erfgh

Ease cannot be used to ethically justify an action. But even so, you ignore that, according to research, people who eat meat have worse health than people who don't.

Well I can crash my bicycle going downhill and neglecting to use the brakes, this doesn't mean it wasn't intelligently designed.

Design is all about tradeoffs.

How do you know that they make a consistent profit? You take their word for it? Gamblers are notorious liars and are also known to keep very poor record of their bets.

> There is also the fantasy of being able to win money but the reality that if you actually win money in a consistent fashion, you will be either kicked-off or your action will be severely crippled.

This does not apply to all bookmakers. Also, betting exchanges exist where the players bet against each other therefore there is no incentive for the operator to ban winning players.

The figures you state are misleading. Money bet is not money lost. For example, roulette payout is 97.3% and sports betting payout can be as high as 99% or even 100% (done to attract players so that they open an account).

I don't believe games of chance are misrepresented as games of skill. But anyway, this article is about sports gambling which most certainly is a game of skill.

The difference is that private insurers have an actual incentive against this happening but when the scheme is state-funded you have to rely on the people's sense of duty which we know is not particularly strong in many cases.

Without any exaggeration the article claims that Nestle is the most evil entity possible because some of its products contain added sugar.

You can't find a brand because people don't buy it because it tastes awful.

I know I will burn karma for this but what the heck: If you don't like it, don't buy it. That their sugar-added products are not sold in Switzerland or Germany is simply because people there would not buy them enough to make profit. There is nothing unethical about adding sugar to a food.

Such sweeteners are everywhere, for example in many sports drinks and sports supplements.

> Instead of immediately seeing "this is code structure" and "this is actual code", you need to actually read the words to make that distinction.

First of all, there is syntax highlighting.

Furthermore, after the first few times you see a word you don't actually "read" it in the sense you mean here, you are just matching it, as an image, with other words in your vocabulary. So it's not any harder to "read" a word than to read a curly brace, assuming no other very similar words are used in the vocabulary of the language.

VAR is not an AI system, it's just the referee watching the video replay. It could have been done 50+ years ago.

If you spend the same time studying programming that you need to spend to become a good chess player then you will likely become a professional programmer which means you will make a decent living in most countries of the world.

Also, you can build interesting systems that actually improve peoples' lives whereas in chess you just sit on your ass calculating and memorizing stuff that affect nobody at all outside the game.

Football is very different because you don't have to spend as much time. Professional players train for 1-3 hours per day and that's it. The remaining time of the day they do nothing at all because there's no point to physically exert yourself more, you'll just get injured for no benefit. Also, you have to be 100% rested when game time comes which means that 2-3 days prior to the game you take it very easy during training, or even don't train at all.

Most of what you say about the highest level is true for most other pursuits.

My view is that chess without memorization is not a very interesting game. What remains is just calculation which is uninteresting to 99+% of people. Since you reached a high level in the game I believe you have excellent calculation skills and part of the reason for that is that you, as you say, find calculation interesting.

I find calculation pointless and thus I'm very bad at it; even after 30 years of playing I hang pieces on half my games and I rarely, if ever, calculate more than one move deep. I believe most people are like me in this regard and therefore most people will remain at a sub-1500 rating forever.

Just play chess960. It is a better game.

Some people just want to have fun and that's what blitz is for. Why are people so preoccupied with improving when it comes to chess? If any other game is mentioned the discussion will not be so centered on improvement as it is with chess. Maybe it is because chess has this air of a "thinking man's game" which does not really deserve. It's just a game like any other.

MTG is not very interesting when actually playing it. Most of the game is building your deck. Thereafter the deck mostly plays by itself.

How do you know that it has not hindered their careers?

Anything is trivial to detect as long as the malicious party is not aware that you are detecting it.

I envy you guys. It is so easy to live under the "America is to blame for everything, even floods" mentality. Everything is so easily and readily explained.

Pro tip: Use an editor that doesn't allow you to quickly jump to the definition of a function. You will make your code more readable because you will prefer to write linear code.

Your statistic is even more misleading because in the non-graduates category you are lumping in people that couldn't make it to college even if they wanted.

The relevant comparison is graduates versus people that voluntarily skipped college even though they could get a degree if they chose so.

Why? Also, look up Steve Snake.

Probably worked in a company that made Switch games or in Nintendo itself.

Saying "you need to eat less calories than you expend in order to lose weight" is like saying "to win in chess just mate your opponent's king". It's just saying the same thing in different words. The fact of the matter is that people that don't do those virtuous activities have a very difficult time maintaining a healthy weight and people that do do those virtuous activities have a much easier time.

I don't believe such measures have a significant impact on obesity because they don't target the main causes of obesity which are the easy availability of food and the reliance on private cars for transportation.

Furthermore, they push the misleading idea that you can still drive to the supermarket, buy processed foods, load them in your car, drive home, eat them in front of the TV and be fine, as long as you don't buy the high-in-sugar stuff.

If you want to beat obesity start by buying just the ingredients and then cooking meals at home. It's not that hard. Then start walking to places instead of taking the car. Taking public transportation is also good because it frequently forces you to walk a non-negligible amount. Also stop eating while watching TV. You can go one step further and throw out the TV altogether.

You don't need to work out (although you should for other health reasons); you also don't need to diet; the vast majority of dieters gain all of the weight they lost during the diet and then some.

Banks.

It's just different keyboard shortcuts than the other editors. That is pretty much it. You don't need to be so dramatic.

Also, in the GUI version of vim you have scrollbars, toolbar, and the standard keyboard shortcuts work, too. So you can use it like any other editor.