We don't use the bomb calorimeter today, but we still use the Atwater system (with a quick tweak for fiber) for those "nutritional components." All that means is instead of burning the food ourselves we're looking at a table that the guy who burned the foods created... with his bomb calorimeter.[1] The only reason we're marginally better now is because we're starting to take into account digestibility (e.g. Carbs have non-digestible fiber subtracted before the calories are calculated).[2]
So you're repeating the exact point I was making. A bomb calorimeter is not used anymore today. Altough it is very interesting that the 4 kcal/g protein etc values are still used based on that research, I thought the values had been better determined nowadays. At least progress is possible and being made.
But still, what the gp says was that a wooden log would have a food label with a high calorie content. That is not correct.
But still, what the gp says was that a wooden log would have a food label with a high calorie content. That is not correct.
Was the original comment edited? As it reads now, the GP makes no mention of a label, only the factually correct statement that a log "is several megacalories" (ie, hardwood releases about 20 kCal/g when burned) but "you'll starve eating it" (ie, human digestion is not able to make use of this energy).
You are right that a current nutritional label would not show the log has having any significant number of calories, but the GP's actual post never said that it would. What makes you visualize this non-existent food label and then claim it is incorrect, as opposed to accepting their statement as written?
The article is about how "the calorie is dead" (title), in the context of human consumption. The GP says "makes sense, a log of wood is several megacalories but you'll starve eating it".
My point is that a log would have a food label with very little calories, not several megacalories. It does not "make sense" to use as support for "the calorie is dead".
Exactly, energy that one can't use,and do they like do a chromatographic separation before calorimetry or what??
I also do wonder about the calories in ethanol. Apparently its immediate metabolism does produce a few atp, but the fact that hangover cures are universally high calorie foods suggests that the downstream steps might be endothermic or rate limited by fat, if that's even possible
I think this is a matter of preference. Microsoft Teams does threads as first class citizens, and to me it's overly busy. I'd much rather a chat tool work like IRC, and in my mind Slack is simply IRC with more features.
Creating a subject for a thread is optional in Microsoft Teams rather than required as it is in Zulip. This very minor difference makes a HUGE difference in how the UI works.
I like Pinterest. I'm bad at decorating, and I'm a bad cook, so having recipes and decorating stuff that I can sift through and save into distinct idea books is nice. However, the website/app is basically glorified bookmarks. Trying to turn this into a Social Networking Empire is just pure greed, and I agree with you: the "Growth Team" concept is wretched. Sure, it's an interesting problem from a CompSci perspective, but the underlying motivations make me ill. Stop trying to manipulate your users. If they like and have a use for it, they'll use it. If they no longer have a use for it, they'll stop. BUT, if it's good enough, then the incoming users should eclipse the outgoing, and you'll float on just fine. Alas, for Social Network Empire wannabes, that's just not good enough!
I really enjoy using are.na (https://www.are.na/about) for collecting images and random bits of text into spaces where I can view them together. It's a small, creative community and definitely not of the repost, repost, repost quality that you find at Pinterest. It is run by a small team and they offer a very useful free plan for getting started and membership is only $45/year.
I am not affiliated are.na. I am just a happy user.
I don't think it's lazy, I think it's intentional. The cleanup efforts have been in the planning phase for 22 years, so perhaps some fear mongering to drum up more public outrage/outcry is what needs to happen to make someone do something.
This is the post I needed to see today, and from Popular Mechanics it makes it that much sweeter.
The Tesla Roadster gave me hope back when I was younger and despairing over the soaring prices of gas. I loved cars, but how could I justify spending so much damn money on fuel each weekend while driving my local canyon roads? Not to mention the nasty effects that gas-powered cars have on the environment and on people's general health. Electric and hybrid cars -- the obvious (to me) evolution of the car -- were dull and pathetic, which meant that owning a fun, fast, well-handling car would be a thing my parents enjoyed but I could not. Wanna be a modern gearhead? Forgetaboutit.
THEN I saw an article about some guy with a company named after a pioneer of electricity supply systems who had an electric car that was designed in part by Lotus and was fast. I was over the moon. Who cares that its price tag was way beyond my reach? The point was that technology would eventually become common place and trickle down to me.
Hope is a precious commodity. Elon Musk and his first Tesla roadster gave me hope, and then sprinkled in some joy, and added a bit of optimism and excitement about the future. Classify me as a fanboy or cultist if you want, and I'll wear that label proudly. I don't see any other billionaires out there trying to solve problems beyond "how do I effectively shelter this income stream from the IRS?" So, quit picking on the guy and let him do his thing. Eventually we'll all benefit.
> I have quit facebook too because I was mentally unstable.
I think this very effectively distills the essence of his blog post, too. His perception is that everyone is fronting. The fact of the matter is, not everyone is. Some people just post the highlights because they understand that the minutia is boring and not what people want to see. That he sees this as "fronting" is more a commentary on his own lack of self confidence. Well, that and the fact that he had to throw out how many followers he had.
