MollieTheMare
No bio...
User ID: 875
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
I don't want to encourage more posts about the 'Hock,' but yes specificity is an important principle of training. Even an elliptical isn't optimal for training for serious hiking or mountaineering, IMO. If you have to train indoors I would say incline treadmill or StairMaster would be superior. Loaded with a vest or ruck for that matter. Actual training runs, under similar conditions and with full gear, would also be expected for someone seriously preparing for an expedition.
I hate to admit it, but I think I've read enough of these posts to gather what's being proposed is actually some sort of xcountry skiing or ski mountaineering trip. I'm not even sure where I would start for that if you don't have local ski trails open to you. I would say finding a gym with a skierg, but I'm pretty sure that simulates skate-skiing more than classic.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
I mean, it’s bird watching. I associate this hobby with innoffensive old people who stayed Episcopalian after it started using gay pride vestments, read the New York Times, and retired from their teaching job a few years ago thinking they should move to be with their grandkids but just don’t think it’s the right time.
This is a disturbingly precise description of one of the bird watching hobbyists I know. Makes you wonder.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
For the definition used there, the terms are somewhat interchangeable. It's also not wrong to say real disposable income is below trend. On a cross-sectional basis, @Ben___Garrison cites the US as doing well, but vibes often have to do with expectations, which is along the time axis.
Failing to consider the longitudinal or integrated aspect of the indicators OP chose is the real fatal flaw with the analysis, and why there is such an incongruity with the claimed “goodness” of the indicators and the “badness” of vibes.
Addressing the four main points from the original post:
Unemployment is hovering near record lows
Being near record lows is very good for people desperately in need of any form of employment; it is not a sign of an overall healthy labor market. Unemployment being below the frictional rate means that people end up in positions that do not best utilize their talents.
Inflation has come way down and is now around 3.7%...
This is still 85% above the target rate. That means we’re continuing to move away from trend for long term price levels; might as well returning to trend.
GDP growth is surprisingly high for Q3 at 4.9%.
Yes, GDP growth has been surprisingly robust. Does anyone seriously take a single quarter as their landmark though? How many cheered 2023Q3 but also mourned the consecutive negative 2022Q1&2?
The stock market is also doing fairly well
It’s a bit odd to compare a forward-looking aggregation of people's outlooks and say it disproves another forward-looking aggregation of people's outlooks. That being said, the stock market must be greater than or equal to 10% of the previous high for the vast majority of its history; how is that an indicator of anything? If anything, the stock market being off its high but not cratered for a sustained period is an indicator of the opposite, that there are heterogeneous or uncertain outlooks for the future which lines up perfectly fine with vibes.
We then go into the fishing section. I have no idea why you would compare wages with inflation and not compare levels. No, wages have not caught up to prices, not even remotely close.
I personally am hopeful for a soft landing, for everyone’s quality of life, but it’s far too early to declare victory and say that inflation was tamed without any economic pain.
Looks like that 15% for bottom ash is what's expected, though from some reading it heavily depends on the composition of the waste that's being burned.
In a modern incineration plant (https://www.icevirtuallibrary.com/doi/full/10.1680/jcien.17.00042) it looks like they expect 150 kg/t or 15% (table 4) for bottom ash. The amount of fly ash is much less, did OP transpose the composition of fly and bottom ash? They reference 15–20 kg/t in the report. So I think OP of by ~ 100x on the fly ash particle count. Then did he include the 99% efficient scrubbers?
e.g. 1 ton of waste -> 20 kg of fly ash. 20 kg x 565 (n/kg) -> 11,300 high estimate of plastic particles in the fly ash. (1 - 0.99) x 11,300 -> 113 high estimate particles per tone waste after scrubbing? (decimal points, commas for 1000's separators)
Table 2 might also be of interest, contains expected emitted "Total organic carbon" and "dust." Though in mg/m^3.
Also, a modern multi-stage scrubber with electrostatic, wet, and filtration like in Amager Bakke should be much higher efficiency than 99% Also, I think @slothlikesamwise is correct you should be able to see appreciable plastic micro particle emissions counted as PM or dust in the flue gas monitoring, as well as environmental sensors around the plant.
Edit: I see OP did calculations in terms of waste tonnage. I converted my calculation to be the 565 n/kg from OP link 2.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
Since no one mentioned it as an option yet, I've been surprisingly happy with the YouTube client FreeTube. It's a bit more cumbersome than using the browser directly, but I didn't want to risk any possibility of my primary google account getting somehow permanently flagged by their new tattler script. I'm sure they will block the API at some point, but until then... I also found out that youtube has not been showing me new videos by a decent fraction of the channels I am subscribed to, that still show up to the RSS based feed check FreeTube uses.
