exasperation @ exasperation @lemm.ee

Posts

0

Comments

300

Joined

10 mo. ago

Yeah but if some direct combustion of a fossil fuel is cheaper than electricity, then the actual dollars per unit heat will be cheaper with a fossil fuel source.

Yes, but that's why heat pumps in this country are typically paired with auxiliary electric heat.

Yes, and although it's not very efficient to have auxiliary electrical heat, that's a small percent of the overall year.

If you live in a home that hits -20C for 20 days per year, that's really cold! But you'll probably need the heater on for about 180 days per year at that point. Putting up with less efficiency for 20-30 days per year is still a net gain if the other 150 days of heating makes up for it.

I'm saying that whatever it was your grandparents had 50 years ago, the costs (including opportunity costs) are totally different.

I can work an hour at McDonald's, for $18, and earn enough to buy 10 pounds of tomatoes at $1.80/lb. Growing 10 pounds of tomatoes is gonna take me a lot more than an hour of work, even if the land is free. The tradeoffs for me in this moment are going to be different from what your grandparents faced in the 70's.

Either way, whether it's worth the effort to drive for Uber depends on whether you already own a car. Whether you can publish a cheap indie game on the app store or steam depends on whether you already own a laptop. And whether it's cost effective to grow your own food depends on whether you have access to land, sun, soil, and water.

Also economies of scale is a poor argument when it comes to farming

For small scale food gardening it absolutely matters. Picking berries, planting seedlings, spreading compost, getting rid of pests (either through pesticides or things like ladybugs), productivity per worker hour depends a lot on the scale. It's really, really hard to be cost competitive with the grocery store in just pure worker hours, even if your own time is worth less than $5/hour.

very very poor

had an acre

Sounds like they already had something that dramatically changes the cost/benefit analysis, compared to someone considering gardening from scratch.

Someone with a few raised beds isn't going to be able to compete with the economies of scale of a full acre of farmland.

Let other people enjoy their preferences. Some people get very particular about console/IDE fonts, keyboard switches, T-shirt fabric blends, fork shape, guitar string material, etc. Others like fashion and style. Some like architecture and interior design. Let people enjoy things, and get deep in the weeds on minute differences if they want to.

There's always the Japanese method, where the protege being groomed as the CEO's replacement goes through the effort and legal process of being adopted as the CEO's son and taking the company name as his own legal last name.

Suzuki has done it 4 times in a row, even bypassing biological sons.

This particular linked study, that is the basis for this thread, limited itself to only unprocessed red meat.

There's three metrics to think about:

• Actual number of years reduced/increased
• Actual probability of that change in lifespan
• Statistical certainty that the trend we observe is actually linked to the variable we're studying.

Russian roulette (traditional 1 round in 6 chambers) in a hospice ward (where everyone has been given a prognosis of less than 6 months to live) would be a very high certainty of shaving months off the life of 1/6 of the studied population. In the grand scheme of things, that's not a very high risk. But at the same time, we can look at it and say "yes, shooting oneself with a revolver is very bad for health." Putting a more or less deadly round in the chamber is probably not going to be a hugely significant change in outcomes, even if we can objectively say that one is better or worse for the person's health than the other.

Almost all dietary/nutrition studies involve much smaller swings in lifespan or health conditions, probabilistically over a smaller portion of the population, with less statistical certainty in the observations. But the science is still worth doing, and analyzing, because that all adds up.

This study shows inflammatory markers are increased on a ketogenic diet: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6922028/

This rat study shows increased senescence in heart and kidneys in long term ketosis: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado1463

However, Cholesterol is not a disease - its essential for life - the concern has never been cholesterol but atherosclerosis - if someone has elevated LDL, undamanged and unglycated (as on keto) and they are concerned they should get a CAC score so they can see their actual plaque burden.

What you're asking for is being studied. Here's a meta study from 2013:

However, one established risk factor of CVD, i.e. LDL-cholesterol, still turned out to be harmfully affected by the VLC regimen, most probably attributable to the larger amounts of saturated fat in the diet(Reference Bueno, de Melo and de Oliveira1). In their discussion, the authors stated that future meta-analyses should investigate the impact of low carbohydrates (LC) v. LF on other important pathological markers, e.g. endothelial function, in order to further assess the safety of LC dietary therapies.

This is reasonable, since evidence from prospective cohort studies has shown that endothelial dysfunction represents an independent risk factor for the development of many CVD including atherosclerosis(Reference Inaba, Chen and Bergmann2). We, therefore, carried out a meta-analysis to compare the effects of LC and LF regimens on flow-mediated dilatation (FMD). FMD of the brachial artery is a non-invasive measure of endothelial function, furthermore reflecting the local bioavailability of endothelium-derived vasodilators, especially NO. Inflammation of the endothelium is regarded to play a major role in the destabilisation of atherosclerotic lesions, therefore paving the way for future CVD events(Reference Inaba, Chen and Bergmann2).

