Providing data is "interfering"? I'm amazed by how many people infantalize the US voter and pretend they were swayed by some junk posted on Facebook. People are so hysterical over nothing. If a meaningful number of US voters are swayed by junk they see on Facebook, then we deserve whatever happens to us.
They're trying top broaden the definition of power. Same with some of the Louis CK. Because people "look up" to you or even if you're popular/famous/powerful in your field doesn't mean people don't have the choice to say no, or report your behavior.
It's a way to absolve people of their responsibilities. And yes, sometimes victims do have responsibilities. If you enable your perpetrator to continue to hurt other people by keeping quiet, especially for money, you are wrong and don't get the "but, but, but... victim blaming!!! Muh victims!!!" card. This halo of sainthood and complete lack of responsibility we seem to be bestowing upon the Sacred Victim is getting way out of hand.
Then your trust is misplaced and foolish. You are trusting the CPU to take in all that data and analyze it and extract random data, but you won't trust it to do something they have had in hardware for ages. Serious derp levels going on with this lava lamp nonsense.
It means something. It's not useless information. If you take 100 people who are underpaid for their location/position/tenure (which one can easily research and normalize) maybe 5 of them are in odd situations, the rest probably just suck. You can suss that out.
But generally if you're underpaid it means you either suck or aren't motivated, both of which are useful though not comprehensive pieces of information. It's not a 100% indicator but it's certainly not useless information like you and others would try to pretend.
Yeah, I don't get twitter. I go there and hate-read a few idiots to laugh at their antics, but it seems like we have a whole generation of people who take twitter seriously. I found it especially hilarious that people took a "day off" in solidarity with Rose McGowan recently. Then people got mad because that was "peak white feminism", lol. I think it's funny they complain about twitter and how much they hate it and the "bros" that run it, but they can't take the obvious step to stop using it.
I'm old and all, early 40's, but generally not "get off my lawn" old but people who take social media seriously can "get off my lawn".
Anorexia is certainly a serious issue for those it affects. However it's in the noise, barely even in the noise, in terms of cost in money and lives in this country. For each of your family members who died from it (let's round up to 1, if it's 0) there are probably 1000 people who died or had serious quality of life issues due to obesity related causes.
They should definitely get help and treatment, but acting like anorexia (and related undereating disorders) are even a vague consideration in any kind of policy compared to obesity is absolutely silly.
Nonsense. It's 100% legitimate. "How much did your previous employer value your work" is completely germane to hiring someone. If you worked at a company for 10 years as a developer and only make $70k, that's a pretty good sign that you suck.
Go caught what, thinking of a completely legitimate product that can succeed or fail in the marketplace on its own merits? Yeah, that damn Mattel!
Google, Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook know literally everything about me but that AI enabled smartcam is just a step too far! Think of the children!!! Well, someone else's children!!!
what's to say it can't be, you know, amended to be a bit more clear and say that or say it is the right of every American...?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You mean amended to be exactly the same? Who do you think "the people" are, Canadians? Note it doesn't say the right of militias, the right of National Guard members, etc... It's incredibly clear.
It's only through willful misinterpretation and sophistry that people pretend the parenthetical clause is the meat of the sentence when it really doesn't get much more clear than the bolded part.
Yeah, because the framers thought they had to make sure the national fucking guard could exist so they put in the second amendment. I bet that "right to breathe" or the "right to form police at the state and local levels" amendment came really close to making it in too!
Your argument is mentally bankrupt. That phrase is parenthetical and the idea that they put the second amendment in to guarantee that which any idiot would realize is something states can do is risible. Protip: If a store owner puts up a sign that says "Due to thefts by local teenagers, backpacks will no longer be allowed in this store." does that mean you, a 40 year old, can bring in a backpack? No, it doesn't. Stop lying.
If you want to change the Constitution then change the Constitution. Your weasel words and sophistry fool no one.
This thing called empirical evidence says no, it doesn't. At least, it hasn't done so in subcommunities that have tried it.
Bullshit. I think you are making a spectacular claim, so it's going to require spectacular proof and hand waving about "evidence" isn't that.
I'm not saying that a real name requirement solves abuse, but you seem to be saying that there are either zero or a negligable number of people who "troll" and abuse people because they are anonymous.
