hhh's recent activity
-
Comment on Fitness Weekly Discussion in ~health
-
Comment on People with low BMI aren't more active, they are just less hungry and 'run hotter' in ~health
hhh Link Parenti would argue carrying "excess" muscle is both effectively impossible for natural lifters, and even for geared lifters it's not that bad. the life expectancy for a professional bodybuilder is...carrying "excess" fat or low muscle mass is unhealthy, but the thin models in bodybuilding magazines and fashion shows are also unhealthy
i would argue carrying "excess" muscle is both effectively impossible for natural lifters, and even for geared lifters it's not that bad. the life expectancy for a professional bodybuilder is still about 75---the same as for the average US man---despite injecting grams upon grams of anabolics and peptides for years on end (along with the stresses of competing).
your heart adapts to the extra stress of lifting weights and carrying extra muscle. iirc there is usually benign hypertrophy of the left ventricle wall (cavity size stays the same unlike in pathological LVH) and a slight drop in heart rate/blood pressure, and combined with a higher insulin sensitivity due to muscles acting like a glucose sink means even a lean 200lb natural monster probably isn't negatively affected by having that much muscle.
if anything the increased bone density, metabolic markers, and mobility afforded by having a higher baseline muscle (and buffer for when sarcopenia sets in) means most people would be well served by getting as big as possible when in their youth (in a healthy and sustainable way of course)
-
Comment on People with low BMI aren't more active, they are just less hungry and 'run hotter' in ~health
hhh Link Parentyes, but most complicating factors --- height, muscularity, bone density --- fall along a normalish distribution, so BMI is accurate for most people stillyes, but most complicating factors --- height, muscularity, bone density --- fall along a normalish distribution, so BMI is accurate for most people still
-
Is the US going to break up?
Hi tildos. I am curious on your thoughts on the stability of the US in the short-medium term. What I'm worried about is the combo of a majority of Republicans having beliefs divorced from reality...
Hi tildos. I am curious on your thoughts on the stability of the US in the short-medium term. What I'm worried about is the combo of a majority of Republicans having beliefs divorced from reality due to a sophisticated propaganda network, increasing "othering"/hatred of non-repubs, fascism becoming more popular among young people and the brazen mask-off takeover of the govt.
From my understanding these sorts of things (civil war, country breaking up) tend to happen very slowly, then all at once. I am very worried we are approaching the "all at once" stage. Is this reasonable? Is a civil war likely? Balkanization of the US? Something else?
What could be done to prepare? I have European-immigrant parents, so would getting citizenship in their country be prudent? Learning other languages? (I know english, mediocre grasp of birth-language, poor/middling spanish). Buying a rifle?
I am starting to regret choosing to attend a university in Texas haha with these prospects.
31 votes -
Comment on Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion in ~news
hhh Link Parentfrom wikipedia: "In 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), overruled earlier precedent,[134] and held "There is no federal general common law," thus...from wikipedia:
"In 1938, the U.S. Supreme Court in Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins 304 U.S. 64, 78 (1938), overruled earlier precedent,[134] and held "There is no federal general common law," thus confining the federal courts to act only as interstitial interpreters of law originating elsewhere. E.g., Texas Industries v. Radcliff, 451 U.S. 630 (1981) (without an express grant of statutory authority, federal courts cannot create rules of intuitive justice, for example, a right to contribution from co-conspirators). Post-1938, federal courts deciding issues that arise under state law are required to defer to state court interpretations of state statutes, or reason what a state's highest court would rule if presented with the issue, or to certify the question to the state's highest court for resolution.
Later courts have limited Erie slightly, to create a few situations where United States federal courts are permitted to create federal common law rules without express statutory authority, for example, where a federal rule of decision is necessary to protect uniquely federal interests, such as foreign affairs, or financial instruments issued by the federal government. See, e.g., Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U.S. 363 (1943) (giving federal courts the authority to fashion common law rules with respect to issues of federal power, in this case negotiable instruments backed by the federal government); see also International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) (creating a cause of action for misappropriation of "hot news" that lacks any statutory grounding); but see National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841, 843–44, 853 (2d Cir. 1997) (noting continued vitality of INS "hot news" tort under New York state law, but leaving open the question of whether it survives under federal law). Except on Constitutional issues, Congress is free to legislatively overrule federal courts' common law.[135]"
there are common-law elements, like precedent, and as you said those are necessary as a practical means. but the US federal court system wouldn't be best characterized as a common-law system
-
Comment on Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion in ~news
hhh Link Parentthe US explicitly chose to depart from a common-law system for the exact reasons I've argued. that's part of why we have a written constitution. in theory only the civil/contract law court system...the US explicitly chose to depart from a common-law system for the exact reasons I've argued. that's part of why we have a written constitution.
