krellor

I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I can’t think of a single one of my kids story books that has ads. “Bear stays up for Christmas,” “llama llama nighty night,” and “if you give a mouse a cookie” amongst several dozen more come to mind that I don’t recall anything resembling an ad in.

Shows, yes, all the time.

Live mice would be pretty messed up.

Being an IT auditor is largely just working with spreadsheets, leverage your prior knowledge, and you are never on the hook for a feature release. If you are good at writing reports, spreadsheets, and meetings, you might give that a look.

My favorite IRS notices are the scary you owe us letters that always say somewhere in normal font “if you have already paid or started a payment plan you can disregard this notice.” Sometimes you can get those letters months after paying. To be fair, my taxes are complicated, but boy do they really need Congress to give them money to modernize their systems.

I remember buying mistmare on cd back in 2003. That thing was a broken mess of a game that crashed constantly, and no returns once you open the seal. Kids these days don’t know what a 1/10 game really is, lol. That game was so bad most of the (short) Wikipedia page on it is about it’s low scores, including a 0/10.

I suspect the people are also confusing percentile, like for standardized tests, and top % like this site uses.

But yeah, real big “if those kids could read they’d be very upset” energy with these posts, lol.

I mean, they have drones with saws for cutting tree limbs now. When you have a big problem, start by cutting it into smaller individual problems…

So it depends on the spell, but I think you are talking about summon nature’s ally. That allows you to give instructions to creatures who can understand, and they will fight to the best of their ability, but as a DM I wouldn’t interpret the spell as written to include suicide.

But even then, a good DM doesn’t put a tarrasque into play and have it sit there and die. Once it realizes it is getting damaged and can’t retaliate, it can burrow from we whence it came, etc.

So I think most of the strategies involve weak roleplay from the DM, munchkin builds, liberties with the rules, or both.

Even then, actually killing the tarrasque requires a wish spell, which is not something that a 9th level druid can do.

Yeah, I ran campaigns from first through 3.5, never really played 4th or 5th. I’m curious how 3.5 tarrasque is easy to beat with anything other than broken munchkin builds from conflicting source materials that no sane DM would allow, or would be reserved for epic level campaigns. Like sure, when you get to a point where you can casually cast things like hellball, then things like the tarrasque might be easy. But at that point you will be doing the tango with the outer realm creatures and Demi gods.

Muscle mass burns more calories at rest but the effect is very slight. Eating back any calories from exercise will absolutely outweigh any slight change in base total energy expenditure.

Focus first of what you eat, then sustainable exercise, then specific tuning of both.

Like the other person said, getting the ratio and amount is more important than the source. But you should ask yourself why you are taking the supplement? Are you sure you’re not getting enough from your food? Your body can really only prices 20-40 grams of protein at once, so if you are loading up more than that at a time, you are just piking on calories.

Personally, depending on your current weight, you might think about focusing more on weight loss than bulking muscle mass. Absolutely work out of it is helpful, but don’t worry about mass gains while trying to lose fat. You will develop muscles regardless of whether you micromanage your protein intake or not, and you can optimize better after losing some fat.

But again, you need to check, with, and measure the calories in every portion of food until you develop an accurate read on the calories in things. Like peanut butter having about 100 calories per tablespoon (half ounce).

I’ve read through your comments, and highly suggest a food diary for at least a couple weeks ago you really understand the calories in things you are eating.

Yes, your body does modulate its resting metabolic rate over the long term based on things like average daily exertion, food, etc, but that is largely inconsequential to weight loss.

As a rough guideline, you want about 50% of your calories to be carbs, preferably the fiber or complex variety, 30-35% protein, and the rest fat. If you run a lot, then a few more carbs. If you lift weights a lot, then a little more protein.

Protein will help you feel fuller, longer, so I like to go my ratio of protein a bit.

Meals that I enjoy: steal cut oats and peanut butter, pan seared tofu with salad and a light dressing, bean chilli, tacos or tostados using those low carb tortillas, bowl of rice, refried beans, salsa, and guac, etc

But you really, really need to have a good understanding of portions and actual calories. Most people are way off.

Edit: also, some fasting cardio, like a good brisk walk or jog in the morning before eating anything can help accelerate things. But don’t fall into the trap of eating back the calories you burn.

Devil’s advocate: being serious for years and nothing really stuck. Trivializing him by calling them weird seems to be working. Maybe taking the piss out of them is the better messaging to get the broad electorate to think less of him. 🤷‍♂️

My very first comment was in reply to someone who called the NYT headline a lie, and I said that just isn’t true. Subsequently, I said that I think reasonable people can disagree about the quality of the headline, but it was factually correct. I e., the headline is that Vance made a claim, which is objectively true. Then, in the body of the article, they share quotes from interviews with Watz’s former unit members that refute Vance’s claim.

I don’t know know why or how NYT chooses the exact composition of their headlines or what aspects of a story to highlight, but personally as a regular times reader and subscriber, I didn’t read the headline as giving credence to Vance, and found the article very strongly supportive of Watz’s position.

But barring something like a released federal record showing a request for out processing, it still boils down to statements of individuals, which is probably why the times doesn’t directly refute Vance’s claim as false, and instead leans on interviews from the unit and other circumstantial details to refute the claim, because they haven’t had time to authoritatively establish that. They often circle back to such things once they have had a chance to do so, and include it in summary fact checks throughout the political cycle.

If we’re going that route you may as well take issue with the word “average” instead of using mean, median, or mode. Because the lack of specificity there is even greater than leaving off the age modifier.

But the whole thing is a weird pedantic exercise anyway. They are reporting using the standard models in a way that makes sense to the reader.

Did you read the NYT article in question?

The NYT interviewed members from the unit who corroborated Watz’s claim that he decided to run for Congress before deployment orders came through. The leg work I’ve described in this thread was presenting an account of events that contradicted Vance’s claim that he intentionally avoided deployment.

I’m absolutely baffled by some of the responses I’ve gotten, lol.

Yeah, I think that’s a fair headline given the facts.

The defacto standard for economists recording and reporting average and median net worth has been to bucket it by age cohort for at least the last seventy years. Using common meanings of the terms isn’t baiting and switching it intending to deceive or bury the lede.

Not really. To do a cross generational comparison, you would look at average wealth of 18-25 year olds in the 80’s to compare it to today’s cohort in that age bracket to show age adjusted disparity. But comparing the average 60 year old to an 18 year old doesn’t mean much when one has had 42 more working years and the other has greater future earning potential.

Of course it’s age adjusted. What good does it do to compare accumulated wealth between a 60 year old and an 18 year old?