crazy1van

Certainly it's possible to overeat even without carbs and still gain weight. However, there is more to fat storage than just calories. Like many systems in the body, fat storage is controlled by hormones. Hormones are affected by the types of food you eat. Therefore, what you eat can also influence the amount of fat you store.

Source for probably the most contentious piece of moderation Twitter has ever done being manual was their own statement:

“After close review of recent Tweets from the @realDonaldTrump account and the context around them we have permanently suspended the account due to the risk of further incitement of violence,”

The weight change = calories in - calories out theory assumes that calories out is some easy to deduce number.

Calorie expenditure can't be determined by just plugging your height, weight, and activity level into an online calculator. The body is more complicated than a bucket with a fixed size hole in it and all you have to do is pour water in at a rate less than it drains out. The body produces hormones to signal to its systems whether to store food. Those hormones are determined by many factors including how much you eat but also what you eat, your genetics, your stress level, how much sleep you get, etc.

Impressive story, but what did your lawyer say about making this blog post before it is a 100% fine deal?

> If each side really knew the true strength of the other side, it would be clear which would win

This is too simplistic. Often wars are heavily influenced by things other than just the strengths of both sides. For example - What if the ground hadn't been soaked from days of rain at Agincourt and Waterloo? What if the Germans hadn't held back their armor reinforcements for so long on D-Day?

> If we applied Chesterton's fence to situations at the limit of our understanding, say physics, would we be compelled to shutdown CERN?

You’re applying Chestertons fence backwards. Instead, it would inform you to _not_ shutdown CERN until you tried to understand its purpose.

Unfortunately, data collection and data sales (either of the data directly or via targeted ads) is how many modern internet companies generate revenue. It’s easy to claim that they should just charge money directly for their product but their would-be customers seem to rather pay with their data than a monthly fee.

In fact, anecdotally, it’s often the vocal critics of data-funded tech companies who post an archive.is version of every paywalled article.

Am I missing something, or is the PRC dataset the only one they don't disclose the real size and instead are releasing a "representative sample of 2048 accounts"?

I wonder how massive that network might have been.

> Congress has delegated the authority to make these decisions to regulatory agencies

Yes, but at some point there must be a limit to how much power they can delegate. If Congress created a new Super-Congress that it granted all the powers of Congress, I would contend that would be unconstitutional. It clearly goes against the founding principles of having three branches of government. That would be akin to the government creating a fourth branch without amending the constitution.

Amending the constitution is a process that is clearly defined by the constitution. If that process isn't needed to create a fourth branch of government, a change that changes the core of the constitution, what would it ever be needed for and why would they have included it?

Exactly. The noble lies have crushed their credibility because no one knows until later whether a particular comment was a well intentioned lie or the truth.

Everyone I personally know who is skeptical about institutional guidance advocating the vaccine or protective measures like mask mandates and lockdowns can cite a litany of previous lies or half truths by the same institutions. They did not start as medical institution skeptics — the last 18 months turned them into skeptics.

Similarly, how many small firms that could grow up to be serious competitors won’t get started because of regulatory compliance demands. There is a reason companies become much more amenable to regulation once they are large and established. Lobbying for arduous regulation is often much cheaper than actually competing with new companies.

> it's a guess and can never be anything but a guess

Of course it's a guess. The question is how to make more accurate guesses.

This is a utopian fantasy. Humans have been making tools for killing people since we were living in caves.

I prefer privacy too. But there is something entitled about wanting to interact with a company but keep the details of that interaction secret from that same company.

Is there a way to search for fiber optic cables nearby? Calling the local telco has always been a dead-end -- I can't get beyond the sales-rep who's computer shows fiber service isn't available at my location.

> That said I trust that the government agencies know what they are doing here.

I’m the opposite. Covid caused my trust in them to plummet. Perhaps made with the best of intentions, but all the noble lies have eroded my trust.

Would you mind being more specific? Is it the price / functionality balance that makes DO fantastic?

