@MollieTheMare's banner p

MollieTheMare


				

				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 06 17:56:29 UTC

				

User ID: 875

MollieTheMare


				
				
				

				
0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 06 17:56:29 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 875

That's more or less what I was gesturing at with 0.005% of GDP.

Though I would prefer they not exhaust the worlds supply of helium to do it. It's a very usefully industrial gas, and basically not renewable. Using hydrogen balloons would be much more "sustainable," though not supper feasible to do at small scale. Using their cost projections you actually get ~0.05% of gross world product per year. I assumed you could get the cost down with economies of scale by using some mix calcite substituting for the sulfur and hydrogen substituting for the helium.

I was more referring to statements like (from the IPCC Climate Change 2023 Synthesis Report pp. 101)

Redistributive policies across sectors and regions that shield the poor and vulnerable, social safety nets, equity, inclusion and just transitions, at all scales can enable deeper societal ambitions and resolve trade-offs with sustainable development goals.

I'm not even saying it's wrong, but putting redistributive policies ahead of mechanical interventions is what I would argue could be perceived to be driven by a political agenda. That perception can erode trust in the institutions advocating for those interventions, even if the "Equity and Inclusion" and "Scientific Basis" sections are not logically dependent on each other.

I certainly was not making the argument that general public sector works are always bad. Even for things like highways though, there are clearly different strategies that spread the costs and responsibilities differently. For example, the primarily toll-based privately maintained and operated Autoroutes in France vs the free at the point of use Interstate Highway System in the US.

I always thought one of the paradoxes of climate science was that (1) climate modeling is sound enough to project far into the future and determine magnitude, causality, and predict ecological, social, and economic impacts. And (2) geoengineering would be too dangerous because we don't know what the long term effects will be. That's probably not the exact phrasing of the IPCC or other consensus positions, but I don't think it's unreasonably far off either. Very speculative, but I suspect some of the skepticism of climate activism is that the solution always seems to be more socialism, rather than we would like to spend 0.005% of GDP to spray some calcite into the stratosphere.

I wonder if there should be a formal mechanism for preserving top level posts, or other important contextual bits.

On a slightly related note, what is the preferred way to request the mods to check an account for suspicious activity? It seems like there have been an unusually large number of new accounts dropping in, concern trolling/making low effort posts, then ghosting recently. Though brigading or getting linked from somewhere else seems plausible as well.

like the fact that crime is overwhelmingly interracial

Wait is this a typo or am I missing something?

In the US context don't most statistics support violent crime being primarily intraracial?

See for example table 6 of the latest FBI Crime in the U.S. or table 13 of U.S. Department of Justice Criminal Victimization, 2021. Excluding the Hispanic origin category, Both show >75% of perpetrators of violent crime being from the same grouping as the victim.

Yeah, there are also condensed versions if you search the agent's name, but some of the splicing and commentary might leave a little bit to be desired.

Interestingly, when searching I found several "AI" generated looking articles that seem to have incorrect information about the case. One claimed the agent had settled with the city for $440k, but links to an entirely unrelated case.

Other sources claim the agent was fired from the ATF for his part in the incident. Though, it would be pretty funny if the official policy of the agency was for plain clothes agents to scream "I'm a federal fucking agent!" when confronted by uniformed officers.

He talks about this topic a bit here: https://youtube.com/watch?v=LKyniPMgQ94&t=2410s

Talks about noticing "Willpower and generics take you really far — at least."

My interpretation is he is at least libertarian leaning. There are strong Kolmogorov complicity vibes whenever he butts up against a topic that would get you hard core canceled. I suspect because his business is primarily selling his apps and programs/books and getting canceled would probably hurt that.

If you want a very powerful, but very crusty, option that will probably not have the problem of turning into an advertising platform. GnuCash has the capability of "properly" doing bookkeeping with full double-entry accounting. It's probably overkill for personal budget tracking, and comes with the expected jank of a raw GNU project, but there is a reason GAAP exists.

confounded by the super heavyweights with enormous fat mass

Not just that, but if you look at the methodology they do not control for any confounders. Particularity the fact that countries that focus on Olympic weightlifting typically do so because it's relatively inexpensive to have a program compared to other sports. Look at any of the medals tables and you see a bunch of North Korea, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Belarus, etc. None of which are famed for longevity of the population. That lifespan chart is absolutely useless without controlling for confounders, unless you think equestrian and sailing has some magical protective powers other than being a sign of affluence.

