Wisdom, right here. My position has one foot in the engineering department and one on the factory floor. The engineers think the factory workers are all troglodytes that just have to push buttons, and the factory workers think the engineers don't do anything but sit in front of the computer. Oddly, both believe the other does not have to think because the machine/computer does all the thinking for them, which is so far from the truth.
It all seems to grow from a Seed of Ignorance:; a complete lack of understanding of what someone else's job actually entails, coupled with the subjective measure of how difficult a thing is which is largely based on our own narrow limitations and experiences. It's a weed that grows easily and is difficult to kill in the manufacturing sector.
I don’t think people saying these things are inherently wrong. “Not working” is obviously wrong because using brain is work, and it’s exhausting work in many cases. The flip-side, and this is probably what is meant, is that you don’t break your body doing it. Similarly it’s obviously silly to think a higher education is necessary for a good working life. A lot of independent contractors and trades people have some really cool jobs that most office workers would be jealous of. Again what is meant is the perception that not having a higher education leads to a poorer life, which it can, but doesn’t have to.
I think that especially calling white collars out as not doing real work is often lovingly. It can be said by assholes, but the language around physical labour is often “tough love”. I’m not sure calling blue collar workers unfulfilled is very often lovingly though, so I think most people who do that are assholes.
What is interesting in the debate to me, is that I see a lot of IT work as blue collar work. Not all of it, but a lot of what we do is basically trade-skill related similar to how plumbing is. It’s just no physical. Over all though, I think it’s best to spend very little time on people who actually mean it hatefully when they call you X. Who cares what assholes think?
You can't please everyone — and even more important: Some people just love to complain for the sake of it. I suspect they put themselves above others that way. "Shit I could sit in that warm office" becomes "You are lazy" or else they have to question their life choices. Vice versa "Shit I could do something less boring" becomes "But I have learned more" for similar reasons. Grass is always greener..
My experience as someone who needs to do both is that often "game recognizes game", so great office workers will appreciate great blue collar workers and vice versa — if given the chance.
Every blue collar worker had situations where they had to wait because some lazy office bum that had to give them paperwork would rather chat with their collegues than do their job.
And every white collar worker had situation where a craftsperson communicated in single word fragments, went off and was seen to smoke cigarettes for half the time only to write them down as work hours while leaving things broken afterwards.
The only thing capable blue/white collar workers hate more than that is uncapable people on their own side.
Do people really think like that? I don't. I'd be ill-suited to most office jobs and most blue-collar jobs. I tend to think "you should have better labor laws, workplace safety, safety net, health care, education..."
"Lot's of people have tough lives, and things like minimum wage can help these people," is something I can potentially get behind. "You're a privileged sitter. Your kind control society yet refuse minimum wage increases, demonstrating a lack of empathy" just alienates me. I struggle to understand this the benefit of this framing outside of in-group virtue signalling.
> When you do office work you get the "you're not really working"
> When you do blue collar you get "you should've studied harder"
Do you really though? I know there's a lingering sentiment from somewhere, but at the same time... I don't recognise this sentiment at all, neither from personal experience nor anecdotal from diverse / random people on the internet in 2024.
You could be an engineer doing something physical like construction or mechanical engineering? Advanced degree and high pay but you spend plenty of time doing real tangible stuff. Also, there's obvious stuff like surgeons: highly respected and you're doing physical work.
Yeah, add to that the famous Elon Musk's troll quote, "working from home is unethical, because other people can't all work from home - think about all the people growing your food etc". Yeah, Am I also supposed to feel bad because I work normal working hours and others work at night? What about the people that have to lift heavy objects all day and do back breaking labour, and I "sit or stand at my desk all day". How about those that have a 3h commute while I walked to work from my city center apartment (back when I did work on site).
People will always find something to beat you over the head with. The most important thing is not to let them infect you with their negativity.
