Dran @ Dran_Arcana @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

472

Joined

2 yr. ago

I know all about stimuli that creates shitty eating habits. Source(anecdotally, sure): I was once 375lbs. I choose soylent as my primary nutrition because of how hard it is to eat healthily, cheaply, otherwise. I think others could benefit from an internal shift in perspective about what food is, and what food should be. When you discipline yourself to separate food into categories of fuel and pleasure, it's a lot simpler to find a sustainable balance. I still eat other things when I go out with friends or my wife but otherwise, we both mostly fuel ourselves with flavorless goup and are the healthiest we've ever been for it. Mentally, Physically, Emotionally, everything. At first it sucks to see ads for taco bell and whatever but by the time you've lost 150lbs and you feel the difference in your body, it's just not worth it. I'm not suggesting this lifestyle to anyone with reasonable portion control and health, I'm suggesting this lifestyle to anyone who chooses to pay too much to eat too much and could benefit from a change.

Unironically, and not in the right-wing meme way: Change my mind. I think socratic exchanges in good faith are the best way to expose the flaws in one's arguments. I absolutely could be wrong, and honestly I would love to be wrong about this one. Bypassing bureaucracy to offer unconditional aid, and it actually having a net benefit, is easily the ideal solution. And either way, thank you for at least hearing out the argument in good faith.

My counter to "food deserts" is modern logistics. Soylent may not be the cheapest, but even in it's most expensive form (premixed, preflavored, individually bottled, and shipped via an online purchase) it's like $3.25/400kcal. Which sounds like a lot, but for people who need to lose weight, ~1600-2000kcal per day is $400/mo/person. That is very easily eclipsed by a largely fast food and freezer dinner diet. Yes it's a fair argument that soylent isn't a fair fight on strictly calories/dollar, but it is a fair fight on dollars/meal and dollars/good_nutrition. Plenty of poor families spend that or more with assistance on fast food and freezer dinners because it's cheap, convenient, and filling, but the same dollar could be spent on a healthy alternative at even it's least efficient form. The less convent and more efficient forms come around ~$1.50/400kcal and that would put a month's of calories at less than $200 per person. I would challenge someone to feed a person, even unhealthily, for less. Feeding the poor and hungry isn't an economics or logistics problem, it's a perspective and individual willpower problem.

We're all in this world together dude/dudette/dudelse, I truly wish you the best and hope you get whatever you've got figured out. I'm glad we found some common ground; that's what this place (is? should be?) all about!

I would support programs that weaned people out of unhealthy eating habits, and ones that accommodate for special dietary needs (fiber, insulin, etc). That seems totally reasonable.

Hey now, lets not exaggerate and hyperbolize. There are types of non-ad data in this message. "Hello!" isn't an ad. Neither are the links for "Pay Rent" or "Request Maintenance". By pixel count that has to be at least 3% of the message!

Also, I'm sure there's a tracking pixel somewhere, probably embedded in the CDNs for those images so that they can know when and where you opened this message, what type of device your on, etc. That's creepy tracking data not advertising! (yet)

Kids these days, never happy with anything.

I cannot "eat whatever I want". Eating whatever I wanted lead me to be 375lbs. Since I cannot eat whatever I want, I choose to eat something convenient, easy to count, and inexpensive to obtain. I live a life closer to yours than you think, constantly wishing I could eat whatever I desired and remain healthy. I brag about it because for me it's hard to choose to do the right thing, and I make the right choice every day, multiple times a day.

An alcoholic should be proud to brag about being 8 years sober, shouldn't they?

I upset you because... I found a sustainable way to eat better without breaking the bank, and I'm now healthy for it? I'm sorry that you have to deal with whatever you're dealing with; nobody deserves to live in a universe where their body rejects common foods. I'm not a doctor don't worry; I have no medical advice for you. I do have some philosophical advice though. You should look within to figure out why you're mad at me; I'm not your enemy.

It's not about feelings, or fraud. It's about believing that the models everyone loves to cite don't accurately portray the complexities of reality. The reality is that even with record poverty and unemployment, we also have both record levels and record severities of obesity transcending generations.

Do any of those models account for the healthcare cost burdens of the willfully unhealthy as they transition into their elderly years? If so I'd genuinely like to see those models. In the research I've done, most models fall short of projecting long-term impacts and related costs. Yeah of course I can get behind supporting people out of bad situations with less oversight if the math works out. I just don't think the math works out when you actually account for long-term impacts of supporting bad habits.