This thing called human nature means that yes, it absolutely does. Doesn't mean we should do it, but pretending it wouldn't reduce abuse is naive to the point of absurdity. Of course many people will spout abuse when anonymous that they would not when their identity is clear.
No, it wouldn't stop abuse, and no we shouldn't try to get rid of anonymity but let's not be disingenuous.
Anything tax related mostly benefits the wealthy because they already pay almost all the taxes (by wealthy I mean top 10%). This "benefits the wealthy" trope is about as smart as saying life vests only benefit the drowning.
I find these arguments fascinating. So what people will do now is refute you with """science""", heavy quotes intended. See, diets don't work, science has proved it!
What these people don't understand is that diets (not fad diets, 'diets' as in controlled eating) do 100% work for any given individual. A comatose person will lose weight if you limit their calories. Absolutely anyone, I don't care about your thyroid, your "metabolism", or your "health conditions". Anyone.
The piece they're missing is the difference between an epidemiological view/study and an individual one. Epidemiologically diets don't work because people are people. Most people who've already gotten fat don't have the will to take it off. It's definitely difficult and taken as a whole most people are incapable of difficult things.
So look at 10 million fat people and yes, probably most of them will yoyo diet, if that. But take any one of them and control their food intake and they will lose weight. Diets work, they just aren't an epidemiological solution.
A dismissive, snide tone isn't really a valid argument. I know modern "you go girl" TV has made people think it is, but it's not.
A calorie is mostly, almost completely, a calorie. This study doesn't invalidate that. It's sort of a hierarchy. First worry about your caloric intake and expenditure, then worry about calorie composition. Be reasonable about the makeup of your diet, don't eat 80% fat and 20% protein, nor should you eat 75% carbs, 15% fat, and 10% protein. Finally, worry about your daily activity.
That's it. I know these facts may not make you feel good, but that's really all there is to it.
Right. But the whole context of the discussion was that BMI doesn't fit well with people who are fit or even moderately muscled. Literally _because_ it's not a measure of bodyfat. Then dude literally starts a paragraph saying it's a measure of bodyfat.
The fact is that while a 220 pound 6' well muscled man may be _ever so slightly_ more likely to get heart disease than a fit 180 pound man, a chubby 220 pound man is much more likely than that. BMI is a good tool from an epidemiological perspective, not all that useful at an individual level other than as broad guidelines.
They're being complained about but that's like complaining that a hungry bear will eat a person if it has to, or that if you chum the water and swim a shark might eat you.
People aren't going to change their tastes with respect to fat people. It's not going to happen so all the complaining does is annoy people.
You keep saying this almost like a defense mechanism. By all means don't listen to us weirdos on Slashdot, see a nutritionist. I promise you they can come up with a diet for you that is a) healthy and b) slightly lower than your BMR such that you will very gradually lose weight.
Guh? 1800 calories is not super hard. 1200 is a slog, true.
As for your questions, easy. A glass of water does have calories, but food is usually specified in kilo calories. You gain weight because water has weight - you don't gain fat, however. And it really does come down to calories in vs calories burned, though the calories burned part of course varies by person and the calories in might as well due to different digestive systems.
You actually can, and I'm a fat guy right now. No matter how much hand-waving you do, it all comes down to how much you eat. I don't care about thyroid issues, steroids, you name it - nothing puts calories into your body other than your mouth. And nothing makes you fat but calories.
Yes, it is certainly more difficult for some people to control their eating and some may have to control it more than others, but it all comes down to control. This doesn't mean you're a bad person if you don't have perfect control of your eating. But it also doesn't mean anything else is responsible for your fitness level other than your will.
As usual with these things we always swing too far one way or the other. Fat people aren't always lazy per se, and they certainly aren't bad people, but nor are they innocent bystanders in their own condition, to be lauded or have people pretend that it's not unattractive or a health issue.
Slashdot Mirror
Providing data is "interfering"? I'm amazed by how many people infantalize the US voter and pretend they were swayed by some junk posted on Facebook. People are so hysterical over nothing. If a meaningful number of US voters are swayed by junk they see on Facebook, then we deserve whatever happens to us.
