You urged to do your math, but didn't present any of yours.
Muscle burns an inconsequential amount of energy -- 6-10 per pound depending on sources. So if you were somehow to gain 10 pounds of pure muscle, you'd have enough calories for a small apple per day (60 cal).
How fast can you gain 10 pounds of muscle? In an 18-week weight training programme, a group of men gained 4.6 pounds of muscle: http://jap.physiology.org/content/82/1/298 -- most of the gain in 8 weeks. So I would imagine increasing your lean mass by 10 pounds (just to be able to eat an extra apple a day) would be quite an effort.
So considering SOLELY weight loss, ignoring calory deficits from diet changes and focusing on building up muscle mass does not seem effective. Instead of building up muscle mass for a 60Cal deficit via BMR increase, take a 600 Cal deficit via diet and lose the weight in 1/10th the time.
The point is though that you have shifted your daily equilibrium, and it takes zero thought to maintain that. Choosing to eat 60 calories less a day is a choice, which takes mental effort. In contrast, once you have that 10 pounds of muscle, it is burning away regardless. 60 calories * 365 days = 21900 calories a year. Fat has 9 calories per gram, so if you maintain your eating at the same level, that's ~2.4 kilograms (~5 pounds) a year you are losing without even trying. Obviously in reality, your appetite goes up as well, but the point is that once you are muscular enough you have to actively try to eat more just to maintain your weight.
Would you apply this to software engineering, and if not why not?
Should the engineer that was responsible for some XSS flaw 3 years ago used today to extract personal information (which in turn can be used for identity theft) be personally required to pay damages? Should a peer that reviewed and approved their code, and maybe the sysadmin that deployed it and manage who run the projects and didn't use all possible security controls?
What if the error was in the machine's control system logic?
Should, or should not, the production tool (and software) be held accountable for what may have been ill advised use of the machine? (Reaching inside to seat the metal sheet sounds like a dodgy move. Bad design? Broken machine? Stupid operator?)
When tragedy strikes, we, as moral animals, want to assign blame. Seek justice. Maybe even retribution.
Unfortunately, our justice-seeking missiles are rarely a precision instrument, and the ultimate cause of the accident may have been well away from the floor of the accident itself. It might have been the software engineer. Who knows. But the question (as a hypothetical) remains -- if it WAS the software engineer for the control system of the widget-stamping thingie used at LG's factory in Mexico, should that engineer be held accountable?
It's hard to believe it's 50 years old when you see it maneuver like that. Then again it was surprising to me how powerful and agile an empty A380 or other passenger plane is (check out A380 or A400 Farnborough airshow videos)
I thought about 4-core vs newer 8-core desktop CPUs when upgrading, but decided that I more often do work on less than 4 cores (with 1 you get the "Turbo" capacity). The only multi-threaded program is PyCharm which can use up all those cores when recalculating its static type checking of Python code (which it seems to do quite excessively).
If I want Redhat commercial support I simply have to decide between Standard or Premium Subscription with, or without Smart Management, normal or Entry level. Or the version for virtual Datacenters (if you want to run VMs with RHEL inside them the pricing is of course different). That's for x86 32/64 bit -- of course, if you want IBM POWER processor support, that is a different product with different pricing -- can't expect to use the same licensing model for a different CPU!
And if you want to run Red Hat on a Desktop, that too is a different product.
Would you support a government-run cultural fund which buys all rights to work from the author at market value for taxpayer money and move it into public domain? E.g. the billboard top song for 2014 was by "Pharrel Williams". Should we pay this Williams e.g. $500,000 so this particular song cannot be locked up by whoever owns the copyright and can possibly hidden away like Disney did with some movies, but returns to those people who enjoyed it in 2014?
Alternatively, this fund could be run by a private entity. What would you pay to outright buy irrevocable permissions world-wide for e.g. "The Capital in 21st Century" which sold 1.5 million copies? It seems like you cannot measure the impact of a book until after it has become a bestseller, so negotiations may be problematic, as the more popular books will end up being expensive.
The "copyright foundation" could I guess, keep selling the books but would need to pay for their future value to the current copyright owner.
I would accept a compromise of some sort of compulsory licensing. You still retain ownership, but after N years you are required to license your IP to anybody who asks for a fixed, predetermined licensing fee.