Avatar
Elephant in the root
6e77f4f3c9995e0887d02dc95b39692f58641ed5b073972ef86cd6b61ecc6bae
Poisonous anti-plantist, anti-fungist, anti-shitcoinist, anti-governmentalist, anti-wokist, anti-bullshitist.

I just wanted to tag you that you need to read this 😂

Instant settlement on government shitcoin could be handy sometimes if we're forced to use it anyway.

The way I understand it, one of the best strategies known is to force feed yourself for about two weeks at the beginning. Then stop forcing and eat only when hungry and until you're full. If you desire other foods it's a hunger signal. If the meat doesn't taste good it's fullness signal. If the meat doesn't taste good but you have hunger pangs anyway it's wrong fat to protein ratio. Most likely not enough fat.

Don't force-fast. Naturally not eating when you don't feel hungry is fine. If you do feel hungry it's not OK to skip meal. And about twice a year make a force feed day to double check if your body has sufficient nutrition. If it does you wil lnaturally skip next meal. If not you'll be hungry again.

This should give you baseline of what true carnivore is for you. Once you get used to it you can consider adding some plants. One by one, so you understand what exactly they are doing to you. I'm not "religious perfectionist", I do eat plants occasionally but I know well what I'm getting into. So I totally get that you want to eat other things. Just knowing which are horrible and which not is very useful. My guess is keto could work for you great as a base and adding other stuff from time to time. I think that long enough recovery period allows for some plants in sensible amounts. It's just chronic eating of plants that is horribly destructive.

Regarding Dr. Berry, he's a married man with kids, job, a youtube channel and a farm. I'm not surprised he doesn't have much time to comment on posts of people he doesn't even know. It's good enough that he reads them I got a few likes from him.

Replying to Avatar Juraj

I have a podcast. Well, three podcasts, but who's counting. But I do it specifically for niche audience. I don't do things like publishing an episode regularly (weekly). I have an episode when I have something to say or an interesting guest. And when I have time and I'm in a mood. I've done over 100 episodes so far. There are no advertisements for hardware wallets, VPNs, or probiotics. I do occasionally have a referral.

But this is interesting. I've been playing with YouTube monetization. My reach was just enough to apply for YouTube's monetization features. At that time about half of the listeners used YouTube to listen.

I'm also publishing RSS feed with value tags for a long time now.

YouTube's monetization: annoying for audience unless they block ads or buy YouTube premium. And I have never made the 50 bucks required for payout. I stopped the monetization, it just sucks for everyone

Podcasting 2.0: I share splits with all collaborators and guests. Each episode is a common project. We all get to read the boosts. They are way better than YouTube comments, people send sats and love. No grumpy angry people.

... but but but .... podcasting 2.0 has no reach, right?

It might be true, but I really made at least the 50k sats that I've never seen on YouTube. And Spotify for podcasters does not share anything.

It is still a labor of love. I still lose money on the podcast. But if I wanted to focus on growing revenue, the best decision seems to be growing v4v. Not old recipes, the new world is better.

End of announcement.

Louis Rossman said the same thing recently. If you give a Youtuber a nickle a year he'll earn more than from ads.

What's confusing is why, as opposed to many other government programs, they do it in secret? Why not make a massive PR campaign saying "look, we're fixing global warming"?

Also, it's unclear which of the trails are chem and which are con. I'm certain contrails can exist at least in principle.

It is about natural law, not the government.

Yes, if the owner wants them to leave they have to leave. But if the owner was not present for 20 years, made no protective measures and cannot be contacted, why should we assume the owner still wants the property? Especially in this age when you can have it connected to the Internet.

The conditions should be reasonably strict to avoid unjust property transfer, of course.

If the squatter genuinely tries to contact the owner and fails then it's safe to assume the property is abandoned. It's owned by nobody, so homesteading applies.

The other extreme is owner moving to a different country, dying without hiers and the property is left unusable forever.

Almost B-lion. The other foods are so infrequent and in so tiny amounts it can be rounded down to zero.

Also OOP is overrated. Some of the concepts are useful but the way traditional languages implement objects is inflexible (can't implement an interface/abstract class for non-class types) and the idea of inheritance has problems around leaking internal details and comprehension.

Composition is much better than inheritance. The only problem with composition is if you want to delegate many things it gets annoying. This is not very frequent problem though and can be worked around using macros.

Rust is C++ done right. C++ has a ton of problems stemming from how different features interact. E.g. function overloading and implicit casting. It's riddled with potential to get memory vulnerabilities.

Rust fixes all this and keeps many of the good aspects of C++. I loved C++ too but after years of coding in it I started to get annoyed by the bugs. Rust was a salvation. It may sound crazy but the type system also prevents many non-memory bugs to the point that compiled programs often work correctly the first time. You don't get this in any other popular language.

It doesn't use C++ but LLVM, which is a library for making compilers is written in C++. But your point stands to a degree - it uses the same optimizer as a C++ compiler (clang). That doesn't mean it'll be automatically equally fast, it also depends on what IR you feed into LLVM. Now the interesting thing is Rust inputs IR that is in some rare occurrences worse but in many other it's better, so overall people tend to find their code equal or slightly faster.

And the cool thing is that the worse part can be affected by the programner. If you profile your code and find a problem there you can fix it.

Zig is not another take on C++, but C and it doesn't really beat Rust. Because you have complete control over Rust code you can modify it to produce exactly the same machine code Zig would. It might be possible Zig is a bit faster by default but it is also much harder to write correct programs in.

Zig doesn't try to address memory vulnerabilities at all. Rust was proven to prevent all memory bugs if you don't use any unsafe code (clearly marked with unsafe keyword) or if you prove your unsafe code to be sound.