Further, whole-body resistance exercise increased oxidative damage. For example, resistance exercise at a 10-repetition maximum load increases the MDA level in the blood [19]. Furthermore, local resistance exercise, which is a single type of resistance training in a specific muscle group, can increase oxidative damage.
Listen, the Bros don’t even talk about oxidative stress. What do you think it is that oxidants cholesterol to cause coronary artery disease? What do you think triggers the DNA changes to cause cancer?
You do understand that biology is complex and multifaceted, and aging/healing is more complex than "oxidative stress bad", right? The body does double/triple/n-tuple with almost every biomolecule. "Inflammation" (which isn't a single process) is widely vilified but it's absolutely necessary to grow and heal.
Of course, it’s complicated, but it’s simple as well. It’s just about Balance. Too much inflammation is bad. Too little is bad. we need just to balance them out, and it’s the same with oxidative stress. Reactive oxygen species kill pathogens but they can also kill us. We balanced them using enzymes, and these enzymes need enzymes and cofactors.
So then why are you being so contrarian? The overwhelming evidence supports the theory that a combination of strength and cardio training leads to better healthspans. And before you "correlation is not causation" yeah no duh, but the evidence is absolutely conclusive by now that exercise is better than not.
> overwhelming evidence supports the theory that a combination of strength and cardio training leads to better healthspans.
Better for who? That’s my point. Obviously my grandfather didn’t need it right?
But I’m against these simplistic explanations for something much more beautiful happening underneath all this bro science advice.
There is no evidence that strength and cardio ALONE leads to longer life and health spans. what I’m arguing is that there is something beneath what you’re all looking at that would help way more people if we understood it completely. And what that is is the balance and mitigation of oxidative stress. It is quite probable that because my grandfather did not work out, he did not create a lot of oxidative stress, and that’s what helped him live longer. What would be more important for humanity is understanding oxidative stress.
I did. Where do you think I got the 5 billion euro figure?
Yes, McDonald's France has some local items, as they do everywhere*, but they also have Le Big Mac and Le Royal Cheese (because of the metric system, as all Pulp Fiction fans know).
* Here it's the "Denali Mac" which is a Big Mac made with Quarter Pounder patties.
The thing you're missing is that McDonalds (and indeed, most fast food franchises) are far, far better in anywhere else but the US. McDonalds in Japan for example is leagues ahead any McDonalds you could find in the US and that's because they're often using higher quality fresher ingredients with stricter food standards.
The pagination object is bulky and unnecessarily complex, where a simple offset/limit is enough (and a nextUrl for cursor-based access).
When we looked into cluster locks, they’re not even released if one node goes down. I mean, who would need a lock implementation that just stores a line in a DB? And the doc doesn’t even warn about it.
That is quite a broad statement. Two negative points about Apache Java libraries I can think of: The original "lang" libraries have not aged well at all. Also: The HTTP client libs are a fiasco. Very challenging APIs and weak documentation.
I've been on ... 4-5 "after works" (as we call it here), since the pandemic. But even then we usually get going around 16.00 and the night is over before 20.00.
But if the company is planning something after work hours? I consider that to be a "team-building" activity, a part of my 8 hour work day.
Tourists / foreigners buying houses i guess, although i predict that in the coming 10-20 years we'll be seeing mediterraneans escaping the summer heat in the north.
This guy seems smart and ambitious but has a very romantic/naive mindset. A job is an exchange of services, never get it confused with your own mission or "dream".
I disagree heavily with this. Lots of people make a living doing what they love/building a better world. Just because we normalized selling our attention to the highest fiscal bidder, doesn’t mean that the highest fiscal bid is actually valuable in terms of life quality. Nobody looks back and says “eh, I wish I’d have worked more at [soulless job]”. I think your perspective is extreme dystopian, and it makes me sad to think about how many people live their lifes with that mindset. Look up “purpose economy”
I might come off as really cynical, but i agree with your statement completely. The best place i worked didn't feel like work, smart motivated people with little managerial oversight and a shared vision, awesome times.
What I'm trying to say is: look out for yourself out there because no one else will, don't let yourself be exploited
I really appreciate this response and relate to this.
I think I was in a really similar mindset as OP, the last company I was at I was very naive and believed this pitch about the company. Come to find out the company had nothing. What I did gain is a great learning lesson on how I should approach work and more.
