HN user
Winding down is an industry term that means not only stopping operations, but liquidating assets, resolving contracts, dealing with employees, etc. So that notice is a step in the winding down process, and it would seem like one of the easier, and earlier ones.
I wore a monitor for two weeks. As someone who basically does not eat processed food, including sugar, and has 4-5 meals a day always including vegetables/fiber it was not obvious that what I ate had any reliable impact on the count. It would go up and down seemingly at random throughout the day and night. The highest and most reliable spikes came when I was lifting weights. Likewise cardio, especially high intensity cardio made it drop to its lowest levels. The most interesting outcome was that the late afternoon hanger I often felt was not associated with a dip (or change at all) in blood glucose as I expected it would be, so that remains a mystery.
If you're part of a self funded plan, at least is some states, there is no external oversight over what they do or don't approve. There is an appeals process, but after exhausting it (where in our case it was the same reviewer in all three stages of the appeal - actually four, because they applied the wrong standard of care one of the times so we got to do it over) there is no legal recourse if they choose not to pay, whatever their rationale. My advice here, is if they tell you they can only authorize treatment once you've begun, that is not true, and if the plan is self-funded, they have very little incentive to do so, and ultimately you have no recourse if they don't.
Or basically 34% of adults in America exercise their right not to vote.
Maybe. Or they were unable to for any number of reasons, like not being able to get the time off work, for example. Compulsory voting does not mean you can't abstain, or shouldn't, but it does eliminate the people who want to vote, but for legal/logistical reasons, were unable to.
The most interesting TED talks (to you) are also presumably on topics that you’ve selected to watch. In random conversation, you may need to Taylor your responses to the situation. The idea that friends are the people who exclusively share topics of interest and therefore are infinitely interested in hearing each other speak is not realistic. This is a social skill that (s)he’s trying to develop.
This is the one thing I really miss in the transition to WFH: the two built in times a day where I couldn't work, but I could think about work- the commute. It doesn't need to be walking.
What stops authors doing what I did? Plenty of people want to read, to blame lack of readership is just completely wrong.
Because for three months of writing and it sounds like numerous hours of marketing you’ve made almost $8000. While I imagine that puts you ahead of the curve for the average self published author, The hourly return on investment sounds pretty low, especially for a job that sounds marketing heavy, which is not everyone’s cup of tea
Are you still looking?
1. Sleeping through the night, regardless of how you feel otherwise, is a great benefit. 2. Salt is anti-diuretic, so I'd suspect the effect is real, but not specific to magnesium. And like any supplement, it works for you because you presumably weren't already getting enough in your diet, so.. ymmv.
Thinking about this more, I'd say the convention wisdom on body-weight exercises is completely backwards. They're terrible for beginners, but can be valuable for people already strong enough to do them. Why are they terrible for beginners? Two reasons, either their potential for improvement is too low, like the pushup or squat, where the average person can get to 5-10 reps pretty quickly- the point at which a given resistance is no longer able to elicit strength gains. Or, the first step is so large that it's effectively unreachable. Pull-ups are great, but if you are a beginner, doing your first pull-up by doing only pull-ups is a great challenge, compared to going to the gym and doing pull-downs or assisted pull-ups starting at an appropriate weight, and making incremental progress. In short, body weight exercises can certainly be challenging, think of a gymnast, but they offer very little in the way of incremental improvement from any starting point, which is what beginners need most.
If you're able to increase your strength using body-weight exercises, then they're excellent. And they can go a long way - most people probably can't do a pull up, and very few will ever be able to do a pistol squat or a handstand pushup. However, for basics like pushups and squats, body weight offers only a beginner's level of resistance, and going to the gym not only offers the ability to continue making improvements, it makes incremental progress accessible for all kinds of movements, not just those two. Specifically, most people doing pushups and body weight squats are probably doing no pulling movements, or overhead movements.
Really, you couldn't find any bad analysis to go after instead?
You're missing the point though. They're not looking for bad science, they're politically opposed to this particular outcome.
A total of 36 healthy, recreationally active young men were selected to participate in this parallel group, randomized double blind placebo-controlled trial. Inclusion criteria were: male, aged between 18 and 40 years, healthy, and body mass index between 18.5 and 30 kg m−2. Exclusion criteria were: smoking, sports/exercise <1 or >3 sessions per week
It's well known that the immediate post-workout response to protein is far greater in the untrained population. Once you've been training a while, the necessity of eating in the immediate postprandial window for gains disappears. It's unfortunate that not only did this study not control on weight training experience but it seems to have eliminated anyone who trained more than 3 times a week.
Since it kept me up, I'll update..
Let's simplify and look at three balls, whose possible permutations are
1. rrr 2. rrg 3. rgr 4. rgg 5. grr 6. grg 7. ggr 8. ggg
There are two approaches that are intuitive and wrong, and then the right approach. Specifically it depends which question you're answering.
1. What are the odds when picking two random balls over and over from the same permutation.
- You might assume the odds of each ball are completely independent, making the odds of a first red n/100, and then a second red slightly lower at n-1/99. This is what happens when you pick two random balls over and over from the same permutation.
- You might assume that if you've selected a red ball first you must be in permutations 1-4, making the odds of a second red ball 50% (permutations 1-2). This is what happens when choosing the first (and second) ball in order from a random permutation.
- This is what we're actually being asked to do.
- In this case the odds of picking red first are proportional to the number of reds in the permutation. Specifically, picking red is guaranteed when in permutation 1, and 67% likely when in permutations 2,3, and 5, but only 33% likely when in scenarios 4, 6, and 7, and impossible in scenario 8. While it is equally likely to be in permutations 4 or 5, unlike scenario 2, you're more likely to choose a red ball when in 5 than 4, and in general, you're more likely to pick a red ball first when in a permutation that has more red balls to choose from. And because it does, the second draw is more likely to be red as well.
