Hersh

1 hour ago, tshile said:

😆 you’re right, I make so much money I don’t face basic challenges like taking care of my body 😆 

 

what a crock of **** you spew. 
 

if you want to dodge personal responsibility be my guest. 
 

everyones busy. Anyone with kids and two working spouses is incredibly busy. You’re not special. 

It’s so clear you’ve put no effort into this beyond headline outrage. Cause you don’t even understand the questions I’m asking about. 
 

which tracks perfectly with “I’m too busy to exercise you just don’t get it”

I'm not talking about me. I exercise plenty and I don't have any weight issues. I'm just not such a prick to think that it's simple for everyone to find time to exercise every day if they just made it a priority. Life is not that easy for a lot of people but feel free to make it a point to tell overweight people why they are such. I'm sure that will go over great. 

2 hours ago, tshile said:

that’s not really how it works… they say there’s room for profit and tax but they don’t explain it and that’s not really how things work. The production cost of one item isn’t the only factor that drives how a company markets its stuff - in any market. And all these articles are just regurgitating the same thing. 
 

so since you seem to know what’s in the research maybe you can answer this cause I didn’t find it:

why does it seem appropriate to use different production methods to justify why something should cost? Why didn’t they stick to the way this company manufactures it? Is that a common way to analyze things and justify this? Do we have lots of examples of companies changing their production methods because someone theoretically found a cheaper way and wrote an article about it?

 

how can you imply production cost is what it should cost, without knowing what was spent on r&d? Best I can tell, no one knows what was spent on R&D. I’ve asked but no one’s answered it, and I can’t find it in the researchers work or the article. 

 

if I missed all that clarification let me know, it’s a lot to read and I’m not well versed in it enough to pretend I maybe didn’t make a mistake or misunderstand. 
 

since you seem to know so much about it you can probably be helpful in providing information the articles regurgitating the basic stuff all passed on explaining?

WTF are you going on and on about? Maybe instead of typing, you are the one that should go for a walk. Then email the researchers all your questions so you can argue with them. 

48 minutes ago, tshile said:

Yeah I get that - if you don’t think regular exercise is key to health and weight control then have fun with that idea. 
 

I think it’s key to a lot of things and in general should be on your list next to brushing your teeth, showering, eating, drinking water, and understanding how to make sure you **** in a toilet. 
 

it’s a basic part of taking care of yourself. “I don’t have time” is not an excuse. I say that as someone with good sections of my adult life using that excuse and pretending it’s anything other than the bull**** excuse it is. 
 

if someone told you they don’t brush their teeth cause they don’t have time, what would you think?

 

that’s how you should think about exercise. 

If you really think everyone has time every day and you lump it in with brushing teeth, you live in a bubble probably cause you make plenty of money to not face the same challenges those in less fortunate situations. 

4 minutes ago, tshile said:

Right. I’m aware. But if you actually read the articles they don’t actually tell you anything. I even went to read the research and it’s confusing as to what it’s saying. 
 

no ones saying how much the r&d was. This stuff didn’t pop out of no where. There’s decades of research into weight loss and these are just now hitting the market. 
 

Your own article posts results varying from <1$ to 40$ a month 

 

“production cost” is a creative way of looking at it. The “production cost” of a soda in a restaurant is like 5 cents but that’s not what they charge. 
 

I see a bunch of people throwing around half baked information but no one actually backing up any of it with anything that makes sense. Just a bunch of “it shouldn’t be expensive” commentary. No one seems to be able to say what it should cost, and why. 

I read the article. You asked a question and the company gave the answer they gave. The article literally gets into what the cost could be while still having a profit. If you want to argue with the researchers, knock yourself out. 

8 hours ago, tshile said:

everyone’s got crap going on. Work school kids spouses. Spouses that are working and in school. I’ve been on both sides of it and the reality is that if you have to make time, and you either make time or you don’t. It isn’t a fun thing to do. It’s like brushing your teeth and making sure you eat meals. You also exercise because you’re not in elementary school anymore and no one is around to make you. 

 

I genuinely care about poor people and problems we have as a society. I just disagree with some ideas on what to do 

 

After arguing with researchers, you should go around and tell obese people that they all really do have time and they simply aren't prioritizing exercising. Let us know how that goes because it's clear that you have no idea of the struggle some people go through. 

7 minutes ago, tshile said:

What should they cost? And who gets to decide that?

 

how much did it take to discover/create it?

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/27/novo-nordisk-ozempic-can-be-made-for-less-than-5-a-month-study.html

1 minute ago, PeterMP said:

There's whole cook books out there dedicated to feeding people on cheaply on a budget.  I focused on fast because that was part of the original comment.  There are people that need economic help, but I've seen that excuse used too much.

 

And fruits, vegetables, nuts, and bread with butter can absolutely be essentially a meal.  That's pretty much my lunch most days.

 

(And berries and grapes are expensive most times of the years.  I'm thinking mostly apples and bananas.)

 

I don't buy that the issue with obesity is time and money for most people.  The people that are getting obese by eating cheap fast food could eat less, buy a good multivitamin and some fiber powder to mix withe water save money, not be obese, and be healthier.  Obesity is the result of over eating.  Eating less saves money.

