To be faire, there're a fayre few ways to spell faiyre.

Metric isn't as perfectly logical as we'd have you believe.

I mean, um, METRIC IS AWESOME.

Explains why diet coke makes you feel less hungry if you don't think about it being diet coke. Well, that and the whole caffeine-being-an-appetite-suppressant thing.

Yes, there are things that affect your feeling of satiety other than raw calories in/out. They are complicated and I don't claim to be an expert on them. However, the total amount of energy that you can take in is capped at the amount of calories you eat. If you eat fewer calories than you burn then you will lose weight. There is really no argument against this.

Not sure what you mean here. If anything I'm on the other end, I currently do industrial automation which is 90% just product integration with COTS modules. I'm actively working to get back to lower level electronics and PCB design because I want to be able to optimise things at that level.

I'm definitely not saying there's no place for analog designs, I just mean that an increasing proportion of things are done digitally out of convenience where before they'd have been built with opamps and... stuff. Yeah I don't claim to be an analog wizard, doesn't mean I don't respect and somewhat envy them.

Not necessarily 100%, but yes, I'm assuming consistent absorption rate. This seems to be pretty well accepted but I'm happy to accept scientific evidence to the contrary.

You seem confused. I don't blame my behaviour on it, I merely mention that it's a contributing factor. I never said it's not my fault, either - if it wasn't my fault I wouldn't apologise, even tacitly.

If you want to read anything into that combination of quotes, it should be "fractoid cares less about upsetting random slashdotters than he does about not getting fat."

No it doesn't. Binging at the end of a period of reduced intake is what results in accumulated fat and yoyo dieting. Your second paragraph is spot on.

Calorie restriction relative to expenditure is the only effective weight loss strategy and it is universally effective when applied. Note that I'm not getting into issues of willpower etc. I'm just talking about basic physical facts. If you eat more calories than you burn then you will gain weight. If you eat fewer calories than you burn then you will lose weight. It's the law of conservation of energy.

If you want to get into matters of which weight loss method is psychologically easier or more likely for people to actually follow in practice, then that's where hormones and type of calories etc. come into play. This certainly effects how feasible various strategies are for unsupervised humans to implement on their own. It does not change how effective a given daily calorie limit will be on producing weight gain or loss.

It is that simple (this isn't even biology, it's the laws of thermodynamics). People burn roughly 6500 to 9000 kJ per 24h period while resting. That doesn't change the fact that if you, personally, eat fewer kilojoules than you burn then you WILL lose weight. If you don't lose weight, then it is because you didn't eat fewer kilojoules than you burned. There's no grey area here, it's a physical law.

I think analog has a higher skill cap and a higher ultimate potential (for a given level of technology) than digital. I'd love to see more funding go to it just as an intellectual exercise... but sadly 'easy' is more important commercially than 'awesome'.

(I say this as someone who has a fair bit of experience with digital circuit design and a lot of software experience, and very little practical experience with analog circuits... I love analogue stuff but it's very hard to make it pay its way.)

Because fat people want to be told it's not their fault.

No, seriously, that's it. "Digestion and metabolism" don't have more effect than calories in the food consumed. NOTHING has ANY effect (directly on body weight) other than calories in the food consumed.

Various foods may slightly increase or decrease hunger. Various activities may slightly increase or decrease energy expenditure, and may affect hunger one way or the other. No matter how the subject *feels*, the amount of weight gained or lost is directly proportional to the calorie difference between food eaten and energy expended.

Because it's not. The kilogram is the base SI unit of mass (unintuitive as that may seem, given the included scale prefix.)

Analog circuits are always going to be faster, more accurate per area of silicon, and less deterministic than digital circuits. They're also always going to be harder to understand than digital circuits for anyone who isn't a wizard. There's less need for analog circuit wizards than there is for digital circuit designers just the same way there's less need for deep embedded software wizards than there is for your garden-variety software engineers. It hurts to say it but technology is advancing to the point where it's less important to get 100% out of our current technology than it is to get 25% out of it in a manner that mere mortals can understand.

There'll always be a place for analog design but it will be confined to an ever-shrinking niche on the cutting edge where, as bogglingly capable as it is, our digital technology just isn't quite up to the task.

Happy now?

Yep. The problem is your reading comprehension.

Much food -> accumulate fat (since there's enough energy coming from food, and some left over.)

Little food -> burn fat (since there's not enough energy coming from food, and more energy is needed.)

It's not complicated.