> if it doesn't hurt then you're not making optimal development
this is almost certainly wrong - 100% balls to wall training will surely be suboptimal (on avg) to achieving most fitness goals - eg within a running training block there will generally be recovery and "general aerobic" runs which are easy in effort relative to the harder work in the block. These easy efforts are necessary to optimally achieve the desired physiological adaptations acquired through increased volume and "nailing" the hard workouts. The easier runs enable this by getting volume at lower risk of injury + conserving energy/will for the key workouts.
This also doesn't consider how important recovery is to optimal results (as in sleep, rest, self-care etc).
on first glance it seems like an interesting take, but then you realize (as someone else already pointed out) that the fastest thing in the universe is not fast, and therefore nothing is fast? a little more thought should make you realize this is a poorly formed take. Also, worth repeating, please read the article before posting. It may be that your insight or critique is present and discussed in the article already.
I also hate Tableau for this reason. However, it's a bad pattern to be storing custom SQL in a BI tool IMO. Better to create tables or views which hold your report logic and are stored in git. That way you're decoupling defining metrics and business logic from your BI tool, making that information queryable in your warehouse by users or other tools (and easily viewable!).
It's a best practice yes, but in practice when you produce any data mart you end up getting questions to power deep dives and that's where custom SQL ends up coming from. There's usually a right way to answer the question, and a fast way with custom SQL, and with ad-hocs the fast way wins every time.
Here's an example, you do a customers rollup and an orders rollup, but a user asks for average order value of return customers buying product X. In SQL, that's a semi join of order line items, on your orders table and an inner join on daily customers to determine if they're a new customer. But no BI tool I've ever used has semi joins, so when you join in the tool your order values are multiplied and you're back to custom SQL to fix it.
It's that or build a whole new mart to answer this one question.
It’s a Swiss dish consisting of soaked rolled oats. Raw oatmeal if you will. People usually add fruits to it, and or nuts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muesli
I was going to chime in and say I’ve never heard of this either, but after checking the Wikipedia link I know exactly what this is. Where I am in northwest Iowa, everyone just calls this “overnight oats/oatmeal”. I don’t think I’ve ever heard the word Muesli before.
Ah okay, I just looked at the picture and read the brief description of cold oats left overnight and assumed they’re the same thing. If that’s not the case then I’ve definitely never heard of muesli before today.
You have to be a bit careful when picking a brand. All of the stores mentioned here (Walmart, Trader Joes and Whole Foods) carry museli that is loaded with sugar, which it shouldn’t contain.
They generally also carry have options that aren’t just crunchy candy, but be prepared to read a lot of nutrition labels before you find one.
Yeah, you should be careful when picking a brand, but I don't see muesli with loaded sugar at those places. Are you looking at granola? First off, I haven't seen them in my local stores (outside of Bob's Red Mill[1]). Walmart's website also mentions Familia Swiss Muesli Cereal, says "No added sugar" on the front and the nutritional values don't look far off. Trader Joe's also looks comperatble to Bob's Red Mill[2]
Grains, nuts and dried fruit all contain sugar so muesli will contain some sugar. The key is to not buy muesli with added sugar. Walmart and most of the grocery stores around me sell Bob's Red Mill muesli which doesn't have any added sugar. The grocery store I normally use also sells Alpen brand. I bought some Alpen No Sugar Added muesli there a couple of days ago because it was on sale.
How does déja vu, that is the re-experiencing an experience, fit into this theory? It appears that the Information axioms fails to be Essential when one considers déja vu.
I don't see that deja vu poses a problem. Deja vu is simply a feeling of familiarity associated to an experience. It doesn't involve actually having an experience more than once.
Possibly - but I could just claim that for me déja vu is exactly when two experiences are not differentiable from one another. And if someone claims to have experienced this moment before, identically, how would I refute their claim. It's their experience after all.
When I experience deja vu, I can never place the time or location that I actually had a previous similar experience. Nor can I predict in advance any occurrence, despite it seeming so inevitable when it does occur. It is simply a dreamlike quality of familiarity. Having done some reading about it, this seems to be the typical state of affairs.