Brain work for me is like muscles for others - if I don’t squeeze out every ounce of energy from my brain with problems all day, I feel like I haven’t lived a full day. Many people prefer good workouts instead, if they don’t their body is punitive with restlessness and sleeplessness. Code is my infinite playground but others won’t touch it - despite me trying to convince them for years. They would rather work in the sun, or with other people, or in a busy environment.
People filter themselves into jobs they would rather do, when they have awareness of the possibilities. With social media that awareness is increasing.
I’ve had friends who had the definition of blue collar standing job and chose to transition to nursing, which is another standing job.
Immigration status and lack of language skills may tie you to standing jobs, but if people want to learn and grow out of them, in the US there are pathways. If someone curates a course on career pathways via youtube and spreads them through immigration centers and schools and social programs that will help even more people find their way.
I find healthcare workers to be an interesting mix in this discussion. Their work is extremely physical and mental, and emotionally draining. Demand for it will only go up. Compensation for it will likely go up. Who picks up the jobs will be enlightening. Yes you have the bottleneck for doctor and nurse training, but CNA and PA are not as limited. Doctor liability is an extreme source of stress, but that somehow doesn’t apply to nurses as much, so even doctors recommend their kids become nurses.
> Brain work for me is like muscles for others - if I don’t squeeze out every ounce of energy from my brain with problems all day, I feel like I haven’t lived a full day. Many people prefer good workouts instead, if they don’t their body is punitive with restlessness and sleeplessness.
I need both.
Too little brain work and my thoughts are racing (unproductively) and my sleep needs fall down to ~4h (happens on vacation) which isn’t actually enough to make me feel rested.
Too little physical activity and I’m restless and can’t focus, can’t sleep, and generally stuff falls apart.
Physical activity is integral to optimal cognitive function and mental performance. Sedentary lifestyles impair our intellectual capabilities regardless of natural talent or education. Research shows regular exercise enhances memory, focus, creativity, and stress management - all crucial for professional success. Healthcare workers actually demonstrate this mind-body connection well: their physically demanding jobs support rather than detract from the complex mental work they perform.
(obv. I don't know you or your routine, whether you move often by default or are not neurotypical, YMMV)
In case you haven't done that before: I suggest an experiment where you try to have a moderate amount of exercise (w few min in zone 2 cardio) before or during a break at work. Do it for 2-3 weeks and see if there's a difference in your cognitive performance.
I'm saying that not only because:
- there's scientific consensus that lack of exercise negatively impacts our cognitive abilities. Your thought sponge is a part of your body; our minds and bodies are not separate systems. *
- At some point I realised I was used to my default mental state (or performance, so to speak), and never noticed how much better I could feel/think after including more exercise in my life.
* many people would agree that Descartes and mind-body dualism is to blame here, at least partially.
Although I can appreciate your point about having some 'innate' desire for an activity like coding, I think this desire is just one of many factors in choice of work.
My own anecdotal experience is that because of several factors, I had to explore many things before I could figure out that I can actually learn to code, enjoy it, create useful things and be (relatively) good at it. All of this was necessary to actually be able to produce some code for a living.
Here's a list of some of the factors that may affect your desire, aside from some innate interest and intelligence:
- Having access to a computer at an early age and in the formative period
- Parental interest in computing and/or STEM
- Parental understanding of computing and/or STEM (informal tutoring)
- Parental pressure/expectations to pursue computing and/or STEM
- Effective teaching of math and computing concepts as a jumping board
- Knowledge of English (given that most programming concepts were defined in English first)
- Early successes and/or rewards in coding/STEM as opposed to non-STEM
- Social valuation of programmers and STEM (i.e., "nerds")
- Parental socioeconomic status
- Number of siblings (e.g., with respect to competition or pressure to leave home early)
- False beliefs ("I'll never be good at math/coding")
- Learning consistency and discipline (i.e., spaced repetition)
- Knowledge of how to learn difficult subjects effectively
- Recognition of fun or social usefulness of coding (with respect to any other pursuit)
- Understanding of implications of choosing particular options (e.g., college prep, career progression) instead of others, at particular stages in life (12-18 years old, with family)
- Familial duties (caring for a parent/sibling, having kids early)
- Sunk cost fallacy (i.e., 3rd year medical school, working vs going back to school)
Again, intelligence and innate desire will play a role, but I think there is nothing genetic about loving to look at some text on a computer. Personally, I met enough intelligent people, STEM and non-STEM, who think they should've just developed a desire for programming because they're burned out, exploited, fatigued and/or underpaid. These aren't implications most could predict when they made significant career choices.
