Was at an event he was at CSUN ~1978. We were in the parking lot coming in and he was just coming out. He stopped and talked to us for a while. Super nice guy. My impression is he is exactly the same as he is on the air all the time.
V7 Unix Kernel. By far the cleanest most concise code I’ve had had the privilege to work with. Really laid the groundwork for what came after particularly BSD4.3 and beyond.
From the referenced study supplemental documentation on the “fasting” days and non-fasting days. Even the fasting days they allow you to eat 350-550 calories as aforementioned supplements/snacks for a ~9% weight loss and 17% reduction in desire to eat over 8 weeks. Not bad at all if you can manage to do it: 205lbs->184.
That would be an extremely bad summary, because both diets that were tested were 9000 calories/week. It's the entire point of the study, and it seems that nobody commenting here even bothered to skim it before "ackshuallying" it.
> Eating less energy than the body burns results in burning of stored energy reserves
Nope [1].
Even proponents of the energy-balance model clarify that “the brain is the primary organ responsible for body weight regulation operating mainly below our conscious awareness via complex endocrine, metabolic, and nervous system signals to control food intake in response to the body’s dynamic energy needs as well as environmental influences” [2].
Calorie in calorie out is the flat-earth model of metabolism, trading truth for simplicity.
> Each group was given meals with the same number of calories and instructed to eat as much as they wanted, but when participants ate the processed foods, they ate 500 calories more each day on average. The same people's calorie intake decreased when they ate the unprocessed foods.
Your own Harvard link supports the calories in/out theory, but argues against counting calories. Different things.
> own Harvard link supports the calories in/out theory
Calorie in / calorie out isn’t a theory, it’s a thermodynamic corollary. I compare it to flat eartherism because “things go down” is similarly a corollary of gravity. The missed link with the latter is that down isn’t what it intuitively means. The missed link with colloquial energy-balance interpretations is “calorie in” and “calorie out” don’t mean what people think it does.
If you have a healthy metabolism, cutting calories and increasing burn—cereris paribus—should spike a starvation response. That has some perks. But it should also reduce your resting metabolism, sometimes below even maintenance levels; it should increase your absorption and sequestration of energy; it should alter your taste to make calories more appetising, and increase existential anxiety around the procuring of those. (Counterfactial: I’m someone who is fine being hungry. )
Just as one can design short bridges on a flat-earth model and be fine, one can deploy this simplistic model (it’s not a theory, that’s the vastly more complex energy-balance model) to make short-term gains. But it’s fundamentally wrong in that it builds the wrong intuitions. Similar to how thinking of our brains as a steam engine or microcomputer sort of works, in some cases, or if you’re trying to be punchy in internet comments, but is fundamentally wrong and misleading.
Yet, you can lose weight on Mountain Dew and Doritos by counting calories.
Little Debbie Snacks, Oreos, Doritos and Diet Mountain Dew sure don't sound like diet food. But a nutrition professor at Kansas State University ate only convenience store snacks for two months and lost 27 pounds.
The key? Moderation.
Mark Haub kept his food intake below 1,800 calories a day -- no extra exercise required.
I worked at WebTV after it was acquired by Microsoft. My officemate was a dev that fixed browser crashes on the box. 90% of them were for porn sites. Which meant that he was paid by Microsoft to visit porn sites all day
I worked for an ISP that supported WebTV during this era, as third shift tech support.
The vast majority of my calls were from people (drunkenly) complaining that the internet was "busted". Typically the entire internet being down to them was actually code which meant that a certain porn site didn't work on WebTV.
They almost always hung up before admitting the actual problem. When they didn't, I wished they had.
I worked at WebTV not long after the acquisition. I was always impressed with the amount of capability they were able to extract out of such minimalist hardware. Even for their time they had a slow CPU and tiny amount of RAM but managed to have a bespoke UX that was even capable of rendering Flash-based sites.
Even in the late 90s there was a community of WebTV hackers. One thing people focused on was the “tricks menu”[1] that required typing in a password to get into it. There were all kinds of conspiracy theories about what the codes “meant”. The reality was they were just chosen to be something easy to remember that could be typed with only one’s left hand on those IR keyboards.
Ha, nice! For those who don't get the references, "Hello, citizen!" and "Remember, the computer is your friend" are quotes from the tabletop RPG Paranoia, which of course features an all-controlling computer which is decidedly not your friend.
I'm sure he had better connectivity than all the people on dialup using WebTV.
It's surprising that they never shipped V.92 support for most of these devices, you would think that saving tens of seconds would be a boon for an appliance product like this.
Has there been any work done to put old WebTV clients to use?
Not that I’m aware of. It was a nice code base, but all very custom. Even the network stack was custom. I would think companies could get a lot more adopting all the open stuff available now.
It did have a life for several years after I left in MSNTV. Maybe someone else here knows its fate.
No, not at all. His job was just to fix crashes. He would go through the logs and they just all happened mostly be porn sites. We used to joke that his job was to visit porn sites, but it was among a small group of developers. I wasn’t even sure of his direct manager was aware. But he was in fact being paid by Microsoft to visit porn sites :-)
My favorite was Taco Bell putting a 10’ x 10’ box off the coast of Australia and running an ad saying if Skylab hits it, everyone in the US gets a free taco.
