Just throwing in my anecdata, used to be a late riser (often after ten), had a kid and now I wake up a bit after six. Sleeping in is after eight. I just have to get up when he does.
If I had to guess, I'd wonder if school conventionally starts early because pre-teens are up early.
Well, eventually, when that computer has sophisticated software and all the appropriate sensors. An array of optical sensors that you ignore anyway won't really cut it.
Personally I suspect a lot of the diehard adherents to gas cooking haven't had a chance to cook with a modern glass top resistance or induction stove. IMO the difference has shrunk dramatically.
Water heaters too, electrics have improved and the operating cost difference is really not that big. Electric water heaters might also be extremely valuable for demand response.
When it comes to space heating in cold climates though, I don't really know what replaces natural gas. Probably air source heat pumps, but they are still maturing.
Trees are quiet good at scattering RF mostly do to the water in them, their density of leaves/needles and the random orientation that they grow in. This leads to significant attenuation of the signal even if it isn't absorbed by anything. It's also worth noting that dried wood is almost RF transparent.
I don't know what the proper term is, but there's a certain trust of necessity at play. You have to pick some OS vendor to trust, or at least trust more than the others, because you need an OS.
> There is normally no advantage to consuming more than 0.82g/lb (1.8g/kg) of protein per day to preserve or build muscle for natural trainees. This already includes a mark-up, since most research finds no more benefits after 0.64g/lb.
Yeah, 3.3g/kg is really high, and I don't see how you could get there without living on shakes. From that examine.com article:
Eating more than 2.6 g/kg (1.18 g/lb) is probably not going to lead to greater muscle gains, but it can minimize fat gains when “bulking” — i.e., when eating above maintenance in order to gain (muscle) weight.
IMO while protein is needed for muscle building, recommendations like 3.3g/kg (I've even seen recommendations of 4.4g/kg) come from a "more is always better" mentality, along with a pop culture obsession with protein.
Personally, a simple flat 100g seems both a reasonable & attainable goal for most regular people building muscle without requiring exceptional diets (here I fall back on naturalism- I cannot believe that exceptional diets are required to get fit). You can easily hit that number with 1/4-1/3lb of meat a day plus whole grains and vegetables.
Since higher protein intakes seem to have no negative effects in healthy people, one may want to err toward the higher amounts.
I haven't seen anything over 3.3g/kg recommended anywhere, and most people seem to recommend 1.4-2g/kg as a good baseline amount. The ISSN recommends this (see here: http://stevenlow.org/issn-position-statements-protein-and-ex...), however the ISSN does recommend higher amounts when losing weight:
Higher protein intakes (2.3–3.1 g/kg/d) may be needed to maximize the retention of lean body mass in resistance-trained subjects during hypocaloric periods.
Of course, none of this is required to get fit - you don't need to do the optimal thing to get a basic result. But you'll definitely gain lean mass faster if you do follow this. Those recommendations for weight gain (say 2g/kg with a caloric surplus) is easy to achieve with no supplementation and normal food, at least for an omnivore - vegans may have to work harder to get there.
IIRC, for healthy kidneys this amount should not be an issue, slightly more per lb shouldn't be either.
I'm not sure what weight training communities you refer to, but in bodybuilding and strength circles amounts that high and higher aren't often considered "way overkill".
Anywhere between 0.75-1.25g/lb is where I shoot for, depending on my goals. But I have gone higher than 2g/lb for extended periods of time in the past
You are correct. The whole “beware of protein” narrative is completely wrong-headed. People here would likely be astounded by how much protein strength athletes eat with nothing but positive health effects.
It's really more like a balance narrative. Hit reasonable ratios of protein, fats, and carbs.
High protein, low fat, low carb, low protein, high carb, high fat- collectively we've tried them all through one fad or another.
Currently IMO we're in a blowback period where we are seeing high carb is not panning out and many people are still afraid of fat, so protein is the next savior in line.
It simply distributes those costs to users. For the users perspective, it's free (zero additional cost) assuming they already own a computer and pay for monthly flat rate unmetered internet.
For example, in 2016 a friend of mine and I made an electron app called WebTorrent Desktop. It has over a million downloads. The total bandwidth transfer so far is probably a lot--wild guess, maybe a few million dollars worth?
But it is free and open source and costs roughly $0 to run--just enough to keep the website up. That's the magic of decentralization--you're simply writing software. You're not running a service.
--
Consider the total monthly internet bill of all Twitter users combined. Extremely rough guess, 500 mil montly actives * $40/mo for Comcast or something = $20b per month.
The crowd has more than enough bandwidth, disk space, and CPU cycles to run services at any scale. That's another magical aspect of dapps: the total resources available to the system automatically scale with the number of users. It's up to us to figure out how to harness it.
