As someone who's been to Syria, I can't place it either. There's no way this is worse that what came before -- especially since the status quo was propped up by Russia. This is at worst neutral and has a full spectrum of better potential outcomes. Sometimes, occasionally, any change is good. This is one of those times.
Ketosis occurs when your body switches from consuming glucose as its primary fuel source to consuming ketones which are generated from the breakdown of fatty acids, either from the diet or endogenous.
Almost all body tissue can run on ketones instead of on glucose, except for certain important tissues like red blood cells, 30% of the brain, retina, some kidney tissue, etc.
For the rest, your body synthesizes the glucose it needs via gluconeogenesis from some protein substrates and from glycerol backbodes from triglycerides. These inputs can be either from the diet or from your fat stores.
Fasting for a few days causes your body to enter authophagy through the inhibition of mTOR in addition to ketosis, so that could account for some of the difference.
Can you comment on the efficacy of intermittent fasting (IF) to get into ketosis? Does fasting have to be undertaken in the order of days in order to be any effective, as opposed to 16 or 18 hours per day by way of IF.
For context, I've been following IF for a couple of years. I can definitely see myself losing my resident body fat, which is encouraging. I had tried keto diet before that - I found it very difficult to sustain, especially when you're away from home or are at work. So, part of my motivation to do IF instead of keto is, well, that I can achieve some level of ketosis via IF, and without following a strict keto diet.
Dr Thomas Seyfried, the guy in the Diary of a CEO interview, stated that intermittent fasting is beneficial and achieves the desired 'cell repair' effects.
Airlines are extremely low-profit commodity businesses. Most US carriers have low single-digit margins, and AC is high single digits. If unbundling allows them to lower the sticker price -- or avoid raising it because of e.g. inflation -- in what world is that "gouging?"
There's a subcategory of "every price change I don't like is gouging" but in reality, gouging is generally defined as raising prices to an unfair or unreasonable level in response to a shortage during a crisis.
A backpack or messenger bag are almost always treated as a personal item. The only time is if they're too large to be a personal item and get upgraded, or if you bring two items when they limit you to one personal item + one carry-on -- then they usually treat the smaller one as a personal item. It's generally safe to assume unless it's one of those 40L packs, it's a personal item, but check your airline's dimension and weight limits for personal items.
People love to joke, but the reality is that people don't value the things that are being removed -- that's why they're being removed.
WestJet, their main competitor, did this ages ago. People weren't switching en masse despite roughly the same route network. Ergo, it didn't matter to people, so removing it was reasonable. This gave them the ability to lower the sticker price, and makes them more competitive.
Airlines have awful margins. Literally, awful. AA's net margin in 0.5%. AC's net margin is around 10%.
[edit] I'm super tall, and I love flying LCCs like RyanAir and EasyJet, because they charge virtually nothing to get on, and then a low, reasonable fee for an exit row. I pay for what I want, and they're super timely. Economy is economy. On the premium cabin side, sure, there's room to differentiate.
Economy is economy, sure, but “economy” hides the fact that it is the only option for the vast majority of travelers. Almost everyone here has the financial security to spring for comfort if they want it, but that is not true for the broader population.
Totally, so if cost is your primary driver, you would want the sticker price to be as low as possible right? Aren't those the people who are most willing to compromise on 'frills'? This gives them the opportunity to do that in a way bundled fares do not.
But that's not making the actual price lower. There are few situations where you don't need carry-on, so almost everyone will end up booking a "cheaper" flight, but then paying extra for carry-on.
In fact, obfuscation like that probably allows the airline to charge you more, because you don't get to see all the fees until you commit.
> There are few situations where you don't need carry-on
I have taken tons of flights where I didn’t need a carry on. Either because I already needed to check a bag, or because everything I needed fit in my personal item.
> you don’t get to see all the fees until you commit.
Not true in my experience. Whenever I’ve booked basic economy it seems like they’re very clear about what’s not included.
So you paid another fee for a checked bag (or soon will, given that more and more airlines are converging on that). Either way, you're paying less for the base fare, but more for extras that most passengers need and that used to be free.
As for the second part, I meant "by the time you looked at the dates and hours and clicked on a specific flight".
And even when I do need a checked bag, that’s fine if I have to pay for it. But then if I don’t also need a carry-on, why should I be paying the same fare as people who do?
> extras…that used to be free
Not free, included in the base fare with no possibility to opt out.
I've never seen an airline that doesn't allow you to confirm what all the fees for ancillary services would be at the time of booking, and if you need to do it right after you pay there's usually a 24h window to refund after booking for no fee.
And having cheaper economy means it is accessible to more travelers.
For some reason people think you can just force companies to offer things at a loss. Requiring all these things you want as mandatory in economy doesn't mean that people with less money will be able to get them. It just means that there will be no airplane tickets they can afford at all.
So what? Are airlines obligated to provide more luxurious service to people than they’re able to pay for? Why exactly? If you think traveling with a carry-on bag is some kind of human right surely the state should be paying for it, not a private business.
I think that view is overly generous. On flights where free check in luggage is offered there’s plenty of room for carry ons in the cabin, so a good amount of people clearly opt for check in when it is free. When they started charging for check in is when it became the norm that people where then pushed to gate check their carry ons for free once space was getting full. People were shifting their behavior to avoid the fee. The result, not surprisingly, is that fee avoidance is too common so the airlines make it more difficult to do so.
It is, of course, a “hidden” price hike with the advantage that your flight remains ranked higher when sorting by price.
I'm certain I read at one point that if you added the total profits of the airline industry from the beginning until now, it's Jess than zero. I don't know whether it's true but it seems like it could be.
Visa doesn't actually make a ton of money off each transaction, if you divide out their revenue against their payment volume (napkin math)...
They processed $12T in payments last year (almost a billion payments per day), with a net revenue of $32B. That's a gross transaction margin of 0.26% and their GAAP net income was half that, about 0.14%. [1]
They're just a transaction network, unlike say Amex which is both an issuer and a network. Being just the network is more operationally efficient.
That’s a weird way to account for their business size. There isn’t a significant marginal cost per transaction. They didn’t sell $12T in products. They facilitated that much in payments. Their profits are fantastic.
If you have no clue how profit margins are calculated then you're better off staying quiet.
It's quite simple. Divide revenue minus costs by revenue. Transaction volume isn't revenue. Visa only gets the transaction fee.
Even if I give you the benefit of the doubt and do a proper interpretation of the number you've arrived at, its meaning is quite different and quite off topic from this discussion. What you have calculated is the total share of costs that Visa represents in that 12 trillion dollar part of the economy. It is like saying Visa's share of GDP is 0.1%.
Another fun fact: that these chemicals, fur[an]ocoumarins, are also potent CYP3A4 inhibitors. As such they interact with about ~50% of medications. The most common ones are bergamottin and 6',7'-dihydroxybergamottin [1, 2] found in grapefruit juice and in the peels of various citrus fruits like limes.
This is why grapefruit juice among other things may cause increased side effects associated with birth control pills.
reply