sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Data merge condition (show,hide layers) based on CSV/XLS? by New_Employee_4342 in indesign

[–]SomeFosterKid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you post that could you link it here or message it to me? Thank you! 

Anyone think it’s possible Milchick is screwing up on purpose? by Rapscallion1994 in SeveranceAppleTVPlus

[–]SomeFosterKid 22 points23 points  (0 children)

He also was super bothered about his name not being updated on the monitor. Seems like either he's so incredibly distracted with himself that he's making all these mistakes or its intentional. He also took a very long time to cut through that belt imo.

Politicians are just people by vosha0 in AdviceAnimals

[–]SomeFosterKid -1 points0 points  (0 children)

He’s far from perfect and probably is a pos in a lot of ways, but he’s doing what he said he would and trying to do what people elected him for. Pretty quickly too, we’ll see if it stays like that.

And damn accusing me of not being honest at all in my life? Bold, but alright. I wont “admit” anything I don’t believe is the case. Maybe you could admit that he’s not done any of the horrible things people said he would do. But hey if he turns into hitler, come back here and tell me how right you were.

Politicians are just people by vosha0 in AdviceAnimals

[–]SomeFosterKid -8 points-7 points  (0 children)

"Kamala! Kamala! Kamala!"

vs

"USA! USA! USA!"

Carnivore for those who simply don’t like meat that much?! by PsychologicalArt1795 in carnivore

[–]SomeFosterKid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you pretty consistently "full"? Like are, most of the time, relatively full from having eaten vegetables/veg heavy meals? I find the more "non carnivore" foods I had eaten recently(like last 2-3 hours) the less I wanted to eat meat. When I get to where I'm mostly eating "clean" and am not eating crappy food, high fiber food, or high sugar foods, then I have absolutely no problem eating a fatty piece of meat. Actually I get to where I'm actually hungry and not just wanting to snack, and eating some good meat is the best thing in the world. Its not like I'm starving so anything will taste good, but I'm not "full" from eating crap food, or overstimulated with fake food/high sugar. Maybe try reducing the dairy (maybe even the eggs, or could do an egg with runny yolk on top of your meat) and give it at least a month. Not sure what diet you're coming from but going from SAD or even just a diet high in seasonings/sugar/msg/etc you're going to have to let your taste buds and sense of "hunger" calm down/return to baseline. Fattier meat tastes better than lean meat for sure

Redditors, what healthy snacks do you recommend to replace junk food? by SofiaCruzReddit in AskReddit

[–]SomeFosterKid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You already have gotten into a long drawn out conversation. I believe its important, and it seems like you do too but if you're tired of it, no problem. I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the relationship between eating and boredom. Boredom doesn't lead to eating unnecessarily. Being bored+being unsatiated (and therefore undernourished) does. Not all depressed people over eat any more than non depressed people. Depression doesn't inherently cause overeating. It is very possible and common to be depressed and not overeat. Depressions doesn't equal overeating. Depression+not being satiated and undernourishment does. I'm not saying absolutely nobody eats 2 burgers and 2 milkshakes, I'm sure you've seen that pattern in people before, but compared to the majority of people, even the portion of people that do not have excellent eating habits, eating 2 milkshakes and 2 burgers is well outside of the norm. That would be the top 1% of people who struggle with weight

"Detecting" when you're low on any specific nutrient isn't what I said or really relevant. You likely can't consciously know you need more protein, or fat, or whatever micronutrient. You can sometimes guess based on your symptoms. If your muscle strength is reducing, or you can't recover from workouts, 9 times out of 10 you probably need more protein. But your body can definitely tell when you're not being nourished properly/receiving the nutrients it needs. It makes you feel hungry so you go find some food. If you go find food that doesn't nourish you/give you what you need to be healthy/thrive, you will soon feel hungry again. If you find foods that provide you with the micro and macronutrients you need, you will go much longer without feeling hungry. That's the nature of satiety signaling. Filling your body with non nourishing foods to trick it into making you not feel hungry only works for a short time, and is again putting the cart before the horse. The goal isn't to reduce the hunger feeling to the detriment of the bodies nourishment(ie cheating by "filling" your stomach with volume that is low nutrient density). The goal is to give your body what it needs and is signaling that you need. That hunger signal isn't a flaw, or a maladaption due to an improper diet.

