Silicon Valley companies are like a creepy guy in the nightclub going up to each woman and asking "Want to dance? [Yes] or [Ask Me Again]". The desperation is pathetic.
The quick access list drives me bonkers, glad someone else feels the same way. My work is an MS shop so it’s required. I somehow have two different desktops folders, one “local” and one in OneDrive, I assume some sync conflict caused that to happen but gave up trying to reconcile the versions.
Holy moly this thing has grown. I seen the Apple TV/Android app many many years ago and figured it was just another basic/forked IPTV/M3U viewer but looking at the website and "https://getchannels.com/releases/" -- what an app / features; can't imagine the codebase lol. Def. going to check out, thank you!
I'm a little surprised to see this use case as so important, there are a couple other comments agreeing with you. Out of curiosity, why is this particular feature that important to you? Why is this flow better than double clicking the file or opening the program first and then opening the file?
Again, not trying to disagree, just curious to understand.
I want to say Target but that’s too obvious. I think instead it was one of the regional Target wannabes with an electronics section. Those seem to be used more for bribery and by forgetful parents who forgot to get birthday presents.
Weight loss is absolutely a result of CICO, please site a source that states otherwise.
I have never heard another source citing Oxygen/CO2 exchange as a factor for weight change, again, please site a source. O2 levels are certainly a factor of cardio health which can be correlated to overall health and weight.
Yes, macros also matter. But, nothing matters as much as the simple math of calories in/calories out. Its disingenuous, borderline irresponsible, to suggest otherwise.
"Burning" fat doesn't violate conservation of mass/energy. Instead, weight loss occurs primarily through co2/oxygen exchange that is connected to metabolism.
(note I don't totally agree with this paper, and agree that if you eat almost no food, you will lose weight, and that exercise definitely seems to increase the metabolic rate and increased mass exchange in the lungs. Like I said, it's complicated).
I'm not being disingenous or irresponsible- I'm describing mainstream science based on biophysical data.
I don't think its accurate to say "weight loss occurs primarily through co2/oxygen exchange". CO2 being breathed out is the just the end product of weight loss.
https://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7257 is one analysis of oxygen/CO2 exchange being a major component of weight loss. As the authors say, it's really a question of chemistry; the CO2 you metabolize from your fat has to go somewhere.
To be clear, I think your instinctive reaction is correct. It would be extremely silly for someone to read this analysis and conclude that they'll lose weight if they learn some special breathing technique to maximize CO2 output. The point is that "calories in - calories out" as a diet strategy is the same kind of error.
By the way, if you ever want to start a scientific argument, bring up this paper among doctors and scientists. It never fails to start a big argument that is usually concluded with "human metabolism does not violate the conservation of mass/energy" (many doctors and scientists believe that "burning fat" with oxygen causes you to lose weight directly).
reply