= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
On a related note make sure that they are people who are actively doing X, or at least making credible progress towards it not just professing a desire to X. This is an easy mistake to make.
Doesn't this, to a large extent, describe LW?
Is there really a why to the direction of facing? Or is it just that both states are stable, but which one is chosen is due to uninteresting historical contingency?
Facing the front of the elevator seems to be the better choice - you can press buttons, watch the floor numbers tick up, and exit the elevator more quickly.
Facing backwards also sort of cuts out human interaction in cases where, say, somebody new enters the elevator.
In response to
The Power of Agency
Think of Benjamin Franklin, Teddy Roosevelt, Bill Clinton, or Tim Ferris.
It's Tim Ferriss.
Either way, the guy's a moron. He's basically a much better packaged snake oil salesman.
Math works well with the kids. I write "1 + 1 = 2" and say "simple", then write the quadratic equation and say "not simple".
So, simple is a type of equation?
Jokes aside, that's an excellent answer.
You could get quite a bit of the way there, yeah. Interestingly, it's possible to have the inverse experience: lots of foreigners living here make almost no effort to interact with locals, learn the language, or experience the culture in any significant way.
I doubt there's anything quite like full-on immersion in a culture you know nothing about, though.
There's a clear difference between interacting with foreigners in your own country, and being a foreigner in another country, which is basically that when you're a foreigner, it's your beliefs/customs/mannerism that are being questioned. If everybody faces the back of the elevator, you're going to start pondering why in the U.S. you face the front of the elevator, whereas those facing the back wouldn't stop and think about why a foreigner might be facing the opposite direction.
Also, obviously, the immersion factor is there. Speaking to foreigners in your own country is not nearly as new/scary an environment as being in a completely foreign country.
Agreed; this is particularly true for things like creatine. But most Americans have cholesterol higher than recommended, and most of the health risks I'm seeing associated with low cholesterol are "if your cholesterol suddenly drops without a known cause, this is a warning sign for disease." Is there something else I should be aware of?
[edit] Thought I should quote the relevant section of the DRIs:
All tissues are capable of synthesizing enough cholesterol to meet their metabolic and structural needs. Consequently, there is no evidence for a biological requirement for dietary cholesterol. Neither an Estimated Average Requirement (EAR), and thus a Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA), nor an Adequate Intake (AI) was set for cholesterol.
Much evidence indicates a positive linear trend between cholesterol intake and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentration, and therefore an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD). A Tolerable Upper Intake Level (UL) was not set for cholesterol because any incremental increase in cholesterol intake increases CHD risk. It is recommended that people maintain their dietary cholesterol intake as low as possible, while consuming a diet that is nutritionally adequate in all required nutrients.
Dietary cholesterol and lipid cholesterol aren't the same thing either, and just as your body can compensate for an intake of 0 cholesterol, it can likewise compensate for an intake of excess cholesterol.
as an example, he put no cholesterol at all in his original formula (I have no idea if he's updated it or not)
This is actually a bad example; humans can produce cholesterol, and so the FDA does not recommend intake.
"Can produce" doesn't mean optimal intake is 0.
I'm dubious of the "vegetables are obviously wonderful" meme. We almost never see hunter-gatherer groups pursue leafy or cruciferous veggies as a source of significant calories. Instead we see a lot more calories coming from starchy sources, tubers etc. In my investigation of micronutrient content, I haven't seen much evidence that there are any substances you get from leafy/cruciferous veggies you can't get elsewhere pretty easily. I think the reason they show a link to longevity is that the person who eats lots of vegetables is either consciously or inadvertently optimizing their diet for high micronutrient content*, and I think there are other ways to get there. I wouldn't mind being wrong about this if anyone has some contrary evidence.
*A study on seasonal fluctuations in the micronutrient contents of foods correlated very well to mortality and sickness in New Zealand, this area of research deserves a lot more study than it is currently getting.
We know a lot less about hunter-gatherers than most people think, and hunter-gatherer tribes fluctuate a lot in terms of their diets/lifestyles, as one would expect with the diversity of the world.
Vegetables tend to be low calorie, so you wouldn't expect tribes to expend a lot of effort getting them. That doesn't really apply to a modern environment where getting enough calories isn't a concern and vegetables can be bought at your local supermarket.
Yes, it's better than a shit diet. Pretty much anything is better than shitty diet, though.
So ... what other options are you including in "anything", exactly?
I think it goes without saying what I mean. Healthy diet > soylent > shit diet
= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d){kind=logo}
Which part?