> That may be the target, but the real outcome is simply delaying those deaths, spreading them out more over time.
reply
Don't we all die eventually? What's your point then?
Are you saying that if people get COVID they'll all die of COVID related complications *eventually•? Because that's not necessarily true. If someone is the 101st person who needs a ventilator and all 100 ventilators are being used by COVID patients, then that person likely dies and they could have been recovered.
They stated something as fact to influence our behavior, when they did not actually have the requisite knowledge to make such a statement at that point in time.
They should have instead said "We don't know whether they're effective yet, so don't hoard them, because doing so could cause X."
There's nothing wrong with admitting you don't know something yet.
Instead, they make commands without supporting evidence. That implies total disregard for the peoples' intelligence. Upon realizing this, trust is lost and dissenting actions increase.
I can't count the number of times that I've come across a would-be useful comment that would solve exactly the issue I'm having, only for it to have been deleted.
Hating the site is fair, but honestly what you're doing is really shitty. Thank god Pushshift exists.
I respect what you're saying and honestly it is shitty. It is true, I deleted the many technical posts I made because I did not want to leave that value on the site to support what is has become.
I feel bad about it. I hope people are able to find my posts in archived formats somewhere. But I just didn't feel comfortable on there any more. Reading around there is just gross now. I think I will concentrate on posting on my own website now.
That's the point though. Reddit wants some posts and not others, best way to stop them getting what they want is deleting all comments exactly so less people will go to the site.
Reddit called itself a bastion for free speech then walked it back for Chinese investors, and were surprised at the backlash.
The original ban wave was the exact reason the delete scripts were conceived.
I did the same for my 15 year old account and added reddit to my DNS blacklist. It's as close to voting with my dollar (data?) as I can muster at this point.
I've read that "Your body adjusts to input, so it's not that easy!" many times now. I don't dispute it is true.
But why not call the body's bluff? Cut input further! And then cut it again. Be more stubborn than your body.
Not saying it would be easy. It would probably be really hard. Not sure if I could actually do it if I had to. But surely, it is possible?! What little physics I know seems to strongly support it.
What people (me included) take issue with is not wether it’s easy or not, but if it makes any sense.
People with health conditions that directly depend on them losing weight will need specific ways, adapted to them, to lose that weight. Telling them “just eat less dumbass” (which is an actual advice thrown at people, almost verbatim) is condescending, ignoring the complexity of dieting, and only looking at it short term when they are trying to change the rest of their life.
We wouldn’t throw “money in/money out” mantras at random bankrupt people (or do we? I can’t tell anymore), we shouldn’t do that to overweight people either.
> We wouldn’t throw “money in/money out” mantras at random bankrupt people (or do we? I can’t tell anymore), we shouldn’t do that to overweight people either.
The entire personal finance sphere is based around this advice. Make a budget, cut costs, get spending under income enough to pay off debt. So yes, we do distill it down to “money in/money out” for people who mismanage their money. Fortunately, when it comes to money it generally is that simple, provided the income is sufficient to maintain the basic necessities of life.
For finance, is it that simple ? I agree I would see that for families that have a decently balanced budget but need to build assets to get out of the borderline red zone.
For people straight in the red, more often than not the advices I've seen applied IRL are akin to talking to one's bank to reevaluate the situation, checking with local institutions how they can help, reviewing tax declarations, giving up on too low paying jobs to completely change their status etc.
To me these changes are often more structural or complicated than just deciding where the money goes or to how much extent.
Is there data to back up an individual 'set-point'? People think differently, so I can only speak to myself:
If I was heavier than desired, and I noticed my body was gaining weight while I am suppressing caloric intake, I would reduce intake even further. Call the bluff.
Of course, easier said than done. It's perhaps a masochistic mindset, forcing yourself to feel hunger, and obstinately refusing to give in. Since I was young, my conscious response to hunger seems different than many. I can easily ignore it for hours, if I am focused on something interesting. Hunger is an annoyance I typically ignore. The body screams "Wahh, I'm hungry! I'm going to make you feel bad until I eat!" and my internal voice says "Go right ahead. Suck it up, you're fine. I'm having too much fun to tend to you. Maybe you get something in a few hours."
If anything, I probably don't eat 'enough'. But I don't try to eat less. I eat whatever I want whenever I want. I am very happy with my weight. I eat a wide variety of nutritious food. But ultimately it's just annoying that we have to eat at all.
