Could you elaborate on that? Altering caloric intake and sleep schedule as a reaction to what? And how would you change between the two regimes? Increase/decrease how much? etc.
This is one in a long list of reasons why I continue to view calories as a useless measure. I don't really give a damn about how much water I can heat up by burning my food, that's not how my digestion system works. It was a reasonable enough analog when we had a very rudimentary understanding both of what's really in food and how digestion and the metabolic process works, but its horribly outdated today.
I can say having recently gone from coding at a desk 8 hours a day to working full-time on a farm with no heavy equipment, your food intake absolutely should increase. As long as I'm staying busy I can eat basically whatever I want and not feel sick or gain weight. That's not to imply that I don't still need to eat the right kinds of food as well, but volume and calorie count has no noticeable effect on me like it did when I had a sedentary job.
> I can say having recently gone from coding at a desk 8 hours a day to working full-time on a farm with no heavy equipment, your food intake absolutely should increase.
Yeah I think people are missing the transition phase of this equation.
Somebody else burns the same number of calories being active as you do sitting.
The article does not compare the the same individuals performing sitting vs. being active.
It says that members of hunter-gatherer tribes such as the Hadza on average consume as much energy per day as US-Americans sitting on their butt at home. It says the Hadza's bodies have adapted to perform a more exhausting task with less energy expenditure than US-Americans need.
But the same person (being a Hazda or US-American) will still need more energy being active than being inactive.
(Source: Read from "here's what we know so far" in the article.)
This is similar to finding that from N calories, an obese person may only run 1km while a professional marathon runner will run 5km.
Edit:
The Kurzgesagt video refers to the same Hazda people, and states that if you start working out after being sedentary for a while, you burn a lot more calories, until your body eventually adapts: https://youtu.be/lPrjP4A_X4s?feature=shared&t=212
> It says the Hadza's bodies have adapted to perform a more exhausting task with less energy expenditure than US-Americans need.
You're not wrong, but I'd see it as the Americans who've adapted to more recent situations. Not walking ten miles a day is a relatively new phenomenon.
The tone of this comment makes me question if it was made in good-faith. But I will add my perspective. I see this debate all the time, I've seen it since I was young, and not just on the internet.
It stems from a language difference, in Latin American Spanish, words like america and its relatives like americano, latinoamericano, panamericano, etc is inclusive of North and South America.
In English, globally, America refers to the USA. It is context dependent, but to describe the continents you would normally say "the Americas."
This distinction naturally annoys native Latin American Spanish speakers, especially because it is compounded by historical, geopolitical, and economic dynamics.
If someone chooses to be over-explicit in English, it's better to let it pass. Correcting the language can come off as dickish, especially when you consider the historical context. Additionally, the person on the other end is sometimes making this mistake on purpose, trolling for a pointless argument.
If it were up to me, I would add this topic to the list of things HN mods should ban.
People from those continents call themselves south americans or north americans. Just as you have european and asians, people don't call themselves eurasian.
Furthermore, both people from north and south america understand that american means a person from the USA. It doesn't refer to a person that may be from either one continent or the other. Also people don't call themselves western hemispherian or eastern hemispherian either.
What does African refer to? a person from Nigeria and Zimbabwe or also a person from Egypt or Algeria, or are they north-africans? Are algerian-americans african-americans?
Who is a 'new yorker', someone from manhattan, or new york city, or new york state?
Not all countries see North America and South America as 2 continents. Rather, they're regions of a single continent called America, like South Asia is a region of Asia.
There's more to education than the US-American perspective.
*/
Consulting with people's opinions in the Spanish-speaking world really does not matter, because they're still wrong. The Darién Gap physically separates North and South America.
There's a better argument that Eurasia is a single continent, than there is North and South America.
Whatever your personal criteria on what a continent is, historical convention bears more weight. You yourself recognize this if, despite your criteria, you're not willing to correct other people and tell them that Europe and Asia are not continents.
America was first a single continent. That's why it's not "The United States of North America" nor "The United States of the Americas". "America" in "USA" refers to the New World, like it continues to do today in the Spanish-speaking world.
Only out of ignorance of where they landed, and what it was. As we learned more this evolved, at least it did in the Anglosphere. No one was ever ignorant of the fact that Europe and Asia were one. That's a very different historical origin as to why each is divided and referred to as they are today.
