You are...as seems to be your habit...flat out wrong.
Fat and carbohydrates are both burned at the same time. Just in different ratios - the ratios do shift but not by much more than 20%. As usual you want to maximize the total calories burned more than anything else.
Please stop just making things up.
Well, there are about a zillion parameters in the human body with complex interactions, genetic & epigenetic dependencies, etc. that we barely understand! Yet we assume that everyone is the same?
I'll tell you where this unscientific belief comes from--
Well first we should explain your unscientific belief that this is in fact what either myself or other doctors are describing. It's not that we believe that people are the same but that people are not significantly different in a number of parameters pertaining to BMR. Just because there are lots of things going on in the human body doesn't mean they all affect BMR significantly. That's where your ideas go wrong.
The other problem with your terribly unscientific religion is that you're not controlling for activity or correcting for the fact that people are kind of bad at determining their caloric intake. Considering this conversation was about me correcting someone who claims they take in 3000-4000 KCals/day and doesn't get fat. You appear to immediately take this as evidence supporting your belief without attempting to correct for the fact that this person really doesn't eat that much, or is under 18 or that they're actually more active. It wouldn't take much error in all those parameters to bring that persons actual intake/weight to conform with predictions made from BMR.
Most discussions of obesity have a heavy bias toward the view that people simply choose to be pigs.
This is actually unrelated to what either the OP was talking about and I think that "most discussions" needs to be qualified.
This is flat out wrong.
That in no way negates the possibility that the mean values of the samples can be tightly correlated to the indep. vars.
I'll give you that my statement was a tich strong. However the point that the OP is making is that there is variable OTHER than the regressors we currently use that exhibits exceptionally strong control - equal to or greater than the effect of the known regressors combined - over BMR. Even though those variables explain BMR reasonably well. Broadly speaking this claim could be true in several ways:
The regressors could actually be representing our "X factor" and/or our "X factor" explains the currently unexplained portion of the effect or the calculated correlation is random.
The problem with the first idea is that there really are no candidates which explain say...lean body mass - for example. The problem with the second idea is that lean body mass explains quite a bit of the effect. The problem with the third idea is that this has been replicated quite a bit and is based on some known biochemistry.
Ugh...usually when people say "metabolic rate" they mean something like BMR - basal metabolic rate. Did you know that we have quite a number of equations which predict BMR from relatively few variables. If what you assert it true - that BMR varies significantly, per person. Then you wouldn't be able to perform a regression on BMR data with any useful correlation.
We do. Hence you are wrong.
Technically, I'm simply saying it's plausible. Knuth is a little cagey about denying it. Two people recollect some kind of rebuke. Steve wasn't exactly Mr. Modest. Knuth wasn't beyond the occasional barb.
It makes you look like a polite host
You know, social interaction.
Spoken like someone who as only read about such things. See if Jobs had opened with a lie like "I'm interested in your work" *that* would be a fiction which is has a social purpose (Pro Tip: In my experience just admitting ignorance probably works better). It gives the other person permission to talk about themselves. Whereas "I've read all your books" is actually anti-social. Knuth knows he can't talk about his work because he knows Jobs hasn't read it and probably knows it's beyond Job's ability to understand. Not only that but if he picked up on the obvious lead and wanted to talk about a specific work it puts Jobs in the awkward position to continue to lie or catches him in a lie (awkward for most people, for all I know Jobs lied a lot). A statement like that actually shuts social interaction down (It's the "inter" part that's important - in case your books don't cover that). Not unlike the way bragging shuts down social interaction.
So I get that you might not understand that. Social moires can be subtle. But by the time you're out of college I'm sure you'll have these things down.
The person writing the story was present Tom Zito and so was Mike Boich (who mentions this in the comments).
Reading the story, it is inconceivable that Knuth would have said what he said.
If you take a look at the comments. The other person in the room recalled a somewhat softer rebuke. I'm sorry that either are beyond your ability to conceive.
And surely Steve didn't look like a doofus at all
I think someone who says "I've read all your books" to Knuth really didn't know to what he was referring. TAOCPS was at three volumes in 1986 and I doubt Steve Jobs - based on his not-very technical reputation - would have got through them. Not to mention a few books on math, typography as well as the MIX/360 users guide.
Steve Jobs accomplished some great things - with an enormous amount of help from people who actually knew how to do things - but there is absolutely no evidence that he knew anything about coding. So, to me anyway saying you've read all someones work when you clearly have not and could not. Makes you look like a doofus.
I have yet to see where Knuth clearly denies the story. It is corroborated by the two other living people in the room (although they have differing recollections as to how strong the rebuke was). So it's at least plausible.
Not a bad source for stories about Jobs dickish behavior...and before some
I'll assume the main reason to do this is to get a job, one that in particular advertises for a specific set of skills. One of which is an obscure programming language. Unless you have nothing to do it's probably more worth your time to spend a day before said interview learning enough to fake it. If you want to lie or be honest about this on your resume or in your interview that's up to you and how well you think you can pull that off but if you want your resume to get past HR and make a short list AND you are actively pursuing multiple opportunities. This is probably your best bet.
Which is what I read. Just answering the obvious implication.
Some ability to think is probably just as essential. Let me know when you show some.
"The millisecond a quantum environment is proven capable of cracking most modern crypto like a fucking egg"
Uh...no. It is proven to be able to factor large numbers quickly which will make the two major public key systems (DHX and RSA) and in some insanely popular use cases (the internet) we use these to exchange keys for symmetric block cipher but that's hardly 'most modern crypto'.
"Well sure, but then there is obviously some other politics at play that should be addressed." - What if there's a latent bias in society? Now imagine how that affects at other levels. For example in getting an education, getting a good education, participating in open source projects and finally "fitting with the team"?
Wouldn't all these things have a winnowing effect on your pool of candidates?
To downgrade the human mind is bad theology. - C. K. Chesterton