Comment by cernael on Optimal Exercise · 2014-04-21T11:03:39.789Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW · GW

My two cents - their first principles sound seasonably sound, but the conclusions they draw from them are sometimes questionable. There were several times reading it that I almost sputtered in disbelief, thinking "dammit, that's not how it works!" Now, some of these I can accept as simplifying things for the sake of argument, others I cannot. (Sadly, I didn't keep notes of them. In retrospect I guess I should have.)

At times I felt the authors were somewhat condescending, too, especially when it concerned stretching. I got the impression that strength was the only measure of success they accepted, and any exercise form that contributes to other goals - like stretching to promote limberness - are therefore worthless.

Comment by cernael on Three Worlds Collide (0/8) · 2011-08-09T00:50:49.905Z · score: 2 (2 votes) · LW · GW

The nature of Alderson lines, as described, means that every system is a frontier system.

Comment by cernael on Shut up and do the impossible! · 2011-02-15T02:23:57.252Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW · GW

I also wonder if there are any ethically motivated vegetarians who refuse to eat animals but don't have a philosophical objection to eating human flesh (perhaps considering it a symmetric kind of justice).

I have no ethical qualms about eating humans, no. Assuming it is freely given, of course (animal flesh fails ethically on that point; interspecies communication is simply not good enough to convey consent).

Other classes of objection do apply, though - having been a vegetarian for seven years or so, could my digestive system handle flesh without being upset? What about pathogens - they're bound to migrate more readily when predator and prey are the same species; will it be worth the risk? I think not.