The gatorade sounds horrendous, to dump a ton of sugar on you when fasting. It was probably for the electrolytes, a pinch of salt would have worked without all the junk in gatorade. And then you rarely need it on just a three day fast, only if you're dizzy. And if you're dizzy it means you've drunk too much water.
Glad you're better though!
Reddit fasting sub is ok to learn more, though they have some hangups like dry fasting.
I was just following the doctor's orders. I assume he wanted me to have caloric intake along with salt, but I'm not a doctor, I didn't question him, I don't know anything about fasting, and don't even know if it was necessary.
I've done a couple of 2 day fasts since then, just to see if I can still do it without much trouble, it gets harder as I get older.
When you water fast you excrete salt with the water you're drinking. Beginners tend to drink far too much water to mentally replace the food, and so they lose a lot of salt. Gatorade when it was invented was an electrolyte replacement. Now it has a lot more sugar too. It was probably for the salt.
For clarification, I take a daily electrolyte tablet with vit. C, magnesium, calcium, potassium and sodium when I fast. Generally, you want to take in less than 40 calories to stay in a proper water fast and I don’t think Gatorade fits the bill. Unless you’re doing a Fast Mimicking Diet where you’re allowed to eat up to 700 calories (I think). My longest was 5-day water fast (a few times). I found that Day 5 is better than Day 4. What days do you think are the worst in a 2-week fast?
A small bottle of Gatorade is 140 calories, I believe. Not nothing but also not too much to work through. Also you don’t have to chug it all in one gulp.
Here is a video on "Cancer as a Metabolic Disease: Implications for Novel Therapies" [1] by Prof. Thomas Seyfried that may be related. I think their research is very promising.
No, I am subscribed to the Youtube channel Low Carb Down Under. They have hosted some great speakers. I've linked the video here on HN a couple of times as related discussions have come up.
So I know that Gundry's book "Plant Paradox" is probably rife with some scientific hyperbole, but it's enticing for me to at least follow a system with this principle in mind: that you want to essentially mellow out your metabolism.
I agree but there are 300 million in the US. The actual insurrectionists are like... 200 people? Maybe 2,000?
Shutting down anyone talking pro trump in the whole country will have downsides, and just make them more angry. Prohibition isn't an answer that will work.
Hopefully sending all of the insurrectionists to jail will help.
There are actually more like tens of millions of people who support replacing our democracy with autocracy on the basis that they believe we are stealing their country from them.
Interesting how you heard about that one dogfight, but not its record since then. Again, places like The Drive have been pushing bad F-35 news because it draws lots of clicks.
The F-35's k/d ratio since that dogfight in 2015, when pilots were just figuring the plane out:
> Since then, the F-35 has mopped up in simulated dogfights with a 15-1 kill ratio. According to retired Lt. Col. David Berke, who commanded a squadron of F-35s and flew an F-22 — the US's most agile, best dogfighter — the jet has undergone somewhat of a revolution.
I can't speak to what we should expect from a competition between planes with 30+ years of technology that cost 5x as much, but this sounds a lot like a demo for foreign buyers.
If you just read the wiki article, you get a distorted view of the exercise. Gen Van Riper was more interested in "winning" than he was in following the requirements to actually have the exercise result in usable data.
Examples: the wiki article mentions small boats. As in about the size of your average fishing boat. No, not your commercial fishing boat, your weekend fisherman fishing boat (Boston Whaler). And it would be carrying a conventional Soviet era anti-ship missile, weighing some 3 tons. This is not only enough to swamp the boat, but launching the missile would result in the boat turning into shrapnel. Or it mentions motorcycle couriers. But the sim wasn't setup to include the latency they involved, so he got effectively instant, unjammable comms.
There were simulation issues, like the Blue Force navy showed up teleported into being next to the coast, due to model limitations. Due to the fact that the real life location of this was in fact a very busy set of air and sea lanes, Blue Force navy also started with no defensive capabilities.
And of course, the whole point isn't for the red team to sink the blue force, but to see how the blue force can adapt to the red team during an amphibious/airborne invasion. It doesn't do much good to have tens of thousands of guys sitting around doing nothing because their ship got "blown up" or their landing zone got covered in "chemical weapons". MC2002 wasn't just a couple guys in a room doing a war game. It involved real ships, real people, real aircraft, and real money.
> For close air support the A-10 is vastly superior.
Vastly superior for providing CAS in uncontested airspace against enemies that struggle to acquire MANPADS, let alone a modern air defense network or their own air force, perhaps.
But the argument is that the US military should be designed for fighting the biggest plausible enemy, and that's Russia or China, not goat herders in Afghanistan. A major inefficiency in counterinsurgent air support is expensive and survivable, using A-10s against a major threat isn't.
MANPADS are not the end of the A-10. The A-10 was designed with them in mind. Note how the strange tail wraps around the engine exhaust. That is a tiny bit of stealth, blocking the IR seekers from seeing the engines from most angles.
