I definitely recommend it! Have to be very careful about staying safe, though. People don't take injuries seriously enough. But it's great exercise and very rewarding
Guitar: as a kid I just thought it'd be awesome to shred. Now I mostly play acoustic fingerstyle, but shred some. Interest has ebbed and flowed over the years, but been playing forever.
Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu: I wanted a challenge and to get good at something new. It's hard, but I like it and just keep coming back. Been doing it for a couple years and am a blue belt.
Hiking: did it as a kid, now I do it with my wife who pushes me to hike more than I would otherwise which is good
Tech stuff: coding, piracy, stuff like that. Dad was in IT and taught me to look for solutions with tech. Never stopped. I'm not a fantastic coder, but use it for work and also to solve personal challenges, enter piracy.
It's genuinely crazy to me that people don't use the OC. Not using it creates such a huge amount of needless ambiguity
I've seen many more coffee folks who have opinions ranging from "it doesn't taste different than the local coffee" to "it tastes downright bad". James Hoffmann has a good video on it: https://yewtu.be/watch?v=pkbuFwHnJQY
Primary thing seems to be the quality of the coffee cherries the civet eats. So if it's just force-fed coffee cherries, it'll be no better than normal coffee. If it gets to choose on it's own, naturally, then it may pick better coffee cherries and the coffee may be better - but not because of the digestive process, most likely.
The problem is that it doesn't actually taste good. It's the labor-intensive and "exotic" manufacturing process that makes the coffee so expensive, not its quality.
I didn't realize how cheap the big hdds had gotten. Definitely looking into 2 bays.
You might be right. The Synology products look really good. I didn't see that they actually have a sub-$400 4-bay NAS... DS423. Not sure if it'll meet my performance needs. But the $600 4 bay doesn't look too bad either really.
That isn't really how the judging worked though. First they had a huge panel of judges - 9 of them. And they judge them on 5 criteria: technique, vocabulary, execution, musicality, and originality. It is qualitative, but it's a comparative rating system with actual guidelines - so they each simply have to decide who did each thing better:
Maintaining physiological control while focusing on athleticism, form and spatial awareness.
The range of moves that display variation and the quantity of moves, ideally with minimal repetition.
The ability to land and perform moves smoothly, without falls or slips and while maintaining consistency and flow.
The ability to stay on beat, syncing movements to the rhythm of the music.
The capacity for improvisation, creativity and maintaining spontaneity with style and personality.
I don't think breaking necessarily needs to be in the olympics, but we're past the point of only allowing sports (looking at you, dressage) and we do have other artistic events (rhythmic gymanstics and synchro swimming). And, the scoring system for breaking was reasonable and able to determine valid winners.
Afaik the IOC did all the standard testing on her and didn't find any issues (no doping, normal testosterone levels, etc). Idk if they did a genetic sex test - I'd imagine that isn't standard. Is that correct? Regardless of the Russian-run boxing federation's intentions, I'd still trust the IOC's findings over theirs.
Plus, even if she was XXY or something, does that actually have any impact on athletic performance? I'd imagine not
Edi: yep. Looks like it is widely believed that having a y chromosome is unfair, but the science doesn't necessarily back that up.
"improved understanding about genetic factors that lead to selection in sport should offer reassurance that female athletes with hyperandrogenism do not possess any physical attribute relevant to athletic performance that is neither attainable, nor present in other women."
Fair enough! It can be a little harder to hit consistently in practice depending on the level of variety in your diet, if you go out occasionally, etc. In my opinion and personal experience, anyway. But that is a solid and reasonable meal plan without a doubt.
The raspberries example was more an example of if one were to "fibermax" as the kids will be saying in 20yrs. Trying to most efficiently achieve the RDA with the most fiber dense foods possible - not intended as an actual, reasonable diet.
Don't take the pills - the serving size on them is very misleading. You have to take a ton of them to have any effect. Gotta go with the powder.
Nothing wrong with supplementation! It's hard to eat that much fiber (even if your diet is good) due to the relatively low fiber density of most foods. We adapted to our food sources, not so much the other way around, and when we did adapt our food sources to us we were not thinking of maximizing fiber content - and we don't spend all day chewing on fibrous, foraged plants anymore. Plus, psyllium husk is a food. It'd be the same as eating a shitload of flax or something but with fewer calories.
For instance, raspberries are one of the most fiber dense foods at 8g fiber/100g of berries. You'd need to eat 568g to get your RDA of fiber. The avg person eats around 1.85kg of food daily - 30% of your diet by weight would need to be raspberries (one of the most fiber dense foods) to get enough fiber. Even moreso with other fiber-rich foods, like broccoli. You'd need 1.1kg of broccoli each day (8kg/week). The sheer bulk of that amount of food would be challenging for most people and just isn't practical.
Really well argued and explained, I hope people read and don't just reflexively downvote.