Certainly it's possible to overeat even without carbs and still gain weight. However, there is more to fat storage than just calories. Like many systems in the body, fat storage is controlled by hormones. Hormones are affected by the types of food you eat. Therefore, what you eat can also influence the amount of fat you store.
Source for probably the most contentious piece of moderation Twitter has ever done being manual was their own statement:
“After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence,”
The weight change = calories in - calories out theory assumes that calories out is some easy to deduce number.
Calorie expenditure can't be determined by just plugging your height, weight, and activity level into an online calculator. The body is more complicated than a bucket with a fixed size hole in it and all you have to do is pour water in at a rate less than it drains out. The body produces hormones to signal to its systems whether to store food. Those hormones are determined by many factors including how much you eat but also what you eat, your genetics, your stress level, how much sleep you get, etc.
Yes identifying the exact “calories out” number would be a monumental task. That said, we have a very strong understanding of the ballpark amount of calories it takes to keep your body alive and working for a single day - it’s around 1800, give or take a few hundred calories depending on a few features that you mentioned. With this in mind, it is simple to run a calorie deficit, even if you don’t know exactly how much that number is.
> If each side really knew the true strength of the other side, it would be clear which would win
This is too simplistic. Often wars are heavily influenced by things other than just the strengths of both sides. For example - What if the ground hadn't been soaked from days of rain at Agincourt and Waterloo? What if the Germans hadn't held back their armor reinforcements for so long on D-Day?
They'd still lose. Wars are fought not from individual battles but from logistics. Modern military's don't even engage if there isn't a lopsided power imbalance favoring their success.
Look at the orders of magnitudes differences in casualties in desert storm, iraq, and afghanistan. When Americans battle they ensure they have a massive power advantage for every fight and this is abundantly clear just from the casualty data. Even if the other side engages first like in desert storm, Americans ensure that they don't land boots unless they have a tactical advantage which they had in Desert Storm thanks to technology that Saddam and his army, which was one of the largest and experienced land forces in the world at the time, could not begin to compete with.
In real life the battle of mogadishu saw Americans with 10x fewer casualties. Most modern battles have numbers like this with an order of magnitude fewer casualties on the American side, because American logistic planners try to ensure a massive power advantage.
Unfortunately, data collection and data sales (either of the data directly or via targeted ads) is how many modern internet companies generate revenue. It’s easy to claim that they should just charge money directly for their product but their would-be customers seem to rather pay with their data than a monthly fee.
In fact, anecdotally, it’s often the vocal critics of data-funded tech companies who post an archive.is version of every paywalled article.
Oh man, that’s such a false equivalency. Because someone thinks journalism should be done in the open, particularly when the topic of commentary, doesn’t mean they want their private information (location, sex partners, whatever) sold to the highest bidder without their informed consent.
that is attacking a strawman that the comment did not make. It IS a paradox that people want information to be free but not if other people use it for advertising.
Am I missing something, or is the PRC dataset the only one they don't disclose the real size and instead are releasing a "representative sample of 2048 accounts"?
I wonder how massive that network might have been.
> We must recognize with clear mind the butterfly effect, broken windows effect, and snowball effect triggered by this event, and the unprecedented challenge that it has posed to our online opinion management and control work.
> All Cyberspace Administration bureaus must pay heightened attention to online opinion, and resolutely control anything that seriously damages party and government credibility and attacks the political system ...
Interesting to search for "Daszak" on ycombinator itself, who was used early on as a Chinese propaganda mouthpiece.
Check the lab-leak discussions and when you wonder about a user, check if they were dormant/hacked accounts re-activated, or created in late 2019. Check how knowledgeable they are about Nuclear Engineering and how they all moved to Germany or Canada as a foreign student. Check if they know specific details about Asia/HK/China to counterargument. Check if they show up with negative comments if Tesla or Amazon is discussed. Check the order of comments in these threads to spot a pattern. Check if the top comment addresses the issue, or proposes a derail or invokes whataboutism. Check for how long you feel like reading the top comment thread, before clicking away. Check which comments were flagged. Check how long the article remained on the frontpage.
> Congress has delegated the authority to make these decisions to regulatory agencies
Yes, but at some point there must be a limit to how much power they can delegate. If Congress created a new Super-Congress that it granted all the powers of Congress, I would contend that would be unconstitutional. It clearly goes against the founding principles of having three branches of government. That would be akin to the government creating a fourth branch without amending the constitution.
Amending the constitution is a process that is clearly defined by the constitution. If that process isn't needed to create a fourth branch of government, a change that changes the core of the constitution, what would it ever be needed for and why would they have included it?
...except for the delegation of power to mandate vaccines apparently, which is the focus of this discussion.
If we are going to talk about what's the right answer from a position of "if the court says it that's how it goes" then I can assume you're happy with this court decision?
Yes, I'm happy with it from a "balance of power" perspective. I would like a different outcome, regarding vaccine mandates, but that responsibility lies with congress, and unfortunately one of our political parties is anti-science and anti-vaccine, which means it won't happen.
Still, I'm happy that we're not breaking the rules for the convenience of getting an outcome I'd like better.
Exactly. The noble lies have crushed their credibility because no one knows until later whether a particular comment was a well intentioned lie or the truth.
Everyone I personally know who is skeptical about institutional guidance advocating the vaccine or protective measures like mask mandates and lockdowns can cite a litany of previous lies or half truths by the same institutions. They did not start as medical institution skeptics — the last 18 months turned them into skeptics.
