- I'd suggest that only people who are already overweight will be trying intermittent fasting. Needs a study with randomly selected people who are put into two groups - overweight and lean, then half of each group start intermittent fasting.
Also, since when is just restricting eating to certain hours of the day 'fasting'?
My experience: I was overweight, 95 Kg. Two years of not getting anywhere with attempting to reduce intake, due to living alone, which makes cooking small meals difficult. Heard of "36 hour fasting", and decided to try it. Except I felt '36 hours' is half-arsed. So to simplify I just do 48 hour fasts. Turns out it's very easy, and I can reliably drop a couple more kilos anytime I choose to do another fast or two. Currently down to 84 Kg. Will be 83 after the current one probably. Once I'm at 80kg, I'll decide whether to continue down to 75 or so.
- I hadn't seen this before, thought it looks interesting. Wondered why it is perpetually unfinished... until I saw the 'Make an off-line version of this book' and 'Make a PDF of the book' sections.
Oh, OK. The authors have chronic obsessive abstraction syndrome, aka Endpoint Avoidance. What a shame.
Anyone have links to an actual PDF of it? Or a zip of the entire 'book' fileset?
- A disappointingly indecisive work, dare I say giving a wishy-washy impression. So much more could have been said, if the artist had worked in the far more assertive medium of #FFFFEE. Or perhaps the almost ineffable #FFFFF0.
- There's a deeper reason. Remember 3Dfx? They made the entire source code for their 3D hardware available to developers, all in C and a tiny bit of assembler. It could be easily ported to non-Wintel platforms. (I know, because I did port it to a MIPS based platform that had zero operating system. It was a poker machine.)
Then 3Dfx was smashed from the inside and bought out by nVidia. Source code to 3D accellerator hardware drivers never to be seen again.
Why? Because if just anybody could port 3D graphics hardware and drivers to any custom hardware and OS platform, then Microsoft, Apple, etc would rapidly be killed by something with a MUCH better GUI (3D) appearing on the market.
The powers that be do NOT want capable, unchained computing systems to upset their carefully constructed 'enslavement via enshitification' schemes.
- Thanks! As an old (retired) programmer I was hoping a good intro to GPUs would turn up. Now, I don't suppose you could add 'ink on paper' to the color options? Gray on light gray, with medium gray highlighting, is hard on old eyes. While I never want to see P7 phosphor green again. And I suppose a zipfile of the whole thing, for local reading and archive, would be out of the question?
- Funny! A lengthy review of writing implements, and comments about them, without a single mention of mechanical (clutch) pencils. Like the Pentel P205 (0.5mm leads), and various other sizes of pencil and leads available. Vary the lead diameter and hardness to suit the use. Personally I use 0.5mm, 2B almost always. For technical work, where it's nice to be able to erase mistakes, they're perfect. For daily personal note taking, the erasability is fairly irrelevant.
Now mechanical pencils are so cheap you're best to buy dozen packs (because although they last forever you will lose them now and then), and the leads can be bought cheap in very large quantities via Aliexpress and such. Don't buy leads in the tiny. expensive packs from local stationers.
- I don't think you'd be able to get any new non-computerized car at all today. Emission control makes computerization an absolute requirement. That's why choice in cars for people who feel the way I do is limited to old cars from pre-90s. Suits me fine.
Servo power steering is acceptable, though my present car (1993 Subaru stationwaggon) has direct steering, and I prefer that.
- I'm a retired electronics design engineer and embedded programmer, and I will NEVER own a car with any kind of vehicle/engine management computer. Old cars for me, forever. I flatly refuse anything but fully manual and direct mechanical gears, clutch, steering, brakes and throttle.
Curiously the chief engineer I knew at a major car service center, also felt the same way.
And that's not even touching on the insanity of building computerized vehicle systems with always-on GSM data links to the Net. Ask Michael Hastings how that worked out for him.
Also I agree that critical systems software should be legally required to be open source.
- Yes indeed. Black market treatment offers appearing in 5... 4... 3...
- "There is a button on the remote to activate voice."
More likely: There is a button on the remote to make users believe they have the ability to disable voice data relay to someone's remote servers.