> Standers are more likely to be exposed to the outdoors — something that will become more and more dangerous as our planet warms.
Feels almost absurd to see that framed as (just) a bad thing. (I would think Sitters are more likely to be exposed to the indoors, which includes a lack of sunlight and fresh air, possible exposure to mold and bad ventilation, and heated arguments over hot-desking.)
Thought the same.
It is clear that this presentation is definetely biased towards showing the problems of standing workers, as there haven't been any negative options about sitting presented.
Unfortunately, while medically known and even legislated (forced breaks), problems of sitting workers are still widely ignored (often by themselves too) until too late or trivialized.
I was getting consistent headaches at work, and attributed it to my coworkers being obnoxious. Then I brought in an air quality monitor, turns out my building had some serious ventilation issues, and there was not clean air at my desk.
This seems like a great demonstration of basing arguments on a dependent variable. Every slide I've seen so far would be better explained by white collar vs blue collar rather than sitter vs stander.
The classic from which all this comes is the UK bus system. You had the driver and the conductor. Equivalent jobs, from an equivalent background, with equivalent lifestyles away from work. But drivers sat and the conductors stood. Very, very different outcomes.
This is literally the example from which we learned that standing and walking around helps prevent heart attacks.
It seemed to me that it was using the dependant variable intentionally so that it could build up to the twist: actually it's all about race.
To be fair, the twist did get me. I thought it was leading up to discussing injury rates, or health in old age. Since I'm not from the US, the pivot to discussing race wasn't very interesting/relevant to me.
Isn't white vs blue collar a latent variable? You have to operationalize it somehow. If you just ask "how blue collar are you?", people's answers will be influenced by all kinds of subjective biases.
I'd argue sitter vs stander distinction also makes this presentation more visceral, memorable and understandable. Collar color would feel unnecessarily abstract and boring.
You have this backwards - sitting/standing (and autonomy etc.) are the data, and blue-collar/white-collar are names for clusters in that data, and the latter depend on the former. After all, workers choose a shirt according to their job role, not the other way around!
Also more importantly, I think the main point of the article is that it's not just two clusters; there are several interesting axes to look at. E.g. electricians are "standers" but have autonomy; bookkeepers are "white collar" but do little problem-solving, etc.
I don't think white collar vs blue collar comparison is necessarily better. There are heaps of ways to slice and dice data and this one of them. I'd argue that it's a rather interesting perspective.
They forgot to mention that the number one cause of death is a disease associated with by a lack of physical activity or prolonged periods of sitting or inactivity.
This is a worthwhile read, but I think it would be better if it offered not just interactive exploration or a video, but a conventional document, too—ideally as the primary form of presentation. This is by the same creator who made the This Is A Teenager exploration.
In that presentation, I was happy with how succinctly they were able to get down to what makes environments "high-risk", and I found the classification of "a quiet place to study" as a basic necessity (and its relationship to the prevalence/absence of "chaotic routines") as being particularly striking and memorable:
> Researchers determined risk by asking lots of questions. For example, they asked whether the kid has basic necessities, like electricity or a quiet place to study.
> They also asked about factors that could destabilize the home environment – chaotic routines, parents who have disabilities, or relatives struggling with substance abuse.
