I only have to charge my kid's bounce every 2 days, 2.5 days usually. I do not turn on the "Live Tracking" very often but location updates, boundary fence notifications, voice/canned messages work great.
I’m not sure why the downvotes. A tiny fraction of an acre is utterly ordinary or really fairly small in many suburbs and certainly exurbs in many/most areas of the country. Certainly where I live outside of Boston which is generally not considered a LCoL area.
Multiple acres are very normal in my town which is probably at least as close to Boston as Cupertino is to SF.
I understand various attractions of the Bay Area including all the area that is decidedly the ‘burbs but make no mistake that even tiny amounts of land is decidedly insane relative to the areas outside of most other cities including those reasonably considered as tech hubs.
It’s really difficult to compare city statistics. Boston includes some really pretty poor areas like Roxbury and Dorchester that don’t have a real counterpart except for very small areas of SF. The 80% high end of the median only differs by about 10%.
I agree that Boston is very different both because of industry diversity and fewer geographical constraints other than the ocean. But the fact remains that although there are some very expensive communities, many though not all on the ocean, an hour drive gets you to some pretty reasonable pricing—say $500K on multiple acres.
Firefox has its own profiles, which are separate from containers.
`about:profiles` shows you a window for creating and switching to a different one. I add that as a bookmark on the bookmarks toolbar of the two profiles I use
I believe there is a `-P` option to open a new window with a specific profile. I do not use it. I usually just open the browser and then go to the aforementioned bookmark and open the other profile.
I use different colorways to differentiate the windows between the two profiles.
There may be addons that alleviate a few of the pain-points with Firefox profiles. I have not tried to find any.
IMO containers are easier to use than profiles. The main issue is that history seems to be shared across containers, but being able to mix tabs from multiple containers in the same window is very practical. Though I guess it increases the risk of accidentally opening some website in the wrong container if this is one concern. (though there is a feature to make some website always open in a given container)
The main difference is that profiles allow for different extensions to be enabled. You effectively get completely different browsers. The price for that power is a bit of IT geekery - if used regularly, you'll need either a bookmark to about:profiles or a desktop shortcut pointing to Firefox.exe -P yourProfile.
I mostly use containers for everyday work, but when a site looks borked (which typically happens because of strict ad-blocking extensions doing their job), I temporarily switch to my "unprotected" profile that has no ad-blocking whatsoever.
(And also when I test new extensions I build, but that's a very niche use case.)
I like maintaining a work/clean profile and a personal one. It is very annoying to mix histories when something like screensharing happens are you do not want to advertise what sort of messageboards or forums you post on.
Yes, there's not a lot of variety in just eating potatoes. Maybe some people don't need variety.
People lose a lot of weight this way. Insulin sensitivity increases. Insulin-lowering medicines can be reduced or stopped. Bad cholesterol drops to the floor.
If you go beyond monomeals of potatoes and add in tasty vegetables (like you do in keto) and limit the fat you add to the meal, you will have all the benefits of the potato diet without the mind-numbing boredom.
Variety in the keto approach? There are only so many ways to dress up chicken/beef/pork and cheese.
In the last few days I've had blueberry greek yogurt overnight oats, almond/peanut butter shake, horseradish deviled eggs, cowboy chili, cauliflower mac & cheese, keto-friendly Jello, and a BBQ steak dinner with a monk fruit/allulose simple-syrup Gimlet cocktail.
Doesn't get much more varied than that for a 'diet'.
Potatoes have protein and fats. Enough protein and fats for fat-soluble vitamins and preventing dying of protein malnutrition. Potatoes are not just carbs.
No libido? I'd like to see the source of that claim.
The western world has become "addicted" to protein and the claims on how much is necessary and recommended are extremely exaggerated.
If you are eating Yukon gold potatoes, and you ate 5 pounds of them, and according to my calculations you are looking at approximately 2100 kcal of which a little less than 1900 of those calories comes from carbohydrates.
We advise people not to go below 50 g of fat per day and according to the macros for Yukon Gold you wouldn’t even be getting a 10th of that amount.
Additionally, you’re only getting about 50 g of protein. We normally coach people to eat 1 g of protein per pound of lean muscle mass. So for 150 pound person that would be 150 g of protein per day or approximately 600 cal from protein.
> We normally coach people to eat 1 g of protein per pound of lean muscle mass. So for 150 pound person that would be 150 g of protein per day or approximately 600 cal from protein.
"Lean muscle mass" excludes the fat on the body, right? A 150lb person should have less than 150lb of lean muscle mass.
USDA recommends 54g using their calculator. Don't forget the 38 grams of fiber! :)
Having done 28 days of the potato diet, this is true. It is difficult to get over 1kcal of potato. Eating two kilos of potato in a day is heroic. I would eat like 1 kilo per day, and be satisfied-full. It's wild.
One can eat 2 kilograms of boiled potatoes, refrigerated, cut into very thin slices and then air-fried at 400F for 15-20 minutes with a drizzle of avocado or extra-virgin olive oil. Some rosemary too.
An overall increase of about 150 calories per kilogram compared to boiled potatoes only.
