Tangzhong is when the flour and water are heated together to make a starchy paste which then gets added to the dough. Keeps the bread softer and more hydrated than it would otherwise
Seriously speaking, asymmetric information and signaling is the one thing that four-year undergrads in Econ know that's a superpower because ordinary people don't.
I would also say that market conditions for lemons also applies to the job application process since quality signaling through a resume is still pretty hard.
Gotta be more careful with your words. There's some component of aerobic metabolism in weightlifting, even if we colloquially think of lifting as anaerobic exercise. If you start breathing harder when you lift stuff, it's because your body needs more oxygen to provide energy to your body.
Technically you're correct (the best kind of correct!) but I don't know if I'd be under the opinion that somehow doing a 5x5 (or, whatever) of Deadlifts is going to positively effect your cardiovascular system in a training sense, to the point where doing separate cardio is unnecessary.
Depending on the exertion you put forth, a different energy system is going to be utilized by the body.
I suggest you read Tactical Barbell and TB 2 the conditioning guide(search for PDF). Contrary to popular wisdom, the two systems are not independent of each other
No, I didn't say they were. The point being is that you're not going to get great aerobic conditioning from deadlifts when compared to any other specific aerobic activity, like running.
That shouldn't even pass the sniff test, yes? If you would like to test the theory, I'll run for 5 weeks, you deadlift, then we'll test our aerobic thresholds (or whatever else you'd like to do!) :)
Agree wholeheartedly. I've posted my fair share of cringeworthy things over the years, but that has improved as my sense of self-identity has stabilized and my insecurities have faded. What makes me cringe is usually not the content of the message but the way that I say it -- a tone of superiority, condescension, anger, self-pity, or attention seeking. Without being too reductive, my feelings about myself have changed and that's made it easier to be nicer to myself and by extension to others.
> How is peer-to-peer misinformation any worse than centralized misinformation?
“So by Facebook suggesting all these accounts, they were essentially creating this vortex in which conspiratorial ideas can just breed and multiply,” Ms. DiResta said.
> I've seen a lot of hand wringing from the Legacy media over every other source's misinformation but I've yet to see a story from the NY Times calling bullshit on their own bullshit.
Of all the media outlets you could target for blatantly misleading the public and breeding FUD, do you really want to call out the New York Times? "Everyone is doing it" is just not true, and it's a viewpoint that lacks nuance. There's a huge difference between the NYT and Fox News, a huge difference between Fox News and Infowars, and a huge difference between Infowars and RT. If you don't believe that, then, well, not much else to be said here.
I think one major point here is that reputation is tied to the ability to mislead. Unlike most media today the The New York Times still has an air of integrity. And their writing quality is, if not the best, then certainly near it. These things combined result in ability for the things they say to have a much bigger impact, and they've been becoming somewhat looser with their standards of publication and often in a biased way.
As the eulogy on the events of today has yet to be written, let's look at an older issue. This [1][2][3] is the NYT's reporting on the rape claims against the Duke lacrosse team. Read those articles, and then consider that it was eventually found that the entire event was completely and literally fake. Not as in a 'it happened, but not like that' but literally - it did not happen, at all.
The 'what eventually happened' is nearly as sordid as the reporting on the event itself. The prosecutor who brought charges likely did so for political reasons. He was in the midst of a tightly contested election and needed the black vote, which coming out strongly against the players helped him to gain. They are white, the person that made the claims is black. He won the election by 883 votes with large black support. He was disbarred shortly after his victory as a direct result of his actions in this case. The individual who made the false claims is now in prison after being charged with attempted murder of one boyfriend in 2010. She was let out of prison a few months later after getting off on lesser charges. In 2011 she went all the way and killed another, different, boyfriend and is now in prison serving a sentence for murder. The police supervisor who led the investigation killed himself in 2014.
How are poor people supposed to find innovative solutions to their problems and elect governments that create sustainable wealth while they're steeped in desperate poverty? I believe that education is the tip of the spear, but are there any examples where a poor majority has pulled itself up by its bootstraps?
Ironically, at independence Kenya was at par with these countries. Though I cannot confirm the veracity of this, I have also on many occasions heard that some of these countries did borrow planning materials from Kenya - for their civil service.
Economies with strategically located container shipping ports developed via protectionist trade policies.
These economies were 'allowed' to develop into rich industrial economies was because America provided privileged access to the US domestic markets in spite of their protectionist policies.
They allowed that because they saw the value of having these countries developed into 'westernized' bulwarks against the USSR's sphere of influence.
They could all easily have remained poor under different circumstances.
It's a lot more free than it was until late 1970's and China has got tremendously richer as a consequence.
Nor is South Korea a model of freedom; it was authoritarian, it was and still is protectionist. But it did integrate to world economy. Compare it to North Korea, which started off as equally poor, and which has real, concrete, deadly famines in recent memory.
Same applies to R.O.C. Taiwan; autocratic, even corrupt, but reached out to world market (and as a consequence forced the mainland China to follow).
Singapore and Hong Kong: very free trade all the time, and way ahead of others in the region.
All of those countries enacted protectionist trade policies. Singapore/HK tended not to target specific industries but they suppressed the value of their currencies by loading up on US treasuries (their small size made this easy).
In all of those cases those countries were given tacit approval by the US to enact protectionist trading policies and yet maintain their access to US markets.
Protectionism and freedom are not absolute. Yes, those countries as well as the United States also engages in lots of protectionist policies.
However, the mentioned countries integrated more to world trade then most other countries in their region, and as a result they are now among the most developed.
Compare South Korea and North Korea, compare Taiwan R.O.C. to P.R.China prior to impacts of Deng's policy change, compare China and India.
Seems like the arena has changed, though. Several hundred years ago nations/societies could operate independently. Now they're in the global web of trade. Regions that were historically very prosperous (what's now northern Syria, for example) are floundering now.
There are clearly ways to exploit globalization to become prosperous - e.g. the asian tigers. But it's not clear to me that historical examples are as useful. There's no way to know but I suspect the American colonies would not have prospered in the current economic regime.
The western world was already the most advanced and richest part of the world before they started colonizing, which indeed made them even richer. Note that the people they conquered whether it were the Incas or else were also empire with colonial ambitions, except they were way less advanced.
You've got the causality wrong. Europeans exploited other peoples because European societies were more advanced. They did not become advanced because they exploited.
