htrayl

The lack of specificty is also a strategy used to bolster support for deregulation.

Simply say “we are eliminating regulations” , and dont ever talk about what you are deregulating, because actually many regulations are a net good for society and were implemented for a reason. Preventing companies from dumping poison is a regulation.

Amouranth?

Tech has made things more efficient - the rewards of such are simply being funneled from the average person to the wealthy.

Im going to say the Harvard estimate is probably pretty close. It is probably a bit higher than what you would need on a day to day basis for survival, but enough to help your body maintain some muscle over the long term.

Its not enough for someone wanting to be fit or muscular though.

That diet doctor recommendation feels wildly high for a “what is actually necessary” request. Like 2 g/kg is near the target for bodybuilders.

It might be a good idea for many people to hit that to maximize muscle development in preparation for aging (where muscle deterioration is chief concern), but not a good estimate for anyone who isnt worried about that.

They also say two further things which ding their credibility:

First is this comment: “Because there appears to be a limited amount of protein that can be absorbed at a meal, it may be best to evenly space out your protein throughout the day, if possible.”

This is not really a concern even for bodybuilders. You dont need to overthink spacing.

Second is the comment about vegetarians/vegans. Protein intake is not a huge concern for the average vegetarian, if you are not aiming for that unnecessarily high target - as long as they are regularly including some protein in their meals (soy, beans, nuts, eggs). Even for non-vegetarians, that higher target requires you to monitor of your protein intake to hit it regularly with overeating.

The ability for those on the left to eat each other up never disappoints.

In general, I disagree with you. I think the two things you fixated on (souless architecture and rentals) are bad approaches to density, but you will notice that for the most part, this is the form of “density” that places who are notoriously bad at density do. Its what happens when we deliberately regulate ourselves into not allowing other options.

There is a pretty crazy amount of “density” in well bit, low rise structures - though actually I dont personally hate on towers as a concept.

Also, i would like to highlight that a very small portion of people are living in newly built homes, and only a small portion are really able to make meaningful design impact. Most just buy the builder-grade suburban model home. The idea that suburban single family homes are some design panacae is just wrong.

It sounds like one of the members of YMCA is a dipshit who insists it is not a gay anthem, and has been able to legally take the rights to the song and YMCA from the original members.

So they move them back 100 feet.

…no, they won’t know for a few hundred years due to the actual speed of light and vast distances of space.

Yes, this is what I meant to express - understanding requires exploration. Externally, this can be viewed as “changes”.

These findings challenge the common belief that sexual orientation is biologically predetermined and unchanging throughout life.

I really don’t think this is true, nor does the study even imply this.

This study captures peoples perceptions and external communication about their own identity. This doesn’t get anywhere close to deep enough to say “sexual orientation can change” - just that people can be wrong about how they communicate that identity.

That is fine, and is not surprising.

Eh, even in “the real world” we still encounter blue wave lengths in the evening. I think it is a matter or reduction (aka not shoving a largely blue light source in your face) than elimination.

I’d also say, the fundamental point of it (that finite cost in life is worth the chance at infinite reward or avoiding infinite punishment) is pretty abysmal morally. Pretty easy to justify atrocities for any concept of God that way as a rational approach to life.

This is really the primary death knell for the argument. Yes, there billions and billions of “god” variations - but at least believing in one might get you a (near-zero) better chance at a decent afterlife.

…until you realize the category of “Gods who dont want your worship”.

In this case, mostly being non-imposing in an “elegant” manner

Russia criticizing the US nuclear arms policy is rich, given how they have both loosened their requirements on when they would use nuclear weapons, and have repeatedly and consistently have used nuclear threats as a military strategy since their invasion of Ukraine.

I guess they have to take this position as the US at least has working armaments and not just rusted, unmaintained, weapons.

News flash:

Political party leaders who suggest succession and independence are almost always pushing Russian propaganda.

Breaking apart the US is the greatest victory that Russia (and other nations hostile to the states) they could hope to accomplish.

This is part of what has made Trump so successful:

He has convinced his base (and a lot of the media) that what he says doesnt matter - lying, outrageous claims, incendiary remarks. He is schrodingers politician and his positions generally are “Whatever person X wants him to be”. There is also massive dissonance on Trump “telling it like it is” - despite that NOBODY holds him to his word.

Im not so sure. I think this is more of a question about taking arbitrary, undefined, or highly variable unstructured data and transforming it into a close approximation for structured data.

Yes, the pipeline will include additional steps beyond “LLM do the thing”, but there are plenty of tools that seek to do this with LLM assistance.