I would argue that C++ expertise doesn't necessarily correlate to the complexity of the software being developed. Although I do try to learn the fancy new features I know many developers who even though they are still only using C++11 features they are creating some very complex and impactful pieces of software.
I definitely think that’s not a coincidence. C++11 is where you get the most useful feature tradeoffs with reasonable costs.
Smart pointers being a great example. Shared ptr has its issues, it isn’t the most performant choice in most cases, but it by far reduces more footguns than it introduces.
Compared to something like std::variant in the C++17 standard that comes with poor enough performance issues that it’s rarely ever a good fit.
C++11 was for me the first version of C++ where the expressiveness justified the extra complexity relative to C. It was when I finally committed to using C++ instead of C for systems code. In the same sense, C++20 is qualitatively better than C++11 in every way and dramatically reduces the complexity of C++11 while adding many features C++11 needed.
What is this answer? Are you being serious comparing eating actual sand to caloric dense food?
Obviously calories aren't everything in terms of diet and health; vitamins, nutrients and other parts come into play. But when it comes down to actual physical weight, nothing else matters, unless you have a medical problem. Learning how calories work and counting them for some time, so you understand what you are actually eating, is the first step.
Ideally this work would be done with a professional nutritionist, since calorie counting will get you to the weight you want, but it speaks nothing of how healthy your diet is. Sadly this is not something everyone is privileged enough to be able to do.
It is also important to remember that most people who struggle with their weight, and are making an effort, are actually struggling with their relationship with food. This is something that no matter what diet you are on, or how deep your understanding of biology and nutrition is, nothing can replace actually working that deeper issue, which is not trivial and something truly personal.
Saying that people gain weight because they consume more energy than they expend is both obvious and too blunt to be useful for weight loss. The same caloric intake of protein, carbohydrates, fat, fiber, preservates, sand, poison, all act differently in your body. You can lose weight in a caloric surplus diet and gain weight in a caloric deficit diet. One fun paradox is some people who train for marathons gain body fat.
I don't have the answer. Ketosis is an example of a weight loss diet where you don't have to count calories, since the body switches into fat burning / fat cell releasing mode by default. Veganism, which starves the body of fat required for normal operation (hormones, celular function), depletes fat stores to use for these functions, and also causes weight loss without having to count calories.
One of the most important things is probably to focus on eating whole foods over processed foods. I'd also consider that fat is more satiating than carbohydrates and protein. One overfeeding study wasn't successful because they couldn't get the fat-eating group to over eat, their bodies stopped them. I'd also consider the glycemic index of foods, since insulin is the signaler to the endothelium receptor to pull excess glucose from the blood into the cells to store as fat.
It's true that your body doesn't digest all the available calories in food, and the energy extracted from the food is going to vary by food source, along with the digestion profile, or glycemic index.
So, it is true that:
> You can lose weight in a caloric surplus diet
But I don't see how it's possible to:
> gain weight in a caloric deficit diet
There are many sources of digestible and energetic food, even outside the primary 3 macronutrients. There's alcohol, for instances, in addition to the basic fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. Sand I don't understand to be calorically rich at all. Quartz isn't even an organic compound.
