12 yards long, 2 lanes wide,
65 tons of American Pride!

Canyonero! Canyonero!

Top of the line in utility sports,
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts!

Canyonero! Canyonero! (Yah!)

She blinds everybody with her super high beams,
She’s a squirrel crushing, deer smacking, driving machine!

It wouldn’t be a 30% higher electrical bill overall. It would be 30% more for whatever power you’re using for this specific device, which, if it’s ordinarily 10W while in sleep and an average 100W while in use, and you use it 50 hours per week, or 215 hours per month, that’s a baseline power usage of 21500 watt hours in use and 5050 watt hours from idle/sleep/suspend. Or a total of 26550 watt hours, or 26.5 kWh. At 20 cents per kWh, you’re talking about $5.30 per month in electricity for the computer. A 30% increase would be an extra $1.60 per month.

That wasn’t the real Tesla, though. It was actually the Goblin King.

Human life absolutely factors into predicted lawsuit losses. Wrongful death lawsuits are expensive.

One’s goose being cooked is an idiom from at least 200 years ago. The transfer of that meaning to generally being a single adjective rather than a full phrase is probably at least 100 years old.

And as more evidence, here’s an issue of Boys Life magazine, from August 1938, that uses the phrase “he’s cooked” to describe someone who is going to lose a sporting event. So it’s at least 87 years old, maybe older.

What’s the charge? Eating a meal? A succulent meal of loaves and fishes?

This particular linked study, that is the basis for this thread, limited itself to only unprocessed red meat.

There’s three metrics to think about:

• Actual number of years reduced/increased
• Actual probability of that change in lifespan
• Statistical certainty that the trend we observe is actually linked to the variable we’re studying.

Russian roulette (traditional 1 round in 6 chambers) in a hospice ward (where everyone has been given a prognosis of less than 6 months to live) would be a very high certainty of shaving months off the life of 1/6 of the studied population. In the grand scheme of things, that’s not a very high risk. But at the same time, we can look at it and say “yes, shooting oneself with a revolver is very bad for health.” Putting a more or less deadly round in the chamber is probably not going to be a hugely significant change in outcomes, even if we can objectively say that one is better or worse for the person’s health than the other.

Almost all dietary/nutrition studies involve much smaller swings in lifespan or health conditions, probabilistically over a smaller portion of the population, with less statistical certainty in the observations. But the science is still worth doing, and analyzing, because that all adds up.

This study shows inflammatory markers are increased on a ketogenic diet: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6922028/

This rat study shows increased senescence in heart and kidneys in long term ketosis: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ado1463

However, Cholesterol is not a disease - its essential for life - the concern has never been cholesterol but atherosclerosis - if someone has elevated LDL, undamanged and unglycated (as on keto) and they are concerned they should get a CAC score so they can see their actual plaque burden.

What you’re asking for is being studied. Here’s a meta study from 2013:

However, one established risk factor of CVD, i.e. LDL-cholesterol, still turned out to be harmfully affected by the VLC regimen, most probably attributable to the larger amounts of saturated fat in the diet(Reference Bueno, de Melo and de Oliveira1). In their discussion, the authors stated that future meta-analyses should investigate the impact of low carbohydrates (LC) v. LF on other important pathological markers, e.g. endothelial function, in order to further assess the safety of LC dietary therapies.

This is reasonable, since evidence from prospective cohort studies has shown that endothelial dysfunction represents an independent risk factor for the development of many CVD including atherosclerosis(Reference Inaba, Chen and Bergmann2). We, therefore, carried out a meta-analysis to compare the effects of LC and LF regimens on flow-mediated dilatation (FMD). FMD of the brachial artery is a non-invasive measure of endothelial function, furthermore reflecting the local bioavailability of endothelium-derived vasodilators, especially NO. Inflammation of the endothelium is regarded to play a major role in the destabilisation of atherosclerotic lesions, therefore paving the way for future CVD events(Reference Inaba, Chen and Bergmann2).

Their results:

In our meta-analysis, LC dietary protocols were associated with a significant decrease in FMD when compared with their LF counterparts. A recent meta-analysis of observational studies including a sample size of 5·547 subjects has observed that a 1 % decrease in FMD is associated with a 13 % increase in the risk of future cardiovascular events(Reference Inaba, Chen and Bergmann2)

Along the same lines, here’s another study with arterial measurements that shows reduced blood flow and arterial function for those who stuck with a high protein diet: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/000331970005101003

Look, none of these studies are, standing alone, enough to really change things. But it seems to me, from the outside that you’re cherry picking your own results to justify carnivore diet.

The high carb versus low carb discussion is complicated and has a lot of factors at play. But the evidence for animal versus plant based low carb suggests that animal product diets are more harmful than plant product diets of similar macronutrient profiles.

Moreover, the overall trends show that those who eat a lot of whole grains (which are, by their nature, high carb plant based foods) have lower mortality than those who don’t. The same is true of those who eat a lot of fruit (again, high carb plant based food).

Trying to tease out which of a million variables is truly responsible for cardiovascular health isn’t easy, but a lot of the overall trends can be seen:

• Whole grains good
• Whole fruit good
• Red meat bad
• Cured meat really bad
• Seafood good
• Legumes good

Now, you can quibble with confounding variables, but at a certain point trying to argue that minutiae starts looking like religious apologetics, really cherry picking examples in favor while ignoring examples against. Coming up with a coherent theory of “fiber not important” or “the foods our genetic ancestors ate are somehow bad for us now” is an uphill battle, and I’m not convinced that the carnivore diet is anything more than a scam designed to sell books.

