Not sure if you remember me but we talked about Lean Designs many years back (back then it was called jMockups). Excited to this next step for you! Congrats and good luck!
It turns out there are really only 3-4 different temperatures I use normally, and this allows you to switch between them. I also use the Hue timers so I frankly don't need to use this that often, but it's nice to be able to switch between both scenes and brightness levels without pulling out my phone (edit: and more importantly so people who aren't me can control the lights if they need).
It's not a perfect solution: there are still some annoyances with people forgetting to leave the main switch on and only use the mounted remote, but overall I am very happy with this system.
>It's not a perfect solution: there are still some annoyances with people forgetting to leave the main switch on
I use light switch covers. They just screw on over the switch, and have one side open so you can manually manipulate it if you want, but it prevents accidental state changes.
N=1, maybe people aren't experiencing the same thing, but I was hoping to move all my whatsapp chats over to Signal and never expected anyone to care because I've watched the internet do it's thing for the last 10 years. Much to my surprise someone else suggested it and within 30 minutes all of my groups had moved over and with very little loss of membership. I was shocked at how quickly things moved, including my parents in my family groups, and how willing non-tech people were to move. YMMV, but it may not. Give it a shot.
> "Generation Kill" by Evan Wright which was turned into a mini-series on HBO)
I haven't read the book but I've seen the miniseries many times, it is one of my favorites. It has a TON of great lessons about how large groups of people organize themselves and how the individuals within those groups behave and why that are very pertinent to tech and management in general.
I have read the book simultaneously with Nathaniel Fick's book to get two versions and styles. Funny thing, Fick's story about a picture in a news outlet changes: sometimes it's his girlfriend, and sometimes it's his mom who tells him something along the lines of "Thank god you're not involved in that" about a photograph of Marines going on a mission to Pakistan.
>how the individuals within those groups behave and why that are very pertinent to tech and management in general.
One anecdote is Staff Sergeant Eric Kocher talking about Gunnery Sgt. Ray 'Casey Kasem' Griego being a nightmare when he was helping "Encino Man", but great when his job was training them for the second tour. This is a reminder that a person in different contexts can act differently and have different "performances". Similar to "Wartime Churchill vs. Peacetime PM Churchill"
I wonder if this has to do with getting less blue light. After I started using flux I found myself getting exhausted and unable to focus after around 3-4pm especially in the winter. Bumping flux back to only after work made a huge, noticeable difference for me. Might be a similar effect with bright vs. dark screen.
I don't think it's subconscious. It shows up obviously in bezel thickness and radius of corners. When they release a new product the bezel is thick and the corners are very round. As they are able to reduce the bezel size, they also reduce the rounding of the corners. This has the effect of making the last generation look toy-like and the new generation look more serious. They have used this pattern for like 20 years across many product lines.
I don't mean to be negative but this is another useless nutrition paper. It shows effects we already know about, and it doesn't show them in more convincing ways than previous studies, and it then it misinterprets the relevance of these results for a headline.
You can't get anything useful if you focus the entire window on the post prandial. The body is complex and caloric balancing is not a simple thing. Studies that focus on appropriate (24 hrs+) periods of time never measure any difference. Not only that their own study showed that:
> Low-calorie breakfast increased feelings of hunger (P < .001), specifically appetite for sweets (P = .007), in the course of the day.
So for many people who don't eat a large breakfast your compliance is going to be impacted. Anyone familiar with nutritional science will tell you that compliance is a much bigger deal than eeking out tiny theoretical shifts in calories by shifting meal times, which even if you could prove were real would absolutely not be worth it if it broke your overall compliance.
Outside of that, this isn't a novel finding. We already have small pilot studies showing this stuff that have the same problems. Repeated science is often underrated, but these results are uncontroversial, they are just over interpreted and old.
> Extensive breakfasting should therefore be preferred over large dinner meals to prevent obesity and high blood glucose peaks even under conditions of a hypocaloric diet.
Like, sorry, no that's absolutely not a fair conclusion of these results. It's just not.
> I don't mean to be negative but this is another useless nutrition paper. It shows effects we already know about
So I'm going to put you in the "nay" camp regarding the importance of reproducibility[0] in science? Kind of funny that half the time nutritional science gets criticized because it isn't reproduced/reproducible enough and the other half because it is "useless" to reproduce the same findings. Cannot win.
Did you read my entire comment? Feel like I addressed this here:
> We already have small pilot studies showing this stuff that have the same problems. Repeated science is often underrated, but these results are uncontroversial, they are just over interpreted and old.
