One of my dearest friends suffers from ME/CFS - she's been bed ridden for 3 years now. Any stimulation is just so painful her. Seeing Dianna actually able to get out of bed has brought a bit of hope back into my life
Check out Midwestern Doctor blog posts. Seems to turn every possible stone to get healthy results. Changed my thinking a lot https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/
This isn't working cutting into exercise time. It's getting more out of your working time.
If I'm competitively training could be looking at 2 hours of aerobic base exercise a day. If I can do this whilst working - allows me to enjoy my evenings with my partner
I also have bradycardia, one of the goals for having a good garmin fitness age for me is maintaining sub 46bpm heart rate. So I think it takes it into account
I think its more potential, my 5k/10k are quite accurate but my half and full are quite off - which makes sense as they're the distances I train for. It also doesn't take other factors into account like running on track vs road
That makes sense. If you do longer runs (and long fast runs) then your half/marathon time will be more accurate. In general, the issue with using VO2max to priduct race performance is that it doesn't take into account account running economy which is a massive factor in determining performance for longer distances. Same with lactate threshold, which has a big impact on all distances. E.g. at what point do you go from a metabolic steady state to an unsustainable state. It's the most important factor in distance running in my opinion. The threshold can be at quite a slow pace even for someone with a high VO2max if they are not doing the right training. E.g. think of someone who is excellent at HIIT and has a VO2max of 60+ but can't run a fast 10km.
Pretty sure garmin do take other factors into account for their race predictions as they’ll update when your lactate threshold does, even if your vo2max remains the same.
I think you are right regarding lactate threshold but im not sure how they factor in running economy as it's difficult to calculate. You need an accurate VO2 measurement. I guess they use HR as a proxy but in practise I find HR isn't such a good measure of metabolic output for various reasons; hills, unrelated stressors, heat, aerobic decoupling, etc.
Well.. a crude estimate of relative running economy is pace/heart rate and tracking it over time. Seeing the number go upwards means your economy is increasing and vice versa.
A fair amount of people track this because it's a feature of pretty much every training/coaching app.
Just finished reading this, I get why it's done but its really tragic and sad that an algorithm is deciding who lives or dies. Could you imagine working on something like that? I don't think I'd have the stomach.
I'm glad and don't see better solution than to use an algorithm to decide this over personnal choice. I understand the choice of using software. What I don't understand is why this software is not open source, heavily documented and the algorithm annually monitored, publicly reported and updated if necessessary by an open committee.
I personally prefer avoid being involved as much as possible in human life and death inducing procedure because that awfully stressful, but I don't see big problem on working on the software coding itself. What is problematic in this case is that the software was used to deinvolve everyone from the process and for what I understand the software developpement team was apparently tasked to make up the decision algorihtm and no human basic oversight was keeped during the attribution process.
It sounds like the algorithm in question was designed by a committee of experts to make a better triage process. Given that the previous process for deciding who gets an organ sounded a lot like individual doctors just picking patients based on proximity and how good the patient advocacy was, I think this is a much fairer alternative.
At the end of the day, triage is always a hard thing to do, but it is based in the idea of optimizing for the best global outcome at the expense of specific individual outcomes.
I personally would have no qualms about implementing the algorithm design in code (the organ score is going to be computed by hand or computed by code regardless, might as make a tool that saves time and mistakes), and would have no problem participating in the algorithm design if I had the appropriate expertise.
At the end of the day I'd rather live in a world where there is a known, predictable process for these decisions instead of an informal network of professionals making game-time decisions.
At least there’s a hope the person doing it has conscience and does a good job, vetting the data, etc. They could use tech but in the end it’s a human’s decision over an algo. Casual mistakes are okay as long as they’re not embedded in an algo that applies the same mistakes over and over.
At a recent physical, my doctor informed me that "according to the drug company's algorithm" I should begin taking a cholesterol reducing drug. I had to wonder about the transparency of such an approach.
People with moral values don’t and shouldn’t avoid this kind of work to make sure that they care about accuracy, edge cases, that they continuously refine how they define utility and try to view it from a place of empathy.
Doctors and first responders make these calls often when they perform mass casualty triage, or when to declare someone’s death to enable collection of life saving organs.
Doctors and first responders aren't faceless people in cubes making secret proprietary software for companies seeking to profit from the automated decisions.
The "supply shortfall" is due to the requirement that the DNA of the organ has to match up with the DNA of the recipient in order for the organ to function and the fact that the organ has a very short "shelf life" when outside of the donor's body. You can't just randomly stuff organs into people and expect a good outcome, and you can't just stockpile them.
Until we can customize the DNA in the organ for the intended recipient and manufacture them on demand with a short lead time, we are going to have some kind of lack of availability issue. Our issues are not a bunch of power-tripping sociopaths sitting on a hoard of organs deciding who lives or dies, they are trying to rapidly identify who is physically close enough and who genetically matches in the hours you have when an organ becomes available, and is there any opportunity for a cascade donation to be brought into the mix (is this organ compatible with someone who has a willing but incompatible donor who is compatible with someone else, and does that person have a willing but incompatible donor, and so on down the line)
(Edit: I have been informed that the paywalled article, which I cannot read, is about a UK system; I am only familiar with the kidney system in the US. This post probably does not reflect UK practice)
Or an alternative framing: using data can help to remove human biases and increase overall lifespans (which the studies have shown). How is it sociopathic to work on software that demonstrably saves lives?
yeah i know how you feel on the whatsapp/signal, I quite involved in a sports club of 400+ people and along with that and most of my friends couldn't get anyone to leave whatsapp behind, so still with it...
After all the data scandals and leaks you'd think people would be beginning to care but no one does
Same reason I have issues with the Uk Green party, makes them look foolish when they push to stop fossils but the only current practical solution is nuclear(which they're against)
Solar, wind, and tide are very dispersed forms of energy, so harvesting them on a significant scale has a massive environmental impact. Also there are issues relating to extracting the input materials, and to waste disposal after the devices are retired. It's not clear to me that "green" energies are any better than fossil fuels.
But we will need baseload power for a long time to come. The UK is not investing in battery technology and on still winter days the UK needs to be able to spin up a lot of power generation quickly. That role is currently filled by natural gas. Nuclear should have taken its place.
Nuclear can't do peak load scaling and is less consistent than you might think for baseload.
You might benefit from looking at systems like Compressed Air Energy Storage. Highly responsive, compatible with CHP, virtually no scarce materials involved, and pairs dramatically well with renewables.
As an additional bonus, it also doesn't leave vast tracts of land uninhabitable if it goes wrong.
find the social outside of work?
Work has always been work for me and nothing more, not really looking for socialising.
In fairness I've been fully remote for 10 years but I see friends during the day for coffees, lunch, exercise. And then multiple sports clubs in the evenings
> Work has always been work for me and nothing more, not really looking for socialising.
But work is 40-50 hours of my week. That's a HUGE portion of my life. Almost half my waking hours are at work. (7x16=112 waking hours a week. 35-45% of it at work).
Not taking time to socialize during that period is draining as hell for me. I guess what I'm trying to say is you're way overestimating the percentage of people who can go to work and just... work. Most people need the socialization.
Outside of just cutting WFH, alternatives are to work in places where there's people: libraries, co-working spaces, co-working coffees etc.
You'll have no commitment to come everyday, have people to talk to, and still hopefully be close enough to home to get back anytime you need pure calm or a full dedicated environment.
To note, for many people WFH means their family is around one door away, which makes it a widely different experience from people living alone.
I have a great social life outside of work and still felt the same as GP during the remote work day. And I'm pretty reserved at work, not known for bothering people incessantly.
reply