IAL, and I could imagine this fee getting upheld in at least a few US jurisdictions (with the right judge), leaving consumers to rely solely on the Streisand effect to get satisfaction.
The classic notion of a contract as an expression of the compromises forged in a battle between two sophisticated, represented parties has been replaced by overlawyering, boilerplate, and clickwrap.
What's the solution? Hold consumers responsible for every detail of wordy documents they didn't have the time to read, much less negotiate? Make companies bear the costs of every complaint - real, imagined, or fraudlent - a consumer can dream up? Companies can be cheap and sneaky, and consumers can be petty, stubborn, and stupid.
Some of the passengers were in contact with the ground:
"According to flight attendants Amy Sweeney and Betty Ong, who contacted American Airlines during the hijacking, the hijackers had stabbed flight attendants Karen Martin and Barbara Arestegui and slashed the throat of passenger Daniel Lewin.Lewin, an American-Israeli Internet entrepreneur, had served as an officer in the elite Sayeret Matkal special operations unit of the Israel Defense Forces. Lewin was seated in 9B, and Suqami was directly behind him in 10B. The 9/11 Commission suggested that Suqami may have stabbed and killed Lewin after he attempted to stop the hijacking. Lewin was believed to be the first fatality in the 9/11 attacks."
I've posted here about my experiences with weight loss before (tldr; I got involved with weight watchers, have personally been involved with hundreds of people losing hundreds of pounds each over ~10 years).
There is no person on this earth that can eat less calories than they use and not lose weight. It's not possible. So there are two very easy ways to lose weight.
1. Eat less calories (than you use).
or
2. Burn more calories (than you eat).
(or a combination of the two - as a lifelong program like Weight Watchers promotes.)
Obviously it can be hard for some people to eat less calories.
That's like saying: "flying is easy, just generate more lift than the airplane weighs - the rest is just noise." No shit, but life isn't so simple. At least for me, controlling weight (now that I'm pushing 30) has been about appetite management, and I've found that keto helps a lot. Not because it changes anything magic about the calorie balance, but because to me 500 calories of steak feels like a meal but 500 calories of pasta feels like a snack.
Macros are important for goals. If your goal is simply "lose weight", sure, just care about calories. But if you have a more refined goal (recomp, spare muscle, lose bodyfat, athletic performance, build muscle etc), the macros are vital.
I do think people lose the forest from the trees. However, I find that people lose sight of the path through the trees just as often. Both are important.
Was a bit concerned with weight until I plateaued. Now I realize I am in a lot better shape, including blood sugar and lipids, even though I am stuck at this weight. I keep up the exercise and don't worry about the waistline so much. It is funny when I workout though. All these skinny people around the gym not sweating at all. If you don't sweat, I don't see why they bother.
I bet if you counted the calories in/calories out it would show the calorie deficit accounting for it. The thing with low carb, in my experience, is that it does make it easier to eat less if you have the right attitude about it. I do it AND count calories. Also, just the fact that it cuts out most of the foods in the universe helps to make it an easy decision whether or not to eat something, whereas with just calorie counting all foods are available and that one bite can become 10 bites so easily. I believe those two things account for it's success rather than some trick subverting thermodynamics.
> I bet if you counted the calories in/calories out it would show the calorie deficit accounting for it
By definition it would have to be true that you consumed fewer calories than expended. Calories in/calories out is not wrong, it's just not useful (or at least it's not a nearly complete picture).
Calories in/out are not independent variables. The type of calories you consume dictate at least: 1) how your body processes the calories you consume, 2) the energy you will have to expend, and 3) the hunger you will feel.
I lost 50 pounds eating ~500 calories more on keto than I did before.
Unfortunately I wasn't completely comfortable with the types of meals I ate with that lifestyle.
But it did make me feel as though the whole calories in - calories out was nonsense. Especially after trying (and failing) diets based around that (weight watchers) multiple times.
>I lost 50 pounds eating ~500 calories more on keto than I did before
>But it did make me feel as though the whole calories in - calories out was nonsense.
As a diet methodology, calories in vs calories out is not very effective for the general public. I too have lost more weight via keto.
But when I really tracked what I was eating I found keto simply kept my appetite under control better. This is extremely valuable but ultimately it was still down to calories.
(You also tend to drop a ton of water weight when you first start keto which makes it seem super effective at first)
Comparing how I felt doing keto with the keto flu vs. just plain calorie counting, I think the unique metabolism of ketosis makes your body not use everything you eat during keto. It's very hard to keep under 20g of carbs and not eat too much protein also. Much easier to just go to chipolte/subway and calorie count. If your lifestyle makes you make all 3 meals already, then keto is great. If you don't, then it's a lot of work.
