Have you tried? I always run before eating (not as part of a regimen, it's just convenient), as I expect many do. And my diet is closer to inverse-keto than keto.
>It "worked" only if the definition is "it removed it from Reddit".
There are plenty of people who thought that it wouldn't work to that extent, either. They claimed that allowing a subreddit for toxic topic X at least had the benefit of segregating proponents of X; and that if such subreddits were banned their inhabitants would infect the rest of Reddit. But that didn't happen.
I remember when posts from r/FatPeopleHate would regularly make the front page. Then FPH was banned, and you know what, we didn't see it metastasize elsewhere, we just saw many fewer FPH-style posts, which I'd say is a good thing.
Even if China is guilty of worse than the United States, it's not clear to me that that should be salient to Americans. I'd submit that, although China is constantly presented as a rival, Americans are much more likely to be harmed by their own government than by China's. (Americans should also be concerned about this because they are, to some extent, responsible for it themselves.) If that's true, then perhaps they should indeed be more critical of AT&T than Huawei.
I've seen this trope around for a while now, that is, people who insist that it's somehow incorrect to say, "I don't believe in global warming" or "I don't believe in evolution." I used to find this bizarre, as it seems straightforward for a climate denier or creationist to say such things.
I think what people who get rankled by this have in mind is a certain, pluralistic connotation of "believe." Often when someone says, "I believe in Christianity," it's implied that atheists or people of other faiths are not unreasonable to believe differently. (Something similar could be said about political or ethical beliefs. It's difficult to spell out the sense in which you can view someone who disagrees with you as reasonable, but I think you know what I mean.) So people who think "belief" is not applicable to global warming or evolution are trying to deny that we should be pluralistic about these matters.
I still think this is a somewhat obtuse equivocation on the word "belief," but I think I understand the intuition beneath it.
I bike and run, and like you appreciate how gentle cycling is on one's body. With that said, I don't worry about getting killed while running the way I do while cycling (i.e. by cars).
>if they veer into your lane and you hit them, good luck trying to get out of that
I don't doubt that your description of driver psychology is largely correct, but this statement in particular is pretty far from reality. In practice, it's astonishingly easy for drivers to get away with injuring or killing both cyclists and pedestrians, even when they are clearly at fault.
The "fun" aspect is one of the reasons I'm skeptical of arguments that driving stick is somehow safer. That is, I suspect that nowadays, in America anyway, car enthusiasts self-select for driving stick to the extent that we can't draw conclusions from their competence. (For what it's worth, I also drive stick.)
I've thought there are three ways to view the Principle of Charity, depending on what you think its aim is. The exegetical aim is to accurately determine the author's belief or intention. The pragmatic aim is to conduct the most fruitful discussion of the matter in question. The ethical aim is to be duly respectful of the author. Moreover, it strikes me that these three aims overlap in practice for the most part, but not entirely.
One thing that struck me about Tyler Shultz is that (as the book emphasizes) he is the grandson of George Shultz, former Secretary of State and Theranos board member. Can you imagine trying to defend yourself against Theranos as a regular Joe?
My impression from the author's description of her friends is that they aren't broke either.
>I often hear my friends say, “I’m too poor” when they’re frustrated about what they can’t have. Maybe it’s a trip they can’t afford, a renovation they want to start right now or a pretty pair of shoes they spotted in a shop window.
Every mass shooting or act of terror nowadays is met with calls not to lend exposure or notoriety to the perpetrators. Often I find it hard not to view such exhortations cynically (I suspect an ulterior motive when someone like Ben Shapiro urges quiet about a mass slaying of Muslims), but I generally think it makes sense. Still, we surely need to examine and discuss the causes of such violence to prevent it from happening again. And I wonder how exactly we are supposed to do that while also heeding an injunction against publicizing them.
That's irrelevant as far as the designation of "science" is concerned. This is a question of knowledge and certainty, not practical application. The point is that results in cosmology (and other fields) are very well confirmed despite the fact that they don't come out of strict experimentation. In that same vein, when someone denies that economics is a science I'd argue they're really talking about whether its results are robust, not whether economics uses a certain methodology or is put to certain ends.
It's funny how different aspects of one's identity hang together. You'd think that diet should have little to do with someone's views on politics or gender, but when I learned that Jordan Peterson adhered to an all beef diet, I thought "Yeah, sounds about right."
When I was a student I had this same experience peer-editing prose. In reading a classmate's paper, I found endless nits to pick about syntax and minute points of diction or style, but much less to say about the actual argument. The main reason for this is just that it was easier. It doesn't take much effort to call out bits that strike one as unaesthetic, but evaluating the substance of a paper requires that I really think about what it's saying.
>You can study lots of vocabulary to achieve better results on the verbal section of the GRE or similar tests. But afterwards, you will, in fact, have better vocabulary, I submit.
Yeah, but tests like the GRE claim to predict academic performance, not vocabulary. So unless you think augmenting one's vocabulary alone will make one a substantially better student, there's still a gap there.
I've wondered if CostCo works along this principle. People like the idea of getting bulk rates for items. But even in cases where items really are cheaper per unit, it may not be an advisable purchase for most people if they don't really need or want as much as they are induced to buy.
Yeah, I wonder of "tinkering" isn't bound to diminish with technological progress. If things like cars and computers become more sophisticated over time, presumably that pushes them progressively beyond the abilities of laymen. (More optimistically, they may simply require less tinkering to begin with.)
Do we not have ample research by now as to the inefficacy and harms of corporal punishment? What serious evidence is there on the other side?
It also strikes me as something of a bad joke to suggest that we might have become uncritically prejudiced against violence given America's domestic gun violence and foreign policy. Tolerance of violence is alive and well as far as I can tell.
Concern for "bodily integrity" might compelling if abstaining from vaccines didn't harm anyone else, or if the subjects weren't children unable to make informed medical decisions for themselves; obviously neither of those things are true.
Long hours are intrinsic to endurance sports, though. An avid cyclist or runner will easily spend ten hours or more training each week. By contrast, I doubt many people put that much into beer league softball or pick up basketball. (It's also not clear to me that rich people have less time than middle class or poor people.)
I run and bike, and I've wondered about this too. Running seems like it should be the most affordable sport, but in America, at least, runners tend to be affluent. Perhaps wealthy areas are more hospitable to running, but I don't think that explains much.
I remember reading an article in the New Yorker about a retreat where people would go to participate in extended fasts. It struck me you need to come from abundance for the idea of recreational starvation to be appealing, and I think something similar could be said for sports like running, where punishment and self-denial are nearly an aim in themselves.
Another article I'm reminded of is "How the Other Half Lifts"[1]. There the author muses on cultural differences between strength and endurance sports. He suggests that upper middle class Americans favor endurance sports as a way to demonstrate "moral character, self-control, and self-development, rather than physical dominance." (My impression is that weight lifting has enjoyed something of a renaissance in recent years, though.)
This is important to consider, but even if anti-car policies inadvertently exclude some people, I'd push back against the presumption that they are more exclusionary than pro-car policies. They might still represent an improvement over the status quo in this regard. For instance, anti-car advocates often argue that policies which effectively require people to buy and maintain cars to participate in society are exclusionary of the poor.
The researchers found that Republicans shared more fake news than Democrats, but they suggest that is only because recent fake news has been largely directed to support Trump (i.e. that age-susceptibility to fake news is otherwise ideologically neutral). If it turned out that conservatives as such are more susceptible to fake news, though, that might help explain why the elderly are more susceptible insofar as old people tend to be conservative.