How about you hang your clothes indoors when it's raining inside? I've been doing that for years in a rainy country in a tiny studio apartment. No issues.
Dehumidifiers are pretty affordable and warms up your room a little. Still doesn’t solve the fact you need to ventilate your home. If you can - isolate your drying to a non living space.
The water that was in your clothes and evaporated over 12 hours at night naturally is the same water that evaporates in 1 hour in the powered dryer.
If you have working ventillation you're fine either way. If not - you're not. In fact I'd expect worse problems if you evaporate that same water quicker, because there's less time for it to escape outside.
Usually dryers are connected to dedicated ventilation out of the house, so the humidity doesn't transfer into your room directly. Otherwise, the laundry room would be a sauna.
Dryers typically are vented immediately outside via a dedicated tube and vent. That means that the air in the rest of the house never sees the moisture at all, so your whole-house ventilation system or dehumidifier doesn't need to work as hard.
Some driers, especially in Europe, condense the water in to a tank that you empty manually in to a sink. This is useful if you don't have an easy way to vent it and also shows just how much water is coming out of your clothes (multiple liters per load, sometimes!)
Still dependent on the overall climate. It's not necessarily about how much it rains, but how humid the air is. When I was in Virginia, it rained a lot, but the air clears up fairly quickly after rain.
In contrast, my grandmother lives in a village with such incredible rainy seasons, that this has been a pain point as perpetual as the rain itself. For a few months in summer, the air is so humid that even unused clothes have trouble stay dry. Condensation appears on the wall, and nothing ever dries, no matter where you hang them; indoors, outdoors, doesn't make a difference. Sometimes, they have no dry clothes for weeks during summer.
Claude is a bit more expensive though, no? I felt like I burned through 5$ worth of credit in one evening, but perhaps it was also because I was using the big-AGI UI and it was producing diagrams for me, often in quintuplicates for some reason. Still, I really like Claude and much more prefer it over others.
I was wondering what would be the best way to post on HN or another platform a kind of a blueprint for an idea?
I'm in the ideation/design phase of a nylon-based linear actuator project and would love to gather some feedback from people (semi)-related to any adjacent fields that could give some additional feedback on the theoretical/practical side of the product.
I think it's more that his comment did not contribute to the conversation in any way, as per HN guidelines. The idea is to keep the threads as clean of superfluous answers as possible.
I agree it is noisy and apologize for being too concise (I hoped it was clear it frustates) but find it concerning there is no agreement it should have been there. No rules for that? old articles need to he dated. videos needs to be tagged.
I added the comment as it is a clear omission and did not get revised by moderators. open source feels like to draw people in, but then you find out it is platform specific/mac-only. If this was there, it would have saved me and others time by ignoring it.
To add to your point, even if CR is proven to be beneficial, it would be very difficult for the majority of people to get CR right. More likely they'll end up restricting too much in the short/medium term, feel weak w/ no energy during this period, and will start to compensate by overeating later. Rinse and repeat.
It's such a delicate balance to maintain that without significant investment into monitoring, you're better off just consuming substantial amounts of complete protein and proper omega fat ratios + complex carbs. No need to overcomplicate things for the greater population.
> you're better off just consuming substantial amounts of complete protein
Except restriction of essential amino acids, as well as the total amount of protein, was consistently shown to improve health markers and longevity in many animal models, as well as in human epidemiological studies. It's not even news, the first evidence for methionine restriction in rodents dates to the early 90s.
I can't figure out what motivates some people to go online and assert their baseless suggestions with so much authority.
Valid point about methionine restriction. I didn't mean to come across as making authoritative claims. I am simply cautioning people against jumping into dietary changes that would cause them more harm than good.
First things first, different groups of humans have different protein requirements (pregnant women, elderly, athletes, sedentary non-active adults etc) so generalizations in nutrition science are always dangerous.
Secondly, the studies you cited have been experimental on yeast and mice, but observational and correlational with humans - nothing conclusive about how a practical reduction in methionine and leucine in the real world for real humans would work, and how it would affect them long term. Those are two completely different scenarios, with the former being highly controlled studies of non-human species.
Thirdly, even if methionine reduction did positively affect lifespan/healthspan, the reality is that most people are simply not equipped to take on such a dietary change, leading to more harm done than good.
The reality is that, yes, many animal foods contain much more methionine than plant based. However, you also have to consider that if regular people tried to switch to plant-based (aside from lacking general education about plant-based diets), in order for them to consume sufficient amounts of protein from plants, they'd end up consuming a lot more calories (not only fibre but other simpler carbs) due to the higher calorie-to-protein ratio. This, especially if they don't live very active lives, would contribute to weight gain, all the while them thinking they're being healthier by being plant-based.
I understand that these are promising studies that have been around for a while, and I was a vegetarian for 5 years before switching back to omnivore due to becoming more disillusioned by the vegetarian diet, especially as I was trying to build muscle while on veggie+fasting, and failing.
But context matters, real world conditions matter.
Correlational/observational studies don't mean shit because they cannot possibly account for the diverse lifestyle practices of the participants living in the real world, try as they might.
Hence why I'm advocating for people to simply consume more protein, because, even though there might be benefits to restricting certain AAs, a lot of other implications to this dietary change might be overlooked, causing more harm to the health long term.
It's true that conclusive lifelong human trials with appropriate controls are not available; but neither will they be, they're impractical.
The mechanistic basis for the health benefits of protein restriction is established to be conserved across species; they key aspects are mTor suppression, reduced IGF-1 levels and a shift from anabolic hypertrophy to catabolic autophagy.
This now famous study [1] showed that people in a large cohort who shifted to plant foods did manage to achieve lower mortality rates, perhaps challenging your assumption about the ability of the "regular person" to plan an effective diet that restricts protein.
In contrast to your experience, I am obtaining all micronutrients on a plant-based, whole foods diet, at under 1.5kcal/day; I drink one pea protein shake, for a total of 1.4 * bw. I'm happy with this, it's a form of "dietary restriction with optimal nutrition", but I'm not looking to increase muscle mass, because anabolic hypertrophy is detrimental to my longevity goals. I do exercise regularly and strength continues to increase, albeit modestly; this is consistent with a recent human trial that showed dietary restriction can lead to loss of muscle mass, yet without loss of strength.
Thanks for elaborating. I hope you're right, and after I'm finished with hypertrophy I'll try to tip the balance more in the direction of plant-based again. Cheers.
I feel like you're generalizing "Europe" a bit. Look at the Orthodox church, they are deep-pocketed and heavily funding the construction of monasteries, an example being Romania. It's a common thing to see in Romania actually - a lot of churches being built, to a point where it's become a running joke that there are more churches than hospitals in Romania. It's a sad thing to see, but there's plenty of that in "Europe".
