I'm trying to lose weight.

Not trying to spoil the party.

Have lost 5 pounds, 15 to go. Then I plan to keep that weight for the rest of my life +- max 5 pounds, preferably maybe +- 3.

So no pints, at least not in plural...

Edit:

Let the Friday happen, as applicable in your jurisdiction. .

Sometimes, when watching movies, I only pretend to suspend disbelief.


PairTheBoard

If writer I respect, can confirm I do too.

Having Blondie Songs pounded into your ears at Breakfast is not the best way to start a day.

Watching someone who is on a diet eating peanuts that haven't been pre-shelled is a lot more fun than you'd think. It has stages. Kind of like the stages of grief.

Denial: This is fine. I like working hard for my food. I can even do it without making a mess. I'll burn a bunch of calories shelling them.

Anger: I'm starving and the shells are mocking me!!!

Bargaining: Is it ok to eat them with the shells still on?

Depression: I'm ****ing starving and there is no way I can fill up on these bastards. The mess I am causing isn't worth the trouble.

Acceptance: **** off. I've got this. You own a vacuum. If you were a decent host you'd have given me actual food. I mean, what sort of monster gives someone non-shelled peanuts?!? This is fine.

A meal-time worthy of capitalization is definitely fine.

Oatmeal : breakfast :: Eggs Benedict : Breakfast

PairTheBoard

Lose the peanuts altogether in one blow. Machiavellian style. Suits this but not politics.

Fill in with vegetables.

The reason that some bars serve peanuts in the shell is bec they hope the customers don't eat too many. The cheap bastards. That's not to say that BTM is a cheap bastard, merely an observation.

To Lawrence Ferlinghetti: **** Off you Idiot. I'm not waiting; I'm getting.

Hey, guess what? Einstein proven right again! There are ppl who were stupid enough to build their houses on top of a VOLCANO! And there's basically no such thing as volcano insurance, jfc, how dumb can you be?

I like shelled nuts. Speaking of, I recently learned that the stages of grief inventor (dont remember the name) never intended them to be considered as linear. Rather, much like myself, my shelled nut eating experience starts with acceptance; ends with denial - "this was not way too many unnecessary carbs".

In the news, google finds a way to help distance people from dealing with lowly receptionists at hair salons with their AI. Meanwhile, some salons made their calendars available on their website years ago negating the need for a phone call at all.

I'm going places.

Goggle + Facebook = God

A Machiavelli doco led me here which is the only official test devised (for what's it's worth):
https://openpsychometrics.org/tests/MACH-IV/


I am 72 percent.

Drinking alone in a bar in Spain, and drinking more than the average customer, or perhaps any customer they were accustomed to, the bartender
would either offer me a plate of shelled nuts or olives, on the house, for my custom.

Cracking open the nuts gave me something to do, while I watched the old aged bartender shine glasses and do an honest days work, as I drowned my non-existent sorrows.

The other worker of the bar, middle-aged, didn't seem to be of much help to the running of the establishment: for he would sit all day, everyday, outside with a glass of beer. I wondered how many beers he drank a day while I only knew he drank everyday, because every time I passed, I'd see him there, outside chilling with a Cruzcampo or Estrella.
He was never, ever drunk though, always of sound mind, in case he had some business to attend. He seemingly never had.

As dumb as you are there is always someone dumber. That is a line in some song. Worth remembering.

Help a physics idiot out. If kinetic energy equals mv^2/2, then it takes more energy for something to accelerate from 2 mph to 3 mph than it does for 1 mph to 2 mph, which seems counter-intuitive. Am I missing something?

That is because to go from 2 to 3 under say constant acceleration you take more distance that the force accelerating it is applied, since vf^2=vi^2+2*a*x (F=m*a , a acceleration)

So the work that is defined as W=F*x is more than from 1 to 2. I can "prove"/support why work is defined like that because i can argue that the "effort" to move something under constant speed against friction depends proportionally on for how much time you try to move it at constant speed (hence depends on distance proportionally) and how much of it you move, for clearly 2 times something done in parallel takes twice the effort and stacking them up to each other creating the need for double the force (friction is proportional to normal force or weight in this case) gets the same result (at constant speed we have force = force of friction opposing the effort say). So work is proportional to distance and force. That it is precisely F*x is arbitrary but we can see how this connects in experiments to the change of the quantity 1/2*m*v^2 which connects the effort with the result ie the kinetic energy change naturally defined as the work of the applied force. Also on the reverse the capacity of an object to do work because of its motion and mass is defined as kinetic energy. Eg a moving object pressing a spring as it decelerates and producing the work needed to compress it results in potential energy of the spring (ie the capacity of spring to do work now if released) the exactly same result as if one applied a force to it slowly to compress it. Experiments show that work is done on all these processes and it is the same leading to the concept of conservation of energy as it transforms from one kind to another through work.

Basically it comes from F=m*a= m*dv/dt. dW=F*dx=m*dv/dt*dx=m*dv/dt*dx/dt*dt==m*v*dv/dt*dt=1/2*m*d(v^2)/dt *dt

so dw/dt=1/2*m*d(v^2)/dt=d(1/2*m*v^2)/dt

=d(Ekinetic)/dt

or rate of work ie power is rate of change of kinetic energy.

(work is defined as dW=F*x or better the element of work is the dot product of force times differential displacement)

I thought that would be the explanation. But I'm still puzzled by this. Suppose you're in a rocket ship floating free in space. Suppose you have a propellant which when burning at the constant rate of p-units/sec applies a constant force F on the ship thereby accelerating the ship at a constant acceleration A (assume the propellant has negligent mass compared to the ship's mass). It it takes the time T seconds to accelerate the ship from 0 to 1 mile/hr then it should also the same time T to accelerate the ship form 1 to 2 mile/hr. Then the energy required measured in units of propellant should be the same pT in both cases. Yet the second case adds more kinetic energy to the ship than the first case. What's wrong with this picture?


PairTheBoard

There’s nothing quite so delicious as a crisp cold beer, except perhaps one or two more.

Are these types of tests used for anything other than amusement?