Roads are subsidized, free parking (and generally a lot of paid parking) is subsidized, and the sprawl encouraged by car dependence combined with the resulting infrastructure costs has and will continue to bankrupt cities.

I don't think we should "just only have trains", but the current US transit landscape is absurdly stupid and inefficient.

For those curious, those (weekly) recommendations are: twice weekly resistance training, and 150-300min moderate intensity aerobic activity, or 75-150min vigorous aerobic activity.

If you want a program to just give you a starting point, I highly recommend Barbell Medicine's (free) "Beginner Prescription"

In the last 50 years, the US has bulldozed dense, mixed used housing that enabled community and tight knit neighborhoods. More economically/socially viable housing (read: an apartment on top of a business) has literally been banned in much of the US. Ensuring that there's a large plot of asphalt to house personal vehicles that are ever increasing in size is baked into zoning laws (though some cities have finally banned parking minimums). Suburbia sprawls, literally requiring most of the country to own a car.

I would love to see some data on this, but my intuition is that everyone is physically farther away as a result, which weakens their general connection and likelihood to party together, and makes it harder for them to get to/from a party in the first place.

There's other feasible side effects too like less savings due to the cost of owning a car (I've seen estimates of the US average exceeding $10k/yr), or expensive housing exacerbated by all of the above - less space for housing due to roads/parking (and the cost rising as a direct result of a developer needing to include parking), and rising taxes to finance more and more infrastructure: suburban sprawl means more roads, pipes, electrical lines, while contributing significantly less economic value (Strong Towns has done some great graphics on how much dense urban areas subsidize their sprawling single family home filled counterparts).

To be clear: I don't mean to imply you should have done it any other way. I'm interested mainly in gaps in existing ecosystems and whether popular suggestions to "deprecate C++ for memory safe languages" (like one made by Azure CTO years ago) are realistic.

https://github.com/NvChad/NvChad

The author mentions switching from editor to terminal often - NvChad has built in terminal integration so you can toggle floating/vertical/horizontal terminals (whose contents persist when closed) with a simple keybind.

I can't speak on Huberman's assessment of research in the neuroscience space, where he has expertise. Alan has done some breakdowns of Huberman's broad claims related to nutrition, and how they're generally hyperbolic and lacking sufficient evidence (ie they're not based on studies that show outcomes in actual humans in a controlled fashion). The folks at Barbell Medicine have spoken to some of his generic health/fitness claims as well, to similar effect.

I think Huberman uses his platform and title to paint overly broad strokes about all kinds of things outside of his expertise. Some of this could be attributed to a platform like twitter that prioritizes small amounts of text, but overall I think it's disingenuous especially as someone claiming to be an expert. I think if he were more interested in helping people he would focus less on money/fame/views and take a more nuanced approach, instead of (mis)leading people to change based on extremely limited evidence. The problem is he wouldn't be able to churn out so much content if he did so.

I have no reason to doubt any of his academic qualifications. But I have a lot of appreciation for the breadth and depth of knowledge required to speak confidently about the latest evidence in a field. This becomes a problem when the field is outside of one's expertise. Alan goes into this in detail on his instagram post.

I realize the post is based on something Huberman said within his expertise. But I think the context is important to understand, as it makes me wary of listening to him in general.

The vast majority of things he talks about, if beneficial at all, are at the margins and people stand to gain far more from doing things like exercising and eating vegetables more.

Edit: Alan Flanagan has spoken on the Huberman paradox in detail: - https://www.instagram.com/p/CkLPU7BMiIN/ - https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Bgc3uGu0uoI

As the article mentions, increasing rail infrastructure would logically include regional connections first. It's not like we'd be building a train track everywhere there's a road