I came here to say what you did. I used to work in three letter agencies and took part in testing faraday bags for clandestine operators. Something about faraday bags that most people don't know is that they have a shorter life than you would think. As they move around and bend, they start to "leak" more RF. WaitWaitWha is also correct that in a pinch, some aluminum foil works pretty well if you're careful. The service will be so bad, that the phone won't likely get packets out or in. Just be thorough when doing it.

Also, I worked with clandestine people and for most of them had threat models more relaxed than a lot of people on HN. What are you all up to???

This is true. On the other hand, I've found myself lately starting to wane a little bit the other way. Let me explain. I'm doing ok, because I got involvednin the FIRE movement early and invested early. Now about to be 40, and having a couple kids, I've realized that so long as I have no debt and good security (enough to see my kids into adulthood) then what is the money for??? To be clear, I haven't started spending my retirement money yet, but I already know I'm never going to quit working. So.... I don't know, you know?

I would also argue that _what_ personal computing means to most people has also evolved, even with younger generations. My gen Z nephew the other day was faberglasted when he learned I use my Documents, Videos, Desktop folders, ect. He literally asked "What is the Documents folder even for?". To most people, stuff is just magically somewhere (the cloud) and when they get a new machine tbey just expect it all to be there and work. I feel like these cryptography and legality discussions here on HackerNews always miss the mark because we overestimate hiw much most people care. Speaking of younger generations, I also get the feeling that there isn't such a thing as "digital sovereignty" or "ownership", at least not by the same definitions we gen x and older millennials internalize those definitions.

Across the generations, there are always a few groups to where cryptographic ownership really matter, such as journalists, protesters, and so on. Here on HN I feel like we tend to over-geeneralize these use cases to everybody, and then we are surprised when most people don't actually care.

Eh. The "inefficent calorie conversion" take is sort of lazy and misses the nuances. I just looked it uo, and it seems that only about 55% of yields are for feed, and there is definitely some more nuance there, since a lot of feed meal comes from stalks and parts if the plants humans would not consume. This notion of calorie inefficiency also misses the mark on what would be planted and harvested instead to contain the same bioavailable nutrient profile thay comes from meat. In otber words, using land for feed to convert grains to another type of food is probably more necessary than just "taste".

I don't care to research it further, but I own a small 5 acre farm and can attest that some crops grow in some areas and some don't. So even if you did map it all out on a piece of paper where you'd get all your beans and lentils and whatnots I doubt it would work in real life. Cattle can handle a couple hard freezes. My tomatoes can't.

You’re right that a lot of livestock feed is crop residues/byproducts humans don’t eat—but that doesn’t make beef “necessary” or erase the land/opportunity-cost problem. Globally, ~36% of crop calories go to animal feed and only ~12% of those feed calories come back as animal-product calories (Cassidy et al.). Livestock still consume ~1/3 of global cereal production (Mottet et al.). And in full-system LCAs that include grazing + feed land, meat/dairy provide ~18% of calories and ~37% of protein but use ~83% of farmland; cutting them can reduce farmland >75% while still feeding the world (Poore & Nemecek / Oxford). Plus, even if pasture isn’t croppable, it can be restored—land used for animal foods has a big carbon opportunity cost (Hayek et al.). Nutritionally, major dietetic bodies say well-planned vegetarian/vegan diets can be nutritionally adequate, with attention to nutrients like B12.

There is, as you say a lot of nuance here. Making cattle go away doesn't suddenly make say 55% more wheat suddenly appear on market shelves.

Indeed the argument to remove beef production has always struck me as an interesting starting point to a longer conversation.

So ok, cattle are gone, and there's now say 30% more grain on the market. Presumably this lowers prices to humans? Do people suddenly eat 30% more bread?

Health, and weight, issues aside (not sure an increase in carbs at the expense of protein is a win), do people just shift to other protein (like chicken). Does this mean a huge oversupply of grain, and a consequent drop in prices?

Let me put it another way. Does removing a market currently consuming 30-50% of the crop make things better or worse for farmers?

IMO Having livestock feed as a market keeps prices up, and as this article points out they're still too low. Killing off the cattle market kills off grain farmers too. I'm not sure that's the win people think it is.

> But I do think people (try to) follow the main strokes of what the government tells them is a healthy dietary balance...

Do you really observe that in your circles? I've lived in 6 different states, from Maryland to Idaho, and I've never got an impression that many people take any real though or consideration for their health at all. If anything, I'd armchair guestimate something like 10% of adults seem to put any real attention of effort into their health. I feel like late teens to late college year people put more effort in general, but only because they themselves are on the meat market and don't usually have complex lives (kids, careers)

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. There is even more trimming that goes on as well. Chefs trim what's ordered, tallow may be rendered for non-consumptive reasons, and so on. Like a poster above, as an athlete I eat more meat than most people, and I don't seem to eat those numbers... I feel like we are missing some data points.

Yeah, I remember reading it in highschool and all we talked about eas the love story and parties. I re-read it in my early thirties for some reason and quickly realized the story was about temporal and moral tragedy. Daisy and Gatsby aren't romantics; they are morally shallow and selfish. I felt like the book was more about how we created a world were we train ourselves to chase glamor, but are punished for it in the process.

Funny enough a while back my wife and her friends were talking about having a "Gatsby" themed party. I think that is exactly what woukd have Fitzgerald rolling in the grave. Haha

Maybe the Gatsby-themed party was meant to be one where nobody was having fun but kept taking posed photos to post on Instagram.

I think what OP is specifically refering to is the intensity level that varies among individuals. I suspect that oft times when people train with a low weight/high rep scheme, they accidenrly let their intensity levels slip. I suspect that for most people, especially newer lifters, doing a high weight/low rep scheme makes keeping the workout for intense because it is easier to focus on being intense for a short time. Just a thought....

I'm a parent (age 7 and 5 now). We had a strict no screen policy before the age of two, which really meant the oldest saw very little until after the second was born. It isn't that hard to live a normal life without screen in the home. I think a big part of the problem nowadays is making sure home is for home stuff. Not just work, but all other non-home stuff (preparing taxes, discussing bills, online banking, online health insurance bullshit, and so on) has infiltrated our homes. I've found that reserving a block of time to tackle that stuff instead of trying to do it throughout the makes parenting more manageable without giving children a screen.

Both my kids really struggled at night for years, and I sypmpathize with the lack of sleep.

That's definitely out of reach of most Americans. I live in rural America, and am pretty active in my community. I can thing of 2 or 3 couples besides myself who could make a trip like that reality. We are all remote-workers working in software.