Slow carb worked great for me for 6 months, lost 25 lbs!
But alas I got so sick of chicken for dinner and eggs for breakfast, and I guess just got too bored with the meals. Gained it all back :-(
(I actually haven't eaten an egg since then. And I avoid chicken now. I'm wondering if some people develop an aversion to foods they eat too regularly?)
To me this is like telling someone that wants to grow carrots that carrots are just atoms arranged in a certain way. It may be true, but it's not helpful. There are a ton of factors that influence both calories in and calories out, they aren't just noise.
(This is just a response to your comment, I didn't come away from the post thinking the book treats everything else as just noise.)
What would happen if an interviewee 'flipped the script' - gave the interviewer a coding challenge? Maybe under the guise of assessing the skill level of his potential co-workers? Is there any way an interviewer takes the bait?
Or, what if the interviewer explicitly challenged the interviewee to come up with an interview coding challenge? And perhaps even worked the challenge, with the interviewee hinting, helping, and evaluating? Maybe it would be a good way to demonstrate complete command of a subject, or the ability to think on one's feet, or even to evaluate the candidate as a teacher/leader of younger developers?
This has always baffled me. Is coding the only technical skill?
It's especially bewildering when a company seeks a software engineer with expertise in a highly technical ___domain and populates the interview primarily with programming questions. If they can find the subject matter expert who also happens to be a master software craftsman, congrats to them, but I'm guessing that person doesn't come along very often.
(Maybe I'm bitter, but with the level of skill in computer vision I can demonstrate, don't you think you can teach me your programming nits in short order?)
FYI: I would strongly suggest getting a RX for Modafinil (Provigil) and not Nuvigil (Amodifinil). Nuvigil is very expensive and my insurance company required a whole battery of additional tests before they paid for it. I believe Modafinil is now generic so I imagine they care much less.
Last time I checked, cephalon had some sort shady deal to keep generic modafinil off the market for a few more years (paying generic manufacturers to not bring it to market). If modafinil goes generic, it will be really good news.
From what I've heard before, it was almost impossible for people to get approved by insurance for modafinil, maybe times have changed and I need to pay the doctor a visit in the future.
I have an actual sleep disorder and I am currently going through hell trying to get my insurance to pay for modafinil, and I've been through the whole battery of tests. :( I don't want to be "smarter" I want to be awake.
What about Nicotine? Back in college and for a few years afterward, I used to put in a big fat dip (or chew) for all/late-nighters to help me buckle down, focus, and stay alert. I stopped for all the standard health reasons, but I find that caffeine is only about 2/3 as good.
Using nicotine gum, you can avoid the typical health hazards of tobacco products. I personally found that caffeine wasn't comparable to nicotine, the former just keeps me awake, while the latter can keep me focused and motivated for several hours.
Not a good idea. Nicotine gum is not too good for gingival health.
Nicotine patch is consider the safest form of nicotine delivery. Also the most expensive.
E-cigarette is a good 2nd option. Vape unflavored or menthol, because the health effects of flavorings are still out there. Vendors have mostly stopped using diacetyl in their flavorings. Diacetyl gives that vanilla aroma, but also responsible for popcorn lung.
Still they're using acetoin which could convert to diacetyl in small amount uncertain conditions. There's also the issue of vegetable glycerin (used as a carrier) converting to acrolein under high heat. I think this is a non issue if you don't let your atomizer gunk up, which inhibits heat transfer from the coil.
I'm alarmed at the ubiquitous use of aldehydes in flavorings. Most of these have no solid research proving the safety.
If money is not an issue, I would use the patch everyday instead of e-cig.
Nicotine, I've found, is the only sustainable option in the long run. Methylphenidate, amphetamines, other dopaminergics, caffeine, modafinil, they all poop out eventually.
I'm also convinced that nicotine is the safest and most effective nootropics known at the moment until cortex gets around to releasing their ampakine.
The structures of which are all under secret, so we self-experimenters can't even get it custom synthesized.
> the health effects of flavorings are still out there
This is very true. I have been very concerned with "vapers" I know buying cheap juices from China - to me this is rolling the dice, almost as bad as smoking!
You will find that reputable juice mixers will generally make statements about their ingredients. My usual favourite (indigo vapours - I have no commercial interest, just a customer) for example explicitly state that they do not use any flavour containing diacetyl, acetyl propionyl or acetoin.
Flavours which may contain aldehyde elements are a concern, but what is much more my concern with e-cigs is the long-term effect of propolene glycol inhalation, and potentially significant formaldehyde levels potentially produced by the heating and/or oxidation of the base liquids. There's a decent amount of research ongoing in these areas.