- Like in the Monty Hall problem, the color of the first ball is, while random, unintuitively not arbitrary, but rather an indication that there are more balls of that color to choose from in the urn, which gives you an advantage in knowing what the second draw will be.Not a unique explanation, but thinking about it like this might make it easier to understand the right answer and the wrong answer that was initially intuitive to me.
Imagine calculating the odds by choosing the first ball from every permutation of red and green balls. And then do the same by choosing a random ball from each permutation. The odds of getting red on the first pick in either case is 50% - but it's not the same 50%!
With an example of three balls, there are 8 permutations. If we take the first ball from each row, 1-4 have a red ball, and so from there, 1 and 2 have a second red ball, making the chance of a second red ball given a first 50%. However, if we take a random ball from each row, we are guaranteed to get a red first in 1, and more likely to get one in 2, 3, and 5 than the others. In those cases, red will be next 67% of the time. (100% for 1, and 50% for 2, 3, and 4.)
1. rrr 2. rrg 3. rgr 4. rgg 5. grr 6. grg 7. ggr 8. ggg
Like in the Monty Hall question, knowing that the first ball is red tells us something about the rest of the balls, that most of them are probably red too.
The actual stats on the two point conversion: "About 47.5 percent of the time since 2015 — almost exactly half that of the extra-point conversion rate." The other point is you have to make the first 2-point conversion to win. You can still tie with the next attempt, but not win. That makes the odds of winning by taking the two point conversion, pre-overtime, is 47.5%. (The odds of losing is higher, because you could also miss the second attempt and not go to overtime.) So, don't go for two.
Because it purports to make progress predictable, and measurable, which for the PMs and managers is very important.
Programming is game-like, but agreed, it's more tool-like.
tool: a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function.
Thoughts on teaching students:
1. Nobody wants to admit they don’t know. Not in front of you, certainly not in front of their peers. Related, almost nobody that needs to goes to office hours.
2. Teaching the right way to do something is the minimum. Teaching how to avoid all traps; the appealing and intuitive but incorrect or inefficient ways to do something is better. Students will amaze you with all the ways there are to fail to solve a problem.
3. There may be steps you are not articulating, because you're not aware you're doing them. If one student gets it wrong, it's probably them, if most of them get it wrong, it’s probably you. As a new teacher, you will learn as much from their struggles as they do.
4. Related, there are steps you have mastered, like a tightrope walker, than can not be immediately emulated, despite the apparent simplicity of the instructions.
5. You chose this material, they may not have.
6. Related, you want to share the material and your enthusiasm with them, which is good, but they may only want to get the minimum they need to get by.
7. As a teacher, despite the lack of respect you may feel, they see you as an authority figure. You are the institution. You are not one of them, even if you are. They don't want to see you in the hall or at the grocery store; it does not matter your respective ages.
They're all left-leaning cities, but the Gerrymandering is strong in Austin, which divides it into four Congressional districts: the 10th, 21st, 25th and 35th.
It seems there was a conflation of two expectations. The first being a material so hard that bullets just bounced off of it. The second being a material so effective at dispersing energy that bullets could not penetrate it. Kevlar is the well known example of the second category. In the end, the compressed wood seemed to improve a little in both categories, but not much. For reference from the video the same bullet that was stopped by 7 untreated boards of wood only required 3 treated pieces.
A point that was not mentioned in the article is that depending on the sport, there is a gold medal match and a bronze medal match. Both the gold and bronze medalist won that match. The silver medalist lost. Of course the bronze medalist lost previous to that to get there in the first place, but shares with the gold medalist a final victory.
I learned to use the Dvorak keyboard and was quickly as fast, and then faster than Querty. That's not what interesting. I felt like my brain was unencumbered with the additional motor control required of the Querty layout, resulting in improved memory and cognitive ability while I was typing. I would love to see this effect experimentally tested.
That's... what happens: https://www.science.org/content/article/can-dirty-mice-save-...
Because there shouldn't be a variety of price points, and innovation should not be hoarded. Healthcare should be uniformly the best it can be.
Not a unique answer, I'm sure, but you cannot feel good without exercising. The challenge can be that you don't realize how out of shape you feel until you're not, and starting to exercise can and usually does feel worse than none at all. Ideally you'll come to enjoy it, but it's a part of the maintenance required for having a human body.
A keypad door lock. Knowing the door is always (automatically) locked, being able to leave the house without a key, and being able to let someone else when I'm not there either with my phone, or by giving them a code.. I'm living in the future.
Indeed. Suffers the same superficial depth as Neil Armstrong's first words on the moon. Should have been "Without the man in this photo, the photo of a man wouldn't exist."
The far more common pathway to steroids is the 40 something man who wakes up feeling tired, sore, and grumpy and decides he has to skip the workout today. Then he realizes he's doing this more and more. He discovers TRT, gets a prescription, and feels better. Not psychologically, though that too - but physically, in that he can continue living his life at the pace he was accustomed to. He's not getting huge, he's just trying to slow the natural descent of age. For some people, working out in some fashion most days of the week is their life: their physical and social connection and outlet. When it's removed, it doesn't just mean they're not setting that record or getting those clicks, it means their everyday quality of life goes down. And it's recoverable, with TRT, and some of their friends are already doing it, so they do it. They don't have heart attacks, rages, or become massive, and they're probably pretty honest about it, not that you've have any cause to even wonder in the first place. They just get to keep going.
Of course I only know my weight and that it wasn't changing for a while despite an extreme calories deficit (from my previous norm, if not my expenditure at the time). I'm assuming that my calorie expenditure dropped, and not, for example, that I wasn't just retaining water sufficient to match the weight I would otherwise lose at the time.