Podcasting. He has a trivia-type show called “lateral”.

There was buycott. I dont think it’s been developed for 10 years now.

Soup is about just throwing in whatever you have. Generally, if there’s some kind of a meat/bones, gelatin will give the broth body. If it’s more of a bean or potato situation, you may need to pull a portion out, mash it up, and add it back in to give body. You could also temper some eggs and add them in.

If you dont have gelatin or something starchy, you can add a cornstarch slurry to thicken it. If you have a really thin broth, it won’t taste right even if it would otherwise be really tasty. Taste is an amalgamation of senses, and texture is part of that.

Acidity definitely helps soups. Brothy beans are great with a little vinegar, some soups are good with lemon, etc.

I’ve asked the same question before for small scale at home surplus.

For a small/medium grid like a whole island, it’s easier. You generally know ahead of time when there is going to end up being a surplus, so you can let storage get low preemptively. This includes batteries, pumped hydro, heating water, heating/cooling homes, etc.

If that’s not enough, you can run some high energy cost things that dont have to run all the time like desalination or electrolysis.

There aren’t always. There are plenty of places that pay teachers well. The problem is that the qualifications for a school that pays really well are pretty much the same as the qualifications for a school that doesn’t. Schools that pay well have 1,000 applications and never any vacancies, so new teachers have a hard time finding a well paying job. Public school employee salaries are public information, so you can actually look them up.

Average teacher salaries in Massachusetts dont look bad to me. https://profiles.doe.mass.edu/statereport/teachersalaries.aspx

Obviously, it’s not universal.

In America (and i fear this has spread to other countries), people like Mary Pride have pushed for homeschooling in addition to basically starting the quiverful movement.

The idea is, you keep kids out of school so they are only allowed to learn your far right views, and you have as many kids as possible so you can 1) force the woman to stay at home and 2) have older kids forced to parent and teach younger kids.

You then involve the kids in politics as early as possible so by the time they are adults, they have already made inroads to working with far right politicians.

Some of those kids end up a certain version of smart, but the priorities are different. They might heavily focus on speech debate, both from a religious and a political point of view. On the “good” end of the spectrum, the kids end up truly charismatic and persuasive, and on the “bad” end, it’s basically tiny ben shapiros who just gish gallop you at any chance they get.

Often, but not always, girls are completely neglected since “they only need to learn how to run a home”. Oftentimes kids are abused, and homeschooling is a way to hide that from authorities.

To contrast with all of this, I think there situations where we should be more flexible with homeschooling. If a parent has expertise in a topic, they should be able to cover like a couple classes or something. I knew homeschooling kids who came to public school for a class or two, but I didn’t know any kids who were homeschooling for a class or two.

People in this thread are saying it’s dumb to think you can teach better than a teacher, but if it’s between 1:1 tutoring and being in a class of 30, you have a big step up.

Personally, I found math classes trivially easy basically up until i was like 17. Math classes till then mostly just focused on teaching how to accurately and repeatably do all the things that calculators do perfectly. I could rant about how math is taught a lot, but I won’t. If I had 1 on 1 teaching on a more diverse range of math topics, I could have learned way more. We should be helping parents/kids do that if they can.

Organizations like the homeschool legal defense association basically exist to protect child abusers.

Reading theory ≠ being highly competent, though. Dunning Kruger states that people with low competence (in specific areas) overestimate themselves, and highly competent people underestimate themselves.

Reading doesnt necessarily make you better at things (though obviously it can help). A community organizer that’s been feeding the hungry for 40 years but has never read a political book will be more competent than someone who’s read hundreds of books but never gone out and done stuff.

It’s definitely a thing in American schools, but i think it’s common in some other countries as well.

When learning another language, the options are to: 1) use your real name with the real pronunciation, 2) real name with different pronunciation, 3) equivalent of name in other language (e.g., John to Juan), 4) just pick a name you like in the other language.

1 doesnt flow well in speech, 2 also feels unnatural, and sometimes isnt possible, and 3 doesnt always exist. Kids also generally like the opportunity to pick a name that they think is cool. There’s no expectation that you would use that name in a real life discussion with someone in that language.

Looks like it’s common in China as well. https://ans-names.pitt.edu/ans/article/view/2535

Strongly agree. Everyone has a perspective, and even exclusively presenting objective facts will still be biased due to what is included and what is excluded.

As an example of someone who handles this well, I’d recommend Layne Norton. He’s a fitness/physiology/diet communicator. He has a PhD in it (which by itself doesnt prove much), but he is very careful in every video to only make supported claims, and he clearly states when he is only giving opinion.