In general I am strongly in favor of reproducing science, this study doesn't really test anything helpful for either outcome though.
To add to your comment, they measure calorie expenditure throughout the day but seemingly stop collecting data throughout the night (23:00 to 7:00). Their conclusion that breakfast is better isn't because they compared the data from the day to night, but because they didn't have any data throughout the night.
Maybe I'm stretching this, but I want more calorie expenditure while I'm sleeping and having the highest amount of somatotropin in my body so it can mobilize proteins and facilitate healing.
Your compliance point is salient. I can recommend every single therapy in the book, but getting a patient to take a drug let alone at the correct time and correct dosage to maintain therapeutic index, is an art.
Exactly, this stuff needs to be monitored either intensely for 24 hours (or maybe even longer), or periodically for longer periods of time (days, weeks, months). What they did doesn't really give us useful data other than "directionally this is an area for more investigation."
Agree. I’ve been doing TRF for a couple years now by skipping breakfast. I’ve had great results and compliance is relatively easy. Even if there are some additional benefits by skipping dinner instead, I would never to be able to remain complaint.
With that said, my largest meal of the is usually lunch, and it’s the meal I’ll include carbs if I’m including them that day. Dinner is usually protein and veggies.
I got the idea somewhere that it makes a huge difference if you engage in 20 minutes or so of light activity after every meal rather than sitting or lying down. Some paper even suggested it makes a significant difference in calories burned, not because the exercise burns a lot of calories per se, but because it keeps your body in a mode of processing food reasonably quickly in order to be prepared for physical activity.
> Anyone familiar with nutritional science will tell you that compliance is a much bigger deal than eeking out tiny theoretical shifts in calories by shifting meal times, which even if you could prove were real would absolutely not be worth it if it broke your overall compliance.
Hear, hear. It's like with reducing our carbon footprint by becoming vegetarian vs just reducing meat consumption - the former is more often than not abandoned after a few years.
Part (or the whole?) of the problem is the amplifier isn't reaching the "rest" of the country, but rather selectively isolating who does and does not receive the message. Newspapers were visible to all. When I pick up a broadsheet to read I know that I'm choosing a particular source of information; and choosing not to read a different source. But I'm aware that there are other newspapers and that knowledge influences how I weigh what I read compared to what other people are reading.
Two people who live near each other, work together, shop at the same stores, send their children to the same school, et al, will have completely different experiences when they go on the internet. And each person's experience is hidden from the other, so there is no way for one person to get a glimpse of how the other is seeing their news. That means if those two people were to talk to each other about what they've seen on the internet, they will be confounded by the lack of common experience. What shared experiences exist are likely banal topics such as sports or movies. Each person will be convinced that their knowledge is the dominant viewpoint because it's the majority of the things they find on the web. It's the other guy who is missing the big picture.
Instead of me choosing the newspaper. It's the newspaper choosing me.
Right, and my point is this is the exact same argument the church, and other centralized publishing powers at the time, made about the printing press:
Imagine there being competing interpretations of God? How could we form a community? Wont people have completely different experiences in life if they don't have the same experience with God? If we let someone get exposed to the "bad media" before they are exposed to the "good media" how will they ever know what the "good media" is? Can someone please think of the children?
It turns out not a lot of people are actually in favor of freedom when push comes to shove.
Right, all this hysteria about tech companies' irresponsibility is simply "how dare you give the average person an easier route to expressing themselves and connecting to each other". Hell, it might not even be wrong that this is a bad thing[1], but the discourse around it is so dishonest.
[1] There's long been a place in political philosophy for acknowledging that it's possible for the masses to have too much direct power
Except news isn't religion. The fake news sources will have you believe that their lies are of equal stature as others' facts.
If you're talking about a central authority choosing what information people get to see, wouldn't that make Facebook and their algorithm the Church in this situation?
I think the actual problem isn’t the idiot (the issue isn’t that different from having access to a printing press a few years ago - in order to reach a considerable audience in both cases you would need a good amount of capital in the first place), the problem is the fact that it’s hard to tell for ad consumers if these ads are right or wrong, these ads are also shown inline with the usual flow of information they accept as true and that the users are rarely informed about how well targeted these ads are.
But misinformation in advertisements is illegal in many countries and so is misrepresenting information as actual information rather than it being ads.
Provable misinformation is legal, which is a much higher bar. That's why we'd consider it insane if someone took (legal) ads at face value and believed all their claims.
Not sure if you remember me but we talked about Lean Designs many years back (back then it was called jMockups). Excited to this next step for you! Congrats and good luck!