IntelliJ doesn't have a dedicated build system. You can choose from no system, Maven, and Gradle.
No system is often good enough for basic projects, but not Android development. Support libraries, configuration, API versions, NDK support, etc. make Gradle a requirement. Gradle is the official build system of Android for a reason, it's not something that Google just added willy-nilly to Android Studio.
As an Android developer, I LOVE Gradle. I think it's a vastly superior build system. I also use it for complex desktop applications, and applications that run on both desktop and Android, using shared code and OS-dependent code (the module system makes this very easy to organize).
Except only the top few largest "stakers" are paid, others are either disqualified entirely for being too poor to stake, or will not recieve block rewards for being statistically irrelevant.
PoS is a lottery with reusable tickets. Winners get more tickets.
That also suprised me- I know that they spend a great deal on optimizations to reduce backend cost, improve uptime / reliability, etc., but I don't see much on the customer side myself...
calorie intake and expenditure is a description not a prescription. this is about as useful as saying "make more money than you spend" in order to become wealthy. sure, that's true, but it won't help you make $10 million. how do you eliminate the desire to waste time and money on useless pursuits? that is the analogy we need to use to reframe this discussion. yes, there is a certain level of maturity and self-control involved, but you need to know what NOT to do first.
what is causing people the intense desire to overeat, and the intense lethargy that follows? probably insulin-spiking processed carbs and sugar. have you seen anyone in the throes of a carb addiction/crash cycle? it's damn near supernatural the amount of power these foods have over people.
at this point i consider them about the same level as cigarettes or alcohol. cheap, widely availabe, intensely addictive, and people who don't have a problem just telling you to "use less", "it's so easy". okay. sure.
"how do i graduate college?" "take more credits than it requires to graduate."
try telling this to the person who got sucked into the for-profit university and is $50k in debt.
the world is not as cut and dry as it seems, especially if you are burdened with a low IQ like the people who most easily fall for these schemes.
Good points, but there is something else going on.
If you travel alot you start to see that every culture is heavy on carbs: Rice, pasta, potatoes, noodles, bread. They are ubiquitous.
Find a frenchmen that isn't eating bread from first meal to last...or an asian with rice / noodles. Or an Italian with pasta / bread, etc.
There is something else wrong here. I don't pretend to know what it is, but it seems like its almost a "food culture" problem. The most immediate things you notice are: (a) Americans portion size is double the rest of the world, and (b) Americans eat very very fast.
Exactly. The idea that carbohydrates, which have been the staple of most human diets for millennia, are somehow suddenly toxic makes no sense. Complex carbohydrates are fine. What's gone wrong in the US is that we are eating more processed carbohydrates along with way more chicken and cheese and our portion sizes and overall calorie intake have gone up significantly:
Excess consumption leads to obesity, which correlates strongly with just about every major chronic illness. Portion sizes are a big part of the problem. Every time I come back to the US after living in Asia I'm shocked at how ridiculously large restaurant serving sizes are.
Pretty much everybody agrees that eating a lot of sugar or processed simple carbs is a bad idea but the demonization of high fiber, complex carbs has no basis in science.
Isn't this why ketogenic diets also limit protein? I think you're right that if someone is eating a low-carb diet but also eating excessive protein, they wouldn't be adhering to an insulin-based theory.
Ketogenic diets seem best understood as diets that put fat intake as high as possible. Some protein intake is necessary, to obtain essential amino acids, but ideally not more than that. Carb intake can almost entirely be eliminated, because there are no essential carbs, and plant consumption can focus on low-carb plants (e.g. nuts, leafy greens).
I don't mean to endorse ketogenic diets, since I don't know whether they work. But they're at least internally consistent provided protein intake is also limited.
The keto diets most people follow are loaded with animal proteins and fats, although they don't have to be that way. There are some benefits to a healthy keto diet but there are also some serious risks, particularly in the longer term.
The idea that protein should be consumed instead of carbs couldbe due to them being equally insulinogenic to most 'complex' carbs, while also being the building blocks of muscle (rather than being stored on the body as glycogen). While I don't doubt that porridge, all-bran, and muesli enact a lesser insulin response, I'd rather eat the steak, which still beat out nearly all other carbs.
As a side-note, it would be interesting to see how the insulin responses would look if the test subjects were already following a low-carb protocol.
If you want me to take the claim that "a high protein diet is unhealthy" seriously, then you're going to have to provide something better than that article.
"Weight Gain" due to increased protein consumption is disputed[1]. In fact the premise itself can be disputed just by noting that weight gain can present itself in the form of muscle gain.