My current company I looked for specific things and listened during the interview. I know interviews can only give you so much, but when I decided on the last job I ignored so many red flags in hope that this will turn into something huge, I should have looked at it as a true red flag that this will be a rough experience.
Also having ADHD this is something that is tough at times
Not going to try to look like I'm explaining how life works just my 2c: life is complicated and quality comes in different shapes and forms. "A job is an exchange of services" is a way to reduce this complexity and cut down on the interdependence of dimensions we optimize for.
I personally don't have the constraint that i need to give everything to my job and it needs to give back, so i agree with the GP and don't see it as dystopian, just one of the many ways of living.
Others legitimately do have this constraint and probably have to simplify elsewhere (not have kids is something I've seen a lot).
> Nobody looks back and says “eh, I wish I’d have worked more at [soulless job]”
There are a lot of people which quit their "soulless" job and to chase their dream just to ultimately be forced to give up on them after loosing years of savings. I very much doubt that none of them regret leaving their jobs
> I very much doubt that none of them regret leaving their jobs
Maybe in the moment. But savings don’t buy you anything when you’re dead. I’m inclined to believe that you’d later look back on that period of your life as ‘sure glad I did that when I could’.
There is plenty of time in one life to work for both dystopian corporations and follow your passion.
It's tricky, because in the alternate universe those people are regretting wasting their life instead of trying to follow their dreams. The only situation that doesn't lead to some form of regret is the one where following the dreams works out.
>Lots of people make a living doing what they love/building a better world.
Really? America must be a great place then. Don't know anyone like that where I live. My doctor friends would be closest but they certainly don't have a good quality of life and their lives are quite dystopian.
How do you explain the ten's or hundreds of thousands of people in the world that already have financial freedom (i.e. enough in the bank to live comfortably the rest of their lives), and yet still get up everyday and goto work?
The issue with the world view that "a job is an exchange of services" is that it is unsustainable. The sheer time magnitude of work - 40 hours a week + commute for many decades dictates that it is a very significant portion of your life. On top of that on a day-to-day basis the timeslot itself between 9/5 is the best part of the day for the vast majority of people.
Seems like in order to have a deeply fulfilling life you need to have a job that you like and find it deeply meaningful. There is just no way around it, it is too much.
Moreover, check your tax filings next time you want to feel like you give back to society.
I’m not saying you shouldn’t do anything extra-curricular, but as a wage earning citizen you are already doing a good bit of your fair share just by earning money and handing it over as tax revenue.
(Where I am sure this falls down, for many people, is that their local and federal government is useless at moving the needle on any kind of issues for social good. Hands up if you live in a nation with both aircraft carriers and child poverty!)
IMO I'm in the camp that the money you 'lose' to taxes were never yours to begin with, and not worth all the handwringing people give about rates. It only really makes sense to consider take home minus fixed costs such as rent when considering how much money a job is making for you, since that's the only cash that's actually yours at the end of the day anyhow. If I want more of that given these fixed costs, seems like I need to demand more in wages if I'm left with too little every paycheck.
Taxes don't go one way though. Governments provide plenty of useful services. If your government provides no useful services then that would be stealing, and you should probably move asap.
On a more local level this can apply in terms of city and state as well, so not just country. If you get literally no useful or beneficial services from a city government that's not a bad reason to move away unless you have no need for anything governmental.
This may be a fact, but that doesn't mean it aligns with human psychology. Most of us do want to spend our days doing something we can take pride in and enjoy. This doesn't necessarily imply high income. But it does involve interacting with other people who respect you, solving problems/tasks, and being given at least enough autonomy to feel one has ownership over those problems' solutions.
> A job is an exchange of services, never get it confused with your own mission or "dream".
A job is also a significant portion of your time. Its hard to make it be both, but its also near impossible to both follow your dreams and work full time separately. Seems like making a job be both is a worthy goal if you can make it work.
I agree with this but it's also possible to, realizing your job is unfulfilling, and realizing you also don't want to turn your calling into your job, just checking out entirely. (at least for a time)
> never get it confused with your own mission or "dream".
I would hesitate to use the word “never,” there.
It’s kind of amazing, when a job becomes a vocation and a calling.
These days, that kind of describes where I’m at. I don’t get paid a dime, and work harder (and more productively) than I ever have. I’m doing work I never dared to dream of.
I had to be forced into this position. Long, sad story. Get your hanky. TL;DR, no one wants to play with someone over 50, that used to be a manager.
But the last few years have convinced me that you couldn’t drag me back into the rat race with a locomotive. I’m almost deliriously happy.
