john567

I can tell you exactly how I noticed it because it was on my workstation this reproduced originally.

I have a Ryzen 9 5950X CPU and it has a crazy fan ramp. Anytime a process maxes out the CPU it will be audible to me when I'm working. Now, to put this in perspective. It doesn't happen when I'm gaming. I can play Diablo 4 and Cyberpunk 2077 without this noticable fan noise but when setup.exe loses it, the fan noise is how I notice it. It will max out one core and I'm going to assume "never" complete. The longest I waited was 78 CPU minutes before killing the process. This would happen now and then but it would not prevent Chrome from successfully updating. So, it was bizarre to begin with.

This is so fitting because even if Microsoft is deprecating and giving up on this monstrosity the executable is still sitting there. Serving legacy web apps that should have been abandoned a long time ago...

This thing branched horribly. You had to use instructions to selectively write to distinct memory locations to avoid typical branching because misprediction was expensive.

This was Frostbite/Battlefield 3 era. Good Times.

Yes, we're spending the summer in Denmark. If we like what we see this is the best option. It all hinges on how this year's election goes. I don't know why I believe we can change but I hope we bring about something new and start fixing problems.

Taxes in the Scandinavian countries are similar but it wouldn't be as frustrating to pay them if everything else was working as intended.

My situation is foobar and I rather go to some place where you as an individual have more freedom and responsibilities. New Zealand sounds nice and warm though.

HDMI is pretty prevalent. I don't see any consumer electronics supporting much else...

You expect some enormous sea monster but all you got was some kind of immortal sea weed. Trees have this thing as well. Many tree organisms are 100 000 years old. There's also some kind of distinction between tree organisms and tree individuals. Tree individuals don't get to be that old.

It's sounds like you'd be interested to live in my country (born and raised here, I'm almost 40 now and have two kids, happily married etc) but I don't think you know all too much about Sweden. And if you really want to know, ask away, I will answer as truthfully as I can.

The tax rate hasn't always been this high. It's basically the result of government overreach over the past 100 years. I don't think you need to take more than 25% to provide essential services but I also expect people to pay more for the services that they use. I want people to allocate capital more so that the government.

Right now, Sweden has a serious immigration problem. 2 million new people over that past 20 years, a lot of them from radically different cultures. Our social welfare is being used to support these people and they aren't able to contribute back. This is a net drain on our economy and I'm not super happy about that. The studies we have show that these people don't integrate and don't generate tax revenue. And I'm not paying these taxes for their benefit, I'm paying these taxes to build a better future for my kids.

For the longest time, the lie that was being told was that it be a huge asset and opportunity for Sweden and it could have turned out this way, Sweden has had successful immigration in the past but it didn't turn out this way this time.

You talk about progressive taxation and income inequality but people forget that you need a healthy economy as well. You can't just tax everybody and expect equality.

Despite everything you think you may know about Sweden, we have the most gun violence and the most rape in Europe. The Swedish police can't be bothered with solving all the rape because of all the killings.

We have an energy crisis because environmentalists wants to shut down our nuclear reactors (50% of our energy production) and replace it with wind whit cannot work short term or during winter.

I will stop here. At some point Sweden did deserve it's reputation but this country is living on old merits. There's so much crap going on right now that I will take my chances. At least in a free and open society I'd be able to make a bigger impact myself.

Sweden, the way I think we should look at it is the discrepancy between what my employer is paying me and what I receive in my bank account.

That's 51.8% of what I make. That is the government is taking just slightly more than half of everything I earn.

In order to answer what I think is reasonable to pay in tax, we need to look at what the Swedish government spends it's money on. Core infrastructure, health care, school, police etc. This is about 30% of the current government spending. That is frightening to me. I'd be happy to pay less in tax, frankly I want to pay as little as possible but Sweden has this huge government apparatus and it's growing by the day with all kinds of more or less non-essential government arms. I could go into details but I won't right now. I just don't want to finance a lot of this with my money.

It won't be possible any time soon but I'd love to see my tax rate cut in half and given the spending of our governments it should be possible but only if we make it a priority.