They also fail to quantify the likely effect of steroid use, which is absolutely rampant in top level weightlifting. "...in the past decade, more than 600 lifters have tested positive." This is particularity relevant because the steroids used are chosen for their ability to avoid doping control and make the athletes stronger not for safety

Also agree, you should probably not take training advise from someone who does not understand the difference between general strength training for health, weightlifting the sport, and bodybuilding.

Why arccos? Like ignoring diffuse horizontal irradiance, .......

The insolation is just proportional to the incident cross-section, or sin(90° - ϕ) = cos(ϕ), where ϕ is the latitude.

you can check for yourself though. The instantaneous insolation is given by

Q = S_0 * (d_bar / d)^2 * (sin ϕ sin δ + cos ϕ cos δ cos h)

In your case S_0, d_bar, and d are constant (the solar constant, mean distance, actual distance)

δ is the declination angle, 0 in your case, so sin δ -> 0, cos δ -> 1.

The hour angle h, or deviation from local solar noon you can consider for h = 0, since you can scale to the max if everyone has a 12 hour day. Or cos h -> 1

giving Q ∝ cos ϕ.

Edit: I see @JhanicManifold already answered and got the same thing. Obviously I mean like cos of degrees latitude and he was working in cos of radians and converting the degrees with the factor of 1/90 * pi/2

That previous discussion does look pretty much right to me.

For bands, traditional offerings are gold or silver alloys: few people are allergic to the common ones, and they have a wide array of possible coloration.

For traditional, hard to beat gold for inertness in terms of resistance to tarnish and allergen potential. Also has the pros of being easy(ish) to resize and easy(ish) to cut off in an emergency.

For non-traditional bands I would add tungsten as an option. Its density does make the ring feel "special" though it can also be a con if the the weight is bothersome to you. Tungsten is also pretty good on inertness. You should probably be able to shatter a tungsten ring in an emergency, but that assumes the person removing the ring recognizes that's the right approach. Personally, I go for a silicone band in situations where a band might be expected but I might be doing light stuff with my hands. In the shop or any other place where there is any risk of a degloving injury absolutely no jewelry. Have a dedicated place to place your ring in the shop so it doesn't get lost.

Just for completeness, it's probably worth mentioning that it's possible it is slightly more optimal to break up protein feeding into smaller boluses. This paper for example recommends four 0.4 g/kg/meal servings. For someone at 80 kg that puts the recommend size at 32 g.

Are you vegetarian? If so you will probably have to supplement, and there is an argument for going to >0.7 g/lbs lean body weight if you are primarily consuming "lower quality" sources.

If not, I can see how getting more than 150 grams could be difficult, but you should be able to hit 100 g eating mostly "normal" stuff. Two large eggs and 2 chicken sausage links ~40g. A 5 oz chicken breast should be at least 35 g. Another 5 oz of 93% lean ground beef is another 30g. That's already 105 grams not including supplements or incidental protein, i.e. if you had 1/2 cup of oats with breakfast that's another 5g. If you go out to eat and the macros aren't great, save enough calories for a casein shake before bed.

YMMV, but from the maybe two people I know who have researched it and tried both, hellochinese is probably slightly better than duolingo for Chinese.

For general introduction maybe "set your back stiff like a board, not flat like a board."

If you're experiencing frequent back tweaks maybe this series. Much more advanced. For an intermidate level reference, I guess maybe this video.

Almost certainly a form issue. It's possible your anthropometry isn't great for deadlifits, but the vast majority of people should be able to perform the lift safely. Wearing a belt can help, but I don't recommend relying on it to save you if you are pulling from a less-safe position.

For a novice I would recommend only owning one belt for everything. If you are not planing on competing any time soon, I would prioritize adjustability and comfort. A uniform width is generally considered better for the type of bracing you should be using for deadlifts. That is, I would personally avoid the bodybuilding style belts that have the wide part "for you back". A good intra-abdominal pressure based brace is far superior to the proprioceptive benefit of a tapered style belt.

