But what's the point of giving you more specific examples? You seem to be eager to "no true scotsman" your way out of this by labelling every example of varying calorie consumption as an exception.

Even the top article referenced in this wikipedia article admits it's based on a study of bushmen who -- surprise surprise -- were in very healthy average weight and also did tremendous physical activity. What a coincidence. But sure, keep telling yourself exercise doesn't matter and it's all about Calories In Calories Out and that the body is as trivial and simple a machine as an internal combustion engine.

BTW: The majority of people where? Where do you see this? The internet (which parts)? A middle class neighborhood in a small Midwestern town? An upper class neighborhood in a cosmopolitan European city? Culture varies tremendously so "where" matters if you make assertions like "the majority of people" think this or that.

Regardless of what you think people think, I'm telling you what they _should_ think which is more timeless and objective, since it's about medical facts that were true 2000 years ago as they are now.

But healthiness can be measured pretty objectively through health outcomes, and high BMI and low exercise are both independently highly correlated with bad ones across the whole spectrum of health aspects. It's not just common sense, it's mountains of evidence over decades across every aspect of medicine.

The fact that some (in your community, many) people twist this around and make it about something else entirely is sad, but in no way affects the objective truths:

- it is objectively healthier to be active than inactive, regardless of obesity

- it is objectively healthier to have average weight than obese, regardless of activity level

I've lived in a few different places and found the culture around exercise and diet to be very different in different places, so I'm not surprised experiences can vary so much. I am curious where you see this bizarre culture of shaming people for exercising.

Without redoing their work or finding a way to have deep trust (which is possible, but uncommon at a bigcorp) it's hard enough to tell who is earnest and who is faking it (or buying their own baloney) when it comes to propositions like "investing in this piece of tech debt will pay off big time"

As a result, if managers tend to believe such plans, bad ideas drive out good and you end up investing in a tech debt proposal that just wastes time. Burned managers therefore cope by undervaluing any such proposals and preferring the crappy car that at least you know is crappy over the car that allegedly has a brand new 0 mile motor on it but you have no way of distinguishing from a car with a rolled back odometer. They take the locally optimal path because it's the best they can do.

It's taken me 15 years of working in the field and thinking about this to figure it out.

The only way out is an organization where everyone is trusted and competent and is worthy of trust, which again, hard to do at most random bigcorps.

This is my current theory anyway. It's sad, but I think it kind of makes sense.

- Improved mood, focus, calm, etc, make it easier and more pleasant to adhere to a better diet

- Can improve sleep quality. Low sleep quality is linked to overeating and obesity and other problems. In fact, poor diet, poor sleep, and poor exercise are all interlinked. So start anywhere and expect the others to get easier to deal with over time too.

- So what if weight doesn't change, but it's due to fat decreasing and muscle increasing? That's a good thing -- weight is an imperfect measure of obesity. Muscle, just by existing, burns more calories. And unlike abdominal fat, is not linked to organ problems.

- And on and on and on. Just do anything to get healthier. Every healthy action will synergestically reinforce every other healthy action. Don't be a narrow beancounter looking at just one component, because your body is not just a handful of components narrowly linked together via thin black box abstraction layers; it's a big spaghetti code system that cannot be seperated cleanly out into pieces. Not exercising is really, really unhealthy, contrary to modern customary belief, so you might as well, rather than fixating on fixing only some other component while keeping this important component broken.

- Moderate exercise seems to actually moderate appetite a little. And heavier exercise seems to make hunger less cravingy and more indiscriminate, making it easier to adhere to a diet (eg, a couch potato might really crave a specific candy or chips, but someone who just ran some miles will ecstatically and happily devour some beans and cabbage and oatmeal and whatever)

- Improves digestion quality and gut motility!

- Besides, isn't the goal of weight loss to get healthier in general, anyway? Focus on the overall goal and start anywhere, anywhere that is easiest. If getting better sleep is easier, do that. If cutting toxins like alcohol and nicotine is easier, start there. If improving diet is easier, start there. If improving positive human relationships and sense of purpose is easier, start there. If exercise is easier, start there. Start anywhere, and keep improving anywhere the wins are most easily found, and gradually everything else will become easier.

One more tip: It's easier to change what you eat than how much. Also, calories in calories out is bunk. It's true to some degree in that they are related, but ignores the fact that (1) how much your body is spending is highly variable, even somewhat independent of movement -- imagine how much energy your body has to spend to fight an infection for example (2) why would anyone imagine every calorie consumed will actually be absorbed? the gut is highly complex and depending on many factors calories could be absorbed or go right out the other end unused, and the gut flora interacts complexly with all this. Focus on eating healthy things first above healthy amounts. It's easier, and will have a positive impact all its own, creating another stepping stone towards other goals.

It's a lot easier to build a language that works great, but only in the hands of a single skilled careful owner, than a language that stands up to the abuse of many careless temporary users, and still gets from point A to point B reliably.

Like the difference between a sportscar and a rental company or police fleet sedan.

Scala was a porsche, but most of us need camrys.

Indeed, but, even Mexico and much of Latin America now has below replacement fertility too. So now what?

