galdosdi

Oh OK. So just the internet, not real life then. There's your problem. It is a medium primarily focused on entertainment and spectacle, not a scientific poll and reflection of deep truths.

And my point that I've repeated over and over, is that the benefit of exercise is far broader than just merely numerically burning calories. It is in all these other beneficial effects that it can indirectly help. Focusing solely on calories in calories out is a big mistake when improving health and/or tackling obesity.

Even something as commonplace as chewing more carelessly will result in finding seeds in your faeces.

But what's the point of giving you more specific examples? You seem to be eager to "no true scotsman" your way out of this by labelling every example of varying calorie consumption as an exception.

Even the top article referenced in this wikipedia article admits it's based on a study of bushmen who -- surprise surprise -- were in very healthy average weight and also did tremendous physical activity. What a coincidence. But sure, keep telling yourself exercise doesn't matter and it's all about Calories In Calories Out and that the body is as trivial and simple a machine as an internal combustion engine.

If so, those people are foolish. Aesthetics and moral fashions (of this kind) come and go, but your body's health is for life.

BTW: The majority of people where? Where do you see this? The internet (which parts)? A middle class neighborhood in a small Midwestern town? An upper class neighborhood in a cosmopolitan European city? Culture varies tremendously so "where" matters if you make assertions like "the majority of people" think this or that.

Regardless of what you think people think, I'm telling you what they _should_ think which is more timeless and objective, since it's about medical facts that were true 2000 years ago as they are now.

Wow. That is sad, and reflective of the world you live in and people you associate with I guess.

But healthiness can be measured pretty objectively through health outcomes, and high BMI and low exercise are both independently highly correlated with bad ones across the whole spectrum of health aspects. It's not just common sense, it's mountains of evidence over decades across every aspect of medicine.

The fact that some (in your community, many) people twist this around and make it about something else entirely is sad, but in no way affects the objective truths:

- it is objectively healthier to be active than inactive, regardless of obesity

- it is objectively healthier to have average weight than obese, regardless of activity level

I've lived in a few different places and found the culture around exercise and diet to be very different in different places, so I'm not surprised experiences can vary so much. I am curious where you see this bizarre culture of shaming people for exercising.

It's a market for lemons.

Without redoing their work or finding a way to have deep trust (which is possible, but uncommon at a bigcorp) it's hard enough to tell who is earnest and who is faking it (or buying their own baloney) when it comes to propositions like "investing in this piece of tech debt will pay off big time"

As a result, if managers tend to believe such plans, bad ideas drive out good and you end up investing in a tech debt proposal that just wastes time. Burned managers therefore cope by undervaluing any such proposals and preferring the crappy car that at least you know is crappy over the car that allegedly has a brand new 0 mile motor on it but you have no way of distinguishing from a car with a rolled back odometer. They take the locally optimal path because it's the best they can do.

It's taken me 15 years of working in the field and thinking about this to figure it out.

The only way out is an organization where everyone is trusted and competent and is worthy of trust, which again, hard to do at most random bigcorps.

This is my current theory anyway. It's sad, but I think it kind of makes sense.

Maybe, but so what? Exercise has so many positive second order effects, and then those may help with weight loss indirectly.

- Improved mood, focus, calm, etc, make it easier and more pleasant to adhere to a better diet

- Can improve sleep quality. Low sleep quality is linked to overeating and obesity and other problems. In fact, poor diet, poor sleep, and poor exercise are all interlinked. So start anywhere and expect the others to get easier to deal with over time too.

- So what if weight doesn't change, but it's due to fat decreasing and muscle increasing? That's a good thing -- weight is an imperfect measure of obesity. Muscle, just by existing, burns more calories. And unlike abdominal fat, is not linked to organ problems.

- And on and on and on. Just do anything to get healthier. Every healthy action will synergestically reinforce every other healthy action. Don't be a narrow beancounter looking at just one component, because your body is not just a handful of components narrowly linked together via thin black box abstraction layers; it's a big spaghetti code system that cannot be seperated cleanly out into pieces. Not exercising is really, really unhealthy, contrary to modern customary belief, so you might as well, rather than fixating on fixing only some other component while keeping this important component broken.

- Moderate exercise seems to actually moderate appetite a little. And heavier exercise seems to make hunger less cravingy and more indiscriminate, making it easier to adhere to a diet (eg, a couch potato might really crave a specific candy or chips, but someone who just ran some miles will ecstatically and happily devour some beans and cabbage and oatmeal and whatever)

- Improves digestion quality and gut motility!

- Besides, isn't the goal of weight loss to get healthier in general, anyway? Focus on the overall goal and start anywhere, anywhere that is easiest. If getting better sleep is easier, do that. If cutting toxins like alcohol and nicotine is easier, start there. If improving diet is easier, start there. If improving positive human relationships and sense of purpose is easier, start there. If exercise is easier, start there. Start anywhere, and keep improving anywhere the wins are most easily found, and gradually everything else will become easier.

One more tip: It's easier to change what you eat than how much. Also, calories in calories out is bunk. It's true to some degree in that they are related, but ignores the fact that (1) how much your body is spending is highly variable, even somewhat independent of movement -- imagine how much energy your body has to spend to fight an infection for example (2) why would anyone imagine every calorie consumed will actually be absorbed? the gut is highly complex and depending on many factors calories could be absorbed or go right out the other end unused, and the gut flora interacts complexly with all this. Focus on eating healthy things first above healthy amounts. It's easier, and will have a positive impact all its own, creating another stepping stone towards other goals.

Build times always were my biggest Scala complaint. Arguably code base specific, as I suspect it had a lot to do with all the macros and type level metaprogramming, but, if that kind of thing is possible and customary, an average working programmer who doesn't control the codebase they show up to is going to end up stuck dealing with it.

It's a lot easier to build a language that works great, but only in the hands of a single skilled careful owner, than a language that stands up to the abuse of many careless temporary users, and still gets from point A to point B reliably.

Like the difference between a sportscar and a rental company or police fleet sedan.

Scala was a porsche, but most of us need camrys.

Maybe the fixed costs of a shoe factory production line, in 2024, with centuries of production experience, are lower than those of a top of the line smartphone.

> We have immigration (illegal or otherwise) to stave off demographic cliffs. As much as the right hates illegal immigration, it is mostly Christians and they integrate well.

Indeed, but, even Mexico and much of Latin America now has below replacement fertility too. So now what?

That's the nice thing about the Bay Area, you get to have the best of both -- live in a shoebox with no green space AND commute for hours to your job.

> Our diet consists of a lot more than grains.

Ideally, yes, but there's a reason they're called staples. It's very easy to have a diet where most of the _calories_ if not actual volume nor mass of food comes from grain. Grains and fats are very calorie dense, but grains are far cheaper than butter or steak. Many civilizations have been based on a huge portion of food being tortillas, rice, bread, pasta. Grains are important. Whether they should be as big a part of your diet for health reasons is another question, but their historical importance due to calorie density is not in question and is self evident.

My guess is that despite the strong long term overall link, it's too difficult to draw a meaingful link between any particular executive decision on this and any particular outcome, causing a tragedy of the commons. I think it's a good guess because it's a powerful explanation for many other such questions about "Why don't they just ____?"

I'm speaking from a practical cooking perspective, not a technical physics perspective. The radiation from flames or the sun affects food very differently than microwaves do.

For the same reason, I probably messed up other physics technicalities. It would have been nice if I added a caveat I guess, but so it goes. My mental model may be simpler than the truth, but it's a lot better for achieving practical results in the kitchen than nothing than "microwaves heat stuff up fast", which is what I had before and is a really shit model that fails to explain most of their odd behavior.