Bad breath: ...really?
Constipation: "This is because high-protein diets that restrict carbohydrates are typically low in fiber." I'm sorry, but why do high protein diets need to be low in fiber? That doesn't make any sense at all - any diet can be low in fiber if you don't eat fiber.
Diarrhea: Author provides no source.
Dehydration and Kidney damage: Both prevented by drinking enough water.
Increased cancer risk: The issue with these studies is that they don't provide necessary controls. Most people who eat red meat regularly are not doing HIIT, strength training, or going for walks. They are not eating their red meat on a bed of spinach. They are eating it between two buns and with a side of steamy fries (which are known to cause cancer[2]). If we look at the actual mechanisms for carcinogenicity, we find that eating veggies, not burning your food, and not eating cured meats, are probably as likely to keep you cancer free than switching your steak to a super whole-grain diet. Don't forget to also have a healthy gut, which prevents colon cancer[3]
Saturated Fat / Heart Disease / cholesterol: Again, no long term studies have had the right controls in place to conclude that Saturated fat, in the absence of unhealthy carbs/meats, are actually harmful. Only 20% of the cholesterol in our bodies actually comes from our food. Saturated vs nonsaturated is a debate being waged between actual RDs. It's not just "an effort to cloud an issue".
Calcium Loss: Actually, more Americans experience calcium loss as a result of NOT getting enough protein.
"Despite a widely held belief that high-protein diets (especially diets high in animal protein) result in bone resorption and increased urinary calcium, higher protein diets are actually associated with greater bone mass and fewer fractures when calcium intake is adequate. Perhaps more concern should be focused on increasing the intake of alkalinizing fruits and vegetables rather than reducing protein sources." [4]
Whether high fat and protein vs high carb low fat is "better", is going to remain debated until the end of time, because studies repeatedly show discrepancies.
The fact is humans from different geographies have evolved over time to accommodate different diets. This is why we see things like lactose intolerance concentrated in some regions but devoid in others [5]. Imagine ALL of the other mechanisms for body health and how they have evolved over time in different regions, and consider how silly it is to attempt to expose those which are harmful using broad studies with poor controls over only certain populations - while ignoring the underlying mechanisms for the actual harm.
Saturated fat intake has been shown to boost serum cholesterol and increase risk of CVD in literally hundreds of direct feeding mechanistic trials. Genetic variability of cholesterol is high enough that cross-sectional studies are not appropriate for studying this.
In other words, ingesting saturated fat and cholesterol will raise your cholesterol levels and increase your risk of CVD but your baseline risk depends a lot on your genes.
The mayo clinic link is actually reaffirming my opinion:
>For most healthy people, a high-protein diet generally isn't harmful, particularly when followed for a short time. Such diets may help with weight loss by making you feel fuller. However, the risks of using a high-protein diet with carbohydrate restriction for the long term are still being studied.
They are still being studied - poorly at that.
The second link is hilarious in that it fails to even describe the two types of LDL cholesterol, but lumps them both in as "bad" - which is typical of the "cholesterol is bad" crowd. In fact - the first study I clicked on in the nutritionfacts.org fails to mention the same. How can you do a study on cholesterol without even testing the two types of LDL? Frankly, it's embarrassing and is absolutely not mechanistic as you say.
Once again, these meta studies are attempting to show that a diet with lowered saturated fat intake is better in the long run than your average diet. This is not something that anyone is debating. However, it absolutely can not be misinterpreted as proof that high protein/saturated fat intake, in all cases, is bad. Which is exactly the mistake all of these authors are making, and is why there are many intelligent people on the other side of this discussion as well.
>"Large" LDL is marginally less dangerous than "small" LDL
Neither large nor small cholesterol are "dangerous" - it's black-and-white opinions like this that make the nutrition industry so difficult for laymen to follow. They are both healthy, in that without cholesterol you would die. Excessive amounts of certain cholesterols in ratio to others just happen to be symptoms of underlying eating disorders. The author states that:
"She ... argues that HDL, so-called good cholesterol, also rises maintaining the ratio of bad to good. This is the study she cites to support that assertion. But instead of cherry-picking this one study that she performed with Egg Board money, involving 42 people, if you look at a meta-analysis, if you look at the balance of evidence, the rise in bad with increasing cholesterol intakes is much more than the rise in good."