It would be like naming all bodies of water the Atlantic, at one point that would have been accepted. It would not only be wrong, it would also be as culturally imperialistic to do to everyone else as forcing North and South America to be 'America'.
This is the first map of the New World, and at the time I would have agreed that America would have made sense.
> It would not only be wrong, it would also be as culturally imperialistic to do to everyone else as forcing North and South America to be 'America'.
That logic is kind of backwards.
To probably almost all of South America and a good portion of North America, their continent has been named "America" since before the U.S. was born. There isn't any forcing, since that's already how it is and always has been.
If anything, from that perspective, it's the taking of the term "American" by one country to the exclusion of others and then denying the existence of the single continent from which their own name is derived what can seem "culturally imperialistic".
> Only out of ignorance of where they landed, and what it was. As we learned more this evolved, at least it did in the Anglosphere. No one was ever ignorant of the fact that Europe and Asia were one. That's a very different historical origin as to why each is divided and referred to as they are today.
My point was that you care about geological definitions of continents only with regards to America. With Europe and Asia, you're willing to accept their being defined as separate continents because of historical reasons.
If I look up geological continents right now[1], Eurasia is a single continent and Australia and Zealandia are separate. Yet, the U.S. doesn't recognize the continents of the world like that. That's picking and choosing where you care about geology. It's kind of hypocritical.
In the end, continents, at least in everyday speech, is determined a good bit more from history rather than geological features, because people identify themselves from them, and historically America has always been a single continent, at least for likely most of its inhabitants.
//If anything, from that perspective, it's the taking of the term "American" by one country to the exclusion of others and then denying the existence of the single continent from which their own name is derived what can seem "culturally imperialistic".
You have a very imperial hispanic perspective as far as I can tell. The natives in present-day Canada didn't know if South America was even there or who the Incans were.
Your description of North and South America being 'America' is the imposition of hispanic imperialism on Anglo-America and the natives. I don't find this acceptable as that is unjust.
//Yet, the U.S. doesn't recognize the continents of the world like that. That's picking and choosing where you care about geology. It's kind of hypocritical.
I don't impose my Anglo views on Eurasia as you are upon me. I've only made strong statements about my own continent. You do have strong views on Europe and Asia, and I doubt they appreciate hispanic imperialism either.
//and historically America has always been a single continent, at least for likely most of its inhabitants.
You keep repeating this but it doesn't make it true. There are no records that the Inuit ever knew about the Incans, but assuming they did, do you have records indicating they considered them part of the same continent? I think in absence of such records, we can assume they would be sensible people that would agree with the North and South American distinction. As they are not a part of the world that lives within their heads an era of peak hispanic imperialism such as 1492.
> Your description of North and South America being 'America' is the imposition of hispanic imperialism on Anglo-America and the natives. I don't find this acceptable as that is unjust.
This first sentence seems unintelligible. You had already agreed that the Anglosphere saw America as a single continent. Here's your quote:
> Only out of ignorance of where they landed, and what it was. As we learned more this evolved, at least it did in the Anglosphere.
What does hispanic-imperialism have to do with anything? Angloamericans adopted the term of their own accord, at least as far back as the American Revolution. The Spanish Empire no longer exists. I don't think any country that was subject to it want anything to do with empires.
> You do have strong views on Europe and Asia
I don't. You're the one that brought them up:
> There's a better argument that Eurasia is a single continent.
I've been pointing you on how you're willing to ignore your own argument:
> I don't impose my Anglo views on Eurasia [...]
You respect their own denomination, rightly so, but then you don't do the same for hispanoamericans. I can quote you on this, too. Here's the very first thing you said:
> This is not true, as there is no continent called ‘America’.
Then when shown that hispanoamericans continue to use the original meaning of "America":
> Consulting with people's opinions in the Spanish-speaking world really does not matter, because they're still wrong.
Whatever happened to "I don't impose my Anglo views"? That's what you've been doing from your first comment. At first, it was probably just ignorance, but from the above you really just give lower regard. I've pretty much lost hope of you being able to see your double-standard. This is my third attempt.
> I've only made strong statements about my own continent.
As have I. I don't find it acceptable nor just for you to say that my people's opinion on what our own continent is "does not matter".
> As they are not a part of the world that lives within their heads an era of peak hispanic imperialism such as 1492.
