sorcerer-mar

All good tips but I think it really boils down to the last bit: sustainable changes. This doesn't help one understand how to differentiate a sustainable versus unsustainable change.

In my experience, the single most important factor is realizing that the sensation of hunger is your primary enemy and that you can attack it head-on.

Satiety is not dictated by how many calories you've eaten but (mostly) by the physical weight of your stomach. If your goal is to eliminate the sensation of hunger while consuming the least number of calories, the nutrition label tells you everything you need to know: eat a lot of low caloric density foods.

What you'll find over time is that foods widely regarded as unhealthy are simply ultra-dense (e.g. peanut butter is an engineering miracle) while healthier foods tend to be extremely low-density (e.g. non-fat Greek yogurt and fresh vegetables).

The biggest error I see in people dieting is thinking they just need to muscle through the feeling of hunger. It doesn't work in the long run. Accept that it's an important sensation but it's distinct from actual starvation, and address it directly!

[flagged]

[flagged]

Yes but even this ignores the more important dynamic at play: rent rises to eat nearly all the productivity gains.

If you add technology to your workplace your wages should go up (not to eat all the gains of the technology, but a decent portion via wage competition), but then once your wages go up, the local rent goes up anyway.

> How can I be free to do my gardening whenever I want when the landlord is asking for $11K rent in my SF flat?

This is the fatal flaw. It's been recognized explicitly for at least 140 years that the price of land rent rises in lockstep with productivity increases, guaranteeing there is no "escape velocity" for the labor class regardless of how good technology gets.

Sure, the model that you propose here sounds a lot better than the one being proposed by the current administration.

It seemed like you were suggesting that a property tax (which does not function how you just described) was a good idea, based on your initial comment which called it a good idea.

A patent definitionally only has market value (i.e. a value to be taxed) if it's something people want.

Right, I'm aware there's a spectrum from bullshit patent owners to non-bullshit patent owners. Why would you write a tax code to punish the latter while doing effectively nothing to the former?

You're fixating on the existence of bullshit patents which no one disputes. The question is whether this policy is a sensible way to address that, and you continue not to substantiate (or even articulate) any of your disposition toward that.

And so... how does a property tax fix any of what you're describing? If it's a bullshit patent that's not being deployed to the market, it can't possibly be very valuable, ergo will have no carrying cost. Only the patents that are deployed to the market and valuable will have high carrying costs.

> But all too often it's a malign fantasy.

All too often to severely destroy the incentive to invent new drugs? Yeah, gonna need a better source than your intuition as a patent lawyer to substantiate that.

Obsidian is a personal knowledge management system which is unique in that, yes, it's ultimately just a pile of Markdown files! Obsidian gives you a good UI to interact with it though: obsidian.md

> allowing patent holders to try to levy (what amount to) taxes that are paid indirectly by the public.

What are you referring to here? The premium that a patent holder (one who created or purchased novel, valuable IP) is able to extract?

This is a reward for taking risk in R&D and for sharing the result with the public via patent disclosures, not a tax.

But again: Alex Jones' and Limbaugh's hugely popular shows pre-date that. So does the libertarian strain on the right. Modern MAGA definitely spun out of the Tea Party which didn't originate at all in leftist education.