Ironically, when I am sleep deprived I am more accident prone and more likely to get hit by a bus.
But what's almost certain, if I sleep less than 7 hours for more than 1 week, I will catch a cold. My immune system doesn't work as well without sufficient sleep.
How is calculation of health insurance premiums not #1 on this list ?
Recently I purchased a DIY mole removal product from Amazon. An expansive actuary table would show a "concern about moles" has a slight positive correlation with "skin cancer". Arguably my premium should go up because of this.
It also blows my mind that Amazon won't allow you to delete a purchase from your Amazon order history. It is there forever and there is no reason that data can't be sold even if the account is closed. To be fair I am making assumptions without having read the privacy policy in Amazon's EULA.
I agree that this is a glaring omission. Car insurance companies already have monitoring devices you can plug into your ODBII connector that monitors all your driving behavior. OnStar also has the ability to report driving behaviors to insurance companies. Or how about companies that claim your credit worthiness can be judged by your Facebook friends and posts. How long until these extremely invasive practices become so profitable that companies make it required? I worked for a company whose Heath insurance offered $50 to employees that got a heath screening through them. The next year it was no longer a discount, but a fee if you did not participate.
Insurance makes sense for random events, especially not under the insured’s control. Ignoring healthcare, since it’s not even an insurancable risk, people who drive safely are subsidizing people who drive in more risky ways, but only because in the past, the technology wasn’t there (or cheap enough) to provide all of the data to accurately price them. Now that it is possible, I don’t see why people who take more risks on the road should be subsidized by those who don’t.
My comment is on the loss of privacy. I am not an aggressive driver and I suspect that I might get a discount if I joined one of these programs, but I value my privacy too much for that. I do not want my every move monitored by my insurance. OnStar would even have the ability to report GPS location. How much longer then until the locations you visit are also factored in- or perhaps that info is used to ‘enrich’ other insurance types. What if your car insurance shared with your health insurance that you visit fast food restaurants twice a week? That’s hypothetical right now, but my point is that the data is so valuable that companies will become more and more invasive to get it- especially insurance. At some point these optional privacy violating practices will become required unless we have legislation protecting us.
I am not an expert on psychology, but your goal "losing more (fat) and gaining more(muscle) as fast as humanly possible", might be detrimental to your success.
It probably took decades to get to your current body weight. Should it not then take at least 5 years to get back to your target weight ? True the caloric math shows you could probably get to 250lbs in a year with a 600-800 a day diet. But can any human actually stick with that diet for more than a month ? If not, you would be better eating 1600-1800 a day if you could stick with it for a year.
As an aside, at times I wonder if our obesity epidemic is in part related to an ever increasing target/acceptable weight. When I was a kid, if you could pinch an inch, you were overweight (I stop drinking calories if I pass the threshold). Even my childhood bathroom scale maxed out at 250 which implied that 250 must be extreme morbid obesity.
I know this is personal, but when you were young did you ever have such thresholds (weight, mobility, etc.) in mind ? Or did it just sneak up on you and by then you were in gaining weight at a surprising rate beyond your control ? No worries if you are too busy to respond. I wish you the best!
I don't think it took decades... I was 410 at 14... that's a decade/half maybe... but I was always obese...since birth practically. (80 @ 6, 300 @11, etc..)
Given that poor sleep quality exacerbates insulin resistance, it is possible that by not eating late into the day, the research subjects in the article's fasting study may have also lost weight because their sleep improved.[1]
Personally if I eat dinner after 5PM, I have trouble sleeping.
If you are a hacker you probably would likely take a tech powered short-cut. Google has a translator toolkit that lets you upload documents and also create a glossary for technical terms and consistent terminology. Haven't tried it yet but it would be great to start a crowdsourced glossary for electrical engineering documents if one doesn't already exist.
"That morning, Ford would begin paying his employees $5.00 a day, over twice the average wage for automakers in 1914.
In addition, he was reducing the work day from 9 hours to 8 hours, a significant drop from the 60-hour work week that was the standard in American manufacturing."
For reference $5/day in 1914 is ~$15.62 an hour in 2018 dollars. The similarities likely end there. Unlike Ford, Amazon's hike is not twice the average wage of a fulfillment center employee. A manager at an employment agency recently told me that you can't hire someone for less than $15 an hour to work in a fulfillment center in Reno, NV. Reno is a major fulfillment/shipping hub in the US.
This post should have been titled "Amazon raises pay to keep up with market rates just like every other company".
Nearly every self-help book mentions the importance of goal setting. It is important even for those with a pedigree and born into wealth (I recognize not every student in this study was born into wealth but the median Harvard family earns at least 3 times the national average).
