spent the next week unable to move. It doesn't matter how hard you work out in your first week, you won't look like Adonis the following Tuesday. So just start slow and be patient.
You can easily reverse your theory on midnight snacks.
I know some thin retired people in excellent health because they have all the time in the world to sleep, eat right, and exercise.
At least some fat people, especially parents, are just too busy between their jobs, their partner, and their kids to devote the proper amount of time to an exercise routine and healthy eating habits.