wonnor

GLP-1 agonists are in an entirely different universe of appetite suppression compared to ketogenic diets.

It's great that you found a diet that worked for you, but it's strange to say that the article is remiss to not include your specific diet - unless you also think it should include every diet. For any given diet, you can find people whom it helped tremendously, and the carnivore diet is no different. There's also very little evidence for its effectiveness (which is not to say it's not effective, just that it's not particularly well-studied). Personally, I could eat enough meat daily to get very fat if I wasn't counting my calories. When my compliance is struggling, I find high-fiber diets to be the most effective in curbing hunger.

Is the point here that we already can't control civilization, so we don't have to worry about AI interfering with our ability to control civilization? Is it really impossible to imagine us having even less control over civilization - and that being a bad thing?

Generally the advantage of a bishop over a knight is its increased mobility. The bishop pair is more mobile than N+N or B+N and can control both color complexes. To exploit the mobility advantage, good players tend to try to "open up" the position more to increase the scope of the bishops. A classic example of a strategic goal if you want to play for an open position is to keep the pawn structure fluid (as opposed to locked up), which can be too subtle for weaker players.

Can you point to a single usage in the context of property prices where "being down X%", without specifying that X is referring to a YoY increase, means what you say?

I think it goes without saying that if the small countries near the edge of the world are the only ones participating in free trade, there's not a whole lot of free trade going on. Not to mention the astronomical increase in shipping costs that would occur if the world stops collectively deciding that intercepting container ships is off-limits.

There are myriad other examples where you can take action now to avail yourself of a future mild inconvenience that you might not take if the inconvenience were experienced by someone else instead. And I can't imagine that you think telling me I don't understand what GP said, without offering clarification of your own, is a useful comment.

Why set your future self up for success if your only connection to that person is a story in your head? What is supposed to change when you take this view of being disconnected with your future self?

I don't understand this at all. Do you also think like this about the "future you" that might have to shit themself on the bus ride if you don't go to the bathroom before you leave?

The person you are arguing with said this:

But then you can invest that extra profit in decreasing your foreign currency price, thus becoming more competitive.

How could walking possibly burn fewer calories per unit time than a tiny leg movement?

There is almost no amount of physical activity that can offset excess consumption.

Very odd statement to make without quantifying how much "excess" there is in the "excess consumption". If walking a couple extra hours a day on vacation burns (say) 500 calories, that's a pretty large buffer of extra food you can eat - a 20% increase if you're eating 2500 calories per day. But of course a determined glutton can out-eat this.

What a shame that chess is becoming more accessible to the unwashed masses.

The fact that these grandmasters would get destroyed by engines means that no, we are not even close to chess being solved for human gameplay.

There are three main possible future outcomes:

1. You get divorced and she keeps her money

2. As a couple, you never spend "her" money because it's "her" money. You die having spent none of the money

3. At some point in the future, you start spending "her" money

(3) doesn't make sense given she's uncomfortable with it now. (2) also doesn't make much sense. So to me it seems like either she's acting irrationally or expects that (1) is a strong possibility.

I have no experience with this subject, but I don't think hot food needing to be "held" at 135°F has any implications regarding the cooking temperature. The document you linked seems to be forbidding holding TCS food below 135°F for more than 4 hours.

To claim that you need to spend money equal to the tax-assessed value of the building over the course of 30 years to maintain equal value is slightly less ridiculous, but still not exactly reasonable. The (conservative) rule of thumb is 1% of the property value per year in repairs, which would be 30% of the property value over 30 years. And even then, it seems there's no shortage of fairly decrepit buildings that have no problem finding tenants.

>~30 years later, you've deprecated it down to an effective value of $0

An no one will now rent, since your building has an effective value of $0 since it has become crap.

Are you really in good faith trying to argue that nobody will rent a house that is 30+ years old?

Let me try! Credit cards make cryptocurrency (which doesn't have broad merchant support, charge-back ability, and, you know, the literal "credit" part of it) entirely obsolete.

What indexes did you add on Postgres for that query?

You are comparing performance on your system with an index on all three columns to a system with no indexes on the filter columns.

So you have a primary key ("row key") and each column C is essentially its own table containing column C and the primary key column, with the index being on column C. You can see how there is data duplication here, right? Each primary key value is duplicated #columns times.

So we have a mapping from column value to row index. Is there an inverse mapping stored if I want to find all column values contained in a given row?

Can you explain what you mean by "grouped together to form relational tables"? Is a row comprised of pointers into each key-value store? It sounds like you have removed the decision to add indexes by adding an index to every single column.

What part of "I want less censorship and more 'free speech'" implies that censorship needs to go to 0 and free speech needs to go to 100? Drawing somewhat arbitrary lines between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable is not the impossibly difficult task that people who make this argument like to think it is. The US first amendment excludes certain types of speech and it hasn't been a problem.

You're not understanding. You always have $1000 of non-tied up funds. Start with $1000 cash. Then, instead of investing your next $500, put it in bonds. After a year, remove $500 cash from the emergency fund and invest it. You now have an emergency fund of $500 cash and $500 withdrawable bonds.