(So many environments nowadays, even the ones that are ostensibly created to fulfill this sort of thing, are just total failures at actually providing them. I'm thinking of things like public libraries. I live in Austin and have a major axe to grind about the public libraries here, which are nothing like what you'd get if you were actually interested in the pro-social goals that you'd think a public library would have in its charter. A teenager looking to escape their high-risk environment or an adult who's had their feet knocked out from beneath them basically stands no chance at getting out of their predicament if their only option were to use the public libraries here, which would unfortunately act more like a vortex to ensure they stay in the suck. But this is all beside the point.)
I suspect but cannot prove that there's a similar link to the presentation of information—that the best presentation is simple static media, ideally printed, that is supplemented by these types of exploratory environments so that you can make the main resource come to life. Failing that, you'd want the printed presentation, sans interactivity, and then finally as a last resort, just dumping the person into these kinds of presentations. cf: the widely felt phenomenon of handwritten notes being better than notes typed on a laptop + Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death.
What specifically is lacking in public libraries in Austin, Texas? Ideally, you can also share a point of comparison, e.g., the libraries in Boca Raton, Florida have much better young adult fiction.
Have you considered a tablet with pen to not cut down so many trees (transflective is the new cool kid on the block i hear, ipad works pretty well ime)? By now i actually prefer its better searchability with ocr and miss pinch to zoom on real paper ;) Or do you think that the paper being wobbly is important? I mean i get missing the indentability. My experience as a student is its more important to move your hands and have an intuitive sense for location on a sheet of paper (more intuitive/faster navigable than with a typed word processor) to easily form deep memories with what you are dealing with (+spaced repetition!!). So in total tablet works great (for me) once you get used to it. :)
Please indulge me on your short tangent on Austins public library, how can they improve? Same budget?
There is one other analysis that would, I suspect, adjust the OP’s conclusions: age. Hypothesis: sitters vs standers, and other measures of the quality of the job (danger, flexibility…) correlate substantially with the age of the worker. As you go from your teens to 20s to 30s and beyond you tend on average to get better jobs. It’s not absolute, but I bet it’s a very strong trend, perhaps stronger than racial factors. That’s a hypothesis I wish this analysis examined.
Nursing assistants are some of the most likely to be injured or ill. Similar to corrections officers and much more so than meat cutters ore tire changers. I found that surprising.
Interestingly, I have not noticed lower rates of obesity among the standers compared to sitters. I'm sure we've all seen obese/overweight people in retail, doing road work, or construction , but then also plenty of thin guys who do office work.
When I was having work done on my home, the 4 people who were working on it were all overweight/obese. Bill Gates was wire thin in his '20s despite his job entailing sitting at a computer all day.
I suspect this has to do with metabolic differences (with people with higher IQs having faster metabolisms relative to body mass due to more NEAT or other factors) than just diet and exercise.
Good observation; but I think metabolic differences leading to higher/lower IQs is a stretch (and smells weirdly eugenicist! but that's just my personal opinion).
It seems obvious to me that being poor makes it harder to be healthy. Stand all day and you're too tired to cook or exercise after work. You end up eating calorically dense, ultra processed foods because they're quick to prepare and easy to come by. The stress takes a toll on you physically, but there's no time to see a doctor, and your health insurance sucks. Even if you wanted to exercise, and found a cheap gym, you're more likely to develop something like a repetitive use injury that makes movement painful. And you're probably not getting good sleep, which affects your metabolism as well.
I'd be interested in whether the poverty/obesity correlation holds outside the US or if it's unusually high here. My guess is that it's mostly an American thing.
Software Developers were the most obvious outlier in Asian workers and non-citizen workers. It is surprising how much of an outlier it was, even compared to other similar white collar jobs.
Cool visualization, but it is ultimately 20 slides that are saying the exact same thing (white collar workers are more privileged than blue collar workers). And not adding anything new to something everyone already knows.
