Things That Don't Work
dynomight.substack.com
dynomight.substack.com
I have found as suggested by the article that the best thing to do is to start playing the actual game as quickly as possible, and answer questions progressively using any of these forms of instruction.
I get where the article is going, but the way it's written is not correct at all. If you don't read the rules first, you can't try anything.
Arguably, no. You’ve perhaps heard of the pottery class where students graded on quantity produced more quality than those graded on quality. (It was actually a photography class.) For scientists, the best predictor of having a highly cited paper is just writing lots of papers. As I write these words, I have no idea if any of this is good and I try not to think about it.
Yeah, strong disagree with this. This is not subjective or a matter of personal opinion, but quantity does not always lead to success; not at all by a long shot. Quantity helps after you have already built a brand or reputation, but quantity alone won't do that. If you look at the most successful people at any endeavor, they often had a break-out hit or success of some sort, which led to additional acclaim. The author's blog became such a big hit the first place because his earlier articles went viral, not because he wrote a lot of articles. If the necessary ingredients for virality were missing, no amount of quantity would have helped.
I don't think you are interacting with a good faith interpretation of the claim here.
then this would make quality necessary but insufficient, which he did not specify, nor can this be inferred. He clearly presented a dichotomy of choosing between quantity or quality.
Using the context of previous articles by the author, I assumed Bayesian reasoning, so I was thinking about priors and outcomes and probabilities.
If your goal is convincing your debating opponent it seldom work but what about the audience?
Yeah, thermodynamics do not apply to you.
Also, this "article" is full of opinion.
The idea that dieting is a temporary change to your food habits is why most "diets" eventually fail.
No, it is not. The misconception behind is that you have to be calorie-perfect. That is not what calorie counting is for: it's for ballparking and educating yourself. One should always count calories, measure weicght, and if the direction is going up/down adjust accordingly.
You are not measuring fuel for a plane to fly, you are eyeballing caloric input for one sack of salty water that may or may not burn it all, and that is not supposed to be a perfect calculation.
Besides, below they state: > The only way to lose weight permanently is to permanently change your food environment. Or, you know, drugs.
Drugs are not the answer and fools' gold for those that hope to make zero change in their lifestyle, take the magic pill and voila.
I personally follow a calorie counting diet, but for most people, it is not an effective way to lose weight. Obviously it is because they have issues adhering to it, not some kind of free energy power source.
It works if you accept some degree of duplication but I have seen many people screech over this
I'd argue that one big benefit of counting calories is that it teaches you that a single piece of sandwich bread contributes a surprisingly high amount of calories to your diet. This potentially empowers you to minmax your plate with the things that will get you the most enjoyment/satiation for your calories.
This depends if your metabolism adjusts. It's not like you automatically convert all surplus to fat. For some people , TDEE goes up to account for the surplus, resulting in no weight gain. Counting calories is hard though , but if the scale is going the wrong way, then this means adjust downward.
I can't remember the company, but I heard about one that started every meeting with 20 minutes or so of silence for people to read the material that they were supposed to have read before they got to the meeting. That is genius...
"If you find yourself speaking with a person who does not make sense, in all likelyhood, that person is not real."
Rather than take a multivitamin I take a high dose of some specific supplements every few days. I wonder if they have been shown to have any benefits.
I don't like people labeling them as 'ineffective', because they definitely prevent very real and life destroying conditions like cretinism and rickets. This is mostly because people think 'if I need this to be healthy, then having too much of it should make me super healthy', which is not the case. If you get enough (which most people in developed countries do) then your body can do its various functions. I've heard the metaphor 'giving a mason more bricks than he needs won't make him work faster' or something like that.
Go see a therapist? (A good one, not all of them are actually useful.)
If if you need x_n = y_n * z_n, you would write just that. Only when you write y_n * z^n would the notation imply summation over n.
Yes, but that notation still includes the indexes being summed over, which I think is the point that no. 7 was trying to make. What doesn't work is a notation that just says XY, without any indexes whatsoever. The ordering of indexes and the specification of which indexes are being summed over matters, so a notation that leaves those things out doesn't work.
Yeah, after reading about Travis, that sound about right.
Nice.