My own company had a migration from GitLab to supposedly greener pastures but at least when a self hosted gitlab server had an issue someone could figure out what was going on. Absolutely zero control over GitHub.
> the share price returning to IPO opening not just a sign that the banks accurately estimated something
I mean who knows where it will end up by the end of the year. Meme-stock-hype train could continue or it could reasonably crash far further back down to earth.
Their most recent iPhone which had no major AI advertisements associated with it GAINED market share over competition[1]
They have no ground to make up on AI, and changing their operating system to center on AI would piss off every iPhone user I know outside of tech, and probably half of them within tech.
One could (naively) hope that goliath corporations used their massive lobbying power for good. There was a time, long, long, ago, Google refused to operate in China because it refused to censor itself.
Since no matter how much power they have they won't behave good let's go ahead and regulate the shit out of them and tear them into tiny mangable pieces.
If we had a thousand different smaller federated platforms it would be harder for governments to impose rules on them anyways.
It's lower than it sounds: this time includes even relatively gentle exercise (a brisk walk) and although it's not explicit here most other uses of similar metrics I've seen generally count hard cardio minutes as 2x, e.g. the NHS guidelines (https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/exercise/physical-activity-guid...) this references are 150 mins moderate exercise or 75 mins vigorous.
In my experience lifting weights helps you grow enough muscle to actually be able to do 600 minutes of cardio.
With small/insufficient muscle size, you simply run out of stored glycogen before you get tired cardiovascularly.
> Because if you need to fit 560 minutes of cardio and then also fit weight lifting 3 times a week that's a lot of time working out
Proper exercise is absolutely a lifestyle change and a big commitment. Not only do you have to exercise several hours a week, but also eat healthier macros and fix your sleep to make sure most of the benefits stick and aren't wasted.
People try to half-ass it all the time by doing weird diets or going on 15 minutes walk during their lunch break, and yes it's better than nothing, but not by much.
I don't understand how walking in the study is considerate moderate.
Like my heartrate for sure goes higher when lifting weights than when I walk.
If I walk fast, it might get closer, but I am not that confident.
300 minutes of HIIT per week are equal to 10 HIIT sessions per week, I would argue that's outright impossible, the body cannot handle that, I don't think even an Olympic athlete can handle more than 3 times per week HIIT.
Vigorous might be possible, that's still 5 times 1 hour cardio sessions, on top of which you have to add 3 sessions of weight lifting for bone density, on top of which you have to add balance training and stretching.
There isn't enough time in a day to do that if you work, let alone if you have kids
Vigorous would be Z2/3 cardio, so like 120-160 BPM for most adults. Moderate would be Z1 90-120.
Once you are capable of doing cardio consistently in Z4/5 with HIIT and tempo training you really don't need to worry about "am I doing enough exercise."
I mean, according to this study I would still need that. I can average 165 BPM (because I'm trained, used to average 175) and max 180 in a session. But that's all the cardio I get. I walk 20 minutes per day to bring the kids to school, and lift weight.
Weight lifting doesn't count, but I tested yesterday and I average 110 bpm during a workout (it's constant ups-and-downs). Based on that, it would count for moderate exercise.
The time investment is steep if we cannot count weight lifting, there is no escape.
>With small/insufficient muscle size, you simply run out of stored glycogen before you get tired cardiovascularly.
You can eat carbs during cardio ("fueling") though it's unlikely an issue doing 600 mins a week. Muscles store 15g of glycogen per 1kg (more for trained athletes) , which amounts to 60 (k)calories. In aerobic process with COP ~ 25% these nicely convert to output energy of 60 kJ. To produce this much output over 90 minutes you need to push power of ~11 watt. Elite athletes have FTP (functional threshold power) around 6 w/kg. It's over the entire body mass, not just muscle, but even if you are pushing 50% body fat, you can be pretty confident you have enough glycogen for 90 min of aerobic exercise at your FTP (also liver holds/can produce on demand quite a lot of glycogen and aerobic process will use fat for energy as well). Even if you do 200 minutes 3 times a week instead of doing 90 minutes every day you can get by staying in under 3 w/kg power zone, which is still greater than most people's FTP (and even fewer people can hold this power over 3 hours).
In my own experience, no. Strictly cardio. The number of squats you'd have to do to constitue even five minutes of vigorous activity is practicably impossible.
Lifting weights could certainly count/classify as moderate activity though, just without as much 'bang for your buck' as dedicated aerobic exercise.
It would depend on how high your heart rate goes and stays during lifting weights, because everyone lifts weights differently. I would say that it's not likely based on my own personal experience, and seeing others' time ratios for lifting vs resting.
No of course, but to keep bone density up as you age, weight lifting is your best bet, while 560 minutes of cardio is your best bet for the heart it seems
Up and down your stairs at home, walking to shops or work, or dedicated gym / biking / walk time before bed is basically it. If you have a tight schedule that can be very hard and if you live in the wrong type of housing it's also harder unfortunately
Two hours of cardio into your daily routine is ~40% higher than the upper bound suggested by the article.
A lot of people can get this level of exercise by walking or cycling to work. Even for those people that can’t, it’s something to consider the next time you are changing jobs or moving house.
10h/week of moderate exercise should be straight forward. moderate exercise includes stuff like cleaning and other chores, playing with your kids, walking to the corner store, et cetera.
The study specifically includes walking in their list of exercises. You probably do want a mix of exercises -- 90 minutes of vigorous exercise a week is a standard recommendation, but 10h a week of vigorous exercise is probably contraindicated for the average 57 year old in the study.
Walking is good exercise for anybody who is out of shape.
I don't think 10 hours per week is unreasonable or impossible. And I don't see why you need to be a hypochondriac or narcissist to prioritize physical activities. The article does not define the required level of exertion, but I assume things like biking, ping-pong/pickleball, soccer, etc all count. A lot of physical activity can be cheap, though it is more challenging in the winter.
> Young people increasingly hate AI[1], and children already struggle with AI-enabled harassment that traumatizes them and disrupts their learning. And studies show kids are offloading learning onto AI models, undermining their education and social development.
Honestly, yeah, fair point. There's enough money in tech to keep the party going for who knows how long.
The housing market was unsustainable for a long time and went even further up before it crashed. The smart people who called that have lost a lot of money making reasonable bets against things which should have crashed.
The difference now is rich people have positively stupid amounts of money to keep stupid things going for even stupidly longer periods of time.
that's true, but if calling a crash was that easy, it would have been priced into the market already. regardless of when the crash occurs, I think we can all agree that the current form of AI is financially unsustainable. How much would you allow if you paid its true cost? $300/mo, $500/mo $1k? for intern-level slop.
Also, who/what group is pushing for this change internally and what is the opinion of the team implementing it? What is the road map and vision for AI in VSCode?