However, it is known that the ratio of HDL to total cholesterol is a just as good as if not a better predictor of heart health. That's why it is generally used... [1]
There are many documented cases of high protein diets (or more specifically - low carb) achieving better cholesterol ratios [2][3][4]. There are also many more studies that address the significance of LDL size, than what the author you linked addresses [4][5][6]
[1] Mensink, Ronald p., et al. “Effects of dietary fatty acids and carbohydrates on the ratio of serum total to HDL cholesterol and on serum lipids and apolipoproteins: a meta-analysis of 60 controlled trials” The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 77.5 (2003): 1146-1155.
[2] Bueno, Nassib Bezerra, et al. “Very-low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet v. low-fat diet for long-term weight loss: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.” British Journal of Nutrition 110.07 (2013): 1178-1187.
[3] Brinkworth, Grant D., et al. “Long-term effects of a very-low-carbohydrate weight loss diet compared with an isocaloric low-fat diet after 12 mo.” The American journal of clinical nutrition 90.1 (2009): 23-32.
[4] Merchant, Anwar T., et al. “Carbohydrate intake and HDL in a multiethnic population.” The American journal of clinical nutrition 85.1 (2007): 225-230.
[4] Otvos, James D., et al. “Clinical implications of discordance between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and particle number.” Journal of clinical lipidology 5.2 (2011): 105-113.
[5] Meisinger, Christa, et al. “Plasma oxidized low-density lipoprotein, a strong predictor for acute coronary heart disease events in apparently healthy, middle-aged men from the general population.” Circulation 112.5 (2005): 651-657.
[6] Parthasarathy, Sampath, et al. “Oxidized low-density lipoprotein.” Free Radicals and Antioxidant Protocols. Humana Press, 2010. 403-417.
I'd say it's harder to quit eating badly than it is to quit cigarettes: You can live a long life without ever touching a cigarette again. But you won't get far with going cold turkey on food.
Food is also harder because a) the healthy option is more expensive and b) sugar and heavy processing is in so much of the food available that it's hard to avoid, or sometimes even detect.
Healthy food is often more expensive but there are healthy options for cheap. Rice, beans, and vegetables are all pretty cheap and can form the base for a lot of different meals. The hardest part for me eating healthy was having to relearn a completely different set of recipes
True; however, they may be very different practically. Few people are going to measure calories for every single thing they eat. Most will rely on the sense of hunger and urge to eat certain things. I wouldn't be surprised if low-carb diets outperform low-fat ones in that department, since carbs tend to keep people urging for more through rapid blood sugar fluctuation.
That result is literally what this study is saying they didn’t find.
Perhaps you can make the argument that the study is flawed statistically or that 12 month weight loss is not long term enough or that the diet sessions caused the lack of difference?
> I wouldn't be surprised if low-carb diets outperform low-fat ones in that department, since carbs tend to keep people urging for more through rapid blood sugar fluctuation.
This is exactly why low carb has works so well for me. My cravings for snacks become virtually disappear.
This has been my experience, and I wonder if part of the efficacy of macronutrient-centric dieting is about cultivating self-control. That would be an activity that would be hard to measure in a study where the participants know they’re participating and have a sense of duty to remain committed. Healthy low fat vs healthy low carb will yield the same results, roughly, with the same caloric intake. Any macro combination will, really. But carbohydrate restriction is something I’ve personally found to be a good way to stay on the rails.
For me, the easiest way to eat less calories is to eat a low-carb diet. The reason is this: my typical meal consists of three parts; meat, vegetable, and starch. The least healthy and highest calorie part is the starch. Cut the starch, cut most of the caloric intake.
Besides, if I cut enough carbs, I get into ketosis, and then I stop being hungry.
I my mind the point of these special diets is to alter the food habits making it so that you take in less total energy. By essentially forcing you to think more about your food.
Not that one diet wound automatically burn more energy than the other.
It's a bit surprising that the number of degrees burning your food will raise the temperature of water is related to weight gain. I find it more surprising that this simple relation has withstood the test of time.
Can’t tell if sarcastic or not. Burning food to release chemically stored energy therein seems like it would correlate naturally to the chemical energy an organism could extract.
Not at all sarcastic. I mean, we're told this process all the time so it seems like "duh", but if you really think about it there are lots of jumps and hand waving in that process.
You can eat whatever the hell you want, so long as you don't eat so much of it that you don't burn off the energy. It's precisely that simple.
Of course, you could say it's complex because you have to choose to reduce your energy intake, and the way that we make that choice is complex. But in that sense, everything is complex.
