It can be frustrating how studies always lump in processed meat with unprocessed meat. Unprocessed meat is nearly google-proof, since every media outlet is busy broadcasting the evils of "red and processed meat" like they're inseparable. Seems like the cholesterol argument regarding meat itself is basically the main one left.
But why would you do that? I think it's just calorie density and behavior. You might just as well have eaten a bucket of ice cream as fast as you could. I.e. before your rising blood sugar has a chance to stop you.
Though I do think the public would be better off if they replaced the bread with lettuce or something. It seems like they're willing to do that anywhere I've gone.
Even artificial sweetener leads to craving carbs in my case.
As for the "gut punch" though, sounds like gastritis or something. Unless you're being metaphorical. For me, water helps when I'm fasting and stomach pains start.
This feeling is so intense for me that I’ve come to believe it’s something to do with the carbs and my gut microbiome changing. There’s a 1-2 week delay between changing diets and having these hunger pains start/stop that makes this feel more credible to me than insulin response changes or diet boredom. But: one should not treat N=1 subjective experiences as having any real value.
My "hunger pain" is tied to the some combination of the gut biome and the blood sugar cycle. It initially insists that I should eat frequently. If I persist through it, then an hour or two later, it settles down.
Likewise, I've noticed an effect develop with artificial sweeteners where I can have small amounts without difficulty, but if I start consuming it several times in a 48 hour span, I get cramps.
In periods where I've become addicted to carbs hunger pain is much stronger, but I've been able to keep it down for many years now. So if you're getting it intensely, your gut is probably still reactivating to its old profile.
I believe restriction in the regular diet is one way of correcting it while staying in a routine. But I have also experimented with fasting, intense exercise, hot/cold contrast in the shower, and breathing exercises, and the common theme to each is to challenge homeostasis in some fashion. Obviously there's always some danger in going too far, but if our norm is total comfort, we can definitely drop some aspect of it from time to time.
And the US befriended China for important strategic reasons starting with Nixon. If they underestimated anything it was the ability of an authoritarian regime to retain power through such a period of economic growth. Middle classes tend to want western products and media. But the economic growth itself was a deliberate goal of US policy.
I was going to add some about at least several decades of US/Western approach being from a playbook of having the market kind of lead to liberalization on its own, and the Chinese government's ability to reap the rewards while maintaining control, but I didn't want to bloat the comment.
As for xenophobia being the opposite, I imagine the comment being referenced (now several levels above) was using -phobia in the common modern sense of including bias or prejudice and not literally fear.
I'd expect there to be a high correlation. People willingly choose to spend less time with friends and devote themselves to activities when the choice is easy because those activities are almost completely fulfilling, except occasionally when they aren't fulfilling anymore but the person is still alone.
On the other hand there are people who can't bear to be alone at all. Which seems like a different issue.
Depends how they got that way. Will they pay for it? Perhaps they made an unwise investment and should have paid for more rights.
I have seen the case where someone buys a parcel from a larger property. Then turned around and demand easement access from the neighbor on the other side who was not party to the deal, because that neighbor has better roads and is easier to cross.
Financial leveraging is risk. You can lose your principal. Investors pay for building new homes too.
Speculators do need to get burned periodically to correct bubbles though. Especially now. Making money because you bought sooner than someone else could (practically enshrined in the California constitution) is not really adding value so on average should not pay off any better than inflation.
As your second paragraph is saying, "risk" isn't inherently valuable. That's also what the GP is saying, you just might disagree on the situations it applies to.
Yes in that the situations they refer to account for all investment of any kind being "a bad thing", while I criticize certain govt policies. But other than that, same page yes.
I don't see a problem with these real estate developers that are building and managing large apartments complexes themselves. Seems like they're doing a lot to add supply at the lower end. Even if they do maintain a certain vacancy rate.
But equity is supposed to go up in value because of profit and growth and whatnot, not just in price. That's why you buy it. At least in a normal universe. They still need to know there was a scam going on to be culpable for it.
Though I can see taking whatever cash payments they got back, if it rightfully belongs to scammed customers.
US culture doesn't trap people in minimum wage jobs their entire lives. Even fast food places have raises and promotions. Maybe you're being hyperbolic there? It does generally require people to work and try, which can appear impossible if they lack a working parent or other role model to help them believe they can do it. This is not something welfare solves though. It possibly makes it worse. Something like shop classes in schools (which used to exist) and apprenticeships would be a direct solution, because as we constantly hear, the jobs are there looking for people.