The flavor is similar to that of French fries and they are an excellent substitute (I say this as someone who when asked what would be his last meal would answer: french fries).
Calorie density is not something made up. You are redefining a very well-known term. Many legumes, grains, and root vegetables are made up of copious amounts of water in their prepared form.
Calorie density is also not the only metric for recommendation. Everyone agrees that liquid calories are not "felt" by the body in the same way as solid foods.
Do you really believe that the obesity epidemic was caused by people eating 90% carbohydrate diets?
The "high carb meals" at McDonald's, Burger King, Pizza Hut... are all also (and more per calorie) high in fat.
Add 2 tablespoons of olive oil to your mixed-green salad? That has turned into a high fat salad. Most people cannot avoid cheese or nuts on salad, either.
Eating the potato diet with sour cream/butter/cheese: High fat.
It's funny too, because I have perfectly logged data showing that the weeks I eat fewer than about 1800 calories reliably, (because I have an incredibly sedentary lifestyle) reliably and predictably lower my weight.
I've literally got a science experiment in my own body that shows reducing calories in, without reducing the actual design of my meals, reduces my body mass.
I'm willing to accept that there are some minor irregularities and difficulties that make "Calories in == Calories out" not 100% accurate, but I'm betting the effect size is closer to +-10%, and therefore easily discarded for approximations, even though they are scientifically significant and could create a more accurate model.
I agree that the CICO is a model that works, but it is at least somewhat complicated by the fact that CO is a function of CI. I.e., what you eat takes different amounts of energy to metabolize so it also contributes to what you burn. If I eat 1800 kcal of protein I may have higher CO than if I ate 1800 kcal of simple carbohydrates.
There's already a lot of uncertainty when most people measure their calories (very few people actually weigh their food) and this just adds another layer of uncertainty. I have a feeling those all combine to make it inaccurate enough in practice for some people to claim the CICO model doesn't work.
No. A healthy diet is a diet that provides you with the right amount of nutrients without leaving you hungry or unsatisfied.
By not being hungry and unsatisfied you'll then stop overeating (surprise!).
"My diet is OK, I just eat too much" is all wrong: there is a complex relation between caloric intake, which foods are eaten, hunger, satisfaction, energy, mood etc.
Many fad diets "work" even if they are not grounded in any scientific fact and are even unhealthy in the long term (low fat, low carb, keto, gluten-free, all-meat).
They artificially restrict the variety of food one person can eat and this indirectly encourages people to eat less. And when people stop overeating they feel better and believe the fad diet is sound.
There were even a diet where you can only eat foods in a given meal from the same group... by color. Same trick.
Talk about generalising. How is gluten-free unhealthy in the long term. Do you actually believe that wheat in particular is required for health?
Just above you said a diet needs to be nutritionally complete. Low carb, keto, gluten free, hell even low fat can be nutritionally complete and satisfying, though the latter one will not feel really good in the long term.
Your body stores calories you eat, and it's really good at it. If you eat too much of anything (that contains more calories than the calories required to digest it), you will gain weight. Eat too much fried chicken, gain weight. Eat too many oranges, gain weight. Eat too many beans, gain weight. You can probably gain weight from eating too much broccoli, although I'd get sick of broccoli before that happened.
i thought fat was largely debunked as being the primary cause, though i'm not going to go searching for studies as i'm not a dietician (though my partner is).
consider this: each of those meals at McD's, BK, or Pizza hut come with a 1-2 liter soda, loaded with calories and sugar. yes, the fats are there, but they are _always_ paired with loads of sugar.
I agree with the debunking that fats are not bad for you, though, not all fats are equal. The rule of thumb is that fats that remain liquid at body temperature can be considered "dietary fat". The only problem with "dietary fat" is they have a load of energy on them and that can blow your calorie budget for the day quite easily if you overdo them.
Fats though that stay solid at body temperature arguably should be completely avoided. Hence the big-mac with a 1-2 liter soda, loads of unhealthy fat paired with loads of sugar, all with very minimal fiber..
I'd be curious to understand where you get that information from.
Fat that stays solid at room temperature is generally high in saturated fat (except for margarin, but let's keep it out).
Fat that stays liquid is generally vegetable oil (e.g.: canola).
I don't think there is strong evidence that vegetable oil is good for you whereas saturated fat is not. If so, I'd really like to read about it.
Overall, I don't know of a lot of good science regarding which fats are better for you and which are actually bad. After all it was not until recently that it was admitted that the relationship between cholesterol in the blood and cholesterol is uncorrelated and not at all understood. Similarly even for calories, just because a food has X calories, does not mean you actually absorb all of those calories, let alone how the body uses them.
For the rule of thumb, I have no specific references and it is general knowledge I've picked up reading on nutrition. It could very well be wrong. I believe there is something to it, for example, coconut oil is relatively good for a person and has a low melt point, where-as bacon grease and steak gristle are pretty certainly terrible for a person.
Not quite related to airpods, but is Apple's Bluetooth stack awful?
I got three pairs of iClever BTH-02s and they all connect fine to our hand-me-down LG android phones, but they fail to connect to a brand new (but low end model) iPad. It says they connect, but the upper left corner does not show the headset icon and the sound goes through the external speakers.