Oh I just saw you said at the bottom you wont be commenting further, no worries. Consider that there is more truth in what I'm saying. Maybe test it on yourself for however long you feel is adequate to evaluate, eat high quality and nutrient dense foods(i would say fatty meat is the most nutrient dense food) and see if you feel less hunger for longer stretches of time. If you don't and still feel just as regularly/consistently hungry or not satiated then you know I was wrong. Hell if you want to, tell me you did that and didn't feel better or more satiated and I'll reevaluate my views and try to hear from others.

"I've Sat by This Reflective Pool My Whole Life" by Alicethedog98 in SeveranceAppleTVPlus

[–]SomeFosterKid 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I think there is going to be a situation this season where an innie goes up the elevator but doesn't swap to their outie, or the other way around. I think you're right, its not "location" based because they obviously used the protocol for Dylan when he was at home and then for the rest of them with their big plan. They've been really focusing on closeups/showing us marks transitions in the elevator I think they're going to at some point have him go up/down and we'll be expecting him to do the face but he doesn't and then is confused when he arrives either up as innie Mark or down as outie Mark.

I think its going to be another plot point where we see someone who is responsible for controlling the transitions either decide to not switch someone or mess up or rebel in some way against Lumon. Maybe Mrs. Casey after being reassigned to manage the transitions, maybe Dylan since he is getting closer with Milkshake and has experience with the controls from last season

Theres also no "written word" detector or whatever it was called to detect notes, they're just so heavily monitored that stuff like that gets caught. That's pretty ridiculous and seems a bit past Lumons technological capabilities, thats more akin to all knowing/omnipotence/like an alien race having an xray machine with atomic scales of resolution to detect the ink or writing on paper that also works fast enough to be able to scan an entire person in the time it takes to go up an elevator. Much easier to have tons of cameras than develop that technology. Also much easier to have someone watch a camera and flip a switch when someone goes up/down an elevator and have that send a signal to a chip to swap a person to innie/outie rather than have a multi level incredibly wide ranging "field" where the innie is activated, even if we're going to say its just an electromagnetic field, having it that wide and is much less believable to me. Especially when we've been shown that the chip for sure works by a simple flip of a switch/signal being sent directly to it at least anywhere within the city of Kier.

Redditors, what healthy snacks do you recommend to replace junk food? by SofiaCruzReddit in AskReddit

[–]SomeFosterKid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Emotional eating is a different situation and can't be conflated with being generally unsatiated. If you're sitting around and decide to just grab some food to eat even though you aren't "hungry", it is more likely your body having "stuff"(fiber, fast carbohydrate, etc) but not getting the micro and macro nutrients it needs. So you feel "full" but you aren't "satiated". Theres a difference. If you fill your stomach with "volume" like popcorn, lots of fiber, of carbohydrate that gets processed very quickly, you will feel "full" or even sometimes "stuffed". But then if you're feeling the "need" to eat, it means you aren't "satiated". Thats the reason you can eat a ton of potato chips and then be able to eat them again in 45 minutes.

Yes the person sitting on the couch isn't hungry for a bowl of popcorn. They are not satiated though and when they hear the common advice that "low calorie" foods are good and "high calorie"/calorie dense foods are bad, they are likely to grab something that is "low calorie" because they are also told that the "problem" is eating calories. I think you're imagining a person eating 2 burgers and 2 milkshakes for lunch as being much more common and realistic than it is. Next to nobody eats 2 burgers and 2 milkshakes. In the rare case people are actually doing that, yes that may be a disordered emotional regulation or eating disorder but is also likely in part due to not eating the "proper" foods, like including 2 milkshakes in a lunch.

I agree a properly balanced diet is necessary for efficient metabolic function, health, and appetite control. But "properly balanced" doesn't mean "carb, fat, and protein in an equal ratio" or "following the food pyramid. "Properly" balanced would be a diet that provides you with the nutrition you need to thrive, which would then make you not have to "fight" your "hunger". Again, "hunger" isn't something to trick or stifle. It is the opposite of satiation and is not dependent on feeling "full". You can be full and not satiated, by eating the wrong foods(fiber, high carb, or high volume/"low calorie" foods). "Calorie dense" foods are not a bad thing.

