The article links to the actual studies. This is an NPR article! not a scientific thesis.. As far as pop articles go it’s far more well referenced than the average.
3,457 karma · joined November 22, 2019
Not only that, that unrealistically strict standard is 10x stricter than gas cars.
on gas gauges the resolution is like 10%ish chunks that aren’t even equal width. My cars top bar lasts about 50% longer than the rest and no I don’t top up.
That could just be my impression, but western imperialism so like Ireland? Iceland? Greece?
I don’t think I’ve ever heard “eastern imperialism” to talk about China or Russia.
it’s pretty much always focused on western imperialism in vague terms. Chinese and Russian are on an imperialistic rise of late, but those that decry western imperialism seem to ignore those. But yes there are posts that overly index on the Chinese or Russian imperialism as well.
conversely The ones that actually do decry Chinese or Russian imperialism usually give western actions more of a pass.
Sure there’s some exceptions, but the typical posts are always overly fixated on one flavor, and it really gives the impression that it’s not imperialism that’s being object to, but rather the team doing it.
What is rare is any post that seems to be honestly against all of that type of behavior, not tied to their team.
I’m just saying as someone against strong armed empire building, arguments that ignore the increasing imperialism of certain countries in order to decry the historical and waning imperialism of others feels not like an argument with imperialism but more like picking sides in a team sport.
as someone against imperialistic takeovers that does anger me.
It’s kind of a pointless metric on that superficial level. Judging by the expected modern consequence of continued influence seem more usefulness rather than based on historical grudges.
Like wow out of the frying pan into the fire, way to go!
Like the local earthquake tracker on Twitter used to be great, it became unusable after musk mayhem as Twitter intentionally only showed many years old posts to those not signed in.
Nowadays that’s super rare. And I used to remember seeing links to a lot of articles published as like 13 tweets, I can’t even remember the last time I saw one of those. I think some used to be linked form HN.
Twitter is basically a zombie now. It’s way worse for the former user base at large.
It’s true that one groups probably think it’s better, those who were banned and are allowed back for example and those who liked the banned accounts.
Musk is detached from reality. He seems to think firing most of X is a resounding success and Tesla, a car manufacturing company, needs to do the same. Also that cost cutting and performance reviews only apply to others, just like in Twitter and elsewhere free speech means his speech not critics.
I really hope he doesn’t wreck spaceX too.
Edit: to clarify, overall rates are set based on the aggregate loss of the overall customer base in each state plus some profit margin. This is the whole pie.
Driver characteristics like the car data is used to segment those rates on the individual level so each is a different sized piece of pie but one slice being bigger means another’s are smaller.
The actual effect of driving data shouldn’t impact the average rate, only the individual rate with individual increases balanced by individual decreases.
So the headline would be just as accurate if it said the sharing is reducing rates.
That’s how it works. But yes, not having the data sharing opt-in is unethical.
The actual reasons rates are sky rocketing is inflation and increased accident rates.
Anyway, care to point out what’s wrong about this comment or is it the standard shoot the messenger type deal?
Yeah some roads can stand to be 75.
Moreover, they also showed that exercise beyond that upper limit of 2.5x the base metabolic rate is very possible for temporary durations, weeks even. The extra energy comes from stores like fat and obvious is not sustainable over years.
Even at minor increases of daily exercise for sedentary people, a regular 400 calories of exercise in one study, leads to increased total daily expenditure of around 225-250 after the body is fully adapted.
If that’s not your understanding of pontzer’s works then there is nothing pedantic about my comments. But it’s understandable if you’ve been confused because pontzer has almost willfully obfuscated the actual interpretation of his groups data. Their actual data & equations versus how they message them and explain their findings is shameful.
It’s pretty clear the effect of exercise is neither extreme. It is definitely not the naive 100% of calories burned in regular exercising are balanced out by metabolic reductions elsewhere compared to the same person not regularly exercising. And it’s definitely not 800 burned regularly means 800 mores than the person would if they didn’t exercise regularly.
It’s going to be in between, and I would wager it’s like backwards graduated tax brackets in terms of compensation percent.
It’s been a while since I read his paper, but if I recall right it actually did hand wave away the endurance athletes. But endurance athletes are not a binary yes no state andHand waving away obvious conflicting data isn’t logical or scientific. And so especially when people are on a graduated spectrum all the way up to the immediately obvious theory breakers running 60+ mi/week. Where would the cut off come? 15mi? 20mi? 25mi? Above what cut off should we ignore data to make the naive theory work.
Handwaving away large numbers data points that disprove a theory is not how science is supposed to work.
And as we have seen in this thread, the lack of clarity on the nuance discourages people from making exercise.
Over simplifying it to 600 burned, 600 saved later is harmful and also inaccurate. (and yes More inaccurate than my loose choice of saying nap which you pointed out that led you to the wrong conclusions on my understanding, please consistently apply that critical standard)
Over a hundred thousand endurance athletes in just the USA would have to literally defy the laws of thermodynamics for the naive reading to work.
I can see why the question ignored that and focused on the personal story that went along with the hard facts and stats.
Because it doesn’t ELI5 how body mass and composition and steady vs unsteady state actually play into it, people take away a meaningless self serving interpretation.
If you start running 4-5 times a week, I guarantee you’ll be eating significantly more and burning significantly more. Unless you’re intentional about restricting your eating, weight will most probably stay the same, but you’ll be burning far more calories.
But keen eyed reader perhaps you object with “but you’ll move less and nap on the couch more, it will balance out like Pontzer’s work seems to say!” Haha, but no. Well yes to napping, but no to balancing out. It’s literally impossible. There’s no amount of napping that makes up for 13+ miles runs. There’s a lot of people who regularly do 10 to 20 mi runs on weekends. They can literally burn more calories just in the run than a sedentary person does in an entire day. And that’s their regular routine. Take a look at Boston to see 30ish thousand examples of it.
As one example, My weight has been steady state for decades, but I started running marathons two years ago. I had to start eating an extra meal. And when I take it easy for a couple weeks after each marathon, my appetite ramps down.
And if you don’t start eating more you’ll just get injured and be forced to stop running.
Pontzers work is bad. Ask any endurance sport club and they’ll laugh at it.
My definition of free democracy doesn’t mean being forced to act like a chump. You want to do business in America, then we do business on equal grounds in your country. Per the rules set by our duly elected representatives, aka how a representative democracy is supposed to work.
Democracy doesn’t mean a libertarian free for all.
Democratic countries can and should make fair trade agreement to ensure the will of the people is carried out per their votes and elected representatives.
How is it political? Industry and congress ignore the risk, warning the public is the last chance to spur change
It’s the lost income due to the effects of warming such as lower crop production
Good find but that supports the article, not contradicts it.
receipts constant while millionaires taxes rates decreasing = the middle class pickup of the tab.
This statement seems snidely directed and presumptuously inaccurate. And almost intentionally so as the viewership is biased towards tech salaries I.e. plenty of ability to travel.
I’d say it’s strange that it needs mentioning that there are places that exist outside the financial district/soma in SF and the bay, but it’s not actually strange if the only thing one thinks about said areas and neighborhoods outside the financial district is that they are the undesirable wildfire zone.
grass is always greener on the other side, and its Going to be a rude awakening if fire in distant hills is one’s notion of bad weather events.
Also fire isn’t just a CA thing anymore. A neighborhood in CO was wiped out, NY was blanketed in smoke. Hurricanes are making the Florida home instance market collapses. That’s just scratching the surface.