I don't have a lack of self confidence and I consider the vast majority of Facebook posts to be fronting, even if the person actually posting is not actively aware of the fact that they are fronting. A lot of the time the awareness of "fronting" is absent, when it is in fact the main purpose driving the person to upload. Why else would people post very personal things about their lives to an audience they don't even want to reach out to on a regular basis? Even when they are in the same city, etc? Because those are not friends, and if they are not friends, the uploader is an actor presenting their daily demo real.
Of course there are exceptions to this, but I don't think that saying that a vast majority of people on Facebook are fronting is a reflection on our own personal lack of confidence, as much as it is barely a generalization.
Sitting here in the middle of a heatwave, I have to ask: are they really that bad when you can just add warm-weather clothing? Or when even just moving will generate some heat? I've heard in Wisconsin you have to breathe a certain way to warm the air before it gets to your lungs, so maybe that's the problem? I've only lived in hot climates, so I have no concept of true cold. But with how summers have been getting hotter and hotter lately, I'm tempted to make a change.
Let me describe the effects of freezing rain on a commute. Freezing rain means that the rain has been superchilled, and it freezes immediately upon contact with something - like the road and your car's windshield. Last time I had to drive through freezing rain, we were only able to drive at around 5mph on the highway, and had to stop every quarter mile to chip the ice off the windshield so we could see.
Let me describe wind, and its effect during a cold day. Wind chill describes the effect of wind on exposed skin, by describing the equivalent effect in pure temperature. At -20 farenheit, you're uncomfortable, but you're able to operate without having your face covered; without having to breathe from a heated air supply. At -20 F with a (for the region) mild breeze of 20mph, the equivalent temperature is -50. Cold enough that you will get frostbite on any exposed skin within 5-10 minutes (i.e. your skin freezes solid and can cause permanent damage).
At -40 (a particularly cold day), with the same wind, it's equivalent to -75 F. That's much more rare, only 1-2 times per winter. You are pretty much trapped indoors on those days.
When I lived in the mid-west, they would shut down the college only when it reached -40 with a still wind, or -110F with wind chill. The college would be shut down an average of 4-5 days out of the winter.
So, yeah. You absolutely can survive it; can live in it. Like all annoying or even painful things, you can even become inured to it - consider it a badge of pride. That doesn't make it pleasant.
Overall it's really not as bad as people make it out to be. Of course I've lived here all my life. There are periodic cold snaps where it gets way below freezing, but typically it is in the 20's (F). The trick for winter is to embrace it, and wear appropriate clothing. For snow removal you may need heavy machinery (I just use a sleigh shovel, works great). For clothing, a good flannel shirt with a vest jacket and hat goes a long way (keeps you from getting too warm, and your body acclimates to the temps).
I lived in Chicago for several years and while the temperature and snow is a lot more extreme in Chicago the winter is a hell of a lot more tolerable than in Sweden where I live now. This is because where I live in Sweden is moderate temperature wise compared to Chicago but the sun basically just never comes out and you have constant cold rain for about 7 months. Chicago will definitely see enough sunshine during the winter to keep you in reasonably good spirits.
Also you forgot to mention for clothing to wear something under your jeans (my trick was sweatpants) to protect yourself from that Chicago wind whipping through them :)
I think it depends on the person quite a bit. For some folks winter is utterly miserable.
For others who generally stay indoors all year anyways, it's pretty easy.
Most are somewhere in between. I will say the winters here can get long some years, but Chicago has to be either the best, or among the best summer cities in the world. Yeah you get a few super hot muggy days, but those almost let you appreciate winter more. It's an absolutely gorgeous and fun city in the summer - and in the winter if drinking is your thing it's not so bad. If you hate drinking, you might not make it.
The one really weird thing about Chicago (coming from MN) is that the house construction is utterly horrible for cold weather. If it hits negative temps you can expect plenty of your friends to have pipes freeze. This may be getting better as units get rehabbed but it really contributes to the misery.
A few years ago I met a woman from Alaska. She told me she went to college in Chicago and she barely made it through the first winter. Her friends said "What's your problem? You're from Alaska!" She replied "You don't understand. We never get this cold at home."
Of course Alaska is a big state and not all of it is freezing, but still. Chicago winters are impressive.
We don't use the bomb calorimeter today, but we still use the Atwater system (with a quick tweak for fiber) for those "nutritional components." All that means is instead of burning the food ourselves we're looking at a table that the guy who burned the foods created... with his bomb calorimeter.[1] The only reason we're marginally better now is because we're starting to take into account digestibility (e.g. Carbs have non-digestible fiber subtracted before the calories are calculated).[2]
[1]https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-food-manuf...
[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atwater_system#Modified_system