Other factors also reduce vulnerability. MANPADS are essentially never radar-seeking for reasons of physics; they do not have a large enough diameter to carry a proper forward-looking antenna at radio frequencies. The A-10 has some redundancy and armor, and the MANPADS have very small payloads, so hitting a single engine isn't going to doom the aircraft. The A-10 is normally flown in a way that avoids dangerous exposure, with complicated undulating movement that would break an IR seeker lock. (now you see the engines... and now you don't) The A-10 doesn't have to fly alone against an enemy. Pairing it with the EA-18G Growler would be a decent idea.
Once you consider the enemy to be an advanced country, the standards for acceptable losses change. You're speaking of World War III. Look back to the bomber pilots of World War II to see what is accepted. At times, typical survival for a pilot was a month. In war with an advanced country, 1:1 loss ratios are to be expected.
I said "Vastly superior for providing CAS in uncontested airspace against enemies that struggle to acquire MANPADS", which I thought implied "enemies that have MANPADS in limited quantities". Yes, the A-10 does "fine" in that situation.
It does not do anything approaching "fine" against modern air-defense emplacements. Or against air-to-air missiles, whether radar guided or infrared. (those engine-hiding undulations won't do much against an all-aspect missile from the front)
And while accepting 1:1 losses against a peer state in a war might be the reality, I'm pretty sure the A-10 wouldn't manage such a record in hostile airspace. (That's if you count "tanks" or "infantry" on the opposite side of the ledger, of course - purely air to air the A-10 would lose to the average 3rd gen fighter as far as I'm aware)
There is no need for the A-10, or any other weapon system, to be used all by itself.
In hostile airspace, the EA-18G Growler brings the AGM-88 HARM, assuming those modern air-defense emplacements haven't already been hit by cruise missiles.
Plans for war get ruined upon contact with the enemy. Pessimists will assume that friendly plans get ruined, while optimists will assume that enemy plans get ruined. Asset diversity helps everything except logistics. Success or failure of a reasonable weapon system (the A-10, not knights on horseback) is far from certain. All sorts of unexpected factors come into play.
In a conventional war, "this weapons system works perfectly after we completely dismantle their air defenses" sounds pretty similar to "this works perfectly after we win", IMO. And, theoretically, the F-35 can be used for operations before that happens, which is part of why they're being put into service.
Not to mention "this plane works fine if we get the Navy to do the hard part first" is going to go over well with a rather limited subset of Air Force personel. (The Air Force has wild weasels too - generally F-16s though I believe the F-35 is planned for that role in the future)
Ultimately a lot of F-35 hysteria seems to derive from it being the first US aircraft developed entirely post-internet where news travels quickly - i.e. If your projects early tests and teething problems were being reported on publicly by everyone you'd probably look fairly bad too.
That's not to say the F-35 is flawless in any way, but these conversations usually end up in a reductive cycle of arguments we can't know the answer too without security clearance.
It is not good. Like it or not, this is the only alternative NATO has for the forceable future. The British Tempest and the French/German stealth fighter won’t be operational until 2035-2040
The only alternative are modernizes 4gen fighters which are very vulnerable to modern air defenses.
A ‘buggy’ F-35 might still be a better alternative.
Also the British are counting for the F-35 to equip its carriers.
I keep hearing concerns that modern radars may be able to defeat the F-35's stealth, or will be able to defeat it in the near future. I can't help but think that it will be hard to keep a plane flying at mach 1 hidden in the face of fast scanning and networked phased array radars with modern deep learning based detection algorithms.
My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish fighter bomber that would be outperformed by most 4th gens. Considering an F-35 is nearly the price of 10 4th gen fighters the choice to "upgrade" becomes pretty suspect for a lot of Nato partners.
>I can't help but think that it will be hard to keep a plane flying at mach 1 hidden in the face of fast scanning and networked phased array radars with modern deep learning based detection algorithms.
Yes a sophisticated network of radars, sensors, and computers could potentially detect lower RCS aircraft from further away. But that problem would exist for larger RCS aircraft as well. Such a system is a prime target for first hour strike by cruise missiles as the radars required are very large and power intensive. It's not just about detection, but also being able to acquire a firing solution. A lower RCS plane is harder to track, easier to hide with jamming, and ultimately much more of a headache than a higher RCS plane.
>My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish fighter bomber that would be outperformed by most 4th gens.
F35's performance is superior to the planes it replaces while providing both greater range and payload. It's got very high AoA capabilities which only the F-22 can surpass. Even more impressively it is able to do maneuvers which other plans cannot do without thrust vectoring.[0]
>Considering an F-35 is nearly the price of 10 4th gen fighters the choice to "upgrade" becomes pretty suspect for a lot of Nato partners.
Wrong. Lot 14 F-35A's cost $78M.[1] That's less than new Eurofighters and Dassault Rafale.