Yes. I think that's pretty much what I said, no?
They're trying top broaden the definition of power. Same with some of the Louis CK. Because people "look up" to you or even if you're popular/famous/powerful in your field doesn't mean people don't have the choice to say no, or report your behavior. It's a way to absolve people of their responsibilities. And yes, sometimes victims do have responsibilities. If you enable your perpetrator to continue to hurt other people by keeping quiet, especially for money, you are wrong and don't get the "but, but, but... victim blaming!!! Muh victims!!!" card. This halo of sainthood and complete lack of responsibility we seem to be bestowing upon the Sacred Victim is getting way out of hand.
They don't apply, and it's the parents who should and are consenting. This is just more of the German penchant for authoritarianism.
Then your trust is misplaced and foolish. You are trusting the CPU to take in all that data and analyze it and extract random data, but you won't trust it to do something they have had in hardware for ages. Serious derp levels going on with this lava lamp nonsense.
It means something. It's not useless information. If you take 100 people who are underpaid for their location/position/tenure (which one can easily research and normalize) maybe 5 of them are in odd situations, the rest probably just suck. You can suss that out.
But generally if you're underpaid it means you either suck or aren't motivated, both of which are useful though not comprehensive pieces of information. It's not a 100% indicator but it's certainly not useless information like you and others would try to pretend.
Yeah, I don't get twitter. I go there and hate-read a few idiots to laugh at their antics, but it seems like we have a whole generation of people who take twitter seriously. I found it especially hilarious that people took a "day off" in solidarity with Rose McGowan recently. Then people got mad because that was "peak white feminism", lol. I think it's funny they complain about twitter and how much they hate it and the "bros" that run it, but they can't take the obvious step to stop using it.
I'm old and all, early 40's, but generally not "get off my lawn" old but people who take social media seriously can "get off my lawn".
Anorexia is certainly a serious issue for those it affects. However it's in the noise, barely even in the noise, in terms of cost in money and lives in this country. For each of your family members who died from it (let's round up to 1, if it's 0) there are probably 1000 people who died or had serious quality of life issues due to obesity related causes.
They should definitely get help and treatment, but acting like anorexia (and related undereating disorders) are even a vague consideration in any kind of policy compared to obesity is absolutely silly.
Or just go to glassdoor and see, compare with their answer to "how much do you want to be paid". None of this is going to help anyone, it's rubbish.
Nonsense. It's 100% legitimate. "How much did your previous employer value your work" is completely germane to hiring someone. If you worked at a company for 10 years as a developer and only make $70k, that's a pretty good sign that you suck.
Go caught what, thinking of a completely legitimate product that can succeed or fail in the marketplace on its own merits? Yeah, that damn Mattel!
Google, Amazon, Twitter, and Facebook know literally everything about me but that AI enabled smartcam is just a step too far! Think of the children!!! Well, someone else's children!!!
what's to say it can't be, you know, amended to be a bit more clear and say that or say it is the right of every American...?
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
You mean amended to be exactly the same? Who do you think "the people" are, Canadians? Note it doesn't say the right of militias, the right of National Guard members, etc... It's incredibly clear.
It's only through willful misinterpretation and sophistry that people pretend the parenthetical clause is the meat of the sentence when it really doesn't get much more clear than the bolded part.
Yeah, because the framers thought they had to make sure the national fucking guard could exist so they put in the second amendment. I bet that "right to breathe" or the "right to form police at the state and local levels" amendment came really close to making it in too!
Your argument is mentally bankrupt. That phrase is parenthetical and the idea that they put the second amendment in to guarantee that which any idiot would realize is something states can do is risible. Protip: If a store owner puts up a sign that says "Due to thefts by local teenagers, backpacks will no longer be allowed in this store." does that mean you, a 40 year old, can bring in a backpack? No, it doesn't. Stop lying.
If you want to change the Constitution then change the Constitution. Your weasel words and sophistry fool no one.
This thing called empirical evidence says no, it doesn't. At least, it hasn't done so in subcommunities that have tried it.
Bullshit. I think you are making a spectacular claim, so it's going to require spectacular proof and hand waving about "evidence" isn't that.