in theory only the civil/contract law court system should be common law
-
Comment on Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion in ~news
hhh (edited )Link Parentyou're being intentionally obtuse and it is impossible to argue productively i am going to stop responding. many of the recent decisions of the court have been effectively judge-made law. like a...you're being intentionally obtuse and it is impossible to argue productively i am going to stop responding.
many of the recent decisions of the court have been effectively judge-made law. like a right to privacy. nothing in the 5th, 14th, or 9th amendment suggest a general right to privacy. if the lawmakers wanted it, they should have put it down in writing as that's all we have to work with.
if you disagree, that is ok, but don't pretend like it's the only correct perspective.fwiw i believe the "fundamental right to own a gun" is also an invention of the court (it is essentially scalia's little legislative baby) and also how the first amendment has been misconstrued to protect money as speech.
-
Comment on Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion in ~news
hhh Link Parentthat is true that is a matter of opinion. i agree with @papasquat and many others that giving legislative power to 9 unelected lifetime appointees is terrible and that's why textualism is the way...That’s why they totally ignore it any time it’s inconvenient.
that is true
It’s a canard.
that is a matter of opinion. i agree with @papasquat and many others that giving legislative power to 9 unelected lifetime appointees is terrible and that's why textualism is the way to go. the nature of the court system suggests that judges would be best making decisions with small-c conservatism.
-
Comment on Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion in ~news
hhh (edited )Link Parentthis is really an argument about textualism/originalism vs original intent vs a living constitution interpretation and the scope of amendments. supreme court, being unelected, should take a...this is really an argument about textualism/originalism vs original intent vs a living constitution interpretation and the scope of amendments. supreme court, being unelected, should take a textual approach. it is up to the lawmakers to write better laws.
-
Comment on Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion in ~news
hhh Link Parentthe decision was the morally sound thing to do but it was essentially inventing law. doesn't mean it was actually valid. casey v planned parenthood 20 years later basically completely threw out...the decision was the morally sound thing to do but it was essentially inventing law.
the original roe only had two dissents
doesn't mean it was actually valid. casey v planned parenthood 20 years later basically completely threw out the roe reasoning and tried to come up with its own constitutional basis (and again failed).
otoh overturning a 50 year old precedent is also essentially unheard of and the fact the judges made comparisons to the overturning of plessy is disgusting.
they are right roe was unsound, but they were wrong it should be overturned both morally and practically
-
Comment on Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion in ~news
hhh Link Parenti'm fairly certain that either in grisworld or in roe's decision there was a line that literally said "if you squint your eyes...at the ninth amendment" and then "there is a penumbra of a right to...i'm fairly certain that either in grisworld or in roe's decision there was a line that literally said "if you squint your eyes...at the ninth amendment" and then "there is a penumbra of a right to privacy." not exactly the strongest of constitutional arguments.
what the US needs the most is an amendment to make amendments easier to pass. not easy, but easier such that it is possible. that way the unelected and unaccountable SCOTUS will or at least could hopefully be once again seen as a neutral interpreter of the law as they won't be the only path to essentially MAKE certain laws anymore.
-
Comment on FDA orders all Juul e-cigarettes off the market in ~health
hhh Link Parentthe biggest issues imo are the aggressive advertising and pushing to children and the shitty disposable plastic vapes (puff-bar type things) that probably give you gigacancer (and are more...the biggest issues imo are the aggressive advertising and pushing to children and the shitty disposable plastic vapes (puff-bar type things) that probably give you gigacancer (and are more accessible to children and create more e-waste). banning vaping means removing a safe way to quit and forces current users to switch to cigarettes (terrible) or the [unregulated!] black market (also terrible!). it is a stupid move either way.