What are the chances such TVs will have network controlled power-up capability? You only think you turned it off.
It's funny that people seem to be accepting always-on GSM network connectivity of the electronics in control of their cars, but oh my god, not the TV!
The TV can't drive you at 100MPH into a palm tree on remote command.
Just to be clear, I think 'smart TVs with network connected microphones' is a completely insane idea. Another on a long list of hanging offenses.
- In the videos you can see the quality of the rocket flame changes suddenly about half a second before the obvious explosion in the engine area. The jet becomes more orange and less convergent. At 1:03 in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aL5eddt-iAo
So, as a general comment, something bad happened with the gear that pumps fuel into the engines in the right proportion. Maybe involving a major leak of fuel into the structures around the engine. Leaked fuel explodes. Complete loss of thrust, rocket falls back to earth.
I wonder if the Russians would consider it a good or a bad thing for them, if the West decides to stop using those Russian-built engines? Specifically, who benefits if there's a series of failures of AJ-26 engines? Considering the current imposition of economic sanctions against Russia, based on quite untrue accusations related to Ukraine and MH17. The Russians are feeling considerably put out over that, and rightly so.
- "all the events of the last week seem so orchestrated that it is hard not to be cynical"
Uh... make that the last 51 years. If you only just noticed, you're not paying attention. And I only say 51 years from picking an arbitrary point (JFK assassination) for when the deep state's evil ways became really obvious.
"If the people were to ever find out what we have done, we would be chased down the streets and lynched." -- George Bush, cited in the June, 1992 Sarah McClendon Newsletter
"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Director of Central Intelligence. An observation by the late Director at his first staff meeting in 1981. This observation reveals the mentality of cynicism which infests the US Federal control structures, and the reality that these structures regard the American people with total contempt.
- Fascinating. Presumably it wouldn't be possible for any planets to be orbiting in the vicinity of the 0.258 days orbital period binary. Or maybe, if far enough away?
However, imagine being a species on such a planet, and trying to work out astronomy. Motions of objects in the sky would be rather confusing. To put it mildly.
- Stating that the formula is still a secret after all these years, isn't google-compatible.
- It's been done before. It's called coal. But then at the end of the Carboniferous Era fungi learned how to break down lignin. This ended the trapping of vast amounts of atmospheric carbon in layers of non-rotting plant matter that would get buried over time.
All that carbon in coal seams used to be in the air. Not many people know the atmospheric CO2 level during most of Earth's history was well over 1000 ppm, and commonly around 3000 ppm.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
Interesting contradiction isn't it? Our slowly rising atmospheric CO2 level today is just reaching 400 ppm, and this is claimed by some to be disastrous. Yet it has usually been far higher, and Earth thrived in those times.
- There's a fatal flaw.
Even if commercial delivery drones could be engineered to not crash into people or houses, not tangle with power lines, not cause accidents on highways, and not collide with each other once they are common, there's one thing that will instantly get them banned.
That will be the time someone uses a UAV to deliver 10 Oz of Semtex and a proximity sensor to someone they don't like. Exactly how are you going to stop that becoming common, if there are lots of UAVs in the air everywhere?
Actually this factor is probably why they will definitely be banned before there is any commercial take-up. Because there are some powerful people who very many people don't much like. And this application will be very unpopular with the powerful.
- It appears to me that Google has a long term ambition to become the sole means of navigating the Internet. Inter-site links are fundamental to topic-related navigation, as the Internet was originally intended. It appears that Google is trying to depreciate inter-site linking in general, and skilled PR misdirection on the topic by a Google employee doesn't reassure.
One has to wonder to what extent the entire phenomenon of link spamming sites might be a Hegelian Dialectic tactic by Google - ie a manufactured problem, intended to prompt a 'solution' that is in fact more beneficial to Google's unstated intent. Are we really to believe that there's no algorithmic solution to mitigating the link-spamming nuisance?
Another dimension of this same ambition, is the movement to obfuscate URLs in browser address bars. Traditionally, Web users could copy, save and manipulate links directly as another means of navigating the Internet and maintaining their own records of Web places. As browsers progress further in the direction of eliminating direct user visibility of true URLs, this navigational method becomes less available. The Google-promoted alternative? Just search via Google!