There is just one problem. It'd have been good if they asked for your country before the questionnaire. $30,000 salary for a Software Developer seems less in America, but that is huge in some other countries
[+] [-] ramon156|1 year ago|reply
When you do blue collar you get "you should've studied harder"
We never win, and sometimes accepting that is the right decision.
To not be loved is a simple mistake, to not love one another is a fatal mistake.
[+] [-] 0xEF|1 year ago|reply
It all seems to grow from a Seed of Ignorance:; a complete lack of understanding of what someone else's job actually entails, coupled with the subjective measure of how difficult a thing is which is largely based on our own narrow limitations and experiences. It's a weed that grows easily and is difficult to kill in the manufacturing sector.
[+] [-] ozim|1 year ago|reply
Conversely “you’re not really working” comes from blue collar workers.
Both sentences are the same and they are usually used by assholes from one or the other side that either feel attacked or feel superior.
There is no intrinsic value in any of those statements besides what it is saying about person using it - that person is an asshole.
[+] [-] devjab|1 year ago|reply
I think that especially calling white collars out as not doing real work is often lovingly. It can be said by assholes, but the language around physical labour is often “tough love”. I’m not sure calling blue collar workers unfulfilled is very often lovingly though, so I think most people who do that are assholes.
What is interesting in the debate to me, is that I see a lot of IT work as blue collar work. Not all of it, but a lot of what we do is basically trade-skill related similar to how plumbing is. It’s just no physical. Over all though, I think it’s best to spend very little time on people who actually mean it hatefully when they call you X. Who cares what assholes think?
[+] [-] atoav|1 year ago|reply
My experience as someone who needs to do both is that often "game recognizes game", so great office workers will appreciate great blue collar workers and vice versa — if given the chance.
Every blue collar worker had situations where they had to wait because some lazy office bum that had to give them paperwork would rather chat with their collegues than do their job.
And every white collar worker had situation where a craftsperson communicated in single word fragments, went off and was seen to smoke cigarettes for half the time only to write them down as work hours while leaving things broken afterwards.
The only thing capable blue/white collar workers hate more than that is uncapable people on their own side.
[+] [-] analog31|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jerf|1 year ago|reply
I would suggest putting in the time to find a different definition of "win" for your life, rather than accepting it.
[+] [-] Aunche|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|1 year ago|reply
> When you do blue collar you get "you should've studied harder"
Do you really though? I know there's a lingering sentiment from somewhere, but at the same time... I don't recognise this sentiment at all, neither from personal experience nor anecdotal from diverse / random people on the internet in 2024.
[+] [-] indoordin0saur|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] HPsquared|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Roark66|1 year ago|reply
People will always find something to beat you over the head with. The most important thing is not to let them infect you with their negativity.
[+] [-] paulddraper|1 year ago|reply
You never win everything simultaneously, yes.
[+] [-] dzink|1 year ago|reply
People filter themselves into jobs they would rather do, when they have awareness of the possibilities. With social media that awareness is increasing.
I’ve had friends who had the definition of blue collar standing job and chose to transition to nursing, which is another standing job.
Immigration status and lack of language skills may tie you to standing jobs, but if people want to learn and grow out of them, in the US there are pathways. If someone curates a course on career pathways via youtube and spreads them through immigration centers and schools and social programs that will help even more people find their way.
I find healthcare workers to be an interesting mix in this discussion. Their work is extremely physical and mental, and emotionally draining. Demand for it will only go up. Compensation for it will likely go up. Who picks up the jobs will be enlightening. Yes you have the bottleneck for doctor and nurse training, but CNA and PA are not as limited. Doctor liability is an extreme source of stress, but that somehow doesn’t apply to nurses as much, so even doctors recommend their kids become nurses.
[+] [-] Swizec|1 year ago|reply
I need both.
Too little brain work and my thoughts are racing (unproductively) and my sleep needs fall down to ~4h (happens on vacation) which isn’t actually enough to make me feel rested.