“Have you set clear, written goals for your future and made plans to accomplish them?” In 1979,
interviewers asked new graduates from the Harvard’s MBA Program and found that :
84% had no specific goals at all
13% had goals but they were not committed to paper
3% had clear, written goals and plans to accomplish them
In 1989, the interviewers again interviewed the graduates of that class. You can guess the results:
The 13% of the class who had goals were earning, on average, twice as much as the 84 percent who had no goals at all.
Even more staggering – the three percent who had clear, written goals were earning, on average, ten times as much as the other 97 percent put together.
Edit: I had often heard of this study and just pasted the first reference I found. I would delete this post, if I could, as its credibility is questionable. Thanks femto.
If I understand correctly, the Bluetooth exploit also requires a man-in-the-middle attack during pairing. Wouldn't the victim then see two Bluetooth devices with the same name during pairing ? Also most Operating Systems then order the list of devices by signal strength. Without physical access to the victims home/office/etc., it would be hard for the attacker to have a higher signal strength since most users would be pairing to a device in close proximity. In a public place this could be easier, but even then it would probably fail more often then it would work.
One complaint about English is that double negatives are not grammatically correct. The word "not" is so important it should be re-enforced in someway. Spanish supports double negatives. The French add redundancy with "ne" and "pas".
It's worth noting that American gangsters often talk with double negatives and the U.S. military use the phrase "repeat NOT" since their discussions are often mission critical. But I am certain their are countless examples of harm because someone in a hurry, omitted the word 'not' in a discussion or email.
Double negatives are grammatically correct English. Consider the sentence, "I do not think that course of action would be unwise."--that is a double negative, and I know of no one who thinks there's even a hint of problem with that sentence.
One facet of double negatives is that the English sense of negative + negative = positive isn't universal. In French, double negatives remain negative; consider "Je ne sais jamais rien." The literal translation is "I never know nothing," but the correct translation into English is "I never know anything."
>"I do not think that course of action would be unwise."
That's a funny example, as it can be read both literally ("I like it."), and passive-aggressively ("I don't dislike it."). So while double negatives might not be grammatically incorrect, they are often ambiguous.
> That's a funny example, as it can be read both literally ("I like it."), and passive-aggressively ("I don't dislike it.").
You seem to have those backward.
"I don't dislike it" is what it literally means. That's the opposite of being passive! "I like it" is reading an implication which isn't literally there and is more passive.
There'a a really important difference here. Someone can not think that something is not unwise, but that does not mean they think it's wise. A double negative does not cancel out - you loose important literal meaning when you do that - not even just an implicit idiomatic meaning.
English does have double negatives, and they're grammatically correct when used properly. They simply cancel each other out which differs from Spanish where they add emphasis.
It actually depends on your dialect. Many dialects of English use negative concord [1], which is what exists in Spanish and other languages (not emphasis) instead of having them 'cancel each other out'.
For example, in my native dialect, "I ain't never had no need for none of them fancy toys" means "I never had any need for any of those fancy toys". It has nothing to do with canceling out other negatives or emphasis; if one thing is negative, they all need to be.
Spanish double negatives aren't emphatic, they're 'grammatical'. If you need one ('Nadie lo sabe') you cannot add another one for emphasis, and if you need two ('No lo sabe nadie') you cannot remove one for less emphasis.
The funny thing is that, in colloquial English, "Don't do nothing without asking me for permission." means "Don't do anything without asking me for permission".
My complaint with English is how there is often no difference between a noun and a verb. Sometimes several words that could be either are stacked and it really trips up my parser. It's also common to see badly translated software where what should have been a verb is translated as a noun, or vice versa.
"the muddy pens where as many as 1,200 pigs once wallowed into a climate-controlled cricket farm. It’s on pace to yield 1,500 kilograms (3,300 pounds) of the edible protein this year"
Pigs reach slaughter weight at around 6 months of age at which point it yields around 180lbs of hanging weight meat.
The article further claims a 18/63 ratio of land required per gram of protein in favor of crickets.
Assuming they previously slaughtered 1000 pigs a year -> 180,000 lbs * 63/18 = 630,000lbs is their expected cricket protein capacity which is ~200X more than their current output. Any ideas on why the numbers are so different ?
Edit: I just realized that a pig steak is mostly water and the cricket protein is likely dehydrated. So it more like 50X not 200X.
Ironically, when I am sleep deprived I am more accident prone and more likely to get hit by a bus.
But what's almost certain, if I sleep less than 7 hours for more than 1 week, I will catch a cold. My immune system doesn't work as well without sufficient sleep.