Why not just use one dash…?

I’m going to assume we are discussing the US and Canada, as these are the most auto-dependent places in the world. I’ll also divide my response into ideal and realistic scenarios.

The ideal scenario is not that ICE engines are replaced by EVs, but that ICE engines are replaced by walking, cycling, transit, and electric micromobility. This would require:

1. Pigouvian taxes - taxing the release of carbon into the atmosphere, taxing the registration of vehicles (more), taxing the use of highways (for road use and wear and tear) or the use of highway exit ramps (imposing the externality of your vehicle on the urban environment). These taxes can be imposed initially at a very low cost, and then increased over time to gradually make the social costs imposed by these activities equal to the actual cost that users bear. Note: while the taxes themselves are functionally regressive, these proposals tend to be paired with a citizens dividend to offset the increased cost of goods and services and to ease the transition to less carbon intensive ways of living. The only people who will be negatively impacted would be those who already have excess wealth and use it in especially carbon-intensive ways.
2. Relaxation of zoning and building regulations - aka, let people build things. Peoples need for full sized automobiles is driven largely by the fact that their homes are far from their work which is far from the grocery store which is far from their social spaces. This is not a solution which can be solved with infrastructure, as you geometrically cannot fit all the transportation infrastructure between these places in an efficient manner - you need to put these things closer together so that a person can, say, walk from home to a transit station, transit to work, transit to the grocery store, walk home with their groceries, then walk to their social activity. Part of this is ending single family residential zoning, and instead allowing mixed use in all areas, part is changing building requirements - like parking requirements and overly stringent aesthetic conditions, and part is reforming building codes to be more flexible and understandable (note - not in a slapdash DOGE capacity, but reviewed by multidisciplinary teams of experts, with an eye towards making things understandable enough that a fairly average DIYer could confidently do their own construction within the limits of the building code)
3. Intelligent investments in infrastructure and transit. These should prioritize low cost, quick to implement changes in high impact areas - like replacing parking with bike lanes or closing off streets to cars and instead allowing only pedestrians, cyclists, and transit. The most important changes are to rehabilitate old downtowns which were originally pedestrian-friendly, since this will be the highest impact change. Changes should then radiate outwards from urban cores to facilitate movement around the city. In first-ring suburbs, initial big wins are things like implementing BRT lines with frequent schedules along arterials, protected bike lanes on larger neighborhood streets, public protected bike parking and pleasant pedestrian shelters at transit stops, and raised pedestrian crossings, speed bumps, and other traffic calming measures anywhere where cars are driving too fast. Of course, this should also be paired with a mandate to not accept any more sprawling suburban style development into the city’s land portfolio, since these developments are a drain on city resources and would simply need to be rehabilitated later. Also note that these changes to infrastructure and transit do not prioritize things like inter-city high speed rail, since as we have seen with these projects in the past, these rail lines end up underutilized as long as their destinations are not walkable. An inter-city BRT line can achieve 90% of the benefits of high-speed rail using existing busses and some paint on the highway. As a rule, grand, ribbon-cutting-worthy transit projects tend to end up as expensive boondoggles which take decades to complete and which are underutilized. Instead, the vast majority of infrastructure improvements should be driven by walking around in neighborhoods and asking “how can we make this more safe and pleasant for everyone?”

In this case, most gas stations would continue to function more or less as they currently do. Fewer people would make the switch to EVs, and would instead simply drive their cars less as they become less dependent on them. But due to lower demand for gas, some gas stations would slowly become financially non-viable, and would go out of business. This wouldn’t mean all of them would go out of business at once - instead it would mean that at an intersection with a gas station at each corner, 3 would go out of business and the best one would remain. In denser urban areas, many would likely divide the parcel they are on and continue functioning as a convenience store, while the pump and parking areas turned into some other, better use. Near highways, the larger truck stop style gas stations would likely remain largely the same.

The more realistic scenario is that EV tech evolves and everyone replaces their ICE cars with EV cars. In this case, gas stations will try to predict how the market will move and will try to pivot in whatever direction they expect it will take.

One anticipated direction is that gas stations will turn into charging stations. Since charging, even in the best case, takes a while, these charging stations will provide a more pleasant customer experience, integrating restaurants, shopping, and entertainment to keep customers busy while their cars charge. You can already see the stations anticipating these trends with the rise of “luxury” gas stations like Buccees, Wawa, and Maverik.

