Yeah, I have to admit I don't feel my smugness declining.
That's true, but on the other hand, at ~103-4 kilos if I managed to lose 4kg a month for even just two months, I know I would feel significantly healthier. If at that point it makes sense to switch to a different approach, so be it, but even relatively small losses lead to improvements in wellbeing - though no doubt this is difficult to measure in terms of outcomes.
Share your nutritional qualifications and your education in the science fo addiction or shut the fuck up. Evidence based reasoning or take your prejudice elsewhere.
Yep, there is indeed a trade-off. As an exercise, try working out the amount your pensions saving would be worth if you'd invested from 18 under different interest rates. And then read Warren Buffet's opinions on inflation-protected instruments.
The problem with 401k, or DC schemes as they're known in the UK, is that the employee gets no substantial, useful advice and tends not to know how to make suitable choices. As an exercise, take a spreadsheet and work out how much you'd save over your lifetime, making an assumption about how much you save, your earnings growth, and total investment returns, and see what happens when they vary. The results are very sensitive. And remember, a 401k is a contract with a company to look after that company for you, and over a fifty year span companies can and do go bust.
In terms of outcome data there are few mass studies, but if you google for something like "DC scheme shortfall" you'll find a lot of stuff in the specialist press.
I'm actually a junior actuary tackling exactly these problems. Just didn't want to bring technical details into it. But the simple fact is that if I invest $1 to pay a pension for someone aged 18 now, the range of possible outcomes are huge.
The point is to yank the Overton window around, not convince people. There are psuedo-legitimate debates out there about teaching Creationism alongside evolution and that bullshit needs to stop being recognised as a "legitimate" debate. That's the point. Or one of them, at least.
This thing is a proof-of-concept, mostly designed to let other people get started and improve it. I don't see anything about the technique itself that couldn't be miniaturised.
It's a complex problem. Without question, pension provision should *somehow* arise from compensation paid for your work. The problem is that you are squirelling away money for long periods, with uncertain returns, and then when you start paying it out, no-one is quite sure how long you'll live for. For the company, paying enough money up front to guarantee a particular level of pension would be a drain on resources, so we let them catch up later. Alternatives, such as just paying a fixed amount into a fund and letting the employee deal with it are easier but don't lead to better outcomes.
This stuff happens. I used to work in a food distribution company that was located in a subdivided warehouse. We ran half a dozen industrial walk-in fridge units, so no-one ever noticed it was a little higher than it should have been, since the joiner next door had been getting free electricity ever since the subdivision.
Corrected - not necessarily. They do, however, need to be explained. And then, if required, corrected.
I don't think anybody (with any scientific training) is seriously suggesting that sex does not have some impact on neurology. What they do object to is the idea of pre-judging brains due to them having a pair of tits dangling off them. Oh, and people positing differences without evidence.
What the hell? No. Yes, it's possible that measuring various attributes and examining correlations by gender may show up distinct joint distributions that can be used for classification, but there is absolutely nothing that guarantees it.
A lot of pen-tester companies will do some initial work for free. At my work, the company who was asked to present to the responsible committee went round each person and handed out a little slip of paper - with their password on. They got retained.
No, you are talking bullshit. The difference that is larger depends entirely on the variance of the underlying distributions. Your own example of weightlifting disproves your own point. Just shut up.