Still smaller than Saturn-V, with less payload capacity to both LEO and the Moon. Never flown with human payload. Never flown beyond LEO. Better luck next time.

Yes I do. I also realize those engines can't get humans to the moon, let alone an entire manned base.

They couldn't even build a heavy booster back when the USSR was at the peak of its military and economic might. They sure as hell aren't capable of it now, with thieves and crooks running the country.

What's unique to Russia is the sheer scale and brazenness of theft. No one is even trying to hide it, and it goes all the way to the top. Putin was exporting 30% of Russia's oil through a firm owned by his old friend. I very much doubt he was doing it out of the kindness of his heart.

It is not a coincidence that Russia consistently comes in at the bottom of the list in the various corruption ratings. And it's not a coincidence that their economy turns to shit every time oil takes a nosedive. It doesn't take a genius to run a country when you get $200B a year in oil profits, even if you steal two thirds of it right off the bat. It does take a modicum of competence to run a country without that, but with an elite so corrupt and so entrenched, Russia's only hope is that oil returns to $100+/bbl sometime soon. Which it probably won't for another couple of years.

In Russia, at least 2/3rds of all money gets stolen outright on any project like this (and the rest gets similarly picked apart by subcontractors until nothing is left). This is nothing but a front to pilfer government money. Nothing to see here, move along.

Just like Docker. Epic fail. Next!

Being a coach potato is not good for you in general. In fact, studies have shown that even obesity is not as bad for you as being physically inactive. Au contraire, moderate obesity in physically active men is correlated with longer lifespan.

You can't cut carbs without losing muscle. That's just not physically possible. You lose _some_ muscle inevitably. Every single book or study on sports nutrition will tell you that. The best environment for growth ("bulking phase" in bodybuilder terminology) is when you have significant caloric surplus, and increased body fat in 15%+ range.

Let's consider an example. Take a strong 220lb male athlete. His daily protein intake should be about 200-220 grams. That's only 880 calories at the upper end of the range. You still need at least 2500 if the guy is undergoing intensive training. You don't want to be eating too much fat. Let's say you consume 90g of fat per day (that's roughly in line with recommendations). That's another 810 calories. Mmmmkay, you still need 1690 calories. And that just happens to be a tiny bit over your 400g of daily recommended carb intake. So there you go. And this is not what I'd call an "excessive" diet for someone who trains and wants to actually see any kind of a result. I'm heavier, and I eat proportionally more than that. To "cut", this athlete will have to eat a bit more fat and significantly less carbs to create a small caloric deficit wrt his daily nutritional needs without becoming too catabolic. He will do that for 4-6 weeks after which his metabolism will begin to slow and he will have to start bringing in carbs into his diet again through "reverse dieting". If further weight loss is needed, the athlete will then undergo another "cut" cycle, _after_ metabolism returns back to normal.

Now granted, this is for someone who trains a lot, given to a sedentary adult this diet will result in massive amounts of fat gain. Adjusting it is just a matter of scaling these numbers down to the desired calorie intake (as well as taking up exercise to boost the basal metabolic rate).

Trouble with most athletes is they _think_ they don't eat a lot of carbs or fat, but unless you pre-make your meals with a scale and a spreadsheet, there's just no way to know how much of each macronutrient you're eating. That's what I do, anyway, it works for me.

Besides, even if your trainees really do cut carbs on their "off" days, they're still eating a ton. It's difficult to consume 200+ grams of protein per day, especially if you try to do so via food and not protein powder.

Brain fog. Your brain needs glucose to function properly. Your muscles need glucose to sustain an active lifestyle, which you need to sustain to not collect a whole host of chronic diseases caused primarily by lack of physical activity and poor cardiovascular health.

All of this has been studied in great detail in the area of sports nutrition. All those athletes whose physiques we all admire eat a lot of food, and they do also eat a lot of carbs. The key to weight loss is two fold:

1. Maintain a _moderate_ caloric deficit given your level of physical activity. Moderate means no more than 300-500 calories deficit per day. You go over that (or go on a diet for too long) and your metabolism adapts to the new calorie intake. Life starts to suck, you have no energy, you get sick more easily.
2. Eat a balanced diet. That includes carbs. If you're physically active, eat 40% of your daily carb intake immediately after you exercise.

Easy right? Nope. #1 requires counting calories. Both #1 and #2 require you to consume meals you've pre-cooked yourself and carried with you, you can't just eyeball the balance of nutrients or calorie contents in a restaurant. That's mostly how athletes get their physiques (the other 40% of it being hard-ass training routine and genetics). Anyone can do it, very few people bother. It's much easier to yo-yo diet on a diet du jour, even though it doesn't help.

His words about Google in early 00's: "They're commies without a business model." And look at him now.

What I don't get is what's wrong with _desktops_ in a school lab. They can't be broken or lost as easily. They are more powerful. Each desktop can be shared between several pupils. They're also cheaper, even with larger monitors, have better input devices (real keyboards and mice), and since they're not mobile, they can be set up to boot from the network with zero maintenance.

Why burn perfectly good money on shit kids don't need, especially when research shows it does nothing for their academic achievement?

You can do almost all of that (except children wandering off, for which you'll need several watches, and several phones on those children, since currently watches are useless without a phone) with a cell phone. Likely even with the one you already have.

Microsoft wants to have the paying clientele, just like Apple. Selling $30 devices at a loss to people who will never buy or rent any movies is not lucrative to them. With Xbox you pretty much guarantee people will buy games at least, and everything is there for them to buy and rent movies as well.

That's the thing, you don't know. Because Putin controls the statisticians who produce this rating. If they don't come up with the right one, they could lose their jobs, or worse.