I did the best fast research I could given not wanting to spend more than 20 minutes on it and came to this result (aprox): - Mixed/Diverse: 48.0%
- White Men: 35.0%
- Women: 8.0%
- Non-White: 6.0%
- White Woman: 2.0%
- Non-White Woman: 1.0%
> ... when any two shadows, one from each light, intersect. that's because if it is in shadow from light A and in shadow from light B ...
They actually reference two light sources TWICE in their comment: ("any two shadows, one from each light", "from light A and in shadow from light B"). Hence the question of reading comprehension.
You'll have to define easy. If you go faster, that means you're outputting more wattage per second. You may get there faster, but you've used up the new capacity that your body has developed so you're back to what are likely similar levels of discomfort.
By your definition, Usain Bolt running the fastest 100m time ever set by a human is having an easier time than me because I do it slower.
What most people mean by easier is that it "feels" easier: this would be accomplished by aiming to take the same amount of time even in the face of capacity increasing.
> If you go faster, that means you're outputting more wattage per second.
It's not just a comparison of fast versus slow, it's also heavy versus lighter body weight. You can move faster at lower weights while spending the same amount of energy as someone moving more weight slowly.
The net result is that it's easier to run a fixed distance when you're in shape. The same energy output makes you move faster, making the run shorter in time duration, meaning you actually spend less energy.
Further, getting in better shape often coincides with improvements in metabolic efficiency, so you get further benefits.
Usain Bolt has exceptionally improved musculature and metabolism for sprinting over the standard person, so his maximum energy output results in an exceptional speed.
At that point, we aren't talking about equivalent energy outputs anymore, which means it isn't relevant to the "easier" qualifier.
Of course it's objectively easier, particularly if you hold some variables constant (distance or pace) relative to weight.
The wrinkle is that most runners run to a pain point. Over time, I went from neverrunning to running decent mileage per week, and my runs hurt _more_ now than they did when I started because I run to a pain point. I run further, faster, and more frequently and I have a higher pain tolerance, so it hurts more while I run and the recovery is rougher.
So my runs are at least as hard, but yes, I'd absolutely destroy the version of me that thought three miles was an accomplishment by any objective metric.
Thanks, this is what I was trying to articulate with my original comment. I've never heard of a runner who gets a little faster and decides "oh ok, I'll just take it easier now". You don't get fitter by training with respect to yesterday's fitness.
One thing that I think is important to note is that a lot of people in this position aren't going to be wanting to become Runners with a capital R - they're going to be looking for the minimal effective dose to be healthy. Some, of course, will catch the bug and enjoy it enough and start to push themselves, but there are a lot of people who just go find some recommended weekly amount from the american cardiovascular society or something they heard on a podcast and set that as their goal and have no desire to move past it.
They are looking for specific recommendations. There are lots of resources out there and Sturgeon's Law means it's still difficult to find really great sources.
Please provide even one link to an image or book or anything that proves what you're saying is true. The fact that this is the top comment is troubling, since your question is answered throughout the article. The thing you're claiming (basically that imagery like this can be found all over the place) is so easy to prove, one wonders why you haven't done it here or in any of your other comments.
My question isn't answered in the article, as I repeatedly explain elsewhere in this thread.
As you only require one reference, I will present K.S. Krane, Introductory Nuclear Physics, section 14.5 "Thermonuclear Weapons." The relevant schematic is numbered 14.19. I chose this because it's a textbook that I remember using myself; I'm not sure what is usually used these days.
Yes, that's the schematic. To me the two look essentially identical save for topology and some imagined details.
I don't believe either of them are actually representative of a function warhead; see for instance https://images.app.goo.gl/aEBGKmAb8NsoAWe87, which suggests that in a real design the primary and secondary are inverted compared to the image shown in the blog post.
Were these skill "trees" the output of an LLM or something? Of the domains I have a lot of familiarity with, the ordering (if it can even be assumed the easy ones are at the bottom and the hard ones at the top) make little sense.
I think if I were a newbie in any of these subjects and followed the "trees" as presented I would be quickly discouraged and lost.
It made me laugh. Maybe they pulled random people from the hallway who had never seen the original Doom (or any FPS), or maybe only selected people who wore glasses and forgot them at their desk.
b) there's two ways of censoring info: 1) to ban the truth and 2) to bury it under a pile of distractions; IMO during in a medical emergency such as this, allowing people to distract from "this is a deadly pandemic" with "it really matters which of two things we have no control over caused this" is just as deadly as China banning reporting of the fact that people were getting ill.
"You can sort out which thing you frenemies did wrong later, right now you need to buck up and resist the disease itself", kinda thing.
There's a difference between saying "there are more important things (to you) to put your energy towards" and "the lab leak theory is wrong, stop talking about it"
The former is reasonable, the latter is not (assuming the theory is unproven either way at the time).
> The dictionary chronicles how the language grows and changes, which means new words and definitions must continually be added. When many people use a word in the same way, over a long enough period of time, that word becomes eligible for inclusion.
MacGyver hasn't been on the air for three decades... I was pointing out that language changes and "cringe" has been recognized as part of the (American) english language for a few years now (by one dictionary publisher).
> the majority of podcasts are from a group of generic white guys