N=1 isn't an argument either. I'm simply saying what a lot of people in my situation also thinks. It's just sensible that you don't stay because you like paying taxes. You stay where you are because of family and friends. To say that it doesn't influence people decision is deceiving.

all the statistical research in that area.

Calling BS on that right there

No it's not. I'm currently contemplating leaving my country of residence because absurd tax rates. I'm a productive member of society and high earner but I'm starting to loose faith in my institutions. If you keep on taxing, and fail your responsibilities, people get fed up and leave, that's what they do. Only the people that don't have the means to leave stay creating a particular nasty downward spiral of people without jobs and home ownership dependent on government subsidies.

We should all learn from this and understand that if we don't fight for and uphold our liberties they will be taken away from us. Every fight matters and if it wasn't for the US constitution this might have gone down very differently.

Politics aimed at making a specific type of energy unprofitable by taxing it to death is not. It's activism.

Sweden cannot depend on solar alone, we have plenty of hydro in the northern parts of the country and wind doesn't work during winter. Wind also kills birds and insects, en masse.

People have an irrational fear towards nuclear. Fact is, very few people have died because of nuclear energy. If you compare deaths vs produced watts, nuclear is the single safest energy source by several orders of magnitudes.

Also, I don't know if that's a typo or a misunderstanding but we are not talking about nuclear weapons, i.e. nukes we are talking about thermonuclear energy production. These are two different things altogether.

So, what's your argument? That people won't buy nuclear energy on an open market or that an open market for nuclear energy doesn't exist?

In Sweden, where I live, about half of our electricity is from nuclear. It's built and operated by a state owned entity called Vattenfall and while they currently have a politically appointed board that is against nuclear they operate (for profit) all of our nuclear reactors. The only reason we don't build more is because they've made it practically impossible (not illegal) to expand nuclear energy through various political motivated decisions. Sweden had a referendum on the continuation of nuclear energy after the Chernobyl accident, we did vote, though by a narrow margin to transition away from nuclear. However, this past winter we had huge supply issues and people ended up having to pay 4x for electricity due to the premature shutdown of nuclear (meanwhile we had to power up oil and gas burning to compensate). Right now, most people in Sweden are of the opinion that we should keep our nuclear reactors. I, together with several others would like to us to expand our energy production from nuclear to prevent a reliance on oil and gas.

See, now I know you're just lying because the equation isn't at all the same across all countries. Maybe you don't like nuclear and that's fine but you don't have to lie about it.

What county are we talking about here?

Well the messaging should be positive. Maybe we someday can have a public informed discussion on health. I don't think shaming will work too well but we have to acknowledge that being fat is not good. But also that it's a fixable thing you shouldn't be ashamed of. When we concede language to protect feelings I'm not sure we're going down the right road. I wish for people to be healthy and their best but you have to know that there are options to be better.

This is exactly their conclusion.

Our suggestions are very prosaic: Be nice to yourself. Eat mostly what you want. Trust your instincts. > Diet and exercise won’t cure obesity, but this is actually good news for diet and exercise. You don’t need to put the dream of losing weight on their shoulders, and you can focus on their actual benefits instead

I haven't read it all but I have read a lot and I have been doing this for a long time.

To give people an excuse that diet and exercise is not the answer, it's irresponsible.

Our world makes it incredibly difficult to be healthy. My opinion is simply that you should still try everything you can to be healthy. The problem as I see it is that people have no clue what to eat and what not to. Most people just eat what their parents ate and think nothing of it. We buy food at a grocerie store thinking this is food because it came from a grocerie store. Most stuff in a grocerie store will slowly kill you.

And about those lab rats. They are inbred clones. Maybe suitable for some lab work but the fact that they are getting fatter has to do with their awful genetics. And yes, there's obviously some variability there.

I've been thinking about what this blog series for the past days and they don't seem to understand that muscle gain and weight loss happens slowly over years. If you're fat and you don't want to be fat anymore you have a really difficult job a head of you.

To make up excuse to pretend and act as if reality isn't exactly this is disingenuous and it's going to lure people into false sense of security. Not good.

!?!? Lulz. Okay.

??? Fission is incredible profitable. It's the only source of reliable electricity we have (with a negligible CO2 impact).

The only reason fission isn't more profitable is politics. Politics are making investment and research into fission needlessly costly.

