Cameras are getting so small and with such a good resolution that the safest thing to do is to assume that you are being recorded the 100% of your time. Again, privacy is a thing of the past. I am sorry George https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ox-shlDXKO4
The panopticon is complete, and the entire world, the prison. When the prisoners feel they are always being observed, they will stay on their best behavior.
I don't follow. The body spends much more time digesting food than is normally spent exercising.
I've read that constant digesting gets in the way of the body doing nightly internal cleanup processes that detox your system, as energy is diverted to process food instead. That might be another source of problems.
The more exercise you do the more you have to eat to maintain your body. If you are following a healthy diet you will need to increase even more your total amount of food due the fact that generally healthy food has less calories. Also, there is nothing more stressful for the body than exercise.
> there is nothing more stressful for the body than exercise
I think you are postulating. There was an article here a week or two ago that showed how bodies frequently in motion tend to live longer and be healthiest. There are different types of effects on the body from activities, and I'd be willing to bet that a body that's constantly in a state of digestion is stressed more than one in natural motion. However, I say this with a disclaimer that I'm guessing based on recent articles posted here. But if you really think otherwise, you should just provide a source.
Also, unless you are training for the Olympics, you do not need to linearly scale your food intake in proportion to your exercise. The average diet for many people does not need to change much after introducing exercise because the average diet already is usually too many calories.
If everything else is kept the same (never true), that would be correct. Like everything else in this area of research (which depends upon NHST), you will find conflicting studies if you search. Here are some layperson sources (I didn't bother looking deeper):
I don't know the reasons for your lawyers, it's possible I miss something here but it looks to me like MIT+Patents-grant gives you more right and more protection.
Facebook can sue you anyway, no matter what the license is. The grant made it impossible for facebook to sue you unless you sue first. That's gone now.
But even a cursory look at recent Rotten Tomato ratings shows a tenuous relationship between the site’s ratings and actual box office. It has assigned a rotten rating to movies that have done well (The Hitmans’ Bodyguard, The Emoji Movie), and it affixes an overwhelmingly positive rating to a film that fared poorly (Logan Lucky).
Everyone seems to agree that only the best should be hired.
But may I ask isn't that a form of discrimination as well?. Being the best in an intelectual
activity such as programming is highly corelated with the level of intelligence of an individual.
No matter how hard you try if your IQ is below 80 you will never enter in Google. I even dare to say
that even if you are in the normal range of intelligene your chances of entering in Google are still very low.
Isn't intelligence a biological attribute in the same way of the color of the skin or a gender?.
Who decided its own IQ level before they were born?.
I understand what you're saying but I think this perspective may be mis-framing the issue. One immutable requirement to a solution to the company diversity problem is to form an effective company. Another requirement is to ensure applicants don't suffer discrimination either during the hiring process or the employment period. Ensuring the entire pool of humanity has an equal opportunity to work anywhere / do anything is incontrovertibly not a requirement.