Long term I'm not sure what my plan is. I guess probably trying to watch fewer videos.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
The study you are thinking of is probably this one. I would highly recommend against interpenetrating this as all the benefits of strength training with just some side effects.
(1) They measured fat-free mass not muscle mass. Steroids like Tren make you uptake water in the muscles, you get "fullness" in the form of water when taking anabolics, but the study wasn't long enough to measure real substantial muscle growth. This also explains the cross-sectional area measurement. The water thing is just like a turbo version of what happens with creatine.
(2) The strength increase in the training non-steriod group was greater than the steroid only group. The additional strength in the steroid group is probably largely attributable to two factors
- Slight increase in neural drive from steroids, this is nothing compared to long term strength training.
- Better leverages from being bigger. Your muscles are class 3 levers, just being bigger means you can lift more weight. Getting stronger in this way is not necessarily good for you, you can achieve the same thing by getting supper fat.
This study does come up all the time, but it was wayyyy to short to conclude that you will gain more actual muscle not training on gear than resistant training. If you talk to any experienced bodybuilder who is open about steroids they all think training is still important. If you don't stimulate your body for specific muscle protein synthesis all you will do is end up looking freakish and ogre like, not jacked and fit looking.
The side-effects are also no joke, even if you don't care about potentially nuking your nuts, Tren in particular can absolutely make your mood terrible.
Finally, I have to say I'm skeptical you've tried enough actual resistance training to dismiss it as a better primary option. Six months is barely long enough to try one training method. Can you really say you've given your full effort to trying: traditional bro split style stuff, calisthenics, pure strength training, crossift style stuff, and circuit training? I saw below you are already talking about training twice a week. Starting strength can be done in three 60 minute sessions a week (if you can superset your warmups for upcoming exercises between working sets). Is that really too much to ask? If you eat enough the gains will be obvious. You could easily put 100 pounds on a novice squat in 6 months. Faster progress than that, aided by steroids, is enough to tear tendons off the bone.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
That Greg Nuckols article is not actually correct that those tables are not based on actual data. ExRx and the derived symmetric strength standards have the note (emphasis mine): "Tables for the basic barbell exercises are based on nearly 70 years of accumulated performance data and are not predicted or regression derived." So the standards are arbitrary, but in my experience they are pretty accurate if you look around a normal commercial gym.
Using body weight ratios is nonsensical because strength potential scales allometicly, just like is says in the Nuckols article. This is why Wilks and Sinclair coefficients exist.
I also highly doubt 1.5xBW bench is as hard as 1xBW press for the average person. Walk into any commercial gym and you'll find 200ish pound dudes reping a 315# bench. I think I've seen an in-person 200# OHP in a normal gym maybe once.
People who have never hit a body-weight press are typically astonishingly poorly calibrated on how difficult it is to improve an already advanced press. Even advanced lifters can likely put 5-10#s on their bench with a dedicated cycle of Smolov JR. An additional 10# on an advanced level press can literally take years or never happen.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
Since your relative preference for those factors is probably somewhat subjective, I would argue there isn't really any advantage to a very complex model. Assuming the offers are somewhat similar, you can probably just use a linear model and assign coefficients to roughly match your preference. Kind of like a decision matrix or this example. I would just put everything in dollar units since that's probably the actual thing that's up for negotiation. Then negotiate for the highest dollar equivalent compensation. The whole exercise uses an absurdly simplistic model with made up numbers, but is probably more accurate than just winging it. It's not even very wrong, in the sense that you can expand most reasonable functions with a first order Taylor series in the relevant variables about the point of interest.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
Deaths of despair (drug overdoses, suicides) - this is the easiest data point to gather
Isn't this exactly the point of the 2015 article and subsequent media coverage that coined the term "deaths of despair"? Like, can't you just replicate the methodology, update the plots, and see if the trend continues? I guess there is the complication that the numbers would have been disrupted by COVID.
The other points are going to be really difficult to disentangle for effects from access, diagnostic criteria, population shifts, social attitudes to seeking care, etc.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
Sounds like your well on your way. Even if it was 12 years ago the muscle memory for riding a bike is very weirdly persistent... Still recommend the video for a very rough description of how the dynamics work, somewhere around the 2:20 mark. If you ever have trouble with the getting started part I recommend this page.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
The bike thing is cool. If you have a good place to ride bikes can be insanely fun.