Despite these issues I am reasonably confident that e-cigarettes are within a safety range I am comfortable with if (and only if) used with high-quality liquids.
The study found variations up to 20x in levels of formaldehyde contained in the vapour produced by some top e-cigarette products. At the low range, the levels are of little concern and barely above background. At the high range, they are of some concern. Unfortunately brands, etc are not broken down.
I have a strong suspicion that formaldehyde levels correlate with country of origin and/or quality of the liquids involved. If you stick to using PG sourced from countries with reliable certification systems I think it is OK.
Is nicotine gum actually not a health risk? Tobacco held in the mouth (for example Scandinavian 'snus') certainly has serious effects with long-term use, albeit they aren't exactly the same as smoking cigarettes. Gum is generally sold for short term use, so not sure if it's actually better, or just not generally used for long enough to see the effects.
The gum poses risk to the gingival tissues. It can cause gum recession. Not to mention it also taste terrible and hard to control delivery. Chewing it too fast can leave you woozy and nauseous.
The reason I prefer nicotine over other stimulants, it's oddly relaxing and motivating at the same time.
Caffeine either leaves me jittery or anxious or it doesn't work at all after 2 weeks. There is a ton of research out there proving the positive effects of nicotine.
I've never smoked, and tried nicotine gum to experiment with the cognitive effects. I managed two pieces of gum because of the taste and delivery control before I threw the rest in the trash... Haven't gotten around to trying a patch..
The patch stops working much faster while ecig's effect never seems to wear off.
I can only assume that it is because the patch maintains a constant level of nicotine in your bloodstream causing tolerance to develop faster and it is unable to spike the nicotine concentration unlike ecig when you can take a deep drag.
Ecig gives a totally different feeling than patch. You'll definitely feel it hit when you take a long deep drag.
My understanding is that nicotine itself is not particularly carcinogenic (there are some studies indicating slight increases in tumorigenesis in conjunction with specific carcinogens, and others indicating no increases), but there are a lot of other compounds in tobacco (including chewing tobacco) that are highly carcinogenic. To my knowledge there are no studies of the carcinogenic potential of long-term nicotine replacement therapy in humans.
Nicotine has several metabolites. NNN, NNK and cotinine. The first two are carcinogenic, but the risk is negligible (but not absent) for smoking cessation therapy. The effects of cotinine appear to be slightly negative on brain health, but of course there are dietary and lifestyle factors which play into the cash value of all this.
Nicotine also appears to be slightly deleterious for kidney and heart health, so it's not entirely benign. It also has to be avoided with female oral contraceptives (greater risk with age) otherwise the risk of stroke increases fairly dramatically.
Do I use nicotine knowing these risks? Yes as a cognitive enhancer, but under the assumption that I'll cease before the age of 40 or upon financial success, while in good health and maintaining a fruit and vegetable rich diet.
> It only takes a few days of use for signs of addiction to show.
Eh... not for me. I can use caffeine for days and then not use it for days no problems at all. Of course probably because caffeine does absolutely nothing to me. I just like the hot beverage.
I feel the same way about ad blockers as I do about skipping commercials with the DVR - my purchasing decisions are almost never influenced by ads, so why would I bother watching them? I'm just afraid that someday, even without DVR's and Adblockers, companies will figure out that I'm not buying their crap and stop offering me free TV shows and websites, ads or no.
I agree with your first sentence, but not your overall premise. We are all capable of a hell of lot, usually much, much more than we realize, but not everything. I think most of us, myself included, need to take more chances to try and learn new things and error on the side of trying. However, the wisdom to realize something is truly futile is not a bad thing, after all, we've all got finite time and resources.
Adults are usually impatient. They don't see results right away and give up, not realizing it takes time! Children however can go forever without giving up, and I believe that's one of the (many) reasons why it is easier to learn a skill as a child. Sometimes it is good to remind yourself of this when you want to learn something new or feel like giving up.
The classic notion of a contract as an expression of the compromises forged in a battle between two sophisticated, represented parties has been replaced by overlawyering, boilerplate, and clickwrap.
http://abovethelaw.com/2010/06/do-lawyers-actaully-read-boil... (Judge Posner is perhaps the most acclaimed US jurist not on the Supreme Court - a "Law and Economics" pioneer who can roughly be described as libertarian)
What's the solution? Hold consumers responsible for every detail of wordy documents they didn't have the time to read, much less negotiate? Make companies bear the costs of every complaint - real, imagined, or fraudlent - a consumer can dream up? Companies can be cheap and sneaky, and consumers can be petty, stubborn, and stupid.