This must be part of some disinformation effort to streer people away from the simple answer.

Their conclusion is that you're helpless if your fat and that's just not true. The idea that this is not in your hands is ridiculous. If you are fat and you don't want to be fat you simply change your eating habits. This can be very difficult to do because you have formed these habits throughout your life but it isn't complicated and you should just do it anyway.

I've been doing this long enough and I know this stuff well.

If you want a simple answer there is one. It's all about the nutritional quality of the food you eat. Everything is down stream from that.

We can go into all the specifics but it doesn't change the fundamentals. Moreover, given just how complex biological systems are you are of course going to have things like gut health play a role but it doesn't change the fact that if you eat the wrong stuff you wreck your gut. This in turn will create more complexities but the solution though is somewhat simple. Stop eating and give your body a break. This is why fasting is super useful.

You talk about going to a bakery to get "real stuff" unfortunately bread is excess carbohydrates (like sugar) no matter what. Unless you're physically active you should probably just cut down on bread altogether. Bakery stuff could be made with love and care which would make it a better quality food but it's not nutritionally important. It's just rocket fuel for your muscles and you don't need a lot of it.

Not talking about fortification. Food processing in this context means taking food through some incredible steps in order to create a cheap, "addictive" product you can sell. This often involves adding some kind of sugar.

This is false because everything isn't metabolized the same. I don't like this idea of trying to apply physics. It's not the right model.

Simple example, you eat only protein and fat, you don't gain weight. You substitute some fat for carbohydrates and you suddenly go up in weight. This despite you just went down in calories.

You can also mess with your feeding window and loose weight. Simply cram in a days worth of calories over a few hours and eat nothing for the rest of the day and you'll likely loose weight do the opposite (eat several times during the day) and you gain weight. Assuming same total calorie count overall.

Look,

Given what you just shared, I'd guess your metabolism is quite high. That just means it takes more for you to put on weight. If you're young then this even less of an issue. For me, a lot of sugar has about the same effect as a lot of alcohol because they break down into glucose all the same. Didn't use to be like this but gotten more noticable with age for me.

Refined sugar is evil. Food companies use this to sell more, lookup "bliss point". Sugar is also addictive. We are not equipped to deal with this.

Nutrition science is recovering but it was set back by some bad research that should have been abandoned post WW2. Lookup the origin of calorie counting. Since you're cutting out sugar from your diet I'm assuming you understand precisely how bad something like the standard American diet is for your health.

Insulin is key to weight gain and loss. If you struggle with high insulin levels then you cannot lose weight because your body doesn't burn fat when insulin is high.

I believe (based on what I've read) that weight gain and loss is not a mystery. If someone is fat it is because of what they eat. You may wish to find a specific chemical reaction at the core but the body is a complex system. You make one change and it will effect something else. This is what should have been studied in place of "calories". Hormones regulate and we mess with them by putting bad food into our bodies, we fix that by not putting bad food into our bodies.

Therefore, I see no reason to say that we don't know why people are fat. We know precisely why people are fat.

If you have to ask, I firmly believe you're overthinking it.

Everything went pretty much sideways around 1960s right about the time the processed food industry came to be. Hmm...

No. It is absolutely not a virus...

Most of what you can buy in a grocerie store is bad for you. It has been optimized for profit, i.e. consumption.

Then you can of course pile on all kinds of contributing factors but this isn't necessary to understand why people are fat.

I don't blame fat people for being fat but it's not a mystery why they're fat. And it's not easy for them to change everything about their lifestyle to get fit but that's what they need to do.

And, despite our best efforts, we still don’t have a single good answer as to the cause of obesity’s rapid rise in prevalence.

What compelled this person to write that sentence!? I know he's looking for a very technical answer but the answer to this question is simple and everybody knows it. They just ignore it.

According to Swedish newspaper Expressen, this is happening on Monday.

I guess it's for the best. I've not really held a position on NATO but the whole point of the alliance is to not allow for the kind of war that is taking place in Ukraine. I hope this leads to the best possible outcome for all.

And nature is messy. And this is a very natural way for us to do things. And much in the spirit of evolution. And competition in an open market.

It's a healthy thing though some software projects probably should just go and die already.