I don't know how experienced your friend is in teaching adults to ride, or how far you've gotten. But assuming you're still at the literally learning how to balance the bike stage you might consider taking the peddles off and lowering the saddle to use it as a balance bike for a hour or two. Demonstrated here starting from 5:28, but the whole video is worth watching if you are brand new to riding a bike. I don't think adults learn it that much slower than kids, they just tend to have more fear since they are falling from higher. If you are a beginner in the new to the trail sense he also has a good series, would also recommend KyleAprilRideMTB in that case.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
and will be half-assing them
The point of HIIT and circuit type workouts is that the high intensity makes up for the lack of total volume and specificity. If you are going to half-ass them you would almost certainly be better off either:
- Adding an additional short walk in your day
- Extending one of your short walks to a long walk during the day
- Substituting one of your daily walks with actual high intensity intervals 2-3 times a week. On a fan bike, erg, ski erg etc. if you are worried about joint impact. Like so intense you feel like throwing up.
- Adding conventional resistance training of some sort.
- Some combination of the above.
For item 4, calisthenics might be okay for your application, but barbells and machines tend to scale better. Given your goals, preserving skeletal muscle should be included in your plan. Your body has no other source of stored amino-acids to preserve heart and other organ tissue during periods when you are fasted . If your goal is to look trim, developing some lats and delts will make your waist look proportionally smaller from the front and back. Developing your chest and glutes will make your waist look proportionally smaller in profile.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
Reminds me of this analysis, as well as the linked articles from the 2014 world cup which include the quote “only Messi has figured out how to win matches by moving less than everyone else.”
It's true of most sports though, the best players can predict the play before it happens. In tennis for example, the pros start moving for the balls trajectory before it is hit. I guess based on the opponents body and arm motion. Us unfortunate mortals are the ones who tend to play reactivity.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
I do think this would be an interesting experiment to test on yourself. Not a medical doctor, but in case the capsules you use are different than @DuplexFields maybe shoot for 10,000 IU a day. Maybe split 50:50 between when you wake up and lunch time. Reduce by 30%-50% if you have GI problems.
Edit: Since OP might be European, I mean ten thousand IUs not 10.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
I didn't get too much of a rant impression.
I have tracked macros when serious about training, so I know at least some of the pain that surrounds common prepared foods. I've always kept at least some carbs around workouts though, but was curious about potentially using Keto if I ever do a hard fat loss phase again.
The only person I have know personally that has for sure done Keto proper, with ketone strips and all, staid on for about 3 months. They seemed to get good results, but I don't think they thought it was sustainable to stay in ketosis for a longer period.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
I think this is sort of part of what I was trying to ask OP about. It seems to me, most people use the term keto somewhat informally. I can't find the source, but somehow I had the impression that being in ketosis for very long periods (like a year) could affect mood and cognitive function. In practice though, it doesn't seem like a lot of people actually maintain ketosis year round. I could definitely see how if you went full ketosis for 12ish week weight loss periods, ate at maintenance relatively low carb, and optionally cycled up to higher carbs when fueling high training loads, that could work very well for people. OP are you testing with keytone strips? And if yes, what's your plan for after you finish your initial weight loss?
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
Glad you found something that works for you. Do you think it's something that you would stick with long term, or perhaps cycle on and off of? My, not very researched, impression was that the main criticisms low carb is that people tend to rebound. I will say this is true of basically all diets, so is not particularly convincing to me.
I do think there are plenty of, at least decent quality, studies showing carbohydrates are necessary for peak athletic performance. This seems to be backed up by what high level competitors actually do. Though I would imagine if you were in a situation where it mattered you would be tracking macros anyway, so the convenience of keto would be less of a factor.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
So, I think it is evident that there exist situations where I could create, then donate, an art piece worth $5MM, without being able to create and sell the piece for anywhere near as much.
If it is ever challenged by the IRS, you will need to make an affirmative case that the value has been increased, not only that there exist situations where it is possible. The price you would be able to sell for is literally the definition of fair value the IRS uses.
Is oil's fair market value determined by what someone would pay for all the oil in the world?
The value if you donate $5MM, marked to last trade or mid, worth of oil futures is very close to $5MM, close enough that you can probably claim the full $5MM. The true market value is close to but less than $5MM. This is because the oil futures are fungible and the market is very liquid, with literally trillions of dollars of notional value changing hands regularly. If you think you can regularly move $5MM of oil futures with literally zero transaction cost to arrival you should go become the worlds best market maker, you have discovered an infinite money glitch. What you are proposing is moving millions of dollars of notional value in market with a few tens of millions of dollars average daily notional volume where each product is non-fungible. Your price impact will be greater.
They're certainly not securities, no matter how much the SEC wants them to be.