The F35 is the best thing currently in production. That's not to say it's perfect. The F-35's biggest flaws are not that of maneuverability or insufficient stealth. But of range. Despite improving on the airframes which it is replacing in range, it is not enough given the realities of Chinese A2/AD capabilities. The USAF needs a new fighter which is capable of significantly greater ranges as to not over stretch it's tanker network. The NGAD program hopes to address this.
> My understanding is that if you take away the stealth aspect the F-35 is a sluggish fighter bomber that would be outperformed by most 4th gens. Considering an F-35 is nearly the price of 10 4th gen fighters the choice to "upgrade" becomes pretty suspect for a lot of Nato partners.
First, "4th generation" can mean anything from an F-16A from 1978 to an F-16V of today. An F-16V is actually more expensive than an F-35A.
Second, if you take away the stealth of the F-35 it still has:
* A highly capable APG-81 radar with features like low-probability of intercept transmission modes, electronic attack (jamming) capability, multi-target track, ground moving target indication/track, synthetic aperture radar mapping, and passive (receive only) track capability
* Integrated electro-optical targeting pod with laser designator and range finder.
* Integrated software defined radio that can handle communications on UHF, VHF, Link-16, and inter-flight MADL
* 4 pi steradian awareness Distributed Aperture System that's a mid-wave IRST and missile launch/missile warning system
* Integrated Electronic Support Measures suite that provides Band 4/Band 5 detection and single ship rangefinding of incoming RF
F-16V has most of this same stuff or functional equivalents, but you pay tens of millions more to get it.
The solution to that problem is to have conventional non stealth aircraft or cruise missiles in your fleet. Detecting the F-35 might be possible with enough attention but if you detect a conventional fleet you are going to focus your attention on the low hanging fruit first.
They do, even if it's partially done via aid money. And again they could buy multiple F-16's for the price of a single F-35 through the same aid program.
You're exactly right. Not sure why you're downvoted. Not only is the F-35 a giant lemon, but US defense spending should be cut considerably.
The world is changing, air combat is changing, and the F-35 addresses none of those changes. The F-35 is nothing more than an expensive boondoggle. It's purpose, like most DoD spending, is to transfer money from public coffers into the hands of well connected private companies.
Not only is the King Edward VII a giant lemon, but UK defense spending should be cut considerably.
The world is changing, naval combat is changing, and the King Edward VII addresses none of those changes. The King Edward VII is nothing more than an expensive boondoggle. It's purpose, like most Royal Navy spending, is to transfer money from public coffers into the hands of well connected private companies.
</1904 naval commentator>
The Jeune Ecole never lasts. Combat changes, but it never changes as much as the detractors of the old school believe. It never stays as constant as the proponents of the old school believe either.
It’s easier to sell the fear of some foreign boogeyman, by claiming that foreigners took your jobs away. As opposed to robots that made your job obsolete.
Hey! Vote for me! I’ll bring those jobs back home!
The value is really in the inept cluelessness of the legacy automakers. If any of them woke up and got a Clue(TM) then, after they build a car that isn't crappy, and a charging network, and self-driving... Then TSLA stock might drop.
GM arguably has a better self driving solution than Tesla at the moment. At least it’s safer.
Ford has the Mach-E which is getting really favorable press from the “car guy” world (i.e people who are a little more skeptical of Tesla) which supposedly is getting self driving and is $7k less with tax credit than the Model Y.
Honestly, given Tesla’s quality issues and how they address them, I wouldn’t mind seeing what the more risk-averse, mature automakers come up with. The way Tesla has handled design flows in the Model S front suspension is downright disgraceful.
Mach-E looks ok but there's no way I'm driving long distance on J1772. You might convince people ChaDeMo is okay... but not if they've done a v3 supercharger.
Like I said, its not just the car. You may be right about SuperCruise, I have a small amount of experience with it, but I'm skeptical.
As for cars having design faults and the manufacturer being disgraceful... That's a pretty long list? We could start with the Pinto exploding? Or the Bronco roof collapsing?
That's the thing. If you're in the market for a Tesla priced car today, buy a Tesla. It's amazing. In 3+ years re-evaluate the DC charging networks when you're ready for your next car.
All Toyota has to do is build fine Corolla EV. Then all they have to do is install fast chargers at their dealerships, which I can only imagine the number of.
Well, are you aware that the common model of cancer (genetic) is almost certainly wrong? And that we've wasted 50+ years, and something like an infinite amount of money on it?
It's worth noting that the most effectives breakthroughs against cancer in recent decades (Immunotherapy, angiogenesis-suppressing drugs) have largely been based on ideas that were first dismissed and widely ridiculed by senior scientists working on cancer research.
I suspect that in another 50 years, when the war against cancer is (finally) over, we will end up with a completely different perspective on the history of cancer research than the often self-serving and propagandized perspective we have today.
Glad you're better though!
Reddit fasting sub is ok to learn more, though they have some hangups like dry fasting.