I’m extremely fortunate, in having built up enough to get to this point, and also, in learning to live humbly enough to have my needs met.
I wish the OP well.
Happiness is something that has no price tag, and is often found serendipitously. For some of us, we are only truly happy, when we are working.
I disagree on the usage of agency here and the entire post really. Being an introvert SWE (70% of HN?) a lot solo consultants would be placed between quiet asshole and nice, but not often extroverted. Are these people low in agency? Is the traditional "nerd" low on agency? hardly.
agency per the article: "self-protection, self-assertion, separation, and isolation"
It is what it is. To paraphrase George Carlin: in any store, we can choose between dozens of different flavors of the same food item, but for some reason, we cannot affect any meaningful change through any of the choices given to us.
> The things that matter in this country have been reduced in choice, there are two political parties, there are a handful insurance companies, there are six or seven information centers.. but if you want a bagel there are 23 flavors. Because you have the illusion of choice!
Separation and isolation not in the sense that you are alone in your apartment, but in the sense that your thoughts and decisions are yours and not linked to or overridden by someone else’s.
The software engineer is notoriously low on agency.
We're barely 3 months into this and your calling it a failure? could it be done better: yes, it is failure? no.
"no arguing", "can not argue" Yes, you very much can, and we'll see in a few years what the "correct" choice was.
The actual spread of the virus is a fraction of what Tegnell predicted. They were predicting close to 60% by the end of May. It was in the low teens with about a week to go in May in Stockholm.
Their primary goal was to protect the vulnerable ie the elderly. But Tegnell did not believe in the existence of asymptomatic carriers (well after other countries had locked down because of them) so care workers who were infected but not showing symptoms were in constant contact with the elderly since his guidance required them to avoid going in to work only if they showed symptoms.
Both of these were the primary stated goals. Neither were achieved.
the comment was referring to failure in execution, not necessarily failure in choosing the correct approach. it's hard to argue that sweden shouldn't have been more careful with its elderly and vulnerable, even if going for herd immunity.
It's fairly impossible to say "Sweden should hav ebeen more careful with its elderly" - The measures put in place by Sweden were designed with that in mind.
That's why elderly care facilities were the first, if not only ones, to face quarantine.
However, when you have years of poor management of elderly care, and elderly care companies that refuse to heed the recommendations, there's not much "Sweden" can do in the moment wihtout severe effort.
And the politicians should have put in that severe, very expensive effort. But that would have required them to be fast, which is not a very Swedish thing. Everything is extremely decentralised and in many cases privatized.
Either the state (highest level) should have forced an intervention, or all actors should have acted responsibly. But there is too much inertia. The elderly care is so poorly managed, it was not only a disaster waiting to happen, it actually was a slow burning dumpster fire even before Covid19.
How would they do that? I think it's safe to assume right away that the companies aren't going to act responsibly, because, well, they haven't for years. So that leaves the state, and what should they do?
Not like they can push a button and invent more caretakers, fix internal routines, etc, across an entire country.
I'd love it if they could, but in general, there is going to be inertia when trying to affect change in a system that has been degrading for years, with actors actively working against those changes (in this case, companies putting profit over welfare).
It's so very, very easy to say "the state should have done something, fast", but it gets very difficult when you're trying to specify which parts of the state should have done what, to which actors and on which level.
Right, and it had nothing to do with Tegnell’s resistance to the idea of asymptomatic carriers and hence his guidance that care workers were free to go into work as long as they didn’t show symptoms.
Edit: Also, your comment basically justifies the lockdowns in every other country. Tegnell’s whole argument was that the enlightened Swedes didn’t need a mandatory lockdown because they would simply do the right thing without the government telling them. And there is some truth to that in a society that is wealthy, well educated, and highly trusting of its government. Despite that, it’s citizenry failed to achieve what Tegnell said they would.
How in the world would you expect other countries’ citizens to voluntarily do what the government was recommending when Sweden couldn’t? His criticism of lockdowns in other countries was completely unwarranted based on his own reasoning for why Sweden didn’t need a lockdown (which also, as you point out, turned out to be wrong).
Your argument has been repeated a number of times through this thread and it's bogus. Sweden's policy is already a failure because its economy has been affected to much the same level as other similar countries while experiencing a much higher death rate. And other countries are now opening up again to each other, while Sweden has become a pariah.
https://www.folkhalsomyndigheten.se/livsvillkor-levnadsvanor....