bmj

> It is very interesting that since the AI climber is trained on actual climbers, it could, in principle, provide beta to climb consistent with your own style. If you train the bot exclusively on footage of yourself, it would return movement based on your style. If your style is finessy-all-backstep-all-the-time (aka The Edlinger), it can provide beta consistent with that. If your style is to square up and pull (otherwise known as The American), it can provide beta consistent with that instead.

I would think this is actually a Bad Thing. It's very easy to get stuck trying to make a sequence fit your style of climbing. The better approach (especially for long term skill acquisition) is a willingness to learn new styles. That's to say that every sequence is only solvable via one particular style, but I think long term development is hindered if you approach every crux with the one thing you are good at.

> So, in terms of solving complicated beta faster, I see real utility to this.

I can agree with this. But, to the point that others have made, I do wonder what this and the availability of beta videos for many, many routes and blocs does to climbing skill overall. Perhaps I'm just a grumpy old man, but, particularly when bouldering, sorting out the beta should be part of the journey toward eventually sending. Last fall, I visited Hueco Tanks after a six year absence. I suppose I was a bit disappointed to see so many people watching YouTube beta videos of nearly every problem they tried.

Oh, boy, I can relate. Every three months, I think our program increment planning meetings can't get more ridiculous and, yet, they do. Most recently, we were told that we should just treat story points as days of effort.

I also value my time, so I am not inclined to push for such a law in my state.

Now, if a company has always been fully remote, then, yes, this sort of thing is ultimately going to hurt the employee because the company needs to recuperate those unplanned costs.

Personally, as a fully remote employee, I don't how to feel about this. Sure, I'd love my employer to offset some of my utility costs, but I also don't want them to assume that means they can control their use (which is their right in the context of an office space).

There are quite a few on the Right that read Illich as well. He was, essentially, a communitarian anarchist. Some of his thought is well-received on the Right, particularly his critique of institutionalized education and medicine.

Can confirm this. My employer dropped about 10% of staff in order to back fill those positions with contractors from low-cost centers (India, Hungary, Costa Rica). Managers were not consulted in the decisions, and simply told they were losing employees $x, $y, and $z.

In my experience, inappropriate device use is definitely NOT just a "youth" thing.

High (comparative) weight + low reps builds strength (and muscle recruitment) without (necessarily) building lots of new muscle fibers. Muscle hypertrophy happens most often with lower weights and higher repetitions, plus loads of calories. A program like "Starting Strength" is not about hypertrophy.

Any exercise is potentially "unhealthy," particularly if it requires specialized movements. You can learn proper form for "base" lifts like the squat and deadlift without any equipment at first.