brooklyndavs

It is kind of, and unfortunately it doesn't give a lot of background. For the past few years there have been a few studies suggesting that distance running (say anything past a 1/2 marathon) might actually be harmful for ones heart. As I runner I'm personally glad to have more reporting on this issue.

So, the question of "is an alternative form of exercise, that has fewer damaging side effects, better?" is an important one to ask, and better would need to have a definition around it. However, answering that question wasn't the goal of this article.

Genetics has a huge role to play. Alberto Salazar had a heart attack at 48. Now, maybe running gave him a few years before his first incident as it sounds like he was already taking medication for high blood pressure and cholesterol.

The point being once you get into serious mileage like the 30+ miles per week, doing 15-20 mile training runs and racing 1/2 and full marathons its best to view them as personal performance goals vs health goals.

Also, as someone who has run long distance for about 10 years now, take it from me that rest is as important as the miles. Making sure you have rest build into your training plan and after your goal race. This will help you avoid burnout and injuries. Remember, all training really does is takes your body to a stressing point. Its the rest portion that allows your body to respond and adapt to the stress which in turn allows your body to perform at a higher level of performance.

I'm just a software developer with a side interest in climate science so please excuse any ignorance on this topic. What I find troubling is it seems, from what I have read, our climate models currently have a poor handle on co2 and methane feedbacks, both positive and negative. For example there seems to be a general scientific consensus that NOx from industrial sources (mostly coal power plants) is having some cooling effect. When these are removed, which will happen slowly but steadily as coal is retired, there will be a warming response but it is not clear how much this response will be. Similarly, you have positive feedbacks coming into place like the decline of sea ice in the arctic, less forests and more combustion of those forests, and co2/methane releases from permafrost. These are other feedbacks are known but nothing I have read has convinced me we have a full scientific understanding of the impact that these feedbacks will have.

Thats why like others in this thread I feel rather hopeless about humanity ever getting global warming under control. We of course have the problem of humanity to continue putting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere via our economic activity. This of course is co2 but also methane and HFCs. The challenge of bringing these down to safe levels while keeping not only the standard of living we enjoy currently in the west but also bringing billions more people into the middle class world wide is impossible with existing technology and incredibly hard with emerging technology. To get to a carbon neutral prosperous, middle class society for everyone on the planet will take many decades. If we ever get to that point I'm afraid feedbacks and built in system inertia will be so strong that the planet will keep on warming for 1,000s of years despite our best efforts.

TL;DR I think we as humans really screwed this up and I don't have much hope of us collectively being able to fix it.

I was able rent my apartment off of craigslist from a old school Brooklyn family. I think they did go through a broker but they also paid for the broker fees I believe. I didn't have to pay anything to a broker.

Is there some legal requirement in New York that rentals must go through a broker? I don't know any other city in the country that you probably will pay a broker fee to rent an apartment. It just seems like the real estate industry dipping their hands into the NYC rental market as a completely unnecessary middle man. I wonder if this is because of New York's history of being majority rentals which, until recently, was fairly unique in the US.

Exactly. Police in other western countries are able to enforce minor infractions without killing or injuring the suspect. One can have the discussion (and should!) if these laws make sense or not, but if they are going to be enforced cops shouldn't be judge/jury/executioner. This seems to be a very American problem.

Beautiful. Whenever I see images like this of "big things" in space I'm reminded how meaningless our short existence on this little rock is from a universal perspective. My big takeaway is always to try to find personal meaning in ones life. Either in work, or family, hobbies, etc.

Ok robot, now the prey is a human. :)

Totally agree, the question was framed poorly. Most liberal economists would disagree with this because it strips the existing social safety net (Social Security and Medicare being the big ones) and replaces it with only 13k. Heck, try buying private health insurance for someone who is 70 on 13k a year. :) Most conservative economists disagree because you didn't "earn" that money (whatever that means) and it would raise taxes. I suspect it was framed in a way to generate the most amount of disagreement as possible.

"Raising taxes is costly and so redistribution should be targeted to those who need help most." - Oliver Hart

So what if most people are out of a job in 50 years due to automation? What if "targeted to those who need help most" is 90% of all adults. Yeah raising taxes is costly, but considering owners of capital will most likely see most of the benefits from productivity gains in the future I'm sure they can afford it.

More from Mr Hart "Bill Gates would get 13K, which is crazy."

Um yeah, Bill Gates also will get social security and medicare (and he should). That's the whole point of a benefit. I wonder if Mr Hart is an advocate for means testings of these programs? How lovely is it that "experts" like this have the ears of our policy makers.

I agree. If I'm unemployed I'm not part of society? What if I still get out of the house? Volunteer? Attend social gatherings? What if I'm retired? Am I not part of society? Who defines what is "work" in the future anyway?

> Lots of conflicting incentives that can discourage work in the existing rules.

Its sad to see this sentiment echoed. Especially considering how some jobs are just useless/white collar welfare (some middle management at large organizations I've been a part of in the past come to mind) or how some jobs will continue to be automated in the future. Work shouldn't be the most important thing that defines ones worth as an adult in our society!

Its hypocrisy and contempt coming from "elites" via the very institutions that are critical to a democracy, the media. When the 4th estate works in a neutral, non-biased, fact based way democracy can work. However, once you have major media bought and paid for by those "elites" to push some billionaire's agenda you sow distrust in media. Once the voters don't have a place to go for trusted information all bets are off...