For example, he will point that understanding a single mechanism doesnt tell you the whole story, so you need randomized, doubled blind, placebo controlled human trials (and preferably many), to really understand something.

That’s something that so many influencers in that field get wrong. They’ll talk about a single study that looked at the effects of a plant on a certain metabolic pathway in a petri dish, and use that to recommend people take it as a supplement. This ignores the obvious possibility that in vivo results wouldn’t match in vitro, and that the pathway they discovered isnt completely overshadowed by a different pathway with the opposite effect.

He has a few biases/conflicts of interest, which are explicitly mentioned in pretty much every video: he sells supplements, he invests in a protein bar company, and his PhD research was funded by the beef and dairy industries.

Yeah, this is really the answer. Over and over and over again, it’s clear that the policy of his regime has always been to “flood the zone”.

Every single week, they do something unique and so heinous that it would have ended any prior administration. They can keep things from sticking by just continuing to do stuff like that and get popular focus on a new thing. The people that should be able to keep them accountable legally are similarly overwhelmed.

Greenland was probably never a serious thing for the regime, it just had to serve a purpose of keeping their opponents busy. It’s the political equivalent of a gish gallop.

Assuming you mean in the US, there is a national system called NICS that basically has the FBI run a background check. Some states have additional systems to augment that.

The conditions that get you put into the “no” list are things like committing a felony, domestic violence, drug use, etc. Being committed (against their will) to a mental institution is on that list. A mental institution would have to report you with evidence to get you added to the list. Potentially, he could ask his psychiatrist to do that for him. It may not be an option, but if you brother is worried himself, that is good evidence, I think.

When you buy a gun, you have to check boxes on a form to say you aren’t a felon, addicted to drugs, a fugitive, etc. They can check the felon and fugitive part, so if you lie, you get in big trouble. Drugs, though, they obviously dont have a list, so really it’s just a way to add penalties if they can later prove that you lied (e.g., hunter biden). You couldn’t just do a drug and automatically pop onto a list.

Hormone imbalances can’t overcome thermodynamics. In people with hypothyroidism, the set point of their resting metabolic rate is lower, leading to fatigue and often being too cold.

So it’s not that they gain weight despite a deficit, it’s that a deficit for them would be less calories than someone with more activity who isnt cold all the time.

In a perfect world, calorie needs match with hunger, so with decreased calorie needs, you would naturally eat less, but it’s not always perfect so some people with hypothyroidism have “normal” hunger when they actually need less food. It ends up with 1/4-1/2 of people with hypothyroidism experiencing weight gain.

In addition to failing kidneys, stuff that messes with the lymphatic system. Everyone’s cells and bloodstream is slightly leaky, and whatever leaks out gets picked up by the lymphatic system, filtered through lymph nodes, and returned to the circulatory system. A break in that chain due to injury/disease can cause fluid to accumulate upstream. Look up elephantitis.

Also, liver/heart failure can create ascites, which is fluid accumulation inside the abdomen (looks more like pregnancy belly than obesity belly).

Similarly, malnutrition in kids in poor areas often results in kwashiorkor, which makes them have big bellies but really skinny arms and legs. Its basically a protein deficiency from eating only corn or whatever.

That’s mostly a step up in water weight, but it doesnt keep increasing.

Unironically, yes. Lots of off the shelf diet pills are literally just caffeine pills (e.g., hydroxycut). Old school diet pills were literally amphetamines before governments made it so you couldnt get them off the shelf (e.g., obetrol), and technically you can still get it prescribed (desoxyn is methamphetamine).

The problem is, a normal dose of caffeine just makes you a little warmer, and burn a little bit of extra calories, but amphetamines and especially 2,4-Dinitrophenol (other banned weight loss drug) can literally cook you by making you burn so many extra calories.

By definition, that wouldn’t be a deficit. You could have a “predicted” calorie deficit that ends up being off by some percentage. The models for energy expenditure typically just use pretty simple demographic info like BMI, sex, age, and activity level. If someone burned less calories than predicted, that basically means that they are less fit than the average person of their demographic cohort.

You could use more advanced models with more information, but they would still be predictions. Drugs also come into play: uppers like caffeine, nicotine, amphetamines, etc, increase the amount of activity in your body so you are literally warmer from burning more calories, everything else equal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floater

Singh and Kaur for males and females, respectively, if I understand right.

Some nicknames converge from different starting points, too. Teddy is also short for Theodore, etc.