Given this, the simplest and most compelling explanation is that the brain has somehow short-circuited itself into invoking a sense of familiarity. Otherwise I'd expect, at least some people, some of the time, to be able to either link the two experiences or make predictions. The claim that exactly the same experience has actually occurred twice is the more remarkable, both in terms of evidence and plausible mechanism.
Whilst I do appreciate that experiences are highly subjective beasts, it doesn't feel like this really challenges the linked article. Besides, if one is so wedded to the subjectivity of experience, they might as well just say that nothing can objectively explain consciousness because it's subjective, end of.
Who are the trained professionals prescribing and dosing out smartphones and social media? Like, I get your analogy, but they are so dissimilar in practice that it just ends up reading naive.
Some people seek out their own drugs to harmlessly fill a void of boredom, or to be a social tool, or for entertainment after a hard days work. Some of those people who innocently tried to use a tool to alter their brain chemistry for the better eventually abused drugs to their detriment.
Some people seek out their social media experiances to harmlessly fill a void of boredom, or to be a social tool, or for entertainment after a hard days work. Some of those people who innocently tried to use a tool to alter their brain chemistry for the better eventually abused social media to their detriment.
But you can also go to the Apple Store and a trained professional will sell you an iPhone if you want to get on TikTok to make new friends because you are lonely.
I commented this elsewhere, but it's worth repeating because actually reading the author's arguments (granted, in other writings, not OP) will allow you to see he's considered this point and is will to accept that causation works the other way around.
It's a fair point. But what explains the uptick in depression and mental health issues starting around 2012, disproportionately impacting pre-teen girls and not contained to any geo. The author's entire point is that social media is the only explanation that that has been proposed [1]. Moreover, it's not a far-fetched explanation. He very aware that correlation does not provide causation, and that it could be the other way around. However, no one (according to him) has offered up a theory which explains the data like the social media theory does.
And these arguments have been heard, but they are still not convincing.
I don't know what is the reality, maybe indeed the smartphone is causing the problem. But the author is just jumping to the conclusion without proper scientifically caution.
There are a lot of other hypothesis that explain exactly the same observations, and that are not far-fetched (as you say, there is none _according to the author_, who then list all of these hypotheses in his rebutal). In his article, he goes through a lot of them but don't address them properly. For example, the more recent social anxiety about climate change is just "I don't think so".
Personally, if I have to bet, I think it is social media. But then, 1) I will not claim "it is social media", just "it may be social media", 2) it would be stupid of me to then isolate smartphone: if it is social media, then forbidding smartphone but not the laptops would be totally useless (and if the argument is turned into "no but the problem is the constant usage all the time, which you cannot do with a laptop", then, again, it's just pure conjecture: it may end up being true, but it is still scientifically incorrect to present these conclusions as scientific)
While I agree with you on the scientific front, I agree with the author on the risk/action cost front. There's not much cost to preventing the use of phones during school hours, it seems to be a net benefit to education and teacher/student relations even if the hypothesis is wrong.
Banning platforms from allowing under 16s to have accounts is harder because kids will work around it very easily, but I would be happy to see it happen anyway, and made Facebook's problem to deal with.
I'm 100% in favor in banning smartphone during school hours.
The big danger is to spread the incorrect conclusion "it's smartphone's fault". For example, if it is social media, then, we need to change social media, not just ban smartphones, because it will not stop social media to do even more victims, and the number of victims will be bigger if people were convinced by the incorrect conclusion.
this is almost certainly wrong - 100% balls to wall training will surely be suboptimal (on avg) to achieving most fitness goals - eg within a running training block there will generally be recovery and "general aerobic" runs which are easy in effort relative to the harder work in the block. These easy efforts are necessary to optimally achieve the desired physiological adaptations acquired through increased volume and "nailing" the hard workouts. The easier runs enable this by getting volume at lower risk of injury + conserving energy/will for the key workouts.
This also doesn't consider how important recovery is to optimal results (as in sleep, rest, self-care etc).
reply