IMO the best overall pick for a training belt is a single or double ply, 3" or 4", leather single prong belt. Something like this can be nice because of the extra adjustment. Go for the 3" if you have a short torso, or if you have a hard time getting into deadlifit position with a belt on. Single ply can be more comfy but is less supportive if you get really strong. For sure single prong for ease of use. Lever belts can be nice, but entry level models are usually too annoying to adjust to be nice training belts. Having the extra holes can be nice, as most people can get a slightly better position deadlifting with a belt ~1" larger setting than their squat setup.

For general training, or if you plan on doing Olympic style lifts, a nylon velcro belt (never tried that brand, just an illustrative link) can be good. Cheaper and easier to deal with than a leather belt, but not quite a stiff or durable as a leather belt.

I find getting any sleep at all on the flights helps enormously on the other end. If I were unable to sleep on the first flight I would probably use a over the counter sleep aid like diphenhydramine for the second. If the meal service is right after takeoff I might eat, but I would brush teeth and try to sleep right after that. If the meal service is latter I wouldn't bother. To avoid being woken up for mid-flight service, try to make it as clear as possible you intend to sleep. Earplugs, blanket, eye-mask, etc. Assuming you are flying economy a neck pillow worn "backwards" can help with your head falling forward and snapping you back awake.

Pretty reasonable deadlift. Seems like a pretty elaborate setup if you pull like that every time. If you don't set up the same way every time, being more consistent with the setup for every set can help a bit.

Antifungal

Yes, the active ingredient, pyrithione zinc, is supposed to be anti-fungal. I think people are pretty sure it works for fungal acne, though I suspect it also helps with random dryness and itchiness. What causes dandruff after all, if not scalp dryness.

Edit: Personally, Head and Shoulders every day is too harsh for me. I also see you did mentioned acne in a different part of the thread. I think the other common remedy people try, not already on your list, is changing your pillow case every night or every other night. Some people use a fresh towel to wrap their pillow every night. If you have acne from oily skin, it's supposed to help keep your skin oils from clogging pores while you sleep. Fortunately I've never needed to try it, so no first hand experience on that one.

This. We need way more information to understand what's going on here.

including copious amounts of SPF to block out the sun

Are you 100% sure you do not have eczema, psoriasis, acne, or atopic dermatitis? If you do one of the standard treatments is phototherapy. Specifically UV phototherapy. The dose and spectrum are carefully controlled, but blocking 100% of UV may not be doing yourself any favors, given you seem to have some sort of condition. Of course UV can also damage your skin and cause skin cancer, so finding a knowledgeable dermatologist is highly recommended over blasting yourself with sun.

If you want to add another random item to your list though, some people report good results with dandruff shampoo. Like regular 2-in-1 classic head and shoulders. Just using it as body and face wash 1-2 times a week. Lather up, let dwell for 30-90 seconds, and rinse.

I think I would propose Camp Fire as the, at lease progressive leaning, equivalent.

Notable alumni:

  • Senator Elizabeth Warren (D Mass.)
  • Senator Amy Klobuchar (D Minn.)
  • Senator Dianne Feinstein (D Calif.)
  • Gov. Kate Brown (D Oregon.)

A few left or progressive leaning celebrities and semi-notables in there as well. A couple of (R)'s too, to be fair.

In some ways I think it's better they didn't make a millions sequel movies. Knowing how cinema developed now, there's a decent chance they would have ruined what is truly sublime source material.

With respect to your link, the score and sound were top notch. I'm still impressed how much justice they did to the role music plays in the books. Midshipmen Geoghegan appears something like three times in The Yellow Admiral, but I still think about his tragic death whenever I hear the Oboe Quartet.

I see three major drawbacks to bands:

  1. The increments are too large. Exercises span resistances from like 5 Lbs-250 Lbs for a modestly trained person. Some exercises you may be only able to increment by 1-2lbs per period. So you would need an absurd amount of bands for full coverage. Compare this to a barbell where you can get 1/4# plates, or a suspension trainer/rings where the resistance can be changed infinitesimally by changing the angle you are pulling at.

  2. You need a surprisingly strong anchor point, as strong as you would need for a suspension trainer. At the point where you are installing anchors in your house, there are better options. Recall how Harry Reid somehow managed to blind himself in one eye using bands. I don't recall if this was part of the cover story for his pancreatic cancer now that I'm thinking about it though. My point is that a band going flying off and crippling you is at least plausible enough story for a US Senator.