True equity isn't sexy and doesn't motivate voters or sell ad space. It's much easier to try and shine a light on the plights (real or otherwise) of as large a group as possible and pretend to be behind them. Politics and News are sales, not education.

The only cheap food I buy is soylent. I buy so little other food comparatively that it's not difficult to afford some nice ingredients to cook a weekend dinner with, or to go out for a treat. I would not wish a life of mcdoubles and canned meat on anyone.

ONlY pPl I ThINk DeSErve AiD sHOuld GEt iT

Only people who try to help themselves deserve help from others. Why should the government support someone's bad eating habit when they don't support someone's alcohol habit, or cocaine habit? My argument is not that people don't deserve subsidized help; my argument is that as a society, we should look at a mcdouble and see cocaine, not an apple. All I'm proposing is consistency.

Optional if self-sufficient, sure. I don't believe that the taxpayer should subsidize the unhealthy eating choices of a family of four that are all each 50-150lbs overweight. A working family should be able to afford healthy foods in reasonable portions on their own. "Government cheese" should probably be gruel. We'd have a much healthier population, and the economic benefits of the taxpayer not also subsidizing the healthcare of the obese later on would be substantial. Heart disease is our #1 population killer by miles, and it feels like we're all taking crazy pills about it.

And I say this as a guy who was once simultaneously 375lbs and poor. I made bad choices, and the healthy choices were a lot cheaper than the bad choices I was making by the virtue of sheer volume. Society should not have been responsible for me should I have needed assistance to maintain that lifestyle.

As a guy who almost exclusively "eats" Soylent, I feel targeted lol. I know your post is supposed to be dystopian satire, but... Unironically though, I'm the healthiest I've ever been (375lbs -> 225lbs), and my monthly food expenses are less than a quarter of what it used to be. Been doing this almost 8 years now and while I recognize it's not for everyone, some people could use a little gruel.

Generally end-user applications like Firefox would be the latest/same version, but system libraries might be a few versions different. Generally security patches are written for a few major versions of libraries/daemons at the same time. So features might be different but it's all the same security for the most part.

That's the major draw between one distro to another, they will have different philosophies on what to include, and what major version to use. Debian for example is much more reluctant to upgrade something unless there's a large demand for a new feature. The theory is it is more stable and consistent to use that way.

Ubuntu on the other hand features much more modern versions of libraries because they want to be more hip and modern, expecting users to learn new things more often because they think the new features are worth it and they want to support all the things.

Yes but they use different repositories with different maintainers. Think of a package manager like steam, epic, etc, except instead of games it's everything. Some package managers get different applications, some have different versions of the same applications. In the case of Debian/Ubuntu it's more like steam in China vs steam in the rest of the world. Same steam, different games, different maintainers of who decides what games get to go in which steam.

The return of the king

Most people should learn to live below their means. I see people that make as much as I do having multiple children, buying giant houses in really nice areas, and I can't help but wonder what would happen if they lost their jobs with 0 notice. It probably would be catastrophic, but that risk is a choice. Conversely, I live like I make half as much as I do. Max out my retirement contributions every year, rent a much smaller apartment, etc. Maintenance is taken care of for me; I have a small amount of nice things; and if I lost my job I have months or years to find a new one before things would really get dire. Don't get me wrong I'm planning to move in somewhere nicer and have kids soon too, but extended periods of living below your means allows one to save enough money to increase what their means can provide at the same income level. It also allows you to make migrations without the stress of what happens during the overlap in employment, living situation, insurance, etc. Wash, rinse, repeat. E.G, I fixed up a junkyard car by hand in high school and drove it for a decade so I could afford to buy a new car in cash instead of a lease or a payment with interest. Not having interest applied on top of the purchase made it a lot cheaper for me in the long run than the same vehicle would have been for others that stretched to purchase it. I'm not saying it doesn't suck a little to see other people with things that I want, but I prefer the safety net I've built for myself. I think most people could benefit from a shift in perspective about what they can actually afford, and how they should choose to live their lives.

That sounds a lot closer to Canadian employment law, not US law. In most states, at-will employment is indefinitely 2-way. Employers are usually not required to give you any notice/reason/benefit beyond what is in the employment contract you sign. Conversely, employees have the same freedom. I've been at my job over ten years now and I could quit today with 0 notice or penalty. I don't have to tell them why or where I'm going, just return my work equipment and collect a prorated final check. I could do a lot more damage to them than they could do to me and I like it that way.

Pvp is completely dead, which I think was the game's greatest longevity strength. Mechanically it's quite dated but the writing is very fan service

I don't think I understand your example but I feel like people downvoting you without arguing the math is something that should be left to twitter and reddit.