htrayl

joined 2 years ago
[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 week ago

Oof. Such a bad idea. It does demonstrate that "We mostly care that they aren't contributing to taxes" is just a garbage excuse.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (2 children)

Reading it, it seems to be more targeted as a team knowledge base tool than a word processor.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 1 week ago (18 children)

Supreme Court is still an important source of perceived legitimacy. The further authoritarians can push the Supreme Court to rubber stamp their power, the weaker public response will be.

Its similar to a form of "divine right" really.

Of course, the Supreme Court has to have its own trust and perceived legitimacy in order to convder it.

[–] [email protected] 19 points 2 weeks ago (4 children)

Lets say 5000 people see this post - should it be normal and expected that 5000 people spend their time hunting down a source to a claim, or have a single OP include it in their post?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

The amount of handringing over it was always excessive. China has undergone a massive rural -> urban migration. They still are. The large majority of homes are being used, and more will continue to be. I feel like a china apologist here, but this narrative about ghost cities has always been very silly.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 3 weeks ago

This is what basically worked a few years ago. Massive mess, a huge pain, but it worked.

[–] [email protected] 23 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

If this actually is about climate - China installed 50% of all new renewable capacity last year. 50% of the entire world.

[–] [email protected] 32 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (5 children)

Please don't spread misinformation about trade deficits. That is part of the "logic" that trump uses to justify US tariffs. Trade deficits are generally not all that important.

There are good reasons to switch from US goods and services - this is not one of them.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago
[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 month ago

Im going to say the Harvard estimate is probably pretty close. It is probably a bit higher than what you would need on a day to day basis for survival, but enough to help your body maintain some muscle over the long term.

Its not enough for someone wanting to be fit or muscular though.

[–] [email protected] 17 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

That diet doctor recommendation feels wildly high for a "what is actually necessary" request. Like 2 g/kg is near the target for bodybuilders.

It might be a good idea for many people to hit that to maximize muscle development in preparation for aging (where muscle deterioration is chief concern), but not a good estimate for anyone who isnt worried about that.

They also say two further things which ding their credibility:

First is this comment: "Because there appears to be a limited amount of protein that can be absorbed at a meal, it may be best to evenly space out your protein throughout the day, if possible."

This is not really a concern even for bodybuilders. You dont need to overthink spacing.

Second is the comment about vegetarians/vegans. Protein intake is not a huge concern for the average vegetarian, if you are not aiming for that unnecessarily high target - as long as they are regularly including some protein in their meals (soy, beans, nuts, eggs). Even for non-vegetarians, that higher target requires you to monitor of your protein intake to hit it regularly with overeating.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This is a classic organizational problem. Different teams have opposing priorities and work against each other (or even against the overall good for the people thet service).

view more: next ›