Micronutrients, obviously not. You have to get your required vitamins and minerals etc. or you'll get sick. But for macronutrients (basically carbs/fats) then yes, basically. Maybe you'll be slightly more or less efficient with some types of food, but in the end, if you eat a calorie you have to burn a calorie or you'll put on weight.
The key factor is to realise that it's relative to your body. Maybe for you, personally, a gram of fat is more efficiently metabolized than a gram of carbs. Whatever. You have to close the loop.
If you're above your target weight, eat progressively less until you start losing weight, then maintain that intake until your target weight. If you're below your target weight, eat progressively more until you're gaining weight, then maintain that intake until your target weight.
For a given level of energy output, metabolizing fat requires more oxygen than metabolizing carbohydrates. There are some minor individual differences in efficiency but the basic relationship is true for everyone. That's why you don't see low-carb diets consumed by athletes who compete at the top levels of sports in which VO₂max is a limiting factor.
What if you're gaining fat instead of muscle? I think your version only works if the only metric required is purely -Kg over time, and doesn't factor in anything else that people might want to call it 'healthy weight loss/gain.'
OK, so which goalposts would you like us to aim for here? If you want to be healthy, eat a balanced diet. If you want weight loss, then eat less food than you burn, using a feedback loop to adjust our dietary intake. If you want fitness, do some cardio. If you want strength, lift some weights. If you want all of these things, then do all of these things.
But I don't think that was the point of that article. It says:
>> Now that Twitter allows 280 characters, the code of some drawings I have made can fit in a tweet. In this post I have compiled a few of them.
It's about a list of code snippets that you can send around on Twitter, that can generate interesting "art". It doesn't claim to be the shortest code that can be used to generate art. It just says it can fit inside a tweet.
How do you know which one is better if you don't know how to build a house or don't have dozens of year of human knowledge and praxis that confirms that this material is better ?
You didn't read the article carefully enough- the 250 lbs refers to the output of one specific harvester, not the output from all 30k coffee trees in CA.
Nope. “Last year, the 24-member coffee cooperative harvested 250 pounds of beans.“
So 24 farmers harvested 250 lbs, all of it bought by the one roaster at $60 /lb. Coffee plants take 18 months before they start producing harvestable amounts of cherry.
That’s some crazy expensive coffee. If I buy the most expensive coffee the importer brings in here is (copy paste) GUATEMALA FINCA EL SOCORRO YELLOW BOURBON $20.70NZ (which is $15.28 US).
In that sort of price range are some fantastic coffees - I struggle to see how something 4x more expensive could be that much better.
My go to is Ethiopian Yirgacheffe which is a few dollars cheaper at NZ $17.50.
Try Panama geisha from Ninety plus, it's much more expensive and better taste as well (depends fully on roaster). I've tried Hawaii Kona exclusively from UCC farm, and Blue Mountain genuinely from Jamaica, both are better than the rest but still not satisfied with the price.
Edit: I didn't mean to compare Guatemala vs. Panama coffees, just noting the price range.
No- crypto has no intrinsic value. Energy used for mining doesn't give it value. It only has perceived value. If the crypto hype dies, it will drop to 0, even if plenty of people are mining still.
Look at anything we call money and you'll see it has 0 value on its own. As an example, we can't eat, seek shelter or get security from gold. You can say the same about just about everything that we call money. The value is in the trust that someone else will eventually give you something you want or need. In essence, money is transferable trust. So given this, we can use anything as long as we can trust it. Cryptocurrencies can certainly be used as liquid trust.
The big question is what will people trade for it.
A system of near instant global communication has no intrinsic value. Calculus has no intrinsic value. A token providing access to a borderless, Permission-less, decentralized, censorship resistant ledger has no intrinsic value. Double entry bookkeeping has no intrinsic value.
No one is using it to do anything other than hoard it hoping that the price goes higher than what they bought it at. That means it has no value outside of generating some hope that the price rises, which is very shallow and hardly valuable.
But that is not true. I end up using crypto to buy things online because some vendors I use give 25%+ discounts for buying using crypto. Saying "no one" uses it for commerce is just wrong.
I think the idea of contracts mindlessly enforced by a piece of silicon is a ill-conceived idea and quite a few people would agree with that. It sounds like a good idea at first glance, but it isn't. Various kinds of mistakes and errors happen all the time, situations change and unexpected events occur. This makes it necessary to deviate from what contracts says all the time and that is just not compatible with what something like Etherum is able to provide. But maybe I am just unaware of a good application of Etherum or a similar technology where setting things in stone is actually a good idea. What is the best existing use of Etherum, how does it benefit from its features and why is it not negatively affected by them?
