On the other hand, and this is probably isn't right, the brandification and fetishization of gear doesn't sit right with me. I ackownledge it's unfair - there should not be any difference between being proud of some thrifted hat and some fancy running shorts. Yet it still tripped me up.

Regardless, I can 100% corroborate the meat of the post. Running is, by far, one of the best ways to explore a new or old place. There's something about the pace of it that helps you notice details that you miss on a bike or when walking. At least, despite biking, walking, and driving through my last neighborhood for years, I'd regularly pick up on new things during runs.

I installed a third-party client (Thunderbird, but I imagine any would work) on a local box, signed in with both emails, and just copied the mail over from one to the other. Low-tech, but it worked quite well. I may have forced some local cache/download for the original email, but I can't recall. I'll check later if it preserves headers and the like. I assume it would, but it wasn't that important to me.

I actually thought about writing at some point about the process of getting off gmail and all the funny things I ran across.

I'm in the same boat with regard to 5K/10K pace, but I reckon it's probably not a huge issue in the long run. While plans specify those times, I think it's more about shorthand for effort zone where 5K is "this hard" and 10K is "a little bit less hard".

VO2 max improvement is a good point, though, and I'd probably agree. If I had a hazard a guess, Garmin would say that their training productivity tracker/race estimated are the preferred way of presenting that data. as an aside, I think VO2max has sorta been coopted as a "fitness number" when it actually represents a very specific thing that may or may not be emblematic of actual performance in the majority of cases. It is nice to have a a single value to look at that can sum up whether what you've been doing lately is productive, though.

That could just be me coming from the world of cycling where watts are king and there's far less variability. In my mind, all these running stats are mushy, but that might not actually be the case.

Sleep tracking is hard to action on for the average user outside "you slept this long" and none of the writst-based devices are that good anyway.

Pace to sub 5 is a little more annoying, but probably not useful for the majority considering most people are just running, not craning over their watch the whole time.

VO2 max is also a wild estimate, and I'd hazard it's not particularly accurate for the average person. It's off by close to 20% for me, and I should be a pretty good candidate.

On the flipside, you can get tons of data out of a Garmin that costs significantly less than an Apple watch. Plus, the majority of Garmins sold are fitness devices with some smart features, with Apple watches being primarily a smart watch. While maybe not justified (I think the Apple watch features are quite nice) I'd expect that's a major part of the reason Garmin has the rep it does.

If someone is buying a device to run, most would recommend the cheaper, light, simple, specialized, long battery life watch over the opposite. If you already have an Apple watch, it's probably a no brainer. For the high-end Garmin devices, it's a little more complex, but not many people are considering a US$800+ device without knowing the nuances of the discussion, or having enough money to not care.

Perhaps zombie butterfly fly differently, but otherwise it's doubly dead.

This isn't a real nit, but I figured I throw it out there anyway.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42183079

With all the Big Corp asterisks, Microsoft Business Basic can be a pretty great deal at 6 USD/month. Solid reliability, aliases, (too many) config options, 1TB of OneDrive storage, cloud MS apps, etc.

Spoiler for the interested, and it could be an artifact of the dataset the author used, but one of the commonalities between the least viewed articles is that their subject matter falls into a category that isn't usually eligible for deletion under Wikipedia content guidelines.

All told, I'd say it's a decent answer.

Edit: I took it to completion:https://chat.openai.com/c/6cdd92f1-487a-4e1c-ab94-f2bdbf282d...

These were the first responses each time, with no massaging/retires/leading answers. I will say it's not entirely there. I re-ran the initial question a few times afterwards and one was basically giberish.

Get a notification that your card was used at a gas station when you're in bed at 11pm and last filled up 5 days ago? Probably not legitimate. Plus, if you trust your CC company, it saves you from having to review your charges at statement close.

If it is a misunderstanding, that is. While all sources I've seen sdo agree the phrase is of military origin, the Ngram shows usage as early as 1908 [1], with usage between 1930 and 1955 in English fiction [2]. Maybe the origin of the phrase predates the pointless numbered hills of the Vietnam War, and perhaps those hills had value and were worth dying on.

Not that this is a hill I'm willing to die on, though. All I wanted to point out is that the opposite phrase is used often per past experience, and Google Trends [3]. I can't actually find any trend data for the "original," but it is used.

[1] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hill+to+die+on...

[2] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=hill+to+die+on...

[3] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&geo=US&q=w...