 

(Ignorance might be an issue.)

The food industry does there best to make their food addictive so they can make more money. That shouldn't be dismissed. 

Just now, tshile said:

Oh and anyone can exercise. That’s not a poverty thing either. 
 

and anyone who says they’re too busy is really just saying they don’t care enough to prioritize it (single mother working multiple jobs excluded)

 

This gets into a much larger issues of how we build cities. It's not just "they don't care enough to prioritize it" when travel times to work can be long, there is a lot to get done at home with kids and neighborhoods are great for just going out and taking a walk. 

1 minute ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Eh...

 

McDonalds got rid of super-sized almost 20 years ago...shrinkflation is also a real thing.

 

Yet this problem has been continuing to get worse.

 

I'll accept a multiple front attack on a multiple front issue.  Companies should try to figure out how to make their food healthier or it be more clear how unhealthy they really are. 

 

Calorie counting every menu option I dont believe does what's finally purchased justice, you dont go to McDonalds to count calories.

 

Increasing pricing for unhealthy foods and dripping prices for healthy foods doesn't sound crazy to me.

 

Opinion.

People go to chipotle to "eat heathy" and the serving sizes are enormous. Same happens at a lot of places regardless of whether it's actually healthy or not. 

38 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Time to increase the tax on coke and Big Macs to pay for it.

yes and no. A huge problem, no pun intended, is portion sizes at almost all restaurants in this country. Cutting serving sizes would do far more than raising taxes on sugary stuff. 

Nuggets starters may play a few minutes in the 3rd then it's all bench. Murray shot the Nuggets right out of the game. 

33 minutes ago, Cooked Crack said:

 

They are truly the dumbest ****ing people. 

Pacers didn't show up. Thibs still played Brunson 43 minutes in a blow out. Dude is going to destroy his players. 

2 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

I hope not.

 

Anyway...I'm not ready to pay $100 jus to get in the building to watch Catlin Clark in person.

 

Yet.

The Mystics could have two picks in the top-6 next year. They desperately need an infusion of high level talent. 

Mystics top-2 pick in 2025. LFG!!

Dallas choke job. Supporting players did their jobs while the two stars played awful. 

Just now, Destino said:

I think the understated value of Jordan Pippen was that you had two insanely good perimeter defenders that each played 40 minutes. Centers can be worked around, but two roving lunatics that will literally hound you all game while dunking on your head on the other end is a nightmare. 

Not too get too far off track, but those rosters were built to perfection around Jordan and Pippen. 

Ant needs to get up another 18-20 shots through the rest of the game for the Wolves to have a chance. 

4 minutes ago, Dr. Do Itch Big said:

Jokic looking he going to score 40 tonight. 

But Gil Arenas said he heard Jokic was checked out and ready to be done for the season. 

On 5/10/2024 at 10:33 PM, Hersh said:

Knicks had tired legs at the end of the game. Pacers should run them out of the gym on Sunday afternoon. All those minutes might be catching up to the Knicks just a bit. 

It was over in the first quarter. Probably best thing for the Knicks so they would actually rest players but they are in trouble. 

NBA has to change the replay system for clear out of bounds mistakes. It shouldn't cause a team to have to challenge let alone lose a timeout. Ridiculous. 

Knicks had tired legs at the end of the game. Pacers should run them out of the gym on Sunday afternoon. All those minutes might be catching up to the Knicks just a bit. 

1 hour ago, Destino said:

I didn’t like the Mavs chances tonight but when Luka gets some help they’re tough to beat. Bet they regret letting Brunson walk though. They don’t get enough criticism for that. He’s a far better player than Kyrie today. 
 

 

At risk of incurring some ribbing from @Die Hard when the Celtics win this series in five, the celtics can be inconsistent in the post season. Won’t matter against the Cavs. Will matter against that Minnesota buzzsaw. 

Especially given the contract Brunson was willing to sign initially. It was for like $12 million per over 4 years. Dallas messed that up. 

1 hour ago, Destino said:

I’m going to say something controversial today. The whole analytics only shoot a three or at the rim thing, leads to a lot of bad shots in the playoffs. Watching guys dribble into a waiting crowd of defenders at the rim when they could have launched a 5 foot wide up pull up is not good basketball.  We’ve created a situation where low post players shoot from further away from the rim than guards (when not attempting a three)

I don't see why that's controversial. Analytics kill sports. See it was too often that a player passes up an open layup to kick it out for a three point shot. Not to mention, all the best players in the league actually have good midrange games and have been clutch using them. 

1 minute ago, Destino said:

I love Shaq. If you want serious basketball talk hit up the Lebron and JJ reddick podcast. 

This is where I'm at. Shaq is great. I do enjoy Kenny and Chuck talking ball. 

sidenote: the gone fishing segment has gone way downhill 

Am I the only one that thinks Shaq adds very little to the NBA on TNT? Yes, he messes with chuck but that's about it. 

Murray's getting a big fine for that if not a suspension. Guard rotation for Denver has 2 pts on 1-16 shooting. KCP just getting cardio in.