• 0 Posts
  • 6 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: June 4th, 2023

help-circle


  • When I worked out more regularly I looked into the extra protein stuff. This is a little off the dome, so excuse my numbers and any inaccuracies. Anyway Theres a lot of broscience out there, but I remember being able to find some scientific evidence that showed some benefit of a higher protein diet. It was more like 0.7-.8g of protein per lb vs the body builder stuff which would want you to essentially get a 1 or more ratio which is insane and absolutely unnecessary.

    Even the lesser ratio can be a pain to maintain. Thats like 150g if you’re 180lbs vs the recommended 50g of protein. It doesnt sound like a lot, and yeah if you like boneless skinless chicken breast you can get there pretty quick, but if you’re maintaining or cutting weight it can be a hassle to it’s hard unless you have a protein shake. Some days you can easily pass it depending on what you eat, while other days you have to try. Me? I like my bread, my sides, my potatoes, my noodles, my rice, and etc. These are all things with protein. Just not enough to get to 100+ figure.

    I imagine for actual athletes who are able to do more than go to the gym a few days a week and walk a lot they burn enough calories to be able to make up the difference so theyre already eating a lot making the protein easier to achieve. If we’re talking about the broscience ratio where you’re essentially anywhere from matching your body weight or more in grams of protein then I cant picture an average person sustaining that without putting on a lot of weight or heavily supplementing(and even then whey isnt exactly light in calories for an average sized person who isnt an athlete)

    I can believe that the 50g may not be the ideal number and more could be better especially if you are a little active, but there’s no way in hell the answer is eating a full on professional body builder ratio of protein.



  • Yeah this is the thing that I dont understand. If facebook and google were a whole different system from the get go the problem would be the same. A small niche group of xmpp servers and if you wanna facebook chat you have to go to facebook.

    I dont remember using xmpp much in those days either personally. Mid 00s to early 10s I used AIM, YIM, MSN, and IRC. The transition to services like facebook chat, imessenger, whatsapp, and the next wave of services like Telegram and signal came from a shift in in how chatting was done. In the case of facebook chat they had more users from Facebook than they did just the XMPP network and it’s not like XMPP was a big part of that growth. For Google they just got tired and started a long trend of rebuilding the messaging wheel.

    Hangougs got big because google was still the quirky up and comer, and also it was more like a modern persistent groupchat. Also it was installed by default on a lot of phones.

    But yeah that one blog is getting linked around a lot and I dont agree with the assessment. Threads is already bigger than mastodon and they dont really care all that much. They probably adopted the protocol because someone on the team was either a nerd who liked the technology, or they figured it would be easy to just use an existing standard instead of building their own from scratch


  • It feels like this has been an issue for some time now with the internet ballooning in how resource heavy it is despite many websites not becoming all that more functional. It’s the reason there is a meme of people being surprised that their browser tab is taking up so much ram. I mean yeah that news website may function similarly to how it did 10 years ago, but that tiny thumbnail is technically autoplaying a 1080p video, and despite being zoomed out in frame the photos uploaded in the background and thumbnails are also fairly large and high res even before you click on them, and there are countless other things running in the background that just arent worth it.

    There was a period in the late 00s and early to mid 10s where the rise of the smart phones delayed this trend and forced developers to reconsider more minimal global experience. Flash was killed off and things got lighter weight and the new media rich features were better optimized for performance.

    I think it’s also not just that the developers tend to have better devices as much as it’s a result of time and energy and resources put towards building software. Its similar to videogames. In the old days to save on resources a 2d game might use a single texture tile that could be mirrored, rotated, or color swapped so that precious ram space can be spared. Once the baseline or average hits a certain point(or a new console gen appears) a lot of that “optimization” goes away because it’s not needed. Sometimes it’s obvious and we’re better for it like clouds no longer having to play double duty as bushes, but othertimes it means that we move onto something that technically looks marginally better but absolutely leaves a good chunk of contemporary hardware in the dust.

    I think the most frustrating things about websites is that things arent that different for all the under the hood changes we get. Google maps is a lot slower in firefox than it used to be, and the android app uses more resources on mid range hardware than it used to(I’d know I remember using it on my HTC Dream/G1). Functionally I have been able to do the same things I can do now on google maps for probably more than a decade now. New technology has been introduced in the backend to make maps “better” but it is at the cost of CPU ticks and snappiness. Likewise a lot of news and article websites dont look that much different than they used to 10 years ago. Sure things are laid out differently and aesthetics change, but the navigation is fairly steady. But we have all this javascript and bandwidth sucking media autoloading and creating a slower experience. Even modern hardware can suffer from this.