Another direction it could go is that instead of a charging station, EVs will develop swappable batteries. This process might require human attendants, and provide jobs for a number of years until the process could be automated.

But in either case, demand for charging stations would be severly reduced in urban areas, as it will be cheaper and more convenient for people to charge at home and at work for their daily commutes. Again, we would see 3 gas stations at an intersection go under while the 4 takes all the remaining business. But under these conditions, the 3 that go under would likely sit as vacant husks, blighting the urban landscape, rather than being redeveloped into something that actually serves people.

Proof

Thats Where I Want To Be!

Sure. But some IT guy being told to resolve networking issues of people who recently were transferred to Germany in order to do paperwork likely don’t see any relevance between their day to day tasks and what is going on in the US.

You could just as well ask how members of the EPA or IRS feel about working for the Trump administration.

I will say, I am doing OMAD rn. What you are describing sounds like a very significant eating disorder.

You say you dry fasted for 60 hours. The most obvious problem here is that the human body can die from dehydration at around 72 hours, or sooner, without water.

You say you fasted for 60 hours and then “failed”. How long were you intending to fast? I doubt that basically any medical professional, even proponents of IF, would recommend fasting indefinitely for fat loss.

Feeling better when you are in ketosis is normal. I suggest that if you are chasing this feeling with increasingly long fasts, that instead you simply switch to a ketogenic diet. Or take up distance running.

Eating after 60 hours of no food would not be considered indulgent by anyone. Eating food is a normal function of literally every animal species - you are not diseased. The idea that eating food is endangering your family is, to be frank, delusional.

To be clear, there is nothing wrong with having a desire to lose bodyfat, nor to pursue reasonable strategies to doing so. However, here is the secret: one of the biggest drivers of gaining and keeping bodyfat is stress. So if you are constantly stressed about being fat, you will keep the fat on. The most important thing for you to do right now is to talk to a mental health professional about the emotions you are experiencing and discuss your current body comp strategies with them. It will be far better for both your health and your long-term bidy comp goals

Honestly, just take a moment to feel whatever embarassment you feel about this event and accept that it happened. You can’t do anything about it now, except learn from it.

I would say, in general, when you are in unfamiliar company you should just keep an eye on whatever everyone else is doing and follow their lead.

Your attempt at shaming people is cringe

Lemmy’s hate of AI art is so weird, because, like, if you don’t like how it looks, whatever. But being angry at AI for taking human artists jobs is such a weird hill to die on, because none of these artists had a job doing art before AI either

I think probably the “purest” form of egg I eat is hard/soft boiled. In this case, I feel like there isn’t much of a smell, and it is fairly neutral. The taste of the whites is fairly neutral. Hardboiled yoke I’m not a huge fan of, but will eat out of habit. Soft boiled yoke is deliscious, and is the best form of egg.

Beyond that, eggs are great because they don’t have all that much flavor themselves, but are very versitile in their ability to carry other flavors in various forms. Eg, cheese, spices, and chili peppers in a breakfast burrito; salt, pepper, and butter on an over easy egg, with some toast dipped in the yoke; etc.

Its kind of like chicken. Chicken on its own doesnt taste that great. It tastes great when it is spiced and cooked well.

I’m confused, and I am wondering if we are using terms differently.

To me, a set is a group of continuous repetitions. For example, if I do 20 bicep curls in a row, I did one set of 20 curls. But if I do 2 curls, then walk away and drink some water, and then come back and do another 2 curls, and repeat this 10 times, then I have done 10 sets of 2 reps of curls.

So when you say the following, I am honestly quite bewildered at what you might mean -

for me, sets of specific bodyweight exercises (like legs one day, shoulders/back another, and so on) is just more time efficient. It gives enough resistance to get sore, and gets me exhausted, all in one setting, instead of running separately

I think the nomenclature I am familiar with would be a “split” - a way of structuring your workout routine so you do, say legs one day and arms another. Or pushing motions one day and pulling motions another. Which is great - lots of people do various kinds of splits and enjoy them and see the results they want from them.

Also, if what you are doing works for you, I think that’s great and you should keep doing it. But I also want to gently push back on a few of your statements for anyone else who may be reading and interested.

