185 karma · joined April 6, 2015
I started with Soylent and that product really is a chemical mess. If I could just buy the brown rice/pea protein and flaxseed without all the vitamin additives it would be ideal and I do look for better powders every six months. To your point however, it can absolutely be improved and I am always looking for better ideas.
2. 2 vegetable smoothies + Huel Black powder a day - I have a 400 calorie Black Huel powder smoothie at 10am and another at 1pm. This smoothie has > 40 grams of protein and I also blend it with frozen spinach (other vegetables as well on occasion) and the spinach tastes surprisingly good frozen. I also add a few bits of frozen fruit for taste. My wife does the same but adds pb2 peanut butter power for taste as well.
Benefits:
a. Protein makes you feel really full
b. Fiber from vegetables is almost zero calorie and makes you feel really full. It also has ummm.. other reliable benefits
c. Every day you are reliably at 800 calories going into dinner so you only have one meal to count calories for. If you want to lose weight, go low carb or keep dinner 600 calories or under.
d. This is essentially the same system as Jenny Craig, except the huel powder costs about $2 a meal. Its cheaper than Jenny Craigs/similar $10-$20 a meal and therefore sustainable
e. Vegetables are really healthy and you will feel better from the antioxidants
f. (Expert level) - I regularly add a fish oil capsule, and sometimes ginger or turmeric for added health benefits.
I started doing this in an effort to make a sustainable version of Tom Brady's diet as I started exercising again in my late 30's and kept getting injured. The increased vegetables actually fixed the issue and now I find I can adjust my weight with the diet at will. Interested in other opinions on it :)
At any rate, good luck! I hope you find something that works for you.
Jun 6 - Jun 12 '-10%'
May 30 - Jun 5 '+1%'
May 23 - May 29 '+6%'
May 16 - May 22 '+12%'
I was surprised at these numbers and its interesting to contrast these with cases over time and tests conducted. Cases over time has under counted the general population before but to what extent is hard to know. Perhaps (since deaths are behind initial contracting of Covid by approx 28 days (Per Kinsa https://www.kinsahealth.co/kinsas-illness-signal-a-leading-i...) the population Covid numbers were actually trending down in May while tests performed were trending up.
The government has been printing money for a long time, to stimulate the economy, provide spending money, etc. Due to 80/20 rule, rich get richer effects, etc, a large portion of money the government prints ends up in the hands of a relatively small group who doesn't spend it but rather tries to invest it to get more money. Government prints money again trying to stimulate the economy and again most of it ends up in a few hands. At some point don't you have what we have today? A 1% that owns lots of wealth and doesn't know where to put it while the majority of the economy is still relatively broke? How does it play out? Do the 1% just buy all the assets at some point?
I am not trying to make a statement about inequality but rather curious about the result of printing money for 70 years and having that money end up with relatively few parties each round. Perhaps someone with more knowledge can speak to this.
Wow, that’s allot of concentrated wealth. Anyone have some insight on these fine folk?
If each landlord owns 100 apartments renting for $4k each(average) that’s $400k a month gross. That’s allot of potential venture capital money to capture monthly, over $20M in five years.
As a personal example, I received a nose surgery once that opened my nasal area so I could breathe better but it only lasted a few months and after that it seems to have reverted so it appears to be an unnecessary procedure at the end of the day. I have just decided to live with the difficulty as the recovery was awful.
Potentially relevant link: http://www.mit.edu/~erinmj/files/PID.pdf
1. Ratings and promotions within a job/company are boss personality and politically dependent and typically very unfair. Lots of hard work goes unrewarded.
2. Even if you do get lucky and get a promotion, your prize is 5-10% salary bump (maybe) and more work, stress and meetings (I don’t much enjoy meetings myself). Look closely at most big company executives and think if you really want the job for more than the social prestige/ego. They travel a ton and are always in meetings, it gets old.
3. So if the executive jobs are undesirable, then climb the ladder for money? It takes allot of money to make a difference, I.e you need $500k in the bank to ek out approx $1500 a month in cash flow at 4%. If you making $100k annually or $150k annually, $200k, or even $250 its still going to take over a decade to save a decent amount of money. The 5-10% salary bump doesn’t make much difference.
So why a career? There are likely more efficient ways to make money if that’s your goal. Starting a business, blogging, consulting, etc may have more risk but the ceiling is uncapped unlike a ‘career’. So why sacrifice something wonderful like time with your child? Money? Ego? You want a great LinkedIn profile one day? If given the option tomorrow, I would max my parental leave unless it impacted teammates in a negative way.
I would genuinely be interested if this is a minority sentiment?
Hacking with Swift is impressive in how much ground it covers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertilization#Debate https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fertilizing-ocean...
The highway system itself is an innovation from the 50's and (In My Humble Opinion) lack of continued innovation on the US transport system since has significantly contributed to the loss of US technical/economic leadership since then.
If its within team communication, and with slack/trello/github/standups and the team members are not speaking except every few days then thats an issue.
If its with external teams, then perhaps its an opportunity for self service api's or automation? I.e. let me query your api instead of having to meet with you. Understood that most cultures don't function this way but is there argument with the ideal?
As a single data point my experience as a hiring manager and allowing remote candidates allowed for a much higher level of talent to draw upon. Furthermore, I have had remote teams develop a great culture merely by turning on their cameras during the daily standup.
Finally, I also question the productivity of team building 'dinners' and other one-off activities. Having been part of teams with lots of corporate dinners and teams without its hard for me to really call out any specific value.
I truly do want to be convinced otherwise, but the strongest argument I have seen here so far is a vague 'Face to face is superior' when I have had great remote teams with cameras on. Anyone have a more data driven argument? Even if its a few data points?