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.
Kremlin also pays a bunch of shills to comment on forums it can't control, such as Youtube, Facebook, Western news sites, and the like. Some of which you can witness in the comments to this news.
The same argument has probably been made back when engineers were switching from punch cards to text editors. All of it has happened before, and all of it will happen again. To me, it's not what you use, it's what you do with it. I work in an environment where most people use vi or emacs to program in C++. I can code circles around them in Eclipse, even though it's not "cool", with less effort, and better code in the end (thanks to refactoring features and code tooltips). I do use vi as well, for smaller, simpler changelists. But for something a couple hundred lines or more - forget about it.
Except, of course, Microsoft is not a "technocracy", and it hasn't been that for a very long time. Let me remind you, for the past decade the company was run by a completely non-technical guy with a sales background. At Microsoft the fast track to the management ladder is to become a program manager (PM for short), or to be one right from the start. PMs promote and hire still more PMs, to the point where you get 1:1 PM/Dev ratio, and they do nothing but report status to one another.
Therein lies just one of Microsoft's major problems. All this entrenched (and unnecessary) old boy network needs to be dismantled first and foremost. Nadella is not going to do that. So Microsoft will be just as fucked as it was before, because this is a prerequisite for any kind of forward progress over there.
Which side are the "terrorists" though? To me it seems like the "rebels" are. To you it might seem it's Assad's people.
How about also building a decent general purpose debugger? GDB is a pile of shit, so folks resort to just stuffing their program full of printfs() and examining the output. I'd pay good money for a state of the art debugger that works on Linux.
Can't wait for non-upgradeable Android in cars as well. "But sir, your car is more than 18 months old, so we don't support it anymore. Buy a new car."