This. I'm as exhausted as anyone about the latest macro/micro nutrient diet. But also, when I binge on a bag of potato chips, I assume (correctly) that I'll feel like shit later. Calorie dense food that's easily procured and eaten to excess was not part of our evolutionary path up to now. Every individual person is a cornucopia of variables though too, and one persons perfect diet would kill someone else. So advice is hard to give out, but there are clearly some broad guidelines to eating and health that help you mitigate bad dice rolls.
> one persons perfect diet would kill someone else
Besides allergies, that's not literally true, is it? Or would you say that allergies or severe intolerances are common enough that such dramatic diet fitness differences exist?
I think we're only beginning to appreciate just how sensitive our guts are to the abuse modern high-calorie food can dish out.
Honestly, given the extent to which many people's diets consist primarily of bleached and re-enriched wheat separated from the germ or simply refined corn, I think there are many more people who are slowly poisoned by their diet than realize it.
Yet there's plenty of hyperbole in my statement too. I don't think you could murder someone by making them eat your diet, unless it consisted of bags of broken glass.
This is awesome. I knew about orgnice and orgzly ... this is different, so light weight, so easy to find things. I used org aggressively to track tasks and as a Roam alternative and this fits my use cases wonderfully.
I'm adding some nice-to-have features and will open up a PR with some of them very shortly!
Christ, this is like a textbook definition of sealioning. You've hijacked multiple threads here persistently asking for more and more evidence of their claims. If you don't agree with an argument, provide your own counter evidence. Stop harassing people and do your own work, or stop reading the threads with people you don't think have valid opinions or have no evidence.
At this point, I'd almost think you were a bot yourself, as your oblivious to the social standards of online forums and/or manipulating them intentionally.
What source? The US birth rate was absolutely not steady from 1990 to 2010 according to the OECD [0]. Fear mongering aside, surely the prospect of a population failing to birth enough new lives to replace the ones that die, as happened in France last year, seems like a bad thing for a capitalist system that depends on growth uber alles. AI and efficiency be damned, fewer people buy fewer things.
They should have said total fertility rate. Birth rates have absolutely been in a steady decline for decades.
EDIT, also, looking at TFR, it's been bumping around but there was clearly a collapse in the 60s. I wouldn't use that to show that the population of the US is growing healthily enough to support capitalism.
Oh man ... it's been years since I read this, but it all came flooding back reading that post. Brilliant. And interestingly, "Choose again" is shockingly similar to Steve Job's "Don't be trapped by dogma," philosophy.
It's not a great solution, but you can vote with your wallet and simply not partake in that form of entertainment. I can't say it's fun to be not up on current games, or to find indie/non-drm games to play. But piracy is just an end-around a terribly policy of non-ownership that manages to both not remunerate the folks who do the work and make no impact on the actual problem which is that we don't like the non-ownership clause in modern games.
So yeah, TLDR, vote with your wallet and give up the entertainment this time.
I suspect at least part of this has to do with the fact that, relative to four wheeled vehicles, you can buy "impressive" motorcycles for relatively little cash compared to say, buying a truly performant sports car. Combine this low cost with an unrelentingly social pressure to show off, mix in one part social media and two parts a belief that you are invincible and I believe you'll have your cocktail of poor outcomes on fast two-wheeled vehicles.
But also, car drivers have this unfortunate tendency "to not see" motorcycles. Technical means like headlight interrupters can improve noticeability but are prohibited in some jurisdictions.
e-recycling is only marginally better than a landfill. At least a landfill in pseudo-regulated government economy has the chance to be safely abated in 100 years. Though a few things of value are sometimes extracted, mostly it all ends in places like Turkey or India and burned or buried.
Sorry for the cynical take, but patronizing folks like this is worse than cynicism because it suggests that you actually believe what you're saying is true.
While I wont argue about it feeling like a conspiracy theory, I will argue that pretty much no one knows sideloading as a term with regards to what i-drive meant by it.
And the fact that `adb sideload` is where the concept originated does nothing to dispel the way the term is frequently used in a derogatory fashion these days. It's wielded as a bogey man to make people afraid of unsigned applications. Despite the fact that many perfectly signed applications are full of malware and dark patterns.
Also, FFS, this is hacker news. Why on Earth would be arguing in favor of Google locking down how I can install software on my device.
I bought an iphone knowing that Apple has a review process and that I'm limited to apps sold in their store. Similarly, when I had an Android device I knew what I was getting in to.
I appreciate the fairly high level of review that apps get and I completely back Apple's right to control what runs on the OS they developed. Similarly, if _you_ want to run an OS you got from XDA on your Android device and install random stuff, I'll be the last person to stop you.
Hacker news readers are part of the small circle of people who have probably developed a decent intuition for whether software we download is clean or not. Most folks I know do not have this intuition, and many will not bat an eyelash when their new app asks for access to their contacts, etc. Sideload should absolutely continue to be a term that discourages the average person from doing it.
hah, thanks. It's a bit more nuanced than that. Let me try again.
I completely support Apple's right to publish software that makes it difficult for unapproved software to run on it.
Similarly, I support your right to try running something else on it.
Just like my neighbor has the right to publish a browser that makes it difficult to run extensions in it, and I have the right to use a different browser.
Some people would like the phone OS to be regulated like a public utility. I do not support that, and if we _had_ to have it that way, it would be important to have the same standards for everyone and regulate _all_ phone OSes equally. I don't like the thought of what that would do to the chances of any "open" offering.
> The phrase after the "but" in the second sentence isn't the "summary definition". It's the part of the definition that best supports your argument. Cutting the Wikipedia definition down to that part is deceptive.
Wat?
Everything after the "but" is what Google means when they use the term sideload and is the only important part of the definition for f-droid's purposes. The other definition is completely irrelevant and, I would argue, hardly ever used anymore.
reply