I'm not sure how you arrived at that conclusion. The loneliness epidemic is relatively recent, and unless I'm misunderstanding you, this isn't something young boys were taught in the past.
It's more that they need to unlearn what society has been telling them for the past couple of decades. Young boys in the past weren't brought up being essentially told they are monsters and that expressing preferences is "objectifying women" etc.
> Those funds would then be distributed by usage - every mention in a package.json or requirements.txt gets you a piece of the pie.
Usage is not a good proxy for value or ongoing effort. I have a npm package with tens of millions of weekly downloads. It's only a few lines long and it's basically done - no maintenance required.
I'm skeptical that there exists an algorithmic way to distribute funds that's both efficient and resistant to gaming.
As a side note, is there a compelling reason why interest rates aren't set algorithmically? I assume human intuition isn't really a factor in setting them. This would eliminate concerns about political motivation.
Economic models are complex and far from perfect, and we're still waiting for Hari Seldon's psychohistory models to be created to tie together macroeconomics and macropsychology.
But who sets the algorithm? Whichever department of branch of govt was in charge of that would become have the enormous power, and political motivation would then fall to that.
Equally the same for data that goes into the algorithm - if you can control that you control interest rates.
Agreed, but we're already living that reality. Moving to an algorithmic approach provides a layer of transparency that makes manipulation easier to detect.
There's some slippery feedback loops involved, even if the models were very good, the reflexive nature of doing something like this would be very hard to get around
> is there a compelling reason why interest rates aren't set algorithmically?
Can’t believe you are saying that!! Then anyone can manipulate it like they manipulate stocks by writing hit pieces one day and gushing articles a few days after,
Stupid question but is it common for Christians to be able to identify which book a Bible verse belongs to? I assume you'd have to have read the Bible multiple times to be able to play this, right?
There are hints in the style of writing which can place things pretty quickly.
It's pretty easy to tell that something is old or new testament based on the writing styles. What's hard is the OT has a fair number of similar writers and a lot of books. The first question I got was [redacted] (lol) which is really hard to track down as they all sound the same to me.
Edit I didn't realize everyone had the same question. So pulled out the hint.
Based on my initial audience, it's definitely not common. The Christians I know have different levels of familiarity with the books of the Bible.
Personally, I know Genesis/Exodus, Psalms, and the Gospels well. I can recognize Epistles on sight, but identifying the exact one is really just a guessing game. Most everything else I am not familiar with and will take me a while to guess.
I think that's why people have enjoyed it so far, because of the tradeoff of getting a verse you recognize (so you can guess the book quickly) or getting an unfamiliar verse (so you get to expand your familiarity with the Bible).
You can guess from the content and style. For example, I could easily see today's quote was Old Testament even though its not one I know, although I did not guess the book, successfully.
I do not know the Bible particularly well compared to many other people, and I know the New Testament better than the Old (not uncommon - its both smaller and more important to Christians).
I absolutely would pass this kind of quiz 100% with any New Testament quote, thanks to having put Life and Truth Dramatized Audio New Testament on in the background literally 24/7 for a few years straight. Also John Rhys-Davies reads Hebrews so well with his classical training and Welsh accent that it's hard not to memorize large parts of it verbatim.
NT would be pretty easy to guess from just about any verse. The hardest part would be placing one of the epistles or determining exactly which gospel a verse came from.
OT is a lot harder simply because of the number of writers and how boring/similar a lot of the writing is. To be successful you'd need to have something pulled from like the pentateuch. Maybe psalms or something like Kings/Chronicles.
A lot of christians will start a "Bible In One Year" program at the beginning of the year. Kind of like the gym resolution. Sometimes it will take a few years to read the whole Bible, and then you start the cycle again. There's lots of different plans out there.
Yes, it's potentially a case of a country taken in by their own propaganda
We do a lot of important and meaningful work around the world to support democracy, peace and stability. This isn't selfless — it's to create a market for goods and services, and maintain our sphere of influence.
We're so good at shouting the first bit and whispering the latter that voters have come to fully believe it's all charity work, and feel like it's taking bread out of their mouths.
> Funny considering Trump ran on policies nearly the opposite of what he's doing today
MAGA base and Trump supporters are not rational. It does not matter what Trump is doing or saying, they're "taking their country back" even if they're losing their jobs or benefits. This is downright a cult of personality.
Some of this seems plausible—even expected—but other parts feel implausible. It's hard to believe that "Priority Delivery" does literally nothing. Optimizing payouts down to the lowest amount drivers will accept, on the other hand, is entirely believable. Also, given Uber's well-known microservice architecture, it seems unlikely that a random backend engineer would have deep insight across multiple independent systems, including money flows. My guess is that this was written by a real employee who took some liberties with the truth.
> It's hard to believe that "Priority Delivery" does literally nothing.
That's not exactly what they said. They said normal orders get artificially delayed and priority deliver orders get sent right away. They were clear that the real issue is that priority only exists because they actively made normal orders worse (I'd guess they actually took a few months of slowly backing off normal order time to get customers accustomed to the extra wait).
failing to lift is not the same as lifting until failure.