-
Comment on FDA orders all Juul e-cigarettes off the market in ~health
hhh (edited )Link Parentbecause nicotine itself isn't that harmful? of course it's deadly in overdose but even high doses regularly are about as harmful as caffeine. an well-constructed vape with unflavored e-juice is...why are we OK selling this addictive drug in grocery stores?
because nicotine itself isn't that harmful? of course it's deadly in overdose but even high doses regularly are about as harmful as caffeine. an well-constructed vape with unflavored e-juice is only minimally if at all harmful. burning organic material is a whole different ballpark---even eating smoked meat carries risk as a result of the particles adhered to the meat (probably a less healthy than vaping).
the character assassination of vaping is going to go down as one of the biggest missteps in public health history.
-
Comment on Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion in ~news
hhh (edited )Link Parentthat is true but that isn't exactly very stable ground. what happens when republicans gain control of the govt. again and threaten the opposite? it worked for raising the drinking age because that...that is true but that isn't exactly very stable ground. what happens when republicans gain control of the govt. again and threaten the opposite? it worked for raising the drinking age because that was fairly bipartisan. it's a different story for abortion.
-
Comment on Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade; states can ban abortion in ~news
hhh (edited )Link Parent...not really. congress is generally only allowed to pass laws related to the powers enumerated in section 1 article 8. a very common enumerated power used to pass laws is the commerce clause,...but at the same time there were 22 years where Dems had control of all of Congress and could have passed a law to enshrine it instead of relying on precedent
...not really. congress is generally only allowed to pass laws related to the powers enumerated in section 1 article 8. a very common enumerated power used to pass laws is the commerce clause, which after gonzales v raich (2005) essentially means any law can be passed. a law regulating state's power to control abortion would still likely be struck down as it falls under police power (regulating morality, health of citizens), which is understood to be left to the states. the only true legislative route was to pass an amendment...which was never going to happen.
-
Comment on How DALL-E could power a creative revolution in ~arts
hhh Link ParentI believe this is intentional as iirc OpenAI tried to exclude faces from the training data in order to limit nefarious uses of the AI. on their website they say "Preventing Harmful Generations...DALL-E has serious limitations, like being really bad at recognising and drawing human faces.
I believe this is intentional as iirc OpenAI tried to exclude faces from the training data in order to limit nefarious uses of the AI.
on their website they say
"Preventing Harmful Generations
We’ve limited the ability for DALL·E 2 to generate violent, hate, or adult images. By removing the most explicit content from the training data, we minimized DALL·E 2’s exposure to these concepts. We also used advanced techniques to prevent photorealistic generations of real individuals’ faces, including those of public figures."
-
Comment on How DALL-E could power a creative revolution in ~arts
hhh Link ParentReally? Maybe you're thinking of ] DALL-E mini,a free but heavily scaled back clone responsible for those grids of generated images with the prompt people have been posting for fun. The actual...Really? Maybe you're thinking of ]
DALL-E mini,a free but heavily scaled back clone responsible for those grids of generated images with the prompt people have been posting for fun. The actual DALL•E 2 is imo extremely impressive and many of the generated images are completely plausible if not indistinguishable from reality. The instagram account @neural9000 has a bunch of examples in various styles (and the ones that look like pictures aren't actually pictures they are AI-generated). -
Comment on Team Fortress 2 community peacefully protests bot problem with #SaveTF2 campaign, Valve responds in ~games
hhh Link Parenti think this is the opposite of what it needs. this is sort of thinking is what drove valve to kill the old quickplay in meet your match. just doing things because other games were doing it...TF2 could use quality-of-life updates like player endorsements
i think this is the opposite of what it needs. this is sort of thinking is what drove valve to kill the old quickplay in meet your match. just doing things because other games were doing it without considering if they would improve anything. everything seems like it's designed to be engaging instead of fun to the point where even niceness is gamified with endorsements. it's like battlepasses. they try and hook you past when you would want to play to have fun.
this was a little rambly apologies
-
Comment on Team Fortress 2 community peacefully protests bot problem with #SaveTF2 campaign, Valve responds in ~games
hhh Link Parentmy experiences with overwatch must be very different than yours as I felt like it was the most toxic playerbase I've experienced other than Dota'smy experiences with overwatch must be very different than yours as I felt like it was the most toxic playerbase I've experienced other than Dota's
-
Comment on You're not losing fat because you're eating too much — even when you don't think you are in ~health
hhh Link Parentyou can also use research chemical amphetamines would not recommend at all thoughget sick for some reason and lose your appetite
you can also use research chemical amphetamines would not recommend at all though
joints adapt to loads. the biggest danger for joints is overextending and overuse. slowly ramping up weights and not being obese is the best thing you can to to keep your joints healthy long-term