Its very difficult to control for all factors when comparing breast-fed to bottle-fed babies. In 2014, a study [0] was published at Ohio State that compared babies over a long period. When looking at only sibling-pairs (babies in the same family where one was breastfed and one was bottle-fed), the differences in outcome disappeared.

Quote from the link:

"As expected, the analyses of the samples of adults and their children across families suggested that breast-feeding resulted in better outcomes than bottle-feeding in a number of measures: BMI, hyperactivity, math skills, reading recognition, vocabulary word identification, digit recollection, scholastic competence and obesity.

When the sample was restricted to siblings who were differently fed within the same families, however, scores reflecting breast-feeding’s positive effects on 10 of the 11 indicators of child health and well-being were closer to zero and not statistically significant – meaning any differences could have occurred by chance alone.

The outlying outcome in this study was asthma; in all samples, children who were breast-fed were at higher risk for asthma, which could relate to data generated by self-reports instead of actual diagnoses."

[0]: https://news.osu.edu/breast-feeding-benefits-appear-to-be-ov...

> I thought one of the primary functions of public schools was that they were government provided daycare.

Yes, but lots of people don’t want to admit that, especially teachers. The school system doesn’t need college educated, subject matter certified teachers to run a day care.

If these companies are as bad to work for as this author describes, why on earth would she continue to work for them? The author’s rebuttal might be that she has no choice because these are her only options. If that were true, then I’d be much more grateful and wouldn’t advocate for laws that might destroy them. These companies didn’t exist a decade ago and the continued existence of gig work is not a foregone conclusion.

Also, it seems like the far more reliability successful path to improve ones lot in life would be to work to personally improve your skill set instead of focusing on legal changes in the hands of millions of people you don’t know and don’t control.

I love DCS, but their business model is killing them.

Without a subscription-style revenue stream, they are forced to create and sell new products constantly. This leads them to be in a constant state of "early access" -- often with some substantial issues. I would prefer it if they let me pay ~$10/month and I just get access to every module.

Personally, I'm the opposite.

The primary reason I use Twitter is to read blue check marks (and other well known people). Why would I want to know what a random person thinks about an issue when I could hear from people who have built years of clout on a subject? I feel the same way in reverse -- why would anyone care what I think about something when I have no experience or track record on the issue?

> If EEVblog's suggestion was taken and Susan (YouTube CEO) had to manually review every moderation action on channels with 5K+ subs, she would not be able to keep up.

Maybe perform fewer moderation actions?

> If everybody is panicking, then the goods go to the panicking people who have the most disposable income.

Higher prices often discourage people from over-buying an item.

For example, at the beginning of the pandemic, people sensed toilet paper might soon become hard to find. Its not perishable, so when they found it at a normal price, they stocked up. Why not? They know they'll use it eventually and they don't want to be hunting for it a month later. You don't need to be a super wealthy person to pre-purchase a years worth of TP.

But, if TP had been selling for double the normal price, they would have bought less. There's no need to pay pandemic prices for TP that you'll be using next year.

> It's their platform

But the real question is at what level of censorship to the cease to be a platform and become a publisher?

> We want to use services but we do not want to be subjected to surveillance capitalism.

Who is the “we” you are referring to? I think most people care so little about this that they don’t even bother to skim the TOS before using a service.

> We'll still have power, water, sewage, bandwidth

Don’t forget about food. There’s a lot of complexity and people involved in getting food from a farm to your local restaurants and grocery stores.

If it gets really bad and even a fraction of people in these industries stop working, stay-at-home life might get a lot less comfortable.

The real irony is when people complain that sites monetize their personal data and then also complain about paywalled articles.

These sites have to make money somehow or they won’t exist for long.

Blizzards statement about having an “investigation” into a “ rule” violation is very disingenuous. The rule is just they can ban anyone at their sole discretion that hurts their image.

The EU subsidized Airbus, which hurt the American company, Boeing. Therefore, all Americans have to pay 25% more for european wines, cheeses, and whiskey. How does this make any sense?