Consider, if I load up the bench press to 200kg I won't get a single rep. If I try to rep it I'll fail but I'm not lifting until failure.
If I load it up to smaller weight lets say 100kg and crank out rep after rep I'll get much closer to "lifting until failure."
When I reach the end, the last rep is a rep I won't make. But I'm still not at a point where I can't do no more, just the weight is too big, so I must reduce the weight and go again. When I do this I get even closer to "lifting until failure".
It's like integration, the smaller the infinitesimal the closer to the true value you get when you sum up (integrate) all the parts.
While technically true getting very close to failure is only useful if you don't need optimal results and lack the time to do more volume. The damage by going to failure will make high volumes maintained over time impossible.
Ideally you would leave 1-2 possible reps. I think it's important to train to failure to know your body and learn to gauge your reps to failure but other than that and very little time per week to train it's eventually counterproductive.
And if training with lower weights you tend to end very far from failure if just following a program without knowing what you are doing.
Volume itself is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the intensity of the workout. In fact you want the maximum intensity with minimum volume to have less wear and tear and more recovery while maximizing the growth stimulus.
First intensity. Then recovery. These two dictate the volume. If volume exceeds recovery injury and burnout will follow.
> Volume itself is meaningless. The only thing that matters is the intensity of the workout
Not true at all, its well documented that volume is the biggest predictor of progress. there is obviously an intensity floor, and when its not feasible logistically to stack on more volume, intensity is your other knob. But to say volume doesnt matter is an odd claim, maybe i misunderstand.
> you want the maximum intensity with minimum volume to have less wear and tear
Not a helpful way of thinking about exercise induced adaptations. unless you are doing pro athlete amounts of training, would ignore this completely.
Yeah theres the "progressive overload" + volume camp.
It can work.. the problem is that if you do too little you get no result, if you do too much you burn out. So you have to manage both volume and intensity so that you have a progressive overload. This is difficult.
Easier way is to just ignore the volume in the first place, train as hard as you can (so go to failure, or very close), for maximal effort, i.e. increase the intensity then RECOVER then go back to the gym when you're no longer sore.
This is much easier routine to follow and it will produce development assuming other factors (quality of sleep and nutrition) are in check.
So therefore a shortcut summary is to forget about the volume, focus on the intensity and then make volume follow your capacity to recover. Avoid injuries and burnout while precipitating growth.
Using the bench press example again, in a volume program I might do
6 sets of 6 reps for a total of 36 reps. Since I'm doing so much volume it's clear that my first 5 sets will not be challenging because with this amount of sets I HAVE to save my energy for 6 sets. MAYBE the last rep or two in the last set will be what will start challenging me. So I'd say that with this volume workout you get 2 reps out of 36 that are "progressive". That's 5% and 95% of my work is just junk that produces only wear and tear.
In high intensity method I continue with drop sets after I fail. So.. let's say I do my initial set, 8 reps until I fail, I drop weights and do 3 more reps until I fail, I drop the weights and do 2 more reps. And then I'm done and that's the workout. My total reps are 13 but there are at least 5 reps that are in the zone that challenges me. That's 5/13 for 38%.
For a couple years I did a super low weight time under tension routine.
Almost no hypertrophy, but I was able to step into a BJJ gym and roll for hours, I was still ready to go long after everyone else had gassed out.
The adage that you get good at what you train at is true.
Train to lift a ton of weight 3 times and you aren't going to be able to compete with the calisthenics peeps who can rep out 100 pullups and literally dance mid air.
It's not about the stimulus. It's about the fact that some exercises are naturally better done within the lower rep range (5-10), while others work and feel better with the higher rep range (20-30). Some are better in the middle.
With DB side raises, take too high of a weight, and you will feel like you can't do anything productive done (can't even raise to an appropriate height). With lower weights you can get a proper range of motion and can really feel the burn and get the target (sic!) muscle exhausted.
Additionally, too high of a weight doesn't feel good on joints.
Similarly with squats (or deadlifts). Squating with 5-10RM is fine. But 30RM?.. Theoretically it gives the same stimulus as doing 5-10RM, but practically everyone who suggests putting such sets to a program should be medicated and put on a suicide watch. The taxationvon all systems of your body is just so huge (especially the more advanced you are).
Heck, mere squating true (!) 20RM (just one set!) is considered a crazy challenge that most will never do. I have done crazy stuff in my life, but I am not embarrassed to admit that this challenge is beyond me. Simply doing 20RM leg extensions is hard enough for me.
These require the practical experience. Take barbell/dumbbells, try yourself and no more explanations will be needed.
My point is that there is nothing a priori about it, its just a question of what your goal is, what you are adapted to do and how the resistance curve of the movement is set up.
If you have a cardiovascular system that can grind through 20RM squat sets and you like it, go off. It'll be hard for most people due to the large amount of muscle mass recruited, but on the other hand, if you can load a lateral raise 5RM with acceptable range of motion, why the hell not. It just doesn't work well with dumbbells in particular.
reply