735 karma · joined January 7, 2014
The Republican leaders haven't exactly been beacons of scientific accuracy and review in this emergency. So it lines up, that one would also get caught in a widespread new policy banning vaccine disinformation.
Since no regulator would touch social media regulation because of how that looks, however if it enables people dieing at a unprecedented rate then regulators may feel their hand is forced to do something.(facebook/instagram right now is in hot water with regulators too) I doubt anything regulation wise would help or even be good, this is just youtube making sure it looks like the market is regulating itself.
I think also this is to signal to other users 'see we don't pick favourites anyone can get banned'
Most of them moved to because of demonetization... Where swearing can demonetize a video as well as mentioning rape or murder in contexts explicitly. Yes that is horrible to punish literal historians talking about these events that really happened that we should be educated on but, how do you separate those from actually hateful content so charmin/coke/corporation still will pay you to run ads?
Letting people think the vaccine is dangerous without scientific proof when they could die without it, isn't government regulation friendly.
edit: to day I learned there's a down vote feature lol. Didn't know acknowledging a private company has interests beyond letting people saying w/e when want when it can negatively impact their bottom line would be so controversial. Also banning him for being conservative is very different from banning spreading vaccine misinformation. Then grouping that with removing historians incomes due to messy AI implementation to save YouTube's ad friendliness to keep their bottom line is just a victim complex.
It's the perfect way to approach it. If what is being said is verifiably false and causes tremendous harm to people why should politicians get treated differently?
What other policies should they be exempt from because they are trying to build a brand for politics?
If American politicians had no outside interests than sure. It's currently a fundamentally flawed system: political games, corporate interests, religion and re-elections all cloud actual discussion and turns it into a show.
Nothing in house is driven by real data, both sides don't see the actual reality of what ever situation they're in. They take random data points to mislead voters to their position, each side having different areas they fudge the numbers on.
Must have spoken in greater lengths about negatives that don't have any scientific bases. Which honestly at this point makes sense to start punishing. Where most of the people against the vaccine (Tucker Carlson/Bret Weinstein) at this point that are popular have taken it but puppet different positions for building a brand and/or money.
Hell there are memes about the old dude TRT being the fittest he's ever been and being able to crush your gains comparatively
Longevity is activity, understanding your BRM, and extra if you aren't seeing results is microbiome stuff like eating foods that don't mess with your micro biome like artificial sweetners.
As an aside: I doubt many people will trust this but if you're all about your micro biome and found there isn't much science around your specific scenario are willing to try weird things, try going off what's recommended for your Ayurveda types. Which is surprisingly finding traction in other aspects of psychology and nutrition but still very early. Just drop the spiritual stuff and take that as what their explanations why there are results from diet effecting mental health and a way to preserve it over this many generations
I notice negligible changes otherwise, I think that part is the coming down to genetics micro biome and what you're eating.
>That suggests that for me, not all calories are calories.
That's way too deceiving for newbies to read cause, yes but no. Once you're out of obesity body fat ranges and into just higher than normal that's when you can see benefits from the aggregate of the tiny changes. So looking at that low level helps alot, however if you're cutting by 300-500 calories that's plenty of wiggle room to account for your metabolism handling fat better than carbs and vice versa especially when starting out.
If one not weighing everything and measuring it will make it seem much more like a calorie isn't a calorie because it's much easier to accidentally 'over eat' enough to change your hormone response to eating. Like cooking oils, they could be adding 200+ calories to your meal without you realizing it. Carbs wise a bowl of pasta is great for you but one extra scoop and boom there goes 100-200 calories, changing your average cut amount from maybe 300-500 to 100-200.
You need consistency to communicate with your body those fluctuations is what causes gains of fat.
*after spend weeks eating consistently, verifying your TDEE then take 200-500 calories off of it.
Then, when you prove your TDEE is something stupid outside the range of the calculator's guess, it's about your metabolism. For instance, finding out you can only maintain weight if you eat only x calories a day kinda sucks when you want to intuitively eat twice that. You're forced then to operate as a scientist, figuring out how to change it to your advantage. Where you have to watch everything to figure out what has thrown it in X or Y direction. Reverse dieting and such are also popular areas for fitness nerds, where you retrain your metabolism not to suck for w/e your goals are. (Even harder than your typical dieting.)
Like cutting out artificial sweeteners and only to sugar in moderation to keep in my carb ranges kept me more full and I ended up breaking out of my plateau even though I kept the same amount calories and macro split
It's not bring your own but still upgradable, which is what I care about, especially with a smaller company obviously trying to keep everything ethics of repairability.