Surprisingly the SEC hasn't taken a strong stance on if NFT's are securities, but certainly is way to strong of a statment though since the existing case law contradicts you. It also doesn't change the criminality because of the fact that any artifice to manipulate a price done by computer is still wire fraud even if it is not securities fraud.
The "blue chip" NFTs, let's say the top 10, are like 80% of the total NFT market cap.
There is literally a section titled "The Current State of the Top NFT Assets." If you have the ability to consistently create some of the top valued NFTs you have a very valuable skill, running a tax scheme is arguably a very high risk way of monetizing that skill, but it shouldn't be surprising that there is some way to extract value from that ability.
To me, the part that doesn't work is the idea you can "set" the fair market value. The fair market value is the price a knowledgeable buyer would actually pay for the entire quantity donated. The appraisal value must be for the entire collection donated. If you can today produce NFT's people will actually pay $5MM for a cost to you of $50k. You should, and will make a profit of $4.95M and have to pay taxes on the gains. This is always strictly better than just collecting the tax savings. If the NFT market is not actually deep enough to clear $5MM from selling all the NFT's in an open market the fair market value is not $5MM.
If all you have done is manipulate the market cap up by adding transaction costs, limiting the free float, or trading with yourself or co-conspirators you have not set the fair market value higher. You have just committed more crimes by manipulating the price of unregistered securities.
You have to make an affirmative case for your valuation if the IRS challenges it, which is going to be pretty hard when 79% of all NFT collections ... remained unsold.
Edit: Always strictly better under the current system, Andrew Granato and Tyler Cowen pointed out this would not be the case under the proposed 40% capital gains rate back in 2021.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
No, the standard is not a "legit appraisal." An appraisal can help establish what you believed to be the fair value the contribution to charity is, but in most cases you would need to show that the item could have been sold by the charity in an open market transaction for the amount deducted. The fact that there would be a recent transaction where an artist was willing to produce the piece for $50,000 would set the baseline case not the $5MM appraisal. The burden of proof would be on you and the appraisers to show otherwise. You would have to make an affirmative case the valuation is justified, the fact that the market is illiquid, so like no one knows the real price man, is not a defense. This is not a new idea, and appraisers and tax filers lose cases regularly where an inaccurate appraisal is used to claim an unjustified deduction.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
The short version is the IRS knows about this trick and has a very successful record of prosecuting people who try to use it.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
I wouldn't wright off the Legacy either if sedans are in the mix. Its a shame they don't offer the MT anymore, but you can still spec one with a turbo, and it'll be more refined than an Impreza. I personal liked the old poorly placed inter-cooler with the functioning hood scoop, but the newer ones have less of a boy racer aesthetic. OP, let us know if you test drive one, I'm interested to know how responsive the newer CVTs are. As far as CVT reliability goes, I would change the transmission oil wayyy more frequently than called for in the US maintenance manual. Like every 25k miles or so.
MollieTheMare
1yr ago
I do think the case of Taiwan is a pretty good example where using alternate terminology is just imprecise, and not more sophisticated.
Among the "main options" for positions to support:
- Status quo
- De facto separate self-governing
- Special administrative region
- De jure independence
- Unification under ROC (I would have thought implausible, but maybe people thought the same thing for Germany)
- Annexation under PRC
The term "Taiwan" is probably the most neutral term, though it could indicate support for options 1, 2, 3, or 4? The term "Formosa" alone could indicate support for options 1, 2, or 4?? Saying "A/The (New) Republic of Formosa" is probably unambiguously supportive of option 4. The term "Republic of China" could indicate support for options 1 or 5? Lastly, "Chinese Taipei" could indicate support for options 1, 3, or 6?
If you have any interest in aviation, I highly recommend the Smithsonian Air and Space Udvar-Hazy Anex. It's the one out in the suburbs, but has a much larger collection than the one by the rest of the Smithsonians, including Space Shuttle Discovery, Enola Gay, and a SR-71. The one on the main Smithsonian campus does have the Wright Flyer and the Apollo 11 Command Module, though it at least used to be hard to get a good look because they were always swarmed with people.
Are you sure you are not confusing the Future Value with the Present Value? The present value of $x today, is x. It's future value is the present value compounded over the hold period.
The discount rate you should use to convert between the two should probably be your expected rate of return. If you really want to get into it, it's possible that the expected rate of return and your personal discount rate are different. If you believe even in a very weak form of the Capital Asset Pricing Model though, you should still discount that excess return back to the risk-free rate, because the difference should explained by the difference in risk (Lots of details about the Capital Market Line omitted). Or, put another way, all assets have the same effective discount rate to a risk-neutral measure. The conversion should not depend on the assets you plan to hold over the period.
More options
Context Copy link