I don't do keto but I do a similarly "limits social activities" sort of dieting.
I just don't follow a diet "strictly at all times". If you're (truly) following your diet 95% of the time and go out every-other Friday (or hell, even if it is every Friday) for a social dinner, 1 meal of 21 or 42 meals isn't going to completely ruin your dieting any more than forgetting to brush and floss after lunch on Thursdays is going to completely ruin your teeth.
If you go out for social dinners every single day it might be a problem - but that is pretty atypical.
I feel most people could benefit from "following a strict diet 95% of the time" over "not dieting at all because I like pizza during my weekly Saturday D&D nights".
Keto relies on being in ketogenesis, which is affected by intake.
You can certainly have a "cheat" meal of higher-than-normal carb intake, but you might get knocked out of keto for a few days. If you cheat every week, you could be screwing yourself out of progress.
For keto in particular I'll agree out of ignorance. I was speaking broadly of "dieting makes social occasions hard" which is a common excuse to avoid certain diets. However, even with slower progress, I contend that slowed progress is still an improvement over no progress.
Very delayed follow-up, but I wanted to respond: you're 100% right.
Any progress at all is better than no progress. If being able to deal with social interactions by utilizing a cheat day helps stick to the diet -- helping to shutdown excuses, helping to be the "weekend" at the end of a long work week, etc -- then that's a useful model to adopt.
I have a modest amount of money in Robinhood. I love the app and they way it has encouraged me to learn about markets.
I started in March of 2016. I was naïve and I made a lot of silly mistakes early on, but I was able to learn a lot of fundamentals when the stakes were low.
I view it more as a gaming app than investing — it's a supplement, not a replacement for investing and asset management.
Absolutely! The app lives in my phone's "games" folder. I have a relatively small amount of money, just enough that it would sting a bit if I lost it all. I find that even having a tiny stake in things makes learning about investing and finance actually interesting, whereas the majority of my invested assets are all "Vanguard, take the wheel"
+ This. I keep a similar smaller trading account where I effectively gamble with stock picking. I do this as I enjoy researching and understanding businesses and find things more interesting, and you see opinions more honestly when I put money where my mouth is. And it helps you stay engages with your reading. I leave the 'retirement' investments elsewhere.
It may be that one of the things about SF that makes it attractive for OP is that it is expensive. Keeps the riff-raff out. Not that anyone in SF would ever admit that publicly.
> It may be that one of the things about SF that makes it attractive for OP is that it is expensive. Keeps the riff-raff out. Not that anyone in SF would ever admit that publicly.
This is really inaccurate, and especially discouraging on a message board for "entrepreneurs", who should really be in favor of cheaper housing close to venture capital, so new businesses are more viable.
Is housing in tier 1 cities like SF a giffen good (where demand rises with price)? Possibly [1]. That said, it wouldn't be unique to SF if true and wouldn't detract from your other policy points.
70% of SF's homeless had homes in SF before they were on the street, and there's good evidence that high housing prices correlate with high homelessness. Decreasing home prices will probably help with homelessness.
> ...high housing prices correlate with high homelessness. Decreasing home prices will probably help with homelessness.
Nice weather, good infrastructure, funding for city services, and disposable income in the area could be driving both.
Pool of affordable housing might provide a better signal for homelessness than median housing costs in an area this expensive.
ie, There's probably not a large percentage of marginal homeless in SF, who could afford a $1.03 million home but not the current median $1.15 million home.
Either way, average rent is trending slightly downward, and Zillow predicts home prices in SF to fall 0.5% next year, so maybe we'll see.
I don't think these marginal shifts, even if magnified 10 times, will really be a substitute for something like housing first or mental health programs.
When I was in downtown San Francisco the streets were lined with homeless people. I had never seen so many homeless people in one area. Maybe there are not so many homeless in other parts of the bay area, but not from what I saw.
I was forced to move here to find a job. It's expensive; the weather is both monotonous and never great; the culture feels homogenous (just young professionals); salaries feel much smaller when adjusted for cost of living than any place I've ever lived.
If I didn't have equity to vest I would have zero reason to live here.
I'm not here to convince anyone that SF is cool. Just sharing my own personal opinion.
FWIW, I have a relatively low "tech" salary, so I don't disagree with you on the relative cost of living.
I understand there are a lot of young professionals here – and you may disproportionately exposed to that demographic – but there is certainly a lot culture and diversity in this city.
I agree with you, I would never consider living in a car centric American city. New York is my favorite American city (just as expensive) and I am lucky that lived there before moving to SF. Maybe I will move back one day but for now I am enjoying SF.
I can definitely agree on the climate but I can absolutely not agree on the city. To pick a few reasons off the top of my head: homeless, cleanliness, transportation, parks, walkability.
There are some good things about San Francisco, like the incredibly strong job market for tech workers but other than that I couldn't bring myself to live there.
This is a tough question. I'd say it depends on what kind of designer you need!
I'm a product designer in SF, and I work with many amazing designers. I can say that the vast majority of us are not publishing on Dribbble, Behance, etc.
I would recommend posting jobs on Dribbble, however. That's probably the first place I would go if I were looking for a new gig.
Designer News and Angel List are popular. Also Stack Overflow and GitHub for the more technically-oriented designers.
Lastly, I'd recommend word-of-mouth on Twitter. The design community there is pretty robust.
> Financial incentives — including stock options, restricted stock and pensions — are other ways that companies have tried to tie employees to their firms.
I've found vesting periods to be prohibitive enough that I don't even consider these things when negotiating employment.
Also, I'd add that job-hopping (what I'd define as working somewhere less than 12-24 months) seems to have been de-stigmatized – at least in larger tech hubs.
Exactly. my current employer has a five year vesting schedule. Who cares about five years? I demanded more base. If you are at a company longer than one year you are in serious trouble. Sorry, but corporations and the scuzzy managers brought this upon themselves.
The one thing that usually catches my eye is when a company offers these things 100% vested. I know that I'm dealing with people that understand what I want.
Given the typically early hours, possibly awful conditions, and nature of their jobs, I'd say they're also paid fairly.
Additionally, my assumption is the garbage collection industry is similar to ISPs – meaning options are limited based on location and prices are therefore not as competitive.
Edit: I'd add lack of upward mobility to the first sentence.