When you're lifting heavy having one day at maintenance or a gain in the middle of a cut all of a sudden your body loves to get water weight/bloat/put on fat. It's hard to tell which, so I say 'lose' progress cause that weight/bloat/fat can be 1-3 pounds where I'm trying to lose .5-1 pound a week at most to avoid stretch marks. Normally I'd say this doesn't matter, so long as the trend line is down over all.
--my weirdly specific scenario that maybe interesting to fitness nerds-- However I'm in a fun very specific situation where I'm mtf trans, where I'm in fat redistribution the only science I have is like 2 studies showing that I lose fat is typical for males with normal testosterone and start generating fat as for a female with normal estrogen. So the trans 'bro science' approach is to use that logic and cycle 5-10 pounds on and off over time so you'll have better results appearance wise.
While I've noticed a bunch of anecdotal differences of losing and gaining fat from compared to when I wasn't on hormones 3 years ago and sucking at dieting. Now I'm at about 23-4% body fat that if I lose is coming from very specific sections of my stomach and not evenly distributed. So even at what would be healthy calorie deficit I get stretch marks from anything over 300cal and only small ones (if I do get them) when I'm doing 200-300.
To your point, I think everyone has been getting tighter and tighter schedules. To be fair to the author, they could even be a good example of this. Where there's so much nuance to this topic they have deadlines, do they deep dive and outline possible effects and differences, maybe find some other seemingly unrelated studies to compare economic conditions? Or get the writing equivalent of the MVP out, so we can have these conversations about the nuance of it and just drive more traffic to the article in the process.
It's easy if you do the work, weigh your food and find the number that's unique to your situation, which could take a month or so adding or taking away calories to find. Having a model to account for all the ephemeral things that plays into that unique number consistently for the population at large is the hard part
Nutritional science is hard because adherence to the diet is to be taken with a grain of salt, you have to just trust participants. Where outside of athletes I doubt may people have the energy to weigh everything, which also starts to feel unhealthy mental health wise making you seem crazy.
I get alot of push back for it myself, and have to plan around not weighing and counting calories to not get to anxious about it since I am so aware of how a small bit of extra food can have me 'lose' so much progress
It's not just time off, getting stock in the company or get a bigger return on your investment time wise could easily factor into it. If I was working for minimum wage at some company, I had no other financial benefits from working harder for why should I? That extra leisure is 5-8 hours more, so effectively not making an extra $58 vs having a full day back of your life is immediately more appealing. Meanwhile, back in the 60s their getting paid equivalents $10 an hour with what was much more common than today stock options being like at a factory like Ford. So that 8 hours off is now $80 and possibly less performance company wise so maybe even less stock later, naturally they'd work it.
The reality is, employers are taking advantage of this huge productivity to wage gap and not putting that money into their employees, and they are noticing.
It is 'calories in calories out', but you have to actively find what your maintenance calories is over 2 to 3 week periods. So you effectively have to do cycles of cutting and maintenance to maintain an effective loss.
Doing this and keeping 30-40% protein in your meals will have you lose weight doing pretty much anything
I think where mainstream nutritional science is going is understanding that people's 'maintenance calories' is insanely hard to calculate for people outside the average. For instance hormones playing a much bigger role, where your calorie range is off from what models will say, so unless you know how to safely find that maintenance and treat your diet like science to find it you're going to constantly be over/under weight.
This science is showing more the combination of extremely fatty and carby food at once has a distinct reaction in our body. Where yes it is 'calories in calories out' but that doesn't mean that our bodies don't have their own agenda in terms of using the calories in for fat stores vs energy for activities. Almost like moving your maintenance calories to a lower number when you're eating mostly heavy fats and heavy carbs while being extremely stressed out has a ton of hormones that screams to your body save as much of this as possible.
If your diet is 30-40% protein and not having refined sugars, you'll feel fuller and won't feel the need for more carbs besides indulgence/treat. You don't need to do this to lose or maintain weight, but look at 300 calories of beef or chicken breast vs 300 calories of bread.
The only problem is cost, if you're not careful you go from a daily cost of 3-5$ in groceries to 10-15$ to eat enough protein. However, means doing bare minimum exercise daily with this diet going over in calories will build muscle, and going under (not going past 400-500 deficit) you can lose fat and gain muscle.
With video evidence, and the assailants live-streaming repeatedly after from their apartments bragging about the assault, trying to hype up their rap career. It took weeks to get the police to do anything about it, where they would tell the women that they had no leads despite the livestreams.