One thing you say is that it gets you sore. But I think it is worth noting that soreness itself doesn’t really indicate anything beneficial. You can hit your quad with a hammer and you will be sore in the morning. Soreness can be useful as a rule of thumb, since it typically indicates that you tried hard, which is a good proxy for stimulating muscle growth. But consistently being sore doesn’t, on its own, guarentee hypertrophy - and if pursued excessively, can actually work against potential gains, as soreness can inhibit one’s ability to perform optimally in their next workout. Instead, if you are pursuing strength or hypertrophy goals, the appropriate metric is progression in lifts over time. If you bench 135 for 5 reps today, and then in a month you bench 145 for 5 reps, or you bench 135 for 10 reps, or even if you just feel like benching 135 for 5 is easier, then we have an excellent indication that muscle growth is going to be stimulated.

In the same vein, you talk about being exhausted. And if you like feeling exhausted after your workouts because it helps you sleep better or it elevates your mood, by all means continue. But exhaustion doesn’t necessarily correlate with improved strength, hypertrophy, or fitness. After all, I can exhaust you by telling you to walk across the Sahara desert. But if your goal is to win the 100m sprint, that isn’t going to help much. Some of the best training programs I’ve run into are actually quite short, and are designed to leave the trainee with plenty of energy in the tank after their workout so they can come back as fresh as possible for the next workout.

Finally, I take issue with saying that running causes shin splints, or that lifting weights is dangerous. All physical activity carries the risk of injury, of course, but the biggest reason people develop overuse injuries is simply going too hard, too fast, and overdoing it. Or using poor form in their chosen activity. Or simply bad luck in the genetic lottery and dealing with the accumulated damage on the body over the course of a human lifetime. There is nothing special about calisthenics that make them some sort of injury-proof exercise - plenty of people note that push ups hurt their shoulders, pull ups hurt their elbows, or pistols hurt their knees. That doesn’t mean that push ups, pull ups, or pistols are bad exercises - it just means that if you try them and they hurt, you might need to make some adjustments, or else try a different exercise to reach your goal. Similarly, sure, some people get shin splints running, or hurt their backs deadlifting. But running and deadlifting are not bad or especially dangerous either - just some people may need to adjust their routines, or their form, or choose some different kind of exercise if they can’t resolve the issue they are facing. The human body is a wonderful thing, and in my view we should be encouraging people to use it in any way they can, in every way they might want to try - and if there is a problem for some person in particular, then we can deal with it when it comes up, rather than warning them off something before they’ve even tried it.

The above poster may have a good idea… but I don’t think they have a lot of good knowledge of making body comp changes.

I know what reps, sets, supersets, circuits, and training sessions are. I’ve never heard of a “group” of movements, other than maybe as an informal term, which is how the above poster seems to be using it.

Their enthusiasm for calisthenics is admirable. But they aren’t any better or worse for you than any other form of exercise - whatever exercise doesn’t hurt, and that you enjoy doing, is good exercise.

Also should I still pair this with the running? How much could I reduce my running if I started doing these? I’m currently doing an hour.

You can 100% pair calisthenics with running, and it can be a wonderful combo for general fitness. However, I doubt it would really work to achieve your stated goal, which I assume is to burn a certain number of calories in a particular time frame without sweating. Problem being - to burn calories, you need to exercise. To burn calories faster, you need extra intensity - you need your muscles to work harder, faster. The chemical process that allows your muscles to contract creates heat as a byproduct, and when you work your muscles hard and fast, heat builds up. And when heat builds up and you aren’t in a cool environment, your body sheds that heat by sweating. If you want to sweat less, you either need to move to a cooler (or breezier) environment or else exercise for longer at a lower intensity. The type of exercise you do doesn’t matter.

The solution to your problem is (1) wear technical fabrics, or less clothing in general, (2) crank the AC as much as possible, (3) blast as many fans as possible at your body, but most importantly (4) just get used to being sweaty, it’s normal.

AC does not require sweat to cool you down. It reduces the air temperature. If you exercise in a sufficiently cold room, which was cooled with AC, you would not sweat. You would also be extremely cold.

I feel like those were the days where you could have true friendships in society, not “having friends to send memes”.

Um, excuse me? You need to get out of your internet bubble. Tons of people still have friends in real life - most of them, actually. If you don’t, and you wish you did, then you have an unusual problem and you should start working on solving it asap

I would be pissed, because

(1) This move would create millions of civilian casualties in the DC area. Most of whom didn’t even vote for Trump.