Too little physical activity and I’m restless and can’t focus, can’t sleep, and generally stuff falls apart.
[+] [-] emptiestplace|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] rpastuszak|1 year ago|reply
In case you haven't done that before: I suggest an experiment where you try to have a moderate amount of exercise (w few min in zone 2 cardio) before or during a break at work. Do it for 2-3 weeks and see if there's a difference in your cognitive performance.
I'm saying that not only because:
- there's scientific consensus that lack of exercise negatively impacts our cognitive abilities. Your thought sponge is a part of your body; our minds and bodies are not separate systems. *
- At some point I realised I was used to my default mental state (or performance, so to speak), and never noticed how much better I could feel/think after including more exercise in my life.
* many people would agree that Descartes and mind-body dualism is to blame here, at least partially.
[+] [-] TomasBM|1 year ago|reply
My own anecdotal experience is that because of several factors, I had to explore many things before I could figure out that I can actually learn to code, enjoy it, create useful things and be (relatively) good at it. All of this was necessary to actually be able to produce some code for a living.
Here's a list of some of the factors that may affect your desire, aside from some innate interest and intelligence:
- Having access to a computer at an early age and in the formative period
- Parental interest in computing and/or STEM
- Parental understanding of computing and/or STEM (informal tutoring)
- Parental pressure/expectations to pursue computing and/or STEM
- Learning disabilities (ADHD, dyslexia, numeracy)
- Introversion/extraversion
- Visible role models in STEM
- Addictions (gaming, social media, TV)
- Effective teaching of math and computing concepts as a jumping board
- Knowledge of English (given that most programming concepts were defined in English first)
- Early successes and/or rewards in coding/STEM as opposed to non-STEM
- Social valuation of programmers and STEM (i.e., "nerds")
- Parental socioeconomic status
- Number of siblings (e.g., with respect to competition or pressure to leave home early)
- False beliefs ("I'll never be good at math/coding")
- Learning consistency and discipline (i.e., spaced repetition)
- Knowledge of how to learn difficult subjects effectively
- Recognition of fun or social usefulness of coding (with respect to any other pursuit)
- Understanding of implications of choosing particular options (e.g., college prep, career progression) instead of others, at particular stages in life (12-18 years old, with family)
- Familial duties (caring for a parent/sibling, having kids early)
- Sunk cost fallacy (i.e., 3rd year medical school, working vs going back to school)
Again, intelligence and innate desire will play a role, but I think there is nothing genetic about loving to look at some text on a computer. Personally, I met enough intelligent people, STEM and non-STEM, who think they should've just developed a desire for programming because they're burned out, exploited, fatigued and/or underpaid. These aren't implications most could predict when they made significant career choices.
[+] [-] internet_points|1 year ago|reply
Feels almost absurd to see that framed as (just) a bad thing. (I would think Sitters are more likely to be exposed to the indoors, which includes a lack of sunlight and fresh air, possible exposure to mold and bad ventilation, and heated arguments over hot-desking.)
[+] [-] lexlambda|1 year ago|reply
Unfortunately, while medically known and even legislated (forced breaks), problems of sitting workers are still widely ignored (often by themselves too) until too late or trivialized.
[+] [-] AlfredBarnes|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] turbojet1321|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] btilly|1 year ago|reply
This is literally the example from which we learned that standing and walking around helps prevent heart attacks.
[+] [-] esperent|1 year ago|reply
To be fair, the twist did get me. I thought it was leading up to discussing injury rates, or health in old age. Since I'm not from the US, the pivot to discussing race wasn't very interesting/relevant to me.
[+] [-] tarvaina|1 year ago|reply
I'd argue sitter vs stander distinction also makes this presentation more visceral, memorable and understandable. Collar color would feel unnecessarily abstract and boring.
