I would echo this general idea of recalibrating, and add a refinement.
Instead of believing the process and waiting for months to see if it works, you can weigh yourself every day and look at the moving average. That will let you ignore the natural daily fluctuations, but still give you regular feedback.
In my experience, that regular feedback really helps with the motivation to keep doing the calorie counting.
I did that, but even then it takes weeks if not months to get a good idea from my experience. Basically, my weight would vary by 2 pounds, but i was aiming at losing 1 pound per week, so it took at least 2 weeks before my progress wouldn't get lost in the noise.
I've also heard the argument it's worse for women because weight changes with the menstrual cycles, so then you really have to look at the very least one month of data.
I also had a Skarsta, and the crank mechanism came apart within about six months. (I raised/lowered it a half-dozen times per day.) I personally found the Bekant more reliable (though I only used it for a year). YMMV, I guess.
On the other hand, my Steelcase standing desk is still performing well after 7(?) years and several moves, but it was C$1500.
There are different ways to measure how much people value their lives. Some of the most interesting involve "revealed preferences", ie. what people actually do, not what they say.
For example, how much higher wages do people demand for riskier work, controlling for other factors? Or, how much extra do they pay for, say, a car with a better safety record?
I just checked the Wikipedia article on the "value of a statistical life", and apparently most current US estimates are around $9 million. This is up from around $7 million a decade ago.
1. The host city gets it for 40 years, to amortize the cost of building the facilities and to improve through experience.
2. Distribute groups of sports (skiing events, swimming events, etc) to different host cities, to reduce the impact on each city and to foster a sense of international cooperation.
3. Stagger the events throughout the year, to avoid scheduling conflicts and viewer burnout.
The HN headline ("Free money for all") is a bit misleading. The article states that the basic income will only be given to 2000 randomly selected unemployed people.
That's how they're selecting the participants for the trial; but continuing to be unemployed is not a requirement for receiving the $587. (Indeed, this is the whole point: They want to see if the existing system of unemployment benefits is creating a disincentive to finding work.)
Yes. We changed it to a shortened version of the article title. Submitters: the HN guidelines ask you to use the original article title, unless it is misleading or linkbait.
(Submitted title was 'Free money for all: Finland launches basic income experiment with Jan. 1 cheques').
More expensive relative to some measure of underlying value like earnings or book value. If you look at the P/E ratio (price-to-earnings) of a stock, a higher ratio means you're paying more to buy enough stock to get $1 of earnings, which in a sense means that the stock is more expensive.
Could you explain how you got the 10% / 20% efficiency numbers you mentioned? Your combustion numbers are in the same ballpark, but you got a much different result for fuel cells.
