Good for you but most people that do just that rebound a few months/years later. Maybe you already had a good enough diet and reducing sizes did it for you but most people require a change in their diet for it to stick. Keeping yourself thin on a highly caloric fast food diet is always harder and if you are already obese you most likely have a problem with food too.
The discipline needed to resist hunger and the discipline needed to stick to a healthy and varied diet is wildly different. The second may require more thought and skill but a lot less willpower.
That is not something you diagnose and I doubt it's very important at all, just a different way of thinking. Words are just a way to communicate ideas but having the complete context of your own mind you don't need them, you can just think of the ideas directly instead of translating to words.
I myself have an inner monologue like 80% of the time and the times that I don't thinking seems faster. The downside is being harder to translate into words if I need to explain the idea to others.
She didn't only lose her inner voice but the capacity to communicate and understand language properly. She also lost a lot of other, harder to detect, stuff. She also writes that she was capable of complex thought, just in a different way.
There are people naturally without an inner speech who can think just as well.
The Calm she speaks about is something else, it may be similar to animals or it may not but I doubt it was only caused by her loss of speech.
I don't know if Kyle is right but "any good after mainstream public buy-in" and "worked great continuously from inception to today" is quite the goalpost move.
Ive run chromium and firefox side by side for years to isolate personal from work. The only noticeable difference is Chromium crashes when it uses all the memory.
People's overwhelming fascination with Chrome escapes me. Some subtle detail seems to make it stick out. Everyone remembers that one time ff crashed on 2005, but gives berth to Chrome crashimg every few days and selling their personal data to google.
In my experience Linux can have some driver bugs on specific hardware that windows doesn't, like not waking up after suspend on some Nvidia cards with some drivers, etc. But it handles hardware issues miles better.
90% of hard drives that windows does not detect Linux can detect and copy 99% of the data with some IO errors for the rest. Can handle hardware instability like bad rams or too high of an overclock for ages while windows crashes very easily.
The biggest problem with electricity is the batteries. Right now an EV pollutes more an ICE engine, the pollution is just moved to the power plants. But then you have to take into account the batteries. Making them pollutes a lot and they don't last forever.
Fully agree on minimizing the use of cars. But I still wanted to do this computation to compare:
EPA says a gallon produces 8.8 kg CO2/gal tailpipe emissions [0]. A best-case sedan does about 50 mi/gal [1]. That's 17.6 kg CO2/100 mi for a best case sedan.
A Tesla Model 3 uses about 25 kWh/100 mi [2]. 1 kWh produces about 1 kg CO2 when produced in the dirtiest way (coal), but in the US it's currently about 0.4 kg CO2/kWh on average [4]. That gives you 10-25 kg CO2/100 mi.
So the best case ICE is better only if you are producing the electricity from coal (even gas power is better than ICE). The nice thing about EVs is that you can often charge them with the cleanest power (e.g. solar), but I'm not sure how common that optimization is.
CO2 emissions from the gasoline does not account for the energy necessary to refine the oil to produce it. These days refineries use electricity for that so if that comes from a coal plant, it adds like 25% of CO2 emission. So the best sedan is pretty much equivalent in the carbon emission to Tesla when that car uses electricity from an old coal plant with 30% efficiency.
A statement like "EVs pollute more than ICE engines" needs substantiation.
Large power generation systems (even messy ones like coal) are tremendously more efficient per unit CO2 produced than a car engine[1]. You could make a case, though it's been proven wrong many times, that the production of the battery in an EV generates more waste than a comparable ICE vehicle.
This is a common myth. Most of the pollution of a vehicle is in its use, both for EVs and ICE [0]. The average EV, even on the dirtiest fuel, still has much higher efficiency than the average ICE. On top of that, things are only going to get better:
- more of our electricity is coming from clean (renewable/nuclear) sources every year. We reached 40% in 2023. [1] Solar and wind are dominating fossil fuel in new generation. [2]
- we're evolving battery materials for cleaner batteries, and more new battery materials will be sourced from recycled batteries instead of new mining. (EVs are still so relatively new and batteries live long enough that we haven't yet reached that point).
Commuter EVs are the rare kind of electric consumers that can efficiently absorb the unstable solar-generated electricity. Having your car charged while you're in the office during daytime can effectively be free in many places.
I would have agreed with your logic until a few years ago when we started seeing companies advertising inflated max bounties that they do not uphold when a critical vulnerability gets discovered.
reply