Ideally, yes, but there's a reason they're called staples. It's very easy to have a diet where most of the _calories_ if not actual volume nor mass of food comes from grain. Grains and fats are very calorie dense, but grains are far cheaper than butter or steak. Many civilizations have been based on a huge portion of food being tortillas, rice, bread, pasta. Grains are important. Whether they should be as big a part of your diet for health reasons is another question, but their historical importance due to calorie density is not in question and is self evident.

Remote: Remote, hybrid, or onsite

Willing to relocate: No, but can commute as far as NYC or DC (but further commutes should correlate with fewer days in office, e.g., NYC/DC = 1 day per week; Philadelphia Center City = 3-5 days per week; intermediate points = 2-3 days per week)

Technologies: Java and other JVM languages like Scala and Groovy; Javascript/Typescript/Node/HTML/CSS; Python; SQL; Linux/Solaris/bash/C/etc; HTTP and some TCP/IP, DNS, etc; Git; OpenGL/OpenAL; Perl; ColdFusion (really); Docker; Jenkins and so much more. Get me in a room and I can go deep on many of these and how they fit in together, or let me eat leetcode mediums for breakfast. Not scared of real math, real computing hardware, or real users. I've been around the block and can break out of whatever abstraction layer box I need to to make my software work correctly. Experienced and delight in working with people including mentoring juniors, working with users to determine requirements, or maneuvering internal employee and external vendor politics to make things actually happen. In other words, I can be a true senior developer that can do my own project management, product management, devops/SRE, production troubleshooting, and engineering management as needed.

Résumé/CV: https://linkedin.com/in/galdos

Email: galdosd@gmail.com

For the same reason, I probably messed up other physics technicalities. It would have been nice if I added a caveat I guess, but so it goes. My mental model may be simpler than the truth, but it's a lot better for achieving practical results in the kitchen than nothing than "microwaves heat stuff up fast", which is what I had before and is a really shit model that fails to explain most of their odd behavior.

We're taught that heating has three styles: convection, conduction, radiation. But AFAIK, microwaving is a fourth and distinct style.

*: Even more specifically, they add rotational momentum to these molecules, which is not the same as heat, but gradually turns into heat (which is translational momentum) as they knock around. This, in addition to the fact that only the water is being heated, and that the microwave waves touch the food in an uneven pattern even if mitigated by a rotating platter, is why stirring or waiting or using "low power" (dithered) is an important part of microwave recipes, as well as why high moisture foods or intentional steaming works so much better in it

This is exactly how I and most other Spanish-speaking hispanics I've talked to about it take it. It's usually someone who doesn't know Spanish using it, and the implication is that something is wrong with our language and anglos need to fix it for us (and that we're so backwards that even anglos who don't know our language are more qualified to fix it for us than we ourselves our, in our poor foolish backwardness)

Anyone who knew Spanish well would know that grammatical gender is vestigial and often meaningless. Why are rocks female but boats male? Why are cars male and trucks female? It's nothing to do with semantics anymore than there is an extant meaning to why in English i comes before e except after c other when said like a as in neighbor and weigh, etc.

But of course, the advocates for this nonsense don't know Spanish. When I do hear someone of latin heritage embrace latinx, invariably I find the are monolingual English-speakers who were not taught Spanish by their ancestors.

It's reminiscent of the "machismo" slur-- anglos using "macho" as a stereotype of toxic masculinity, even though the worst toxic masculinity I've seen is by far has been in the US, not Latin America.

It's all just a way to update anti-hispanic sentiment to account for modern progressive attitudes. Of course, that sort of thing went on 100 years ago too. The progressive-for-the-day attitudes were used to bludgeon Irish and Italian and other immigrants too then, you know.

If you want to "fix" my language I invite you to do so-- right after you finish learning it well enough to converse at even just a very basic 5th grade level. Until then, mind your business.

For some, it's an intellectual version of bullying the poorer and older and less well connected for having unfashionable clothes.

Paul Graham wrote in 2004 on this better than I could.

"What scares me is that there are moral fashions too. They're just as arbitrary, and just as invisible to most people. But they're much more dangerous. Fashion is mistaken for good design; moral fashion is mistaken for good. Dressing oddly gets you laughed at. Violating moral fashions can get you fired, ostracized, imprisoned, or even killed."

And he gave really good practical advice:

"Suppose in the future there is a movement to ban the color yellow. Proposals to paint anything yellow are denounced as "yellowist", as is anyone suspected of liking the color. People who like orange are tolerated but viewed with suspicion. Suppose you realize there is nothing wrong with yellow. If you go around saying this, you'll be denounced as a yellowist too, and you'll find yourself having a lot of arguments with anti-yellowists. If your aim in life is to rehabilitate the color yellow, that may be what you want. But if you're mostly interested in other questions, being labelled as a yellowist will just be a distraction. Argue with idiots, and you become an idiot."

https://paulgraham.com/say.html

It's a really unique place to eat because of this strange and wonderful view, yet it's not some sort of expensive rooftop bar, it's just the cheap cafeteria of a mass market chain furniture store.

It's one of those weird little gems that give you a country-club-of-the-proletariat feeling, like the Randall's Island golf driving range or the Roosevelt Island tram in Manhattan. There's just something really nice about something that's really grand and really free, that makes you feel like it's cool and respectable to be an ordinary schmuck.

I'm going over there this weekend and enjoying some meatballs and coffee and maybe picking up yet another BILLY bookcase.