Right, we daydream to be recolonized. /s
Based on your language and attempt to give this a ridiculous imperialism spin, when it's just about respecting other peoples' demonyms, I don't continue to believe you're engaging this conversation in good faith.
//You had already agreed that the Anglosphere saw America as a single continent. Here's your quote:
That was a misreading. That was not the Anglosphere that saw it as a single continent. That was the hispanic imperialists. They declared it what it was in their mind.
//The Spanish Empire no longer exists.
Yes, but Latin American imperialism still exists. Whenever their views are imposed upon others, such as others that live here as well. I am in the US and British / German origin myself, and feel we have the right to self-government and our own choices. We shouldn't have Latin America's perspectives forced on us like this, they already did this to the natives, and are now forcing their view of 'America' on sovereign nations that are from a different cultural background.
//You respect their own denomination, rightly so, but then you don't do the same for hispanoamericans.
This is different, I'm not forcing my views on others. I'm saying they are wrong, but I don't go into Spanish speaking venues and impose my view on North vs South America on everyone there.
In fact, my wife is from Latin America and I even speak some Spanish myself. While I stand against cultural imperialism in all forms, I could go around like this on non-Anglosphere, non-English speaking platforms and tell everyone they're wrong, but I would not.
//Then when shown that hispanoamericans continue to use the original meaning of "America":
Yes, original, if we accept Cortez, Pizarro, and Columbus's definition. But that's all it is. The imperialist view.
//I've pretty much lost hope of you being able to see your double-standard. This is my third attempt.
I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying, trying to trip me up. My stance is clear: the Anglo view is North and South America are two distinct continents. We view a single 'America' as hispanic imperialism attenpting to culturally dominate us since we are in the minority in this part of the world.
The English speaking and native Americans have common cause here.
//I don't find it acceptable nor just for you to say that my people's opinion on what our own continent is "does not matter".
But it doesn't from our perspective. The difference is I'm not approaching English-speaking forums like this one and telling people they are wrong while promoting the imperialist perspective.
//I don't continue to believe you're engaging this conversation in good faith.
I am, you just don't like what I'm saying. Of course many in the Anglosphere feel Hispanic imperialism every day. Our (two of thirty-five) nations among the Americas are already being attacked by endless waves of hispanic immigration, and now we are to adopt their views. I explained it best when I said I could go into Spanish speaking venues, as this is an English speaking one, and argue with people over this too. THAT is imperialism in action. I hope this makes what I've been trying to say clear.
> you burn basically the same number of calories per day sitting on your butt as you do being quite physically active
Can you provide more evidence for this, because it sounds entirely bogus. Perhaps you mean one's base metabolic rate? If you are physically active, you will consume more calories than sitting all day - because, you know, you are exerting yourself.
Also, an anthropology professor is not a credible source on diet, exercise, fitness and health.
HN is not the place to discuss diet, exercise, fitness, or health. Every thread is the same: the human body ackchuwally runs on magic. Diet is really, really complicated. In fact, nobody burns calories at all. The body just does it's own thing. Watch this Youtube video about it. They quote an anthropologist.
People tend to lose weight from dieting, not exercise. Unless you're training for a marathon or something, even vigorous exercise tends to burn so few calories that an hour at the gym can be erased with a single trip to McDonald's.
Probably accurate. The amount of exercise needed for effect is less than a hour per day (less than 30 minutes if intensive) but this is a not done by most.
What kind of reference is a "Kurzgesagt" video please? Not only has the this channel been in more controversies than needed, they seem to also spread missinformation
Someone already linked the actual research in this post thread a few hours before you responded, which you willfully ignored just to.. try to score some cheap contrarian points?
I'm not going to engage with that, go troll somewhere else. Bye :)
Invent a format? How about, "The system overview has been illustrated in images/system-overview.png"
We use markdown because it is plaintext and accessible. Oh, but you have to convert it yourself. How? Well every project is different but I'm sure you can find a Makefile somewhere in the project. Good luck!
Again, the point again is that markdown is not readable alone.
If it is, then a .txt is strictly superior. If it is not, then never, ever, present it as the final product. Always ship the generated artifacts. The only point you want to actually see the .md file is if you want to make changes to it. Is making changes the primary usecase for your markdown files? I'm going to assume, no.
Basically, intelligent behavior is optimizing for "future asymptotic entropy" vs maximizing any immediate value. How intelligent a system is then become a measure of how far in the future it can model and optimize entropy effectively for.