The injections work by causing your brain to want to do the things that you’re describing. Adherence to a plan is the hard part, and the drugs tend to make people naturally want to stick with that plan, by literally making it more desirable than not sticking with it.

If somebody wants to eliminate even more, they could try out a low carb, or even a ketogenic diet or even a zero carb diet.

Most recent studies of long term ketosis show accelerated aging markers, and some potentially harmful increases in LDL and VLDL cholesterol. Some propose periodic resets out of ketosis to avoid some of the accumulated long term issues, while taking advantage of some of the short term benefits for overall insulin sensitivity and obesity.

The human body has many, many ways to meet its nutritional needs. We’re omnivores and we have lots of anthropological history of different cultures surviving primarily on carbs, primarily on animal products, and all sorts of in between.

There are plenty of issues with people on carnivore diets, too, so I would caution against trying to swing the pendulum too far in the other direction. I’ve never seen anything suggesting that there’s a statistically significant delta between a high carb whole foods diet and a low carb whole foods diet. And even within those frameworks, it’s entirely possible that the qualitative differences between one whole food still makes a difference compared to another whole food, like the observed studies regarding red meat being bad, fatty fish being good, legumes being good, fermented vegetables being good, etc.

Nutrition science is pretty incomplete. We’re only recently learning bits and pieces about the role of the microbiome, and haven’t even finished accumulating the information we started learning in recent decades about endocrine feedback loops in nutrition and metabolism. It’ll take a lot of data and analysis to have confidence in what people are saying, and I personally take it all in with interest but skepticism.

People who bought things in bulk (also known as buying in gross) to subdivide and sell in smaller portions, became known as grossers, and eventually grocers. Eventually, the word “grocery” came to mean the actual goods sold by grocers.

Source: https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/grocery-store-word-origin

The 787 has 8 main tires and 2 nose tires. The main tires are 218 lbs (about 100kg) and the nose tires are 114 lbs (about 50kg). So a set is roughly 1970 lbs/900kg, pretty close to a short ton. 5 metric tonnes would be about 5.6 sets of 787 tires.

Hallucination feedback loop

Hallucination feedback loop

And yet, people do.

Should we just ignore the dynamics of that system, and pretend it doesn’t exist? Or can we make observations about that system, and analyze its effects?

This comment section is all people missing the point.

The point of the post is that a particular job will generally stabilize at a particular pay. If it’s a tipped position, then the employer will pay less, so that the overall income is roughly at that stable income for that position, including the overall average tip.

So people who tip less than the average are free riding off of the people who tip more than average, where that worker will make an average tip overall, which comes more from the generous tippers than the stingy tippers. Thus, it effectively transfers money from generous tippers to stingy tippers, on net, in the long run.

The merits of this system, whether servers deserve to be paid more, whether we should push for reforms so that this isn’t the system, is besides the point. The post is making an observation of how things actually are, not advocating for how things should be.

I’m basically saying two things.

1. Permanence isn’t required or expected, although in some instances permanence is valued, in defining success.
2. Permanence itself does not require continuing effort. One can leave a permanent mark on something without active maintenance.

Taken together, success doesn’t require permanence, and permanence doesn’t require continued effort. The screenshot text is wrong to presume that our culture only values permanence, and is wrong in its implicit argument that permanence requires continued effort.

All I’m saying is that continuing effort is not necessary. Permanence/longevity can be achieved through other means, in situations where permanence is important. The lack of need for continuing effort is even more obvious in situations in which permanence isn’t even a desired or intended outcome.

we as a culture have turned “forever” into the only acceptable definition of success.

I really don’t agree with the premise, and would encourage others to reject that worldview if it starts creeping into how they think about things.

In the sports world, everything is always changing, and careers are very short. But what people do will be recorded forever, so those snapshots in time are part of one’s legacy after they’re done with their careers. We can look back fondly at certain athletes or coaches or specific games or plays, even if (or especially if) that was just a particular moment in time that the sport has since moved on from. Longevity is regarded as valuable, and maybe relevant to greatness in the sport, but it is by no means necessary or even expected. Michael Jordan isn’t a failed basketball player just because he wasn’t able to stay in the league, or even that his last few years in the league weren’t as legendary as his prime years. Barry Sanders isn’t a failed American football player just because he retired young, either.

Same with entertainment. Nobody really treats past stars as “failed” artists.

If you write a book or two, then decide that you don’t actually want to keep doing that, you’re a “failed” writer.

That is a foreign concept to me, and I question the extent to which this happens. I don’t know anyone who treats these authors (or actors or directors or musicians) as failures, just because they’ve moved onto something else. Take, for example, young actors who just don’t continue in the career. Jack Gleeson, famous for playing Joffrey in the Game of Thrones series, is an actor who took a hiatus, might not come back to full time acting. And that’s fine, and it doesn’t take away from his amazing performance in that role.

The circumstances of how things end matter. Sometimes the ending actually does indicate failure. But ending, in itself, doesn’t change the value of that thing’s run when it was going on.

| just think that something can be good, and also end, and that thing was still good.

Exactly. I would think that most people agree, and question the extent to which people feel that the culture values permanence. If anything, I’d argue that modern culture values the opposite, that we tend to want new things always changing, with new fresh faces and trends taking over for the old guard.