@sarker's banner p

sarker

It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing

0 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 05 16:50:08 UTC

				

User ID: 636

sarker

It isn't happening, and if it is, it's a bad thing

0 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 05 16:50:08 UTC

					

No bio...


					

User ID: 636

therefore any evidence against this theory must be wrong somehow.

What evidence?

I do understand the temptation to latch onto the hottest and most bikeshedd-y of all culture war items: the CICO thesis.

I didn't see anything especially notable in the post except for this wild claim I'd never heard of before of skinny people often putting away over five thousand calories a day in the past.

In any case, since I can't resist either, I will propose that higher body temperature provides a possible mechanism for people to burn a much higher (or lower) amount of calories than can be explained by the Mifflin-St. Jeor Equation.

There's obviously some degree of RMR difference between people (and the existence of people at the tails of the RMR distribution does not contradict CICO in the slightest btw).

However, it's notable that people are eating way more food these days than at basically any point in the past. That figure is a little rough since it doesn't actually measure what people are eating - those numbers show a similar story but they only seem to go back to the seventies. So it's a little hard to imagine that our ancestors had significantly higher metabolisms while eating significantly less. Small changes are possible and not that interesting to me.

It's no longer possible to read much of anything without logging in, which I suspect is a load shedding measure.

records of courtiers in some European country.

These guys were probably fat. I can definitely buy a sedentary fat man eating five thousand calories a day.

Trench soldiers

It's pretty believable that trench warfare has higher caloric demands than athletic training. Athletes stop training once they are in danger of overexerting themselves, while the infantry has no such luxury.

That trench soldiers maintained weight on 4600 calories a day should make us extremely skeptical of sedentary, normal BMI people eating 5kcal day in, day out unless they have some kind of metabolic disease, let alone this happening often.

Stay hydrated.

When we look at historical records, we often see even relatively sedentary men ate 3000, 5000, or even more kCals per day.

Huh? Where are the historic sedentary men eating over 5000 calories on a daily basis?

The Democrat rank and file seem to have have largely convinced themselves that the Democratic party message is Just Being A Decent Human Being. It's hard to pivot from that to the message being a problem.

Quick Google search suggests that there's something like half a million gallbladder removals per year in the USA. I'll leave it as a simple exercise for the reader to estimate how many residents per year could be trained to do gallbladder surgeries at such a rare.

,>Because there's usually a rule about maximum line length, in order to keep lines fitting inside the screen or window.

There's really no need for this anymore, it would be trivial to have the editor wrap the line in a nice way (go has no line length limits in the official style guide).

Not to mention that sometimes we use tabs to deliberately format things into columns, not just indent code. Variable-length tabs throw that off.

That's just an abuse of notation. Spaces are for alignment.

The thing is that indentation should be tabs. Then everyone can set whatever depth they want their tabs to render as.

Which made me realize that I am not sure if I have ever watched a movie that depicted a modern religious institution well.

Not a movie, but Shtisel was a pretty good depiction of charedim I think.

For California I was able to find grade level reading standards that are somewhat clearer (PDF, page 18).

You might be better off getting a sample test and evaluating if it's a reasonable level of knowledge to expect of kids of that age.

Why is Oklahoma less enmeshed in capitalism than New York?

It’s caused by market forces and corporate influences rather than planning.

It's caused by (some) people's revealed preferences for suburban living rather than apartment living and the increasing unusability of public spaces thanks to laws against nuisances not being enforced, for which we can thank leftists.

since it's possible for more than one economic system to suppress birthrates

What is the basis of comparison?

various cultural diminishments in the role of community and family in peoples' lives owing in part to automobiles, suburbanization, etc.,

What does this have to do with property rights and free enterprise?

obesity caused by processed foods and cheap low-nutrient foods, environmental contaminants, etc.

Given that obesity and number of kids both correlate negatively with income, I'd be surprised if the obese weren't having more kids than the skinny.

government and corporate propaganda systems increasing the prestige of educational and economic attainment

Even government propaganda is capitalism now?

babies are recommended to get 2 influenza shots in the first 12 months of life, so the number is 20 and not 18.

The standard recommendation is one shot in the first year of life.

If we're counting the combos, MMR & DTaP would count for 24 and not 18 (8 total doses of these shots).

Yes, 24 is the number I used after breaking down the vaccine cocktails.

HPV is 2 or 3 doses.

HPV is one or two doses.

When I count, I get 72 or 73 not including the RSV.

You are still hiding the ball, because you've counted 47 with some fudging and there's only 24 other recommended shots on the schedule. Even with these inflated numbers you only get 71. "A hundred dollars? What do you need fifty dollars for?"

boosters (teal),

Boosters are not teal, teal shots are not recommended for all children.

But there's no way to distinguish well manufactured and poorly manufactured vaccines?

What boosters and multi year shots? I counted the boosters. Seriously, show your math, because I am pretty sure you are hiding the ball.

and "ask your doctor about RSV" means, in practicality, you should get the RSV "vaccine"

RSV vaccine is not recommended for all children. If we're going to stick to what's recommended on the schedule, let's stick to the schedule.

How is it 80? 48 I counted above, plus 18 flu, plus 2 covid makes 68.

Please show your math for "hundreds" of vaccinations on the schedule. I went through and counted, you can surely put some minimal effort in rather than low effort sneers.

Sure, we can break down dtap and mmr into three vaccinations. That brings the total to 48. Still a far cry from hundreds, so I don't see what's asinine about saying that hundreds is wrong. There's just no way you can torture the numbers to get to hundreds.

why wouldn't you count these?

Simply because in my experience most kids don't get these on a regular basis.

So... there's no actual vaccine that you "believe in", and your belief is strictly in the theoretical (but so far unattained) possibility of producing a good vaccine?

Let's not do the thing where the poster is directionally correct, but we're nitpicking the details. Yeah, it's not 100 shots, but it's a lot, and it's a lot more than before.

Wait a second. There is no "directionally correct" here - the poster said not 100 but "hundreds" and the true number is around 30. It's "directionally correct" in the sense that the sign is right, but that's about it. If he said "thousands", would that still be "directionally correct"?

And it's not a semantic nit, because we can mostly all agree that the ideal number of vaccines is greater than 0 and less than "hundreds". So where exactly we are on that spectrum is basically the entire discussion.

Let's flip it. Why should an infant be receiving Hep B and Covid vaccines? Why should they receive any vaccines that they didn't in 1990 (or whenever the Chicken Pox vaccine came out).

I don't think there's a good reason to vaccinate infants against COVID.

I don't know why infants are vaccinated against hep B but it's been recommended for newborns since the 1991 (and patented in 1972), so by your heuristic that one seems pretty safe.

The post-1990s vaccines to have vanishingly little benefit and unquantified risk.

It's not clear to me that this is the case, but I'd be curious to see if anyone has actually looked at this rigorously. I don't know off the top of my head which ones are post 1990s.

That's much closer to the truth but not necessarily true.

  • RSV is required depending on the mother's antibody status.
  • Hep B can be done in the second month of life.
  • So can the RSV vaccine.

So taking those two at 2 months instead of 3 months cuts the number to 5.