"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize."
Assuming you're being sarcastic. I never said anecdotal evidence. And indeed all 3 (first principles, received wisdom, and personal experimentation) are helping get to space, arguably more than research papers
Most of the creditors are institutions. Like Social Security, Pension Funds, Fortune 500 Treasury departments. These will be here for a really long time.
I’m going to guess Warren Buffet’s descendants will still expect to be paid.
>As of August 2024, Warren Buffett's company Berkshire Hathaway held $234.6 billion in U.S. Treasury bills, or T-bills. This is more than the Federal Reserve's $195 billion in holdings.
Debts don't work that way. When someone owes you money that's an asset. Assets generally transfer on death. The government is the one where if it died the debt would go away. At a certain point that might be the only way out for them.
However moderate exercise (and stress!) stimulates the body to activate trash/repair/rebuild mechanisms which improve health overall.
EDIT:
For example, aerobic exercise stimulates capillary growth lowering pressure required for blood flow.
Periodic, moderate fasting triggers the elimination of accumulated fats which might have toxins built up in them (or have oxidized)
Healthy, emotional stress teaches us to deal with inevitable tragedies.
The body tends to use the same amount of energy regardless of what you do in a day. You can certainly over exercise which causes undue stress on the body. However other than an adaptive period at the start of regular exercise your body adapts to the increased caloric use from exercise by down regulating other processes to conserve energy. Typically an excess of calories is used by production of lipid fluid in adipose tissue and over expression of global inflammation. Once you begin exercising regularly the body generally stops using stored lipids for extra energy to compensate for the exercise and instead down regulates inefficient and generally harmful processes like random global inflammation.
As mentioned the Goldilocks zones are where you’re not forcing the body beyond what it can safely allocate to exercise in a day without causing stress in other processes. Generally though that Goldilocks zone is significantly greater than most people do in exercise in a week, but would typically fall in the zone of “moderate” exercise from a clinical point of view. This is effectively 3-6 times the expenditure of energy from rest for 150 minutes per week spread over a week for at least 10 minutes of moderately strenuous exercise at 70% heart rate per session. Most people in their 40’s or 50’s would typically find this fairly grueling, but that’s because of that homeostatic adaptation - the body resists changing its homeostasis and induces all sorts of negative experiences during the adaptation phase. Once you’ve adapted the opposite feelings present for the same reason - you begin to crave a routine of exercise because you body resists the adaptation to a more sedentary life.
N.b., This is why while exercise definitely helps lose weight, it’s primarily by managing inflammation and mood. This is why the only significant way you can lose weight over time is to reduce caloric intake materially under your homeostatic energy consumption.
I'm not saying that to be snarky. Just as an FYI that it can be kinda hard to even describe how one came across this knowledge. Like asking someone how they know LC circuits act as a resonator.
And I guess exercise science is even less popular than physics. You can find the latter on Wikipedia, and a bit of the former too:
I had a somewhat similar question about exercise vs physically demanding work, since the former helps to have a healthy heart and the latter seems to do the opposite. Explanations I've found were tied to the average daily heart rate. Exercises are intense but it's only a few hours per week, and over time they tend to lower the average heart rate. Physical work is typically less straining but it takes a big portion of the week and as the result increases the average heart rate.
I guess the problem of exercise (intense but short) vs chronic stress (moderate but 24x7) could have a similar explanation.
I would be willing to bet that there are just confounding factors. People who do physical work differ from people who do not in so many ways that it would be impossible to do any sort of controlled study.
I don’t think the claim is that it just uses energy, it’s that it uses energy to the detriment of other processes.
The body is extraordinarily complex, so I don’t think you can extrapolate that to anything else that uses energy.
Any garden variety gym rat will tell you that when you worked out you eat a lot more. And that may be the same for stress, but perhaps what your body does with the energy when you exercise is different.
Exercise modulates hunger (generally, cardio increases perceived hunger while resistance training actually blunts it for a time). But people putting in work at the gym are already in a health conscious mindset and will apply that to their food choices, even if they aren't on an explicit diet plan. If you just left a gallon of sweat on the treadmill you're probably not gonna buy a pizza or McDonald's burger in the way home. It just feels like an obvious step backwards in the moment.
Meanwhile, being in a stressed state that reduces executive function is going to lead people to the quick, easy, hyper palatable, high energy density, unhealthy food options available.
I wouldn't be so sure. The brain is responsible for about 20% of resting metabolic rate, which translates to 300-350 calories per day for the average person.
300 calories is about the same as 30 minutes of zone 3 cardio (70-80% max heart rate, i.e. pretty high perceived exertion).
Most people in an exercise routine would only do that a couple times per week.
An "overactive" brain, day in day out, could add up to more than most people deliberately exercise.
If you oveload "+" to mean whatever-you-want, it's possible. Using bad python [1], it's something like:
def sum(x,y):
if is_number(x) and is_number(y):
return x + y
elif is_number(x) and is_percent(y):
return x * (1 + y.value/100)
else:
raise fatal_error
I don't claim it's a good idea, but it's possible if the language allows operator overload.
[1] Sorry, my main current language is Racket, but I thought that python-like is easier to read for most people, in spite people that likes python can find like 10 error in 7 LOC.
This really grinds my gears. Maybe instead do better job at catching criminals? Do better investigation?
We ban privacy now, because criminals can hide. What's next? Ban sharp kitchen utensils because criminals can stab you with them?
This is punishing ordinary people for some bad apples. I don't care how much you gonna preach me how secure your government backdoored messaging app is. I don't want my conversations to be leaked. I may be saying some embarrassing things to someone I trust. And leaks happen all the time.
Leaking your private conversations now, using them to profile you tomorrow. I mean, wouldn't government eventually want to stop a possible bad actor before he or she commits violence? That conversation you had with your friend about insert current war going on does not look too good... Government does not approve it.
This may sound extreme, but some time in the past people had unreasonable fear for being wiretapped. And look where we are now. Literally have to make extra steps to feel that no one's listening to you or your data isn't used in some way you can't even imagine.
