by this logic, we should repeal all labor laws & minimum wage laws. be careful what you wish for, and the logical conclusions of allowing companies to treat their 'employees' however they like.

ok, but what about the monkey that repeatedly cranks out great plays? when does it stop being an accident?

who's to say that we all aren't just performing arbitrary acts of algorithmic formalism, based on our past experiences and chemical reactions in our brains? this fundamentally boils down to free will and thinking we have some magical divine spark inside us, instead of us just being unimaginably complex meat computers. the jury's still out on that one.

one of the primary arguments against UBI, in fact probably the biggest one, is what you stated in your initial post - "It's the "give a man a fish" proverb gone backwards" - if you give people free money, they will sit on their butt and wont look for jobs

the results of this study refute that pretty strongly

now you've switched to talking about (presumably means-tested) welfare? what does that have to do with UBI or looking for work?

so you acknowlege that your original post was completely wrong, and this WAS a subject worth investigating, and the results are very interesting?

author is focused on the overall market or societal impact

Which of course doesn't matter at all to the founders & investors.

blitzscale is the 'greedy' approach. entrepreneurs and investors typically just care about their own company succeeding, and to hell with what that means for the market in general or consumers. they WANT to build a monopoly, duh.

if only there were some way to spoof your geolocation

https://chrome.google.com/webs...

(or u can just use chrome dev tools if you dont trust browser extensions)

in short, no. labor is typically 20% to 30% of a business' operating costs. so, doubling wages won't come close to doubling the cost of products.

you can't LIE about such things as a public company.

if he'd actually had the funding secured, which was entirely plausible, he'd have been in the clear.

DC v Heller, from 2008?

Chicago v McDonald, from 2010?

Tell me more about these innate rights that have always existed and are not at all recent interpretations of our current society & NRA lobbyists.

yes that was my entire point. how fucking stupid are you? some people will be able to extract more calories from their food, and they will gain more weight. other people will extract less calories, and find it easier to stay thin.

furthermore, some gut bacteria produce lipopolysaccharide, which can increase blood sugar & insulin. this causes the body to try and store more calories as fat, instead of using it for energy or to build muscle. thus lowering metabolism & causing feelings of lethargy, and making exercise less effective at building muscle mass

on the other hand, some gut bacteria strengthen the gut barrier, reducing inflammation & insulin resistance, which leads to lower blood sugar, more available energy, and less tendency for the body to store fat.

this is a stupid study. of course they will lose weight, but they will be exhausted and hungry and miserable the entire time. you can FORCE people to do lots of things they otherwise wouldn't do themselves. nobody is claiming weight loss is impossible, just that it can be incredibly difficult.

you're way too hung up on assigning blame, as if that is the only thing that matters here - pointing fingers at folks.

you're also still ignoring the impact of gut bacteria, which we are learning is incredibly influential in how you absorb nutrients and put on weight. TDEE is only the second half of the equation - calories burned - but calories absorbed is just as important.

yes, anyone can eat less, exercise more, and lose weight. that is not under debate. but it will take some people WAY, WAY more effort than others.

it's easy for someone to sit up on their high horse and say 'just eat less and exercise more, duh!' as if that is an easy thing to do. the number of obese people in our society, and the percentage of people who regain weight within a few years even if they do manage to lose weight, is a pretty good indicator that it can be incredibly difficult.

nobody will get 101 calories from 100.

but nobody will get 100 calories from 100, either. you are not 100% efficient. you poop calories out.

some people poop out more calories than others. get it now?

100 calories is not 100 calories TO THE PERSON EATING IT and that is the only fucking thing that matters. everyone will shit some of those calories out, and the amount they shit out can vary significantly from person to person.

i never argued against the conservation of energy.

capitalizing the first word of sentences is for little bitches. and work emails. since you're not paying me, you don't get capitalization.

nobody can create energy out of thin air.

but some people can extract more energy from the same amount of food as other people.

100 calories is not the same for everyone. no machine is 100% efficient. for a quantity of food that we think of as '100 calories,' the average adult may only be able to absorb 80 calories of energy from it. other individuals might be able to get 90 calories of energy from it, due to differences in gut flora.

now factor in metabolism as well. some individuals burn more calories than others, even while performing the same exact level of physical activity.

add the two together and you will see that the statement 'eat less calories + burn more calories exercising = weight loss' is broadly true but a wildly incomplete view of the situation - some people may need to exercise MUCH MORE and eat MUCH LESS just to maintain the same level of body weight as other people. don't be so fucking smug.

you're pretty smug for someone that is so terribly fucking wrong

'100 calories' is not the exact immutable block you think it is. calories as it pertains to human diet are an inexact & best-guess science. 100 calories for you may not be 100 calories for someone else.

differences in gut bacteria can have drastically different effects in nutrient & energy absorption. differences in metabolism can affect the amount of calories burnt by two individuals performing the same actions.

two different people could eat the exact same food, perform the exact same physical activities, and one could gain weight while the other lost weight.