Their results:

In our meta-analysis, LC dietary protocols were associated with a significant decrease in FMD when compared with their LF counterparts. A recent meta-analysis of observational studies including a sample size of 5·547 subjects has observed that a 1 % decrease in FMD is associated with a 13 % increase in the risk of future cardiovascular events(Reference Inaba, Chen and Bergmann2)

Along the same lines, here's another study with arterial measurements that shows reduced blood flow and arterial function for those who stuck with a high protein diet: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000331970005101003

Look, none of these studies are, standing alone, enough to really change things. But it seems to me, from the outside that you're cherry picking your own results to justify carnivore diet.

The high carb versus low carb discussion is complicated and has a lot of factors at play. But the evidence for animal versus plant based low carb suggests that animal product diets are more harmful than plant product diets of similar macronutrient profiles.

Moreover, the overall trends show that those who eat a lot of whole grains (which are, by their nature, high carb plant based foods) have lower mortality than those who don't. The same is true of those who eat a lot of fruit (again, high carb plant based food).

Trying to tease out which of a million variables is truly responsible for cardiovascular health isn't easy, but a lot of the overall trends can be seen:

• Whole grains good
• Whole fruit good
• Red meat bad
• Cured meat really bad
• Seafood good
• Legumes good

Now, you can quibble with confounding variables, but at a certain point trying to argue that minutiae starts looking like religious apologetics, really cherry picking examples in favor while ignoring examples against. Coming up with a coherent theory of "fiber not important" or "the foods our genetic ancestors ate are somehow bad for us now" is an uphill battle, and I'm not convinced that the carnivore diet is anything more than a scam designed to sell books.

The injections work by causing your brain to want to do the things that you're describing. Adherence to a plan is the hard part, and the drugs tend to make people naturally want to stick with that plan, by literally making it more desirable than not sticking with it.

If somebody wants to eliminate even more, they could try out a low carb, or even a ketogenic diet or even a zero carb diet.

Most recent studies of long term ketosis show accelerated aging markers, and some potentially harmful increases in LDL and VLDL cholesterol. Some propose periodic resets out of ketosis to avoid some of the accumulated long term issues, while taking advantage of some of the short term benefits for overall insulin sensitivity and obesity.

The human body has many, many ways to meet its nutritional needs. We're omnivores and we have lots of anthropological history of different cultures surviving primarily on carbs, primarily on animal products, and all sorts of in between.

There are plenty of issues with people on carnivore diets, too, so I would caution against trying to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. I've never seen anything suggesting that there's a statistically significant delta between a high carb whole foods diet and a low carb whole foods diet. And even within those frameworks, it's entirely possible that the qualitative differences between one whole food still makes a difference compared to another whole food, like the observed studies regarding red meat being bad, fatty fish being good, legumes being good, fermented vegetables being good, etc.

Nutrition science is pretty incomplete. We're only recently learning bits and pieces about the role of the microbiome, and haven't even finished accumulating the information we started learning in recent decades about endocrine feedback loops in nutrition and metabolism. It'll take a lot of data and analysis to have confidence in what people are saying, and I personally take it all in with interest but skepticism.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with you. I am focused on the aggression in particular: trying to flip things around to where the defense is a counterattack. Which could be OK in some instances, but the post itself equates having other interests (like, uh, socializing in person) as cheating.

Elsewhere in this thread OP is condescending towards "sportsball" and "clubbing," which reinforces my point that he's not talking about defending his own hobbies and interests, or even attacking judgy people who should mind their own business, but more interested in attacking others for having hobbies and interests inferior to his own.

In my eyes this is all cringe for those reasons.

I'm not a fan of judging/shaming others for their hobbies/interests, so it always makes me a bit sad when the defense mechanism is to try to flip the aggression on the other side, trying to shame the "normie" interests.

Then what is corned beef?

every hole is a goal

ew

25-35 is a great time. I moved cities and changed careers in my late 20's, and pivoted again in my early 30's, and it was a good reset to build on lessons learned and undoing past mistakes, while having the youth and energy to really enjoy myself and actually choose a path I was going to have fun with.

I'm enjoying my 40's a lot, but I look back fondly on that 25-35 period as being both fun in itself and setting me up for a good 30's and 40's (and possibly further).

Set phasors to "confuse"

The 787 has 8 main tires and 2 nose tires. The main tires are 218 lbs (about 100kg) and the nose tires are 114 lbs (about 50kg). So a set is roughly 1970 lbs/900kg, pretty close to a short ton. 5 metric tonnes would be about 5.6 sets of 787 tires.

Deep dish is delicious. Lasagna is delicious. Baked ziti is delicious. Calzones are delicious.

Look, you can't go wrong with tomato sauce, cheese, dough, and optional meat. It's all delicious, and playing around with different ratios is still great.

New In Town came out in 2009, 16 years ago.