But Peace uses the Ghostery database, and Ghostery includes The Deck. It’s classified as “Advertising”, and even though it’s far nicer than most other entries in the category, it’s fair to call it advertising.
"Fair to call it advertising"?
That would be because it IS advertising.
I don't think Marco was paid-off. I think Ghostery was. And, or, he's received threats, because this certainly does tick-off plenty of people with minimal morals.
For most of us that use ad blockers, it is NOT about ads being "poorly behaved". We just don't want to see ads. Get it?
I guess not. Smart people can be idiots, too...
After 5 years of succeeding in the face of all of these challenges, the organization has offered me the Enterprise Architect position.
Rather a moot point, don't you think, since you just fired yourself...
No environment I've ever been in gives the general users access to install software.
Everywhere I've worked I have been an admin of my computer. At most of the jobs, I could install the OS myself if I chose to do so. No, I'm not on the desktop or server teams. Yes, one of the companies was very big - 100 billion dollars big.
Yet I currently violate every fad rule out there, but I eat few calories and I'm losing weight at a rate of nearly four pounds per week (sustained for three months). I'm living proof that the most important behavior change necessary for weight loss is calorie intake reduction.
While 1500 calories of cotton candy has the same energy as 1500 calories of tuna, eating the cotton candy will probably wreak havoc with your insulin, blood glucose levels, etc... over the short term but leave you feeling hungry again in short order. The 1500 calories of tuna will be much harder to eat - you'll get tired of the taste quickly - but leave you feeling satiated for much longer. Human beings are not machines, sense of satiation matters.
You are mixing arguments. Eating nothing but 1500 calories of cotton candy will probably result in weight loss. Your other argument, which is valid, is that it would be difficult to stick to a cotton candy diet. If you record what you did eat, then the "can you stick to it" argument is gone and the calories in - calories out math applies. The trick is to keep trying different food combinations until you find a diet that works for you.
I'm not talking out of my ass here, I spent the last three months as an overweight guy eating 800 calories per day and not feeling hungry. Example daily intake:
4 oz baby carrots
One slice of pizza
6 oz. cod fillet seasoned with pepper
10 oz. steamed broccoli
You can buy reserved instances for 3 year periods, this locks-in the price and guarantees availability.
But that doesn't guarantee that the capacity you reserved will provide the performance you need. See the TeamQuest Model posts above for an example of a tool that can help you predict how much capacity you'll need to scale up from a pilot to a full implementation.
I lost 56 pounds in 15 weeks by eating lots of vegetables and meat - but I didn't avoid carbs. Today I had a peanut butter sandwich for lunch and I'll have a salmon-patty burger (with bun) for dinner. It tastes good and I'm never hungry. I satisfy sweet cravings with a small amount of chocolate or a handful of green grapes. I choose to stay away from engineered foods like sugar substitutes, but I consider that a health choice, not a weight loss choice.
My point is that a lot of people see your post and think "all I have to do is eat fewer carbs and I'll lose weight". But the truth is "Eating a healthy diet that happens to be a low carb diet will cause me to lose weight". However, the operative part of that sentence is "healthy diet", not "low carb".
Alternately, some kind of food additive or supplement that chemically reacted with caloric nutrients in the digestive system and turned them into something the human body can't metabolize, so that, although you "consume" many calories, you don't actually absorb them; they don't become metabolic input, they just pass right through you.
You mean Xenical? Be careful what you ask for. The information packet that comes with Xenical recommends that you carry an extra pair of pants with you.
Not a magic bullet.
Often what you want is a projection of the next five year's cost. Sure, AWS is good at making sure you only pay for what you need, but it doesn't help you make the Go/NoGo decision on a project. You can still easily get into a "this thing costs me more in usage that it's saving me" situation.
On most days, I eat 1000 calories and exercise off about 700 (in addition to my normal activities). So, yeah, I'm running at about an 1800 calorie deficit per day. I started off losing about 5 pounds per week - I'm sure some of that was water. Over that past six weeks, I've slowed down to about 3.5 pounds per week. Started with a BMI of about 38 and I'm under 30 now.
You can only lose so much water. I've lost 22% of my original body weight; you can't lose that much water and survive.
"old science" was something along the lines of 3,500 kcal in a pound (2.2 kg) of fat. However, some quick googling seems to indicate that this statement is being viewed as (partially) false nowadays, due to the way that weight-loss tends to taper off as you lose weight; though I cannot really find any specifics as to what the "new science" actually is.
There is no "new science", just new marketing. Reducing calories is still an effective way to lose weight. The benefit of most alternative diets has nothing to do with nutritional science, but with psychology. Diets don't fail due to bad science, they fail when people don't stick to them. The most effective diets are the ones that are easiest to follow, and people hate counting calories.
Personally, I'm the type of person that can tolerate counting calories. Three month ago, I got fed up with my state of health and decided to do something about it. I proceeded with no rules other than "eat fewer calories" and I've lost 56 pounds over the past 15 weeks. Calorie counting works, if you actually do it.
Not surprising, making one good choice (avoiding sugared soft drinks) isn't enough to make a good diet, just like one bad choice doesn't make a bad diet. You could lose weight on the "Coke Diet" by consuming nothing but 10 servings of Coca-Cola every day.
It's simple math - calories in and calories out. There are "good foods" and "bad foods", but the effect of which food you eat makes less of a difference than how much food you eat on weight loss. Effect on overall health is a different story. A person on the "Coke Diet" above would almost certainly lose weight, but they would almost certainly suffer health problems if they stuck to it for too long. A lot of people give "healthy eating" advice as "weight loss" advice and vice-versa.
The real problem is the "Silver Bullet" mentality. The soft drink industry didn't cause this problem all by themselves and telling people to stop drinking Coke isn't going to do any more good than telling people to eat less fat did over the past forty years. If people used the low fat campaign to buy Twizzlers (a low fat snack), then the no soda campaign will produce equally horrible outcomes.
If it has syntax, it isn't user friendly.