If someone I'm with or myself is allowed to have a gun I prefer it.
No there's set work books that many therapist agree on, but I'm talking about situations where your GAD is now at a state that isn't obstructive in your day-to-day life. You're doing the work still yet still feel less than or unhappy. There isn't more diagnoses for just feeling unfulfilled in life, depression is too harsh a term for it since your functional(which is core to most diagnosis is how much it changes your day to day). So that's when it comes to the therapists 'talk therapy' skill and how much time and money you have to throw at it
>this is a very short-sighted view. Therapy is not about finding a diagnosis, it is about finding perspective.
Yes, however, finding the therapist that can do that for you is exponentially harder. Since they have to understand you and your situation, and that comes with time and their personal insight on it. So at that point you have to then find someone that has faced similar issues or has specialized in helping people through them. If you're a minority, finding that insight is even more costly, so you have to choose talk therapy with someone that doesn't get it but is trying or pay the premium for the person that does.
For instance, I'm trans passing as a woman that's public about being trans. It's just inherently stressful navigating business environments, since I can get a mix of sexism and/or vailed transphobia. There isn't some magical answer my therapist has for me other than mediation and working through accepting myself and the situation. That involves re-diving into the stressful situation mentally to accept it, which is just more work and stress.
Examples: - Knowing that people are speaking down to me irl, more so than when I was an unqualified student. - Having people completely change their responses/personality around me when they find out I'm trans - Intense Anxiety not about day-to-day activities/interactions anymore but dealing with any authority figures in cases like crossing the border means TSA shouldn't but could force me to strip naked to prove I'm male
Therapy isn't going to help me de-stress from these, it would give me work to make those less stressful later by working through why it stresses me. For which I've been given the tools already to do so
> There are other ways to gain the "release valve" that don't involve smoking weed.
Yea, I know I'm not smoking right now, and I'm doing the others already do a 45m - 1 hour work out daily, 30 minutes mediation, I work while I eat and get 7-8 hours of sleep work 10-12 hours. It is still the most effective way to relax in 20 minutes for me, and I'm probably going back to it as a way to end my day in another month once I'm done the 3-month test abstaining from it. What else can I do in maybe the hour or two I have left in the day that is clinically shown to reduce stress...
> substituting cannabis for therapy is self-sabotage
It's not substitution it's in conjunction when I can afford it, otherwise I do the homework that I got from therapy. Which like I mentioned before is more work and stress, which isn't relaxing at all. Weed helps me keep up with the work and not let it add to work stress too, I have been noticing I'm falling behind on my homework in that sense.
Still prefer Dendron, I get to own my data if it dies (please keep funding them ycombinator). Plus it looks like its going this direction already with api's that are local first for people to build it in if they don't.
1) Cost: $120 of cannabis every month is cheaper than a therapist and more effective than 1 session
2) Some issues are perspective: where your perspective needs to be changed and it's making your life worse but not a DSM-5 diagnosis leaving a majority of therapists/psychologists without tools to treat
2.1) The amount of therapy needed to sus out that point of view thats hurting you is way more expensive.
3) Forced release valve: it forces you to not care and be apathetic at the end of the day. In my case, doing 10-12 hour days and feel yourself wanting to push for longer is also a very unhealthy feeling. I'm not in a position to slow down or the start-up fails/loses investors. I don't need it to relax at the end of the day, where I'm not smoking now as a test. Regardless, I do notice being burnt out faster now without it.
I think the only concern is taking attention away from an opensourse solution when they could get more funding/attention to keep it current. Though I doubt it will ever go away, since once you deal with a crash or something weird with SLOBS you immediately go back to OBS.
Its OBS on training wheels, shiny pay for more shiny training wheels.
Is there a distinction between those visual distortions and a less structured one?
Dr.K has been such a breath of fresh air and been so real about how some people could use coaching vs a therapy. Where you do have an issue, but it isn't clearly on the DSM-5 approach or drastic enough to approach it as such.
Following his content has helped me understand my ADHD and anxiety so well that I feel like I'm in control for the first time. Where his explanations though through corny gamer analogies have me the most happy and productive I've ever been.
Where Dr. K's ''solutions'' are just usually more work you have to do and how to learn it on your own effectively, it's not a quick fix or some philosophy. The solutions are basically: this is how your brain most likely works, here's how to plan around it in broad strokes, do your best to be consistent to that plan, and let neural plasticity will do the rest of the work for you.