As for why Google would want to do this, the obvious answer would be the usual 'money and power'. If Google succeeds in virtually eliminating all navigational alternatives to Google-searching, they then own the Net. For instance, if they wanted to make any given web site disappear, they could simply de-index it. That's a politically very dangerous power. Even if Google has no political agenda now (a debatable point), given such power they'd be guaranteed to become political. Power corrupts, etc.
We've been through this before, with a gold ring and a volcano. It's generally a bad idea to create 'one thing to rule them all', and Google is no exception.
- Brilliant idea! And while we are going about removing unsightly, brain-straining details from every UI, let's remove all street signs, house numbers, highway exit signs, and so on. Also, hide all place names on all maps, Because who needs that complicated excessively detailed noise?
Instead at any time we can just call one of the ubiquitous Google-taxis, and ask it to take us to the place we can vaguely describe by some approximate references. When we get there, if it wasn't where we wanted to go, well that was our fault for not being more specific. We should try the Google-taxi again. But it might take a while to be sure it wasn't where we wanted, since... no visible address!
Seriously, this isn't just the stupidest browser-change idea ever. It's a deliberate move to dumb the net down and shift web functionality towards more total control by Google. You do realize Google censors search results, right? So if searching becomes the only way most people know to refer to/find a site, removing it from search engine results is equivalent to removing it from existence.
This isn't about 'UI tidyness' at all, this is about dis-empowerment of users, ensuring that naive web users never become more aware of how it all works, and ultimately about Control.
Personally I use full URLs all the time. I keep lists of article URLs in text files (like these: http://everist.org/archives/links/ ) as well as saving articles because they may disappear. I often explore in sites by direct editing URLs. I demand to see full URLs on mouse hover, before clicking links.
The 'hide/tidy the URL in the address bar' foolishness has been getting worse and worse for some time, and is a pain. Chopping the protocol off, graying out paths, shortening... I refuse to use a browser unless I can configure it to stop messing with the URL. No I don't want it animated, with bits appearing or disappearing depending on what I do. If you're complaining about superfluous visual detail, how is moving and changing the visible URL around all the time not worse than any static URL, no matter how long and machine-like? A static long URL I don't care about is fine, but if it _moves_ it demands attention.
I can't believe the people pushing this actually expect to get away with hiding Universal Resource Locators from web users. Literally, taking down the street signs and expecting people to trust google and other search engines to faithfully perform the task of taking us to places we want to go, without ever trying to _influence_ where we actually end up going.
Just like Google isn't trying trying to force fundamental and harmful browser functionality changes down our throats. Or coerce us all to joyfully become Google+ users. Or force everyone to use their real names in online forums, Or build Skynet for some reason (ref their ongoing purchases of every AI group they can.)
Also, take that "It's OK, the URL is still available, it's just hidden way down in here" assurance and shove it. Same thing as UEFI secure boot - "It's OK, the ability to install some other OS is still there, you just have to thenyzzzt em-thup jksdfh!" How can you be so naive? It's a process, a series of planned steps, and after the nth little harmless step, the capability won't be there at all. Most people won't even remember it ever existed.
All you people applauding this move... you've got to be kidding. Useful idiots perhaps? Or part of the choir.
If this sounds negative, do you understand how negative I think the idea of hiding URLs sounds? I'm having great difficulty refraining from using offensive language. The concept deserves a large serving of it.
- I'm amazed that some people don't by default make a conscious choice of where to put archive extractions, Which would typically include deliberate creation of a new folder, named by them, in a suitable place in their archives.
The concept behind the term 'tarbomb', (I had to look it up) speaks most about user laziness and disorganization. Why should a zip or tar archive contain anything other than the files it's advertised to contain? If they are nested in a folder, that just makes more work for me, since it's unlikely I'm going to be happy with the folder name as is, so have to rename it. Or more likely, move the files back up to the folder I extracted the whole thing into, then delete the now empty superfluous folder.
Well done.