Funnily enough it generated the most interesting subthread of this submission.

Even if that's true - let's assume that it is - moderation has to go by the expected outcome. In this case the expected outcome is certainly a flamewar.

A bad hand does still win the pot sometimes, but that doesn't make it the right play!

There's literal war ongoing already, no extra excuse is needed, only political will.

There's a reason countries like to fight proxy wars over real wars, they cost money not (their own) lives.

> Loads for each set were adjusted to ensure that volitional fatigue was reached within 8–12 and 20–25 repetitions for the HL and LL limbs, respectively

I would argue both categories of the study are about low reps. I don't see how the body would tell the difference between 12 and 25 reps. If you said between 5 and 500, like it has to meaningfully take much longer, otherwise why would doing something so similar have any meaningful difference?

The way I think about it is that nature mostly reacts to order of magnitude changes. 12 to 25 is the same thing.

Like why not make a study to see if its more nutritious to eat dinner in 15 or 20 minutes?

This is spoken like you've never done any reps at all?

There's not much difference in hitting max at 12 and at 25, from anecdotal experience. The study corroborated that as well, even though with small n.

What do you mean by there’s no difference? The difference is in the relative load needed in each example.

Well of course you change the load, but the stimulus is interpreted the same way by the body. I didn't think the question was at that level.

> but the stimulus is interpreted the same way by the body

That may be your intuition, but it’s certainly not everyone’s, hence the studies… Many people will intuit heavier weight = more effective.

It's not my intuition, it's just knowledge about processes in nature.

Almost nothing reacts to changes smaller than an order of magnitude to anything. It's one of the best rules of thumb.

Except that this is something that was well established before, making this study pointless.

I feel like I would definitely notice if I went from 12 to 25 reps on any exercise I do. Although typically I max out at 8 before adding more weight.

Of course you would personally notice. But the parent was talking about the effect on muscles. And it has been long estsblished that 5-30 reps (perhaps even highter) will cause the same hypertrophy.

Obviously, for practical reasons the optimal range for each exercise will vary. For squat 5-10 is definitely better than 10-20 let alone 20-30. For DB side raises highter reps would feel better than the lower rep range.

> I feel like I would definitely notice if I went from 12 to 25 reps on any exercise I do.

To be clear, the implication is that 12 and 25 have different weights so they tire you the same amount. Do you think it would be a very strongly felt difference in that situation? What would the difference feel like?

Yes, this is why classic body builders like high reps because they get the pump but you can get the same growth (and there’s lots of research saying more) with training to failure with low reps and high weight but it doesn’t give you the pump.

Well the idea in the earlier comment is that a 2x rep difference isn't very much to be the difference between "low" and "high". It's not disputing that you can get a difference, but saying the study didn't try very hard to probe it.

You consciously notice of course, like what kind of argument is that. The point is the stimulus is the same for the body unless you change it by orders of magnitude, the study agrees that this is the same also.

It's all fake to fool you!! Coca cola is only the popular beverage it is because the illuminati chose Warren to shill for it!!

Yeah let's give the billionaires the same benefit of the doubt we give our friends & family & working-class people.

> There was also a daunting voice in the back of my head that LLMs have eliminated the need for books like this. Why buy this book when ChatGPT can generate the same style of tutorial for ANY project that is customized to you?

Why have sex with your wife when you can buy her a dildo?

There's no general will, it's not specifically political will. Emitting less CO2 means doing less things or doing them for much more money due to high taxes to discourage it (and also disproportionately affect poor people). Other than some luddites I've never met anyone that genuinely was willing to sacrifice eating a nice steak or going on vacation unless they are millionaires, and that's only because those people know they can do it as much as they want. You have a huge mass of people getting lifted from poverty that will tell you to fuck off if you tell them that now they are finally out of eating rice and starving they can't have a steak, because of CO2.

All the things silicon valley "caviar communists" say you need to stop doing are basically the dreams of a whole mass of people coming out of poverty. Nice food, traveling, having a car, having A/C, etc.

So we can either find alternatives, or slowly figure out more geoengineering projects like mass absorbing CO2 and the like.

I grew up in a trailer, and last month I flew halfway across the country and ate at a Michelin star restaurant that fed me truffles flown from Italy.

I am definitely part of this group you describe.

Is it so hard to accept someone else might give away money for a charitable reason rather than because of fear?

When you give money to help a pet shelter, or to feed kids in some far-away location, this is a donation. You give something, and you don't get anything back in return. Even a tax benefit, it doesn't change anything (as at the end you have to pay the same amount of money).

But now, what if you "donate" to a public park across the street from your house: Is it charity? Yes, you are giving money to the city/trust that you don't have to give. Do you benefit? Yes directly, your property value goes up and you have a nice place to walk. Does that make it "not a donation"? No. It just makes it a smart donation or even sponsoring a project.

In all cases he is securing his own supply chain, and for a very cheap price. It is a very rational business expense.

I really hate that vision of the world with a passion. For people with such opinion nothing is ever enough or pure enough, but if you ask directly such people donate almost nothing themselves.

The fact people with this opinion exist also discourages donations from others because "nothing is ever enough" for you.

Also pro-tip, if you do more than a handful donations you'll realize that you as the giver is always the one that most benefits from being charitable. The feeling you get is why you do it.

Or it could be both. Time will tell.

ConcernedApe's next game is also built on MonoGame, so he has self-interested reasons to want MonoGame to continue to be maintained. But just because ConcernedApe has self-interested reasons to donate doesn't necessarily mean that it doesn't also come from a charitable place.

MonoGame is basically getting a sponsor. The ecosystem benefits. I'm personally happy to leave it there rather than asking for moral purity.

Not even infrastructure as code is in the repository from what one can see.

And avoiding the NSA submarine taps!