(2) Regardless of who gained power afterwards, this would almost certainly create further nuclear exchanges, making massive losses of life on both sides.

This would be an unbelievably dumb move.

my pal tells me he’s reserved the gym slot at 17:00, so I reserve that time too and i just want to reply “me too” to let him know it worked for me.

I would reply with a screenshot of my reservation

Because it actually makes a lot of sense from a business perspective to have your meeting software integrated with your messaging software integrated with your document storage, etc. MS saw the success of things like Zoom and Slack and said “we can do that!”

And the thing about large companies with big budgets is that they get things done. Maybe it is shitty, but it is done. And the thing about an IM client is that anyone can think up the idea… So the difference between MS and a startup like Slack is that there were 100 other Slack-like startups that failed to make a useable product. Slack made a product that worked because statistically, someone has to - and then everyone uses the product because it works. But MS is not going to run out of venture capital or new CS grads eager to work 80 hour weeks to “change the world” - they will keep plowing money and manpower into a product until it is ready to ship, goddammit!

So Teams stumbles across the finish line, strictly inferior to its competitors. Except that it has an ace in its back pocket… the fact that so many businesses already run windows. Already have MS 365 subscriptions. MS can pitch ecosystem integration as a selling point, and then undercut their competitors on price to paper over any deficits in functionality. And 55 year old CFOs of accounting firms see this and say “yes, let’s do that!”

And thus, Teams

Then the researchers would record their findings dutifully and continue the experiment as normal.

There are any number of reasons why a person might gain weight temporarily while on a calorie deficit.

Most obviously, some non-caloric material is accumulating in their body, like water. Or poop. Bodyweight can swing 5 kg or more daily depending on these sorts of factors.

It is also possible that the calorie “deficit” is not actually a deficit.

The charts and online calculators that you can find to figure out your daily calorie expenditure are extremely unreliable, as how many calories a person burns per day is highly individual. So if “daily calories burned” is based off a generic calorie calculator, then the most likely explaination is that this person just burns fewer calories than whatever the calculator says.

Even if the person’s calorie expenditure was accurately measured before the experiment, the daily total calorie burn a person experiences is highly susceptible to change - especially in circumstances like intentional calorie restriction. When you restrict calories, you lose weight, which means your body has less tissue to maintain, which lowers BMR. It also means you weigh less, so weight-bearing exercise expends fewer calories. When you eat less food, it takes fewer calories to digest what you do eat. And also, most peoples bodies respond to calorie restricion by reducing non-exercise activity thermogenesis - the random, subconscious movements you do throughout the day that your body does in order to maintain a particular body composition in the presence of excess calories.

But if we suppose that we are conducting this experiment over a long time, and the participant has all their food measured out so we know exactly what they are eating, and their calorie expenditure is tracked continuously in a rigorous way, and they consistently gain weight, then presumably the scientists would request the person stay in the experiment longer, and see if they wanted to participate in further experiments, because they would be an extraordinarily interesting case study that could broaden our knowledge on where a human might gain weight from in the absence of excess calories. Because unless they are secretly inserting steel bars under their skin in the dead of night, gaining weight on a real calorie deficit does not happen, as it would violate the first law of thermodynamics.

I mean, as an aside from the shitposting - climate change is unlikely to kill all life on earth. Or even all humans. Even if it goes catastrophically wrong, wrecking ecosystels and destroying cropland, there are 8 billion humans and we’re quite hardy and ingenuitive. Even if 99.9% of humans died, there would still be 8 million humans left.

As for “all life on earth” - that is unlikely to the point of absurdity. There are bacteria that live in the deepest depths of the ocean, surviving off of the heat radiating from geothermal vents. Yes, the whales and the polar bears and the elephants might all die, and this would be terrible and tragic and an all around awful thing. But all life on earth…? Very unlikely

No hope.

Weird thing to say. If you were looking purely for financial advice, that’s one thing. But if you have no hope, then I don’t see the point in having good finances.

if it all goes to hell then does it matter?

Again, weird thing to say.

Of course, this is no stupid questions, so you can ask whatever you want. But imo, we need a lot more context to help you, and your actual problem has little to do with where you live