woop_woop @ woop_woop @lemmy.world

Posts

0

Comments

103

Joined

1 yr. ago

This doesn't feel like news worth anyone's time..

Assume I can't draw the conclusions you want me to. Please explain it

Arguably any revolution comes from a critical mass of the population being unhappy..

Howso

Which would be better to you? You're a civilian somewhere - do you prefer to watch your livelyhood slowly being destroyed by your government or do you want a boom?

I'd assume the former gives you a chance to recognize it and do something, the latter is just boom.

1: I wholeheartedly believe being a whistleblower is a courageous and brave act. Full stop.

2: drawing conclusions as to why these people decided to speak up when they did without hearing it from them is nonsense.

3: assuming and repeating a John Gresham novel from news articles between corporations and their whistleblowers is not only buying into a conspiracy theory, but is also parroting it.

4: partaking in these conspiratorial shenanigans helps no one and isn't something to be waved away as harmless - otherwise, what's the difference here and qanon?

If the "bravery" and admiration comes against the idea of assassination, then it completely matters. Idk why you're hand waving the nonsense here

Isn't that part of the point? If the populace suffers, government changes are more likely

I'm on your side dude, the response here is kinda nuts.

Well...the first dude did say something about Boeing killing whistleblowers and the bravery of others to step up in defiance of that.

So that whole line of thinking is conspiracy theory stuff with no real proof and it is being parroted here. Granted, usually the assassination stuff is usually tongue in cheek, but the top comment seems a bit crazy.

Ridin' with Biden despite the genocidin'

• Pay for luxury service
• Service gets more expensive
• Keep paying for service
• Service gets more expensive
• Complain about cost, goto 1

It's hard to have pity for people who do this, especially if enough people stopped, the service would get cheaper.

Same except opposite for me. Communication on the right, info on left

Cheers bud

Fair enough. And I'll give you the vs fat part. It was unfair for me to say anyway - what was in my head when I said it was that a pound of fat is considered worth 3500 kcal, which is more energy than most things in a body. It was a shit argument that mixed points.

Overall, I think my issue is just with the simple statement that "muscles are inefficient".

The way I interpreted that statement is that "muscles waste energy", since that's all the context I could get from those words. I see muscles as super efficient, just like anything else in the body in that they do as little as possible compared to what is demanded. I view that type of laziness as ultimate efficiency.

Through the rest of the thread I got little additional context, so I kept on keeping on.

I still think the op of this thread didn't get his point across very well

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2980962/

Heart & kidneys > brain > liver > skeletal muscle > adipose muscle

Pound for pound. But they all are efficient, which still goes against the original thesis

Then muscles are as efficient as they can be. They use as little energy as they need. They require energy to do things, just like everything else in your body. But they will only be as big/strong as required, nothing more - which is, believe it or not - efficiency.

Aside from fat. Or the brain. Or other organs

So from what context are we using the word "efficiency"?

Because from a muscle's view, it is as efficient as possible. It grows and atrophies based on what is required of it. This is my problem with the main post: muscles are inefficient.

They aren't, full stop. A muscle will be as efficient as possible - be as small and use as little energy as possible - to handle the regular tasks given.

If you are speaking from a holistic view of a human who decides what goals to set, whether it is useful to simply have large muscles for aesthetic reasons, then sure. Yeah. Big muscles burn more energy and aren't needed to survive. I'd still say that's not what efficiency is, but I'd concede there.

What? If a muscle was inefficient, it would use more resources than it needed to no matter what its task was. This would result in larger muscles than needed - simply because "why not?" Use the resources.

By being as small and effective as possible for their normal tasks, they are as efficient as possible. That's why if you stop working out - their normal tasks reduce - they get smaller and weaker.

Muscles rise to the lowest amount of strength possible. I'd argue that all parts of a body are as efficient as possible, because that's how life usually works.