user-replaceable batteries should be much simpler to replace, not advance phone surgery

I for one, do not want my iPhone to become as thick as my old time Motorola flip phone that had replaceable battery....

I run my phones for at least 6 years it seems....before I upgrade and toss the old one, or keep it as a camera for some use....but no, with they way phones are and how long battery life currently is, etc....I don't need user replaceable with all the negatives that brings with it...

^^ He is right.

I didn't believe this. My retort was going to be a sarcastic "Oh yeah, that's why we see so many farms built sunshades over their crops :eyerool" but apparently it wasn't worth doing before. But now that your sunshade *also* produces power, it is suddenly worth the investment.

I still question what it does to the growing season though. While I can understand why Texas might have plenty of sunlight, New England is just on the cusp of having a growing season that is too short to be profitable. Some places are trying to grow tomatoes in the frost.

It should be, but it is not. Sooo many companies think they can hire a senior engineer in the US, then 5 cheaper engineers in India, and just hold a "morning meeting" and everything is fine. It's really crazy how naive companies are to the time zone issue. I've told them to hire in Brazil, Mexico, or Argentina instead of India but there are so many fewer contractors there. One company had a lead in Hawaii!! I had a team split between California, Ireland, India, and Kuala Lumpur and the upper management pushed this as a cost savings plus 24/7 development!

Meanwhile, X.AI has asked the EPA for permission to release up to 100 million hyperfecund pesticide-resistant male mosquitoes in California and New York over two years to own the libs.

If you are upset about LGBT+, well, do you feel that men should be able to have their own preference in women who are blondes, brunettes, redheads, shorter, taller, different body types? How about women having the right to prefer men with a different build, skin tone, etc, are you against THAT? So, people should also have their own preference when it comes to sexuality, like it or not, it's the same exact thing, personal preference in who they are attracted to. Or, do you feel that everyone should have the exact same preferences?

I don't care what your preferred form of sexual friction is....

I just don't want it being flaunted and taught to grade schoolers...they aren't sexual, they don't need to know about boys sucking cocks...

I may not agree with it, but it is a free country and fuck who you want to fuck as an adult, plain and simple.

I don't, however, need to feel forced to play someone else's "games" with pronouns. You can pretend to be a woman or man or poodle, fine with me, but don't expect me to learn or respect the rules of what your pronoun are.....if you are going to be at the fringes of society, it's up to YOU to deal with it, not me.

A big part of "woke" is having to deal with stupid shit like I mentioned above.

Especially exposing kids to it....keep them out of it and allow innocence to survive as long as it can with them.

*head bangs in approval*

Oh, forgot to link the dry density for you: here you go. 341kcal/100g. Aka 3,41kcal/g.

Which, like I said, should be obvious, since they're almost entirely carbs (~4kcal/g) and protein (~4kcal/g), and they're, as noted, dry (12-16% moisture). It would be quite the trick indeed to get something that is dry and and is almost entirely comprised of things that are 4kcal/g to be 1,38kcal/g! ;)

Just in case you need help:

Your calculation: 195g (dry weight) × 1.38 kcal/g = 269 calories per pound of cooked beans.
Correction: Because you used 1.38 kcal/g (the cooked density) as if it were the dry density, you essentially diluted the calories twice.
The Actual Math: 195g of dry beans * 3.4 kcal/g (actual dry density) = 663 kcal.

When those 195g of dry beans absorb water to weigh 454g (1 pound), they still contain those same 663 calories (since water has zero calories).

Canned beans are ALREADY COOKED. *facepalm*. You can eat them straight out of the can.

which is waaaay more than I would want to eat at a sitting.

I can't think of a single ingredient - any ingredient - that I would want to eat exclusively as my diet, so this is a really stupid argument.

In general, "damping pleasure" is not most people's experience with GLP-1 agonists. What it does is more like separate pleasurable experiences from having an urgent need to continue doing them.

I'd believe the Iceland numbers. I had a doctor once who wanted to get me on antidepressants, and got mad when I didn't want to, and completely ignored my pleadings of "But I'm not depressed", "I enjoy life", "I'm probably the least depressed person you'll meet", etc. He just really liked his patients to be on it. The Icelandic medical system is very into anything that "medicates symptoms" rather than treating diseases. For example, during COVID, it was essentially impossible to get drugs like paxlovid, but they made parkodín (tylenol with codeine) over-the-counter.

In most modern societies medication is usually a last resort.

I'm going to take a wager that if I were to open your medicine cabinet right now, there would be painkillers in it, which you take as will when you get headaches, body aches, etc.

Yes, different people have different baseline hunger levels. This is well accepted in the scientific community.

Please read: Cooked bean variety.

The "beans in your pantry" data you're looking at are probably per serving. Here, let me grab the beans in *my* pantry. Roland BLACK BEANS Habichuelas Negras Supreme Calidad. Net weight 15.5 OZ / 439g. Serving size: 130g. Calories per serving: 180.

There's 453,6 grams per pound, so that's 0,968 pounds. 439/130 = 3,15 servings, times 180 calories = 567. In 0,968 pounds, that's 586 calories.

Or look online. "172 grams of black beans (cooked, boiled, unsalted) contains 227 Calories." Do the math.

I'm not sure exactly how you expect something that is 70% carbs (of which are 36% fibre) and 26% protein to be low-cal. Do you think it has the moisture content of celery or something?

I'm thinking about starting a very low dose when the pills come out in Europe. That gives an extra year for more data.

For me it's purely about health (well, about 90% about healthj). I'm a marginal case weight-wise, but the overall health impact profile looks spectacular. If a pill seems likely to add a number of healthy years to my lifespan, yes please. But the more data the better.

One thing that held me back was, I'm very averse to addiction, to anything that might have withdrawal symptoms. People report being ravenous and needing to eat all the time when they quit. BUT - the data shows that after one year, people still retain about 25% of their weight loss, and at two years they're about baseline (some above baseline, some below - the "above" people may be due to sarcopenic obesity, in that you put fat back on faster than muscle, and so your metabolism is lower until the muscle comes back). This is very different from when you diet to lose weight and then stop dieting - you're not ravenous at all, you finally have satiation.

But given the weight regain stats, and the general way these work, what I think is going on is: when you lose weight, you've been training yourself for months on how to ignore or alleve your hunger pangs, so when you stop, you're well trained to it. Whereas GLP-1 agonists are just the opposite: you don't even need to think about resisting the temptation to eat, it just comes naturally; you can get pleasure from something, such as a tasty dessert, without feeling the need to eat everything on your plate; pleasure and craving get separated. So people who just suddenly cut off from GLP-1 agonists are "mentally unarmed" for the reversal. The weight-regain stats however suggest that it doesn't leave you long-term disabled in this regard; that you're just back to your old self once you readjust, whatever that old self may have been.