And this is why I linked the article first instead of the paper.
The line you’re quoting is the authors explaining they have a large enough sample size to detect differences. They could detect a 4.2% difference in their sampling of women with 97% confidence, at a 5% significance threshold. They are saying they are extremely confident they would be able to detect a difference, but didn’t.
Well, the “vaguely summarised studies” were the answer to the exact issue you are raising. If that article was too long, then here’s the paper itself:
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0040503
As it is even longer and even less approachable than the article, I will condense it even further: A group of Hanza, who are hunter-gatherers, had their metabolism measured. Under the commonly held assumption, group of people who spend their whole day travelling on foot, foraging and hunting, would consume more calories.
However, the study found they used and consumed the same amount of calories as any other group. They weren’t more “efficient”, they burned the same amount of energy walking as any other group. Even through the average distance the men travelled daily was 11km.
So yes, they do burn hundreds of calories every day walking, with a total daily calorie expenditure no different than somebody in the western world that has a 30 minute jog in the morning.
Oh buddy, if there’s anyone that needs to “read up” on anything, it’s not me.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-exercise-paradox/
The human body burns a set amount of calories every day. Your average man burns 2600 kcal a day, your average woman 1900. You exercised and burnt an extra 300 kcal? Great, your body will slow down in the evening to make up for it, or decrease its energy expenditure on random inflammations. Granted, if you’re not active, and active in this sense is a very very low bar, you do burn less calories, about 200 less. So if you want to catch me on a technicality, go ahead.
So, who’s gonna tell them the human body burns about the same amount of calories every day, regardless of exertion?
“Boss makes 3 dollars, I make a cent” still has a nice flow to it, while being much more accurate.
Grug knap rock on company time
In this context, “negative mass” is a mathematical convenience rather than an actual particle having negative mass.
Think of it more like “energy required to pull apart a matter-antimatter pair”. In the vacuum of space, the energy that created the pair gets returned when they annihilate. But when near a blackhole, it had to “burn” some of its energy to interrupt that process. Energy is mass, so the blackhole gets less massive.
Mind you this is a very basic explanation of it. It’s just another quantum whackyness of our universe.
I’m guessing front right wheel went into the ditch, lowered the bumper enough to bite into it, and momentum did the rest.
Hey buddy I think you got the wrong community. .ml is two instances down.
This is so painfully close to being Loss. There’s got to be a way to juggle those squares around just right.
Oh come on, comparing Steam to telecoms is a bit of a leap. Nobody needs access to video games on a day-to-day basis. Video games are a luxury item at the end of the day.
Their breaking up also assumes that hosting video games for downloads is a thing only Steam can do. Steam hosting the game files and Steam as a service for the customer have little to no relation to each other. Steam, or anyone else for that matter, could just as easily use AWS. Breaking up Steam into many, smaller Steams might lead to lower prices, or devs will choose one, that one will become the dominant one, and we’re back to square one.
The best way to drive prices down is competition. It’s economics 101. Do not blame Steam for being successful, blame their competition (Epic in this case) for being inept. Epic was the VC baby everybody was banking on going toe-to-toe with Steam, but they couldn’t even get basic shit like a cart or a wishlist working for far too long.
Steam’s 30% cut is a different problem altogether. Yeah, it’s probably excessive, and would ideally be tiered by sales. However, all the games (that I have seen) that released on Epic first, with their paid exclusivity, eventually came out on Steam. So what does that tell us about how impactful that 30% cut is. Steam’s pre-existing userbase is a factor. Userbase they have, and maintain, due to their wide array of features. And, all those features Steam provides aren’t free to maintain. They host the game on their own servers, they host all the user generated content on their servers, Steamworks matchmaking is ran by Steam. Game devs aren’t just getting their game sold through Steam, Steam does much much more than that.
Nah mate, Steam is just the best game platform on PC. A game has access to so many features like cloud saves, community, workshop, matchmaking when it comes out on Steam, while the users have access to user reviews, curators, guides, sales, bundles etc etc. Epic doesn’t have most of those features. And yes, a game dev can go out of their way to create those features for their game, on Steam they don’t have to. Epic had all the time in the world to implement even half of them, but they still haven’t. GOG is an alternative because it offers something Steam won’t, and it’s been going great for them. Epic is just a bootleg version of Steam. Their only claim to fame is their free game giveaways, but even then you’re stuck playing the game without the features Steam users have.
I keep it pretty light with around 500 mods.
I’m still waiting for all the 2A people to resist that tyranny. Any day now, take your time.
Only 70? You gotta pump those numbers up, those are rookie numbers.
He did sign an executive order making everyone in the US a woman, so this makes sense.
Oh yes, absolutely, that’s another conclusion to draw from this paper. Exercise is still good for you, but it’s not a means of losing weight.