radix07

I guess that's cool if you mostly do web stuff. But there are tons of developers that use Python/C++ for embedded systems, OS, data science and other things that could make the same argument for Qt.

I suppose if you are familiar with Tkinter and are happy with how it looks have at it! But there are a ton of things that can be leveraged from Python and Qt separately going this route.

PyQt uses compiled Qt C++ code so isn't really that slow, comparable to how NumPy does it's number crunching. Even if you do find it is slow, you can always come back and branch down to the C++ level when needed, although there are ton of steps you could take to optimize in Python first. There are also all the Qt tools from UI editor and Designer to QML and way more if you really wanna go down the rabbit hole...

What are you suggesting as a really good looking and fast cross platform alternative??

Part-time programming? Never seen such a position, where do they exists?

You do have a point, traffic does seem to be much more reasonable to be in and interact with the faster you go. If you can average >15mph and follow the rules of the road, most people in cars are quite pleasant in my experience. However the many people darting out on red lights and going the wrong way down the road tend to give most drivers a bad view on cyclist.

You can even get a professional level Wahoo Kicker for $1200 (no tire wear), have money for a mid-range bike and still save a ton of money month to month with Zwift over Peloton's monthly cost...

Or buy a cheap training wheel and a $400 power meter and spend like $100 on the trainer.

Why spend more for a spin bike when you can use a real one with just as good or better power controls and feedback?

Point is Peloton is expensive indoors or out...

Yes, it is a hard thing for many people, I don't question that by any means. But it's not technically hard, it's mentally and instinctually hard. We have known how to eat healthy forever, you see something green or meaty that looks appetizing, we eat it. Now that has gotten harder to filter of course, but we all know what fruits and vegetables are and that things like Mc Donalds are bad for you.

Perhaps I am a bit out of touch, but I have never met someone that didn't really know these things or that more calories are bad, sugar is in everything that is processed, and that exercise of any sort will help keep you healthy and lose weight.

Psychologically there is a lot going on with people's relationship with food, but by just putting more barriers and rules and reading material in front of them is just confusing the situation.

Start small, cut back a single pop per day for example. That's 15 pounds a year in calories! Do a couple pushups in the morning. Whatever it takes to get started and build from there. If you just dump all these "what if's" and "how to's" in front of everyone they will get distracted from what they need to do and feel like they failed at something that doesn't need to be that complex.

CICO is more like Python: print 'hello world!'.

It's crazy simple and there is a ton going on beneath the hood, but nobody needs to go that deep to get the job done. If you find some other libraries/tricks that help make your life easier, use them!

If you really want to start optimizing metabolic timings and portioning and macros and micros and all that, that's great too! But I don't see why getting started with a healthy diet has to be so complicated: eat healthy, eat less, burn calories. Don't over think it.

If you ask the Keto people, they will say you can. But the point being made is to eat healthy real food. Sure you can be dumb about it, but it's a good starting place.

Yes, the human body is very complex and metabolisms and people are all different, but you can't really do too much about that. So just eat healthy, eat less, burn more calories. What else can you do?

CICO IS all that matters at the end of the day. Yes, some people may be hungry, some may have a faster metabolism, some may do it better with less carbs, some with less fat, some prefer to only eat within a 4 hour window, others may just want to lift heavy or run far. That's all great, but we can't do much about what works best for each individual and everyone needs to find what works for them. In the end it's all just tricks and moving things around to consume less calories than we use.

Why does that 'sound' unhealthy? If you want to actually lose weight and eat healthy you need to change your lifestyle, not do a diet here or there for a week or 2.

The more you exercise the more you can get away with eating!

(Sure if you are 5'7 and weigh 150lbs, that would be unhealthy for a year, you don't need to lose 50lbs. But that would be just fine for someone that is overweight)

1358 cals/day would be a 642 cal deficit a day with a 2000 calorie expenditure. That's a loss of about -4500 calories/week or around 1.28 pounds (~3500 cal/lb). A typically suggested healthy weight loss rate is around 1-2 pounds/week so those numbers are pretty reasonable to lose weight.

If you are not trying to lose a ton of weight, it might be a bit drastic and you would certainly want to take in other considerations based on your goals.

True, but you don't have the same expenses. Hopefully less direct human labor hours, able to run 24x7 at times when human costs could be higher, way less real estate and more viable locations than a restaurant, as well as just lower utility bills.

Of course there are other expenses such as maintenance, deployment, development and upgrades. But those are the things this company is likely trying to optimize.

I have been using protopage.com, which is basically what iGoogle was back in the day. I just drop in the RSS feeds for the top posts from subs I want to check out and have it limit the number of posts. I do that with HN and a few other sites as well. Although would be nice to be able to set a minimum refresh rate so newer stuff wouldn't pop up on refresh.