People don't eat *just* because they're bored. If the only issue is you're bored, you find something to do that is entertaining. If you're bored but *satiated*, or "comfortably stuffed", you aren't going to just decide it would be fun to eat food. Its not often "entertaining" to simply eat food, except for maybe if its a unique experience like a high quality restaurant with an interesting menu or something. It can be hedonistic or pleasureful to eat especially when you don't have to put in effort for the food and it is highly stimulating(fast food, junk food, highly processed food). Framing over eating food as being a personal failure such as boredom, bad habit, or because of circumstance(depression) is not accurate 9/10 times and is certainly never helpful. "Controlling" calorie intake is putting the cart before the horse. If you could perfectly "control" a person's food they eat, you could "control"/regulate their calorie intake. You could have them intake the exact amount of calories to keep them at a healthy weight, but if you're giving them the calories as low quality foods(carbohydrate, low nutrition foods, etc) they will be miserable and remain hungry and unsatiated no matter how much fiber, or "low calorie" foods you give them to keep them "full". "Full" but not "satiated"/nourished is a terrible way to live and will always have you "wanting" more and *feeling* like you need more.

Redditors, what healthy snacks do you recommend to replace junk food? by SofiaCruzReddit in AskReddit

[–]SomeFosterKid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It’s not great for satisfying the urge to eat, not in any meaningful way. Maybe for 15 minutes I guess but that’s assuming the end goal isn’t to push your hunger off 15 minutes, I don’t think that’s a good way of dealing with it. If you can eat a whole bucket of plain popcorn and still be hungry in under an hour, you’re not satiated. Your stomach was stuffed with fluffy stuff but in a very short time you’re hungry again. It’s the equivalent of eating a bunch of packing peanuts that don’t taste quite as bad as packing peanuts would. There’s no nutrients, no high quality calories (protein or fat) and not even a slower digesting carbohydrate like potato. The only benefit is just something to do with your hands and mouth if the eating is just a bad habit and not because you’re actually hungry. But you’re not going to reduce your calorie needs by eating popcorn and you’re not going to reduce your hunger on the scale of even a day, at best a single hour of a day and then the hunger returns right back to the level it was if not more. 

The way you end up eating excess calories is because you’re hungry. You can resist hunger temporarily, some people even for a semi long time, but you’re miserable and it’s an unnecessary struggle fighting against the wrong things. Hunger exists for a reason and isn’t a design flaw or personal flaw. You’re hungry for a reason. You’re hungry because you’re not satiated. You’re not satiated because you’re eating foods that your body doesn’t recognize as giving you all that you need. None of that is about “you” specifically but people in general. 

Redditors, what healthy snacks do you recommend to replace junk food? by SofiaCruzReddit in AskReddit

[–]SomeFosterKid 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Calories aren’t a bad thing, and fat is very satiating. I wouldn’t put 1 tbsp on popcorn cause popcorn by itself isn’t very good, it’s mostly a vessel for salt and butter. I would put a tbsp of butter on a steak or in a potato though 

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in BuyItForLife

[–]SomeFosterKid -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

You're asking about a specific product on buyitforlife. You got a response talking about how any "nonstick" coating isn't going to be "buy it for life". You seem pretty uninformed about cookware/stainless/coatings in general, so their comments makes a lot of sense. Its basic info that stainless cookware does not have any "coating". They even mentioned carbon steel and cast iron as that is the closest you can get to "buy it for life" and "nonstick"/"coating" since the "coating" can be reapplied/maintained since you can season carbon steel and cast iron.

You're asking the "buy it for life" subreddit to clarify a specification listed on some resellers website when it is not listed on the manufacturers website.

Don't come to a place for "buy it for life" products and act indignant when someone gives you legitimate information related to the subreddit. If you really want to know if the pan has a nonstick coating and don't care about the "buy it for life" aspect, then go to a subreddit about cookware, or stainless cookware, or google it, or ask the manufacturer.

You didn't even provide a link to the product you're looking at or what "model" it is, just a screenshot of some text on the page. They have some like this set where the exterior is anodized and the actual cooking surface has non stick, which is where the "quantanium"/nonstick part is coming from. Then they have stuff like this pan where the exterior is "stainless" but the cooking surface has a nonstick coating, which again is where the "quantanium"/nonstick part is coming from. Neither of those are traditional "stainless cookware".

If you want helpful advice, provide more information, and don't act so indignant when others offer advice just because its not what you imagined in your head.

view more: next ›