[+] [-] fenomas|1 year ago|reply
Also more importantly, I think the main point of the article is that it's not just two clusters; there are several interesting axes to look at. E.g. electricians are "standers" but have autonomy; bookkeepers are "white collar" but do little problem-solving, etc.
[+] [-] jp0d|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] shark1|1 year ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_causes_of_death_by_rat...
[+] [-] cxr|1 year ago|reply
Previously: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40053774>
In that presentation, I was happy with how succinctly they were able to get down to what makes environments "high-risk", and I found the classification of "a quiet place to study" as a basic necessity (and its relationship to the prevalence/absence of "chaotic routines") as being particularly striking and memorable:
> Researchers determined risk by asking lots of questions. For example, they asked whether the kid has basic necessities, like electricity or a quiet place to study.
> They also asked about factors that could destabilize the home environment – chaotic routines, parents who have disabilities, or relatives struggling with substance abuse.
(So many environments nowadays, even the ones that are ostensibly created to fulfill this sort of thing, are just total failures at actually providing them. I'm thinking of things like public libraries. I live in Austin and have a major axe to grind about the public libraries here, which are nothing like what you'd get if you were actually interested in the pro-social goals that you'd think a public library would have in its charter. A teenager looking to escape their high-risk environment or an adult who's had their feet knocked out from beneath them basically stands no chance at getting out of their predicament if their only option were to use the public libraries here, which would unfortunately act more like a vortex to ensure they stay in the suck. But this is all beside the point.)
I suspect but cannot prove that there's a similar link to the presentation of information—that the best presentation is simple static media, ideally printed, that is supplemented by these types of exploratory environments so that you can make the main resource come to life. Failing that, you'd want the printed presentation, sans interactivity, and then finally as a last resort, just dumping the person into these kinds of presentations. cf: the widely felt phenomenon of handwritten notes being better than notes typed on a laptop + Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death.
[+] [-] throwaway2037|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] kla-s|1 year ago|reply
Please indulge me on your short tangent on Austins public library, how can they improve? Same budget?
[+] [-] oldpersonintx|1 year ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] putzdown|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] jonathanQ|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] tejohnso|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] paulpauper|1 year ago|reply
When I was having work done on my home, the 4 people who were working on it were all overweight/obese. Bill Gates was wire thin in his '20s despite his job entailing sitting at a computer all day.
I suspect this has to do with metabolic differences (with people with higher IQs having faster metabolisms relative to body mass due to more NEAT or other factors) than just diet and exercise.
[+] [-] flocciput|1 year ago|reply
It seems obvious to me that being poor makes it harder to be healthy. Stand all day and you're too tired to cook or exercise after work. You end up eating calorically dense, ultra processed foods because they're quick to prepare and easy to come by. The stress takes a toll on you physically, but there's no time to see a doctor, and your health insurance sucks. Even if you wanted to exercise, and found a cheap gym, you're more likely to develop something like a repetitive use injury that makes movement painful. And you're probably not getting good sleep, which affects your metabolism as well.
I'd be interested in whether the poverty/obesity correlation holds outside the US or if it's unusually high here. My guess is that it's mostly an American thing.
[+] [-] paxys|1 year ago|reply
No it has to do with differences in dietary habits.
[+] [-] jcalabro|1 year ago|reply
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqjUlmkYr2g
[+] [-] amaurose|1 year ago|reply
> Visual storytelling makes ideas more accessible
From an a11y standpoint, that statement is very ironic. Because for visually impaired people, the effect is the opposite of what the sentence claims.
[+] [-] hatthew|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] mylesp|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] PeterStuer|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] unnouinceput|1 year ago|reply
I stopped there. I am here to read news about tech, not propaganda lies. Also flagged this.
[+] [-] beeflet|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] oceanparkway|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] gerdesj|1 year ago|reply
Very pretty and very dark and totally impenetrable.
[+] [-] paxys|1 year ago|reply
[+] [-] _thisdot|1 year ago|reply