  3. The force curve is exactly backwards of what would be effective for hypertrophy stimulus. Most of the literature indicates the greatest stimulus occurs near the stretched position for a muscle. This is when the band is least extended for most exercises, also the point of least resistance a la Hooke's law.

They are very convenient and cheap, and I do use them to warm up sometimes, but aren't generally considered very good for serious training. Well, unless you are an elite powerlifter who subscribes to westside style accommodating resistance. But then you're far too advanced for anything here.

I've seen badass PT Marines who can do 20 pullups fail to deadlift their own bodyweight.

Like literally you've seen someone who you know can do 20 pullups fail to deadlift their own body weight? Or just like with poor form? I'm trying to understand how that's possible, like worst case they should be able to row that weight and stand up just pivoting around a bar that is already at waist height. I've seen people that can can do 20 pushups who cant deadlift their own bodyweight, but that's a totally different part of the kenetic chain.

All that being said, I do tend to agree, which is why I used fahves in my example below. I didn't want to be too dogmatic about it, because other stuff can work. My rough view of the literature is that somehow it even suggest that it 'should' work just a well or better. My not very well supported theory, on why the other stuff seems to work less well than the laboratories studies suggest is that normal people have no idea exactly how hard you have to go to reach true failure in rep ranges > 10. Like a 20 rep set of squats to total failure feels uncomfortable at rep 6, starts noticeably slowing down at 8, feels like your legs are going to explode at 12, feels like you're going to vomit at 15, feels like you're going to vomit blood at 18, and requires entering the shadow realm the last rep or two. The lab studies that indicate higher rep ranges work tend to at least have a undergraduate telling the participants to keep going if they obviously have reps left in the tank. From casual observation, I think unprompted most people stop at very uncomfortable which can be very far from failure in high rep ranges.

I do actually recommend the starting strength book as well as practical programing. The big advantage being the novice linear progression is pretty idiot proof, or more charitably novice proof. I was a little bit surprised that it's no longer on the fitness wiki, because it used to be the go to suggestion for beginners on their fitness journey.

Or at another limit, endurance runners do literally thousands of reps of swinging their arms per workout but I would still expect someone who does 100 chin-ups a week to have a bigger upper body.

Manual laborers do tend to have good general physical preparedness and work capacity, so I would expect someone who does manual labor to be able to make better gains if they do resistance train. Only because they can handle more tonnage (sets x reps x weight / week) and more effective volume (hard sets / week). I wouldn't expect that much more on a volume equated basis beyond the selection effect mentioned by @Mewis.

Doing both goals is possible if you are a novice. In that case I would recommend sticking to the 5-20 rep range and focusing on clean technique. Pushing to true muscular failure is probably not necessary, I don't interpret this as a license to totally slack off though. I would just stop at technical failure or 1-2 reps shy, normally this is perceived as "hard." Especially for people who have never trained hard before.

The terminology used here is... slightly non-standard. The dominant factor for losing fat or gaining muscle, assuming hard resistance training, is energy or caloric balance. If you are not a novice, and you would like to do both, you will either have to separate the goals into distinct periods or (not recommended though @self_made_human might provide a counter argument) hop on anabolics.

@Mewis's description agrees with my own interpretation of the consensus on muscle building stimulus. It's not clear there is an upper bound for the number of reps where hypertrophy stimulus stops, but below 50-60% of one rep max weights getting anywhere close to an effective distance from failure is very difficult. For example, say we define an effective set as within 4 reps of muscular failure. Choosing a weight of 1/2 of 1RM might be anywhere from 20-100 reps for true muscular failure. This is the first problem with very low weights, choosing a target to hit is very hard. Now say the true number of clean reps to failure is 50, reps 40-46 are all going to feel horrible. If you stop at 40 though, we likely haven't gotten 'close enough' to failure to deliver a quality stimulus. This is despite doing a lot of mechanical work/volume. Compare to targeting 80% of 1RM. the number of reps to failure is likely 7 or 8. If you do 5 reps you are for sure within 4 reps of true failure. So you deliver a higher quality stimulus while having to do less total tonnage. At 30% of 1RM your not really targeting muscles in the anabolic or even anti-catabolic sense. You would probably be better off with a different modality of training, like an elliptical or something.

For completeness, for pure strength the 3-5 rep range is generally considered the Goldilocks zone (with occasional singles, doubles, and higher rep work).