I'm not saying that a real name requirement solves abuse, but you seem to be saying that there are either zero or a negligable number of people who "troll" and abuse people because they are anonymous.
This is a spectacular claim.
This thing called human nature means that yes, it absolutely does. Doesn't mean we should do it, but pretending it wouldn't reduce abuse is naive to the point of absurdity. Of course many people will spout abuse when anonymous that they would not when their identity is clear.
No, it wouldn't stop abuse, and no we shouldn't try to get rid of anonymity but let's not be disingenuous.
Anything tax related mostly benefits the wealthy because they already pay almost all the taxes (by wealthy I mean top 10%). This "benefits the wealthy" trope is about as smart as saying life vests only benefit the drowning.
I find these arguments fascinating. So what people will do now is refute you with """science""", heavy quotes intended. See, diets don't work, science has proved it!
What these people don't understand is that diets (not fad diets, 'diets' as in controlled eating) do 100% work for any given individual. A comatose person will lose weight if you limit their calories. Absolutely anyone, I don't care about your thyroid, your "metabolism", or your "health conditions". Anyone.
The piece they're missing is the difference between an epidemiological view/study and an individual one. Epidemiologically diets don't work because people are people. Most people who've already gotten fat don't have the will to take it off. It's definitely difficult and taken as a whole most people are incapable of difficult things.
So look at 10 million fat people and yes, probably most of them will yoyo diet, if that. But take any one of them and control their food intake and they will lose weight. Diets work, they just aren't an epidemiological solution.
A dismissive, snide tone isn't really a valid argument. I know modern "you go girl" TV has made people think it is, but it's not.
A calorie is mostly, almost completely, a calorie. This study doesn't invalidate that. It's sort of a hierarchy. First worry about your caloric intake and expenditure, then worry about calorie composition. Be reasonable about the makeup of your diet, don't eat 80% fat and 20% protein, nor should you eat 75% carbs, 15% fat, and 10% protein. Finally, worry about your daily activity.
That's it. I know these facts may not make you feel good, but that's really all there is to it.
Right. But the whole context of the discussion was that BMI doesn't fit well with people who are fit or even moderately muscled. Literally _because_ it's not a measure of bodyfat. Then dude literally starts a paragraph saying it's a measure of bodyfat.
The fact is that while a 220 pound 6' well muscled man may be _ever so slightly_ more likely to get heart disease than a fit 180 pound man, a chubby 220 pound man is much more likely than that. BMI is a good tool from an epidemiological perspective, not all that useful at an individual level other than as broad guidelines.
They're being complained about but that's like complaining that a hungry bear will eat a person if it has to, or that if you chum the water and swim a shark might eat you.
People aren't going to change their tastes with respect to fat people. It's not going to happen so all the complaining does is annoy people.
Umm, BMI is not a measure of body fat. What in God's name are you carrying on about?
You keep saying this almost like a defense mechanism. By all means don't listen to us weirdos on Slashdot, see a nutritionist. I promise you they can come up with a diet for you that is a) healthy and b) slightly lower than your BMR such that you will very gradually lose weight.
This is a fact. You can't hand-wave it away.
Guh? 1800 calories is not super hard. 1200 is a slog, true.
As for your questions, easy. A glass of water does have calories, but food is usually specified in kilo calories. You gain weight because water has weight - you don't gain fat, however. And it really does come down to calories in vs calories burned, though the calories burned part of course varies by person and the calories in might as well due to different digestive systems.
Why would you have to give up working to eat 1500-1800 calories a day? And you can absolutely find plenty of nutrition in that calorie range.
You actually can, and I'm a fat guy right now. No matter how much hand-waving you do, it all comes down to how much you eat. I don't care about thyroid issues, steroids, you name it - nothing puts calories into your body other than your mouth. And nothing makes you fat but calories.
Yes, it is certainly more difficult for some people to control their eating and some may have to control it more than others, but it all comes down to control. This doesn't mean you're a bad person if you don't have perfect control of your eating. But it also doesn't mean anything else is responsible for your fitness level other than your will.
As usual with these things we always swing too far one way or the other. Fat people aren't always lazy per se, and they certainly aren't bad people, but nor are they innocent bystanders in their own condition, to be lauded or have people pretend that it's not unattractive or a health issue.