The zeitgeist has pushed the idea carbs/grains and sugar are terrible over the last 40 years on and off, so that seems to say more about the medical industrial complex, than anything. That's fair, but if that message has been pushed so consistently, why didn't we see a real decrease in the consumption of those things and the associated weight loss?
I am on a GLP-1 level calorie restricted diet right now without a GLP-1 and of course it is just miserable.
I love eating a giant sandwich at night that is more calories than what I am eating all day now but it isn't the taste it is the brain chemical release.
It is an addiction like any other addiction. I have never felt that same craving for chicken breast.
Wouldn't the side effects, combined by the accompanying lifestyle changes key to making this medication most effective, show its not a panacea or cure-all? The fact there are these second order effects with such incredible impacts would lead me to believe its more mechanistic than magical with how much obesity effects all sorts of body systems
The main factor that you fail to mention is living cost, and not the internet, which made it possible and desirable to frequently move in search of opportunity.
It didn't mean there weren't people that lived long-term in communities. However, it did mean that you could find more lucrative opportunities in different places while also affording to move and live there.
That began to slowly change in the 60's, beginning with the death of single occupancy residences and a lack of funding/investment in affordable housing for a significant portion of income brackets.
The last 30ish years helped cement that for lots of reasons, but the ability to work remotely via the internet isn't particularly new nor causative for that change.
> However, it did mean that you could find more lucrative opportunities in different places while also affording to move and live there.
Same as now. The data clearly shows more job opportunity in rural areas (not all rural areas) and more affordable living to go along with it. But we haven't (yet) reached the dire situation where the people actually have to make the move like previous generations found themselves in. Most people won't leave family and friends behind unless they feel they are out of options.
People moving in search of opportunity back then weren’t doing it because it was easier. It meant giving up your family and friends far more so than now because of the lack of internet. An out of state move meant a handful of letters a year was the level of contact you were in for and that was only for close family.
Living cost was a big barrier back then (except maybe the homesteading) too. Any time someone is leaving a poor outlook to a more booming area it usually means cost of living is going up.
> but the ability to work remotely via the internet isn't particularly new nor causative for that change
It absolutely was the first time any non-trivial percentage of work was remote. More importantly, the spike meant 15% of the population became eligible to leave an expensive city that sucked during the lockdowns. https://www.stlouisfed.org/on-the-economy/2024/dec/trends-wo...
There is most definitely affordable housing all over the US. People are just both picky and lacking opportunity in the cheaper places. Remote work was the fix for the latter part so downplaying that is missing the point.
If you have a remote job and just want to live in NYC because of culture, then you have no leg to stand on when complaining about housing. It’s purely a luxury decision at that point.
> That began to slowly change in the 60's, beginning with the death of single occupancy residences
Specifically the “average annual homeownership rates since 1964”. Right below it has a snapshot of rates by state and the difference tells you everything you need to know.
Housing is only broken in the top desired areas and remote work gave you the opportunity to get a good job while leaving those.
It depends on who controls the cameras, but yes generally every added means of surveillance by a centralized power takes us closer to an Orwellian society.
anti-theft cameras less so, because they are controlled by individual people, but as seen with Ring doorbells, the government can still access them, so it's pretty creepy.
