Take one person, say they eat 2000 calories to maintain bodyweight. If they start eating 2500 calories a day, they won’t gain 1lb of fat a week forever. As they gain fat, their body naturally burns more calories due to the increased body weight, and eventually a stable weight (higher than their original weight) will be reached.

So yeah if you’re eating 500 calories above your metabolic weight, you’ll theoretically gain weight forever. But in this case your metabolic rate is rising over time, so you would be eating more and more calories per day.

It’s unclear to me what your conclusion is, is it that all commercial fishing is bad? Fisheries are definitely not always managed to keep fishermen happy, they are often frustrated with regulations. If you talk to a crabber, they will complain that they are not aloud to crab anymore due to the biologists saying there is not a sustainable crab population. They might go on to say the biologists are incorrect, but they aren’t able to change the regulations to their liking. Talk to an Alaska salmon fisherman during a poor salmon year and they will complain the biologist is not giving them enough open periods and they are losing make money. Even on a good year, captains will complain about the regulations the biologists set. In general, Alaska fisheries are often regarded as the most sustainably harvested in the world. I’m not saying they are perfect, but that fish can be harvested in a sustainable manner. The biologists DO want to ensure the long term viability of these fisheries.

My point is that: - we should continue to research when and why fish are struggling - forgoing fishing completely is most likely not the solution. As long as it is done in a sustainable manner, wild caught fish IS an environmentally friendly sliver of our food supply.

41 millions pounds of sockeye were caught in Bristol Bay this season. I was up there working on a boat myself. Yet, the rivers were still thick with sockeye at the end of the season. It is not a free-for-all where people are allowed to catch fish in any manner they want, the rules and regulations are there to ensure that fishing is not impacting the long-term viability of these runs.

I personally don’t think wages always correspond to how essential a job is, but for the sake of the argument let’s pretend that wages match the necessity of a job, its difficulty, educational requirements, etc.. In this case, I’d expect that we would see people move to jobs that are more essential than their prior job. I think this is more complex that just “poaching”.

I really don't mean to get into the nitty gritty details - I'm not an economist and I'm not providing solutions, just stating what I see as the problem. I believe that we have enough resources, and there are issues getting those resources to where they need to go.

Example: Assume we do have a shortage of elderly care workers. Why is this the case? Could this be fixed by increasing their wages? Then that implores the question of who is paying for these increased wages, which is the question I'm not answering and I don't know enough to answer.

I just don't really believe that keeping the birth rates high is the answer to this economic problem. It might be a solution, but it's more of a band-aid than truly facing the issue. If you have a inefficient engine you can either figure out how to produce more gasoline (babies), or you can figure out how to produce a more efficient engine.

There is 100% still a large market for big trucks, but I wonder how the truck market will change in the future. My first car was an old ford ranger, which was in many ways the perfect vehicle for me. Reasonably sized, 2 doors, okay gas mileage, okay for light towing, and a bed that was usable. The modern small trucks are a completely different design, catering to a super cab design that can easily fit 4 people, and sacrificing bed space, and still end up significantly larger than older pickup trucks. This still seems completely non-functionable to me. It seems manufactures are realized customers want smaller trucks, but it is just catering to people who want a truck but don't actually need a truck? Will we ever see normal-sized functional pickup trucks in the US again?

Meanwhile, I very frequently see people belaying in manners where their climber would hit the ground if they fell (usually the first 3-4 bolts up). The difference is, this is much harder for gym staff to notice and correct. Furthermore, I’m sure most of these climbers are capable of using better technique and do so when taking a belay test, but then get complacent afterwards.

It would be better to measure the accident rate in a more controlled setting, like accidents per gym route climbed. I can only surmise on what the results here would be. I don’t doubt that experienced climbers get complacent, but new climbers also are new to it and likely lack some knowledge to keep things safe.

I suspect that with experienced climbers, they are probably climbing way more frequently than inexperienced climbers (which you would need to account for to suggest causation), and also doing more dangerous routes. New climbers are less likely to do alpine routes where you encounter climbing when fatigued/sleep deprived, weather concerns, rock fall hazards, complicated descents, etc. And brand new climbers are hardly ever climbing trad routes, especially with marginal protection.

Side note, but as someone who nerds out on reading accident reports, climbing accidents are hardly ever caused the gear failing. Even old ropes damaged by the sun are super strong, and it’s typically quite obvious when gear is wearing out.

In the case of Google, I (and the DOJ) believe they clearly are/were suppressing other search engines. Additionally, with Chrome, its not just as simple as using a different browser. Keep in mind Google has control of Chromium and can do things like pushing manifest v3 that benefit them. Their control over Chromium also allows them to essentially dictate what will become web standards. If you think web standards should be change to allow users more privacy, there's nothing you can do because Google leverages their power to prevent that.

In the case of Apple, I don't think there's many people hating because they make nice products. You don't have to agree, but people are arguing that things like their app store policies are unfair, NOT that apple doesn't deserve to be large and make a profit. Apple is is a position of power, that is OK. What is not OK is them taking advantage of that in an anti-consumer manner.

I think the issue is not that there are huge companies, and it also is not that these huge companies are for-profit institutions. It's that these companies are using their size to make a profit, and sometimes this is in ways that make the world a worse place.

These institutions are beholden to their shareholders to try and make a profit. They are only trying to fulfill this duty. It is difficult for a company to grow to massive scale and not sometimes seek profit in ways that negatively impact consumers and smaller businesses. If we want these large businesses to fulfill their fiduciary duty in a way that does not negatively impact us, it is the duty of government to provide regulation/guidance/action.

Bud lights and coca colas activity isn’t enough to suppress competition. Google’s is, and the U.S. justice system clearly thinks so.