TrekkieGod

My workout routine this year was rigorous. For 10 weeks, I was in the gym 6 days a week, 3 hours a day. This was broken up into 15 min cardio warm-up, 1 hr 45 min lifting weights, and then 1 hr cardio (usually the elliptical machine).

You...are...the...man!

In that 10 weeks, I dropped 90 lbs, and over 10% body fat.

I don't doubt it, that's a lot of hard work, and it pays off. Do you have any type of medical supervision and/or advice related to that exercise regimen, given that you've had heart problems in the past?

We let Zack Snyder direct a film about him.

Man of Steel has a ton of problems, but to imply that it's the worst thing that happened to Superman in the big screen is to ignore every other Superman movie. There has never been a good one.

The 1978 movie was almost pretty good, but they had to write a goofy Lex Luthor with goofy minions.

The second movie was for some unexplainable reason seen by many as a worthwhile sequel. As much as I can admit "kneel before Zod" is a fantastic quotable line, that movie brought us the many zany powers of Kryptonians. Kisses that erase memory, levitating other people from a distance, appearing in multiple locations at once, and whatever the hell this is.

Superman 3 is universally seen as pretty awful, but it actually is a lot better than 2. I like Richard Pryor's scenes, but again, it's like a parody of a Superman movie, not a Superman movie. It's a comedy, not a superhero film.

Superman 4...well, nobody defends Superman 4, so I guess I don't need to say much about it.

Then Bryan Singer resurrects the franchise by, for some stupid reason, writing a sort-of sequel to Superman 2 instead of outright getting rid of the bad history and starting over with a good movie. So we get goofy Lex Luthor still obsessed with land, even if it's crappy, rocky, non-fertile land made of "Kryyyyyptonite!". And if you don't think Superman is powerful enough having only Kryptonite as his weakness, fear not! Now he gets to lift an entire island made of it into space!

Man of Steel misses the mark by trying to make Kal-El more important than just being a Kryptonian on planet Earth. Now he's the first child not genetically programmed to have aptitude for a particular profession, or some such nonsense. I don't understand why that genetic programming was of any importance when scientist Jor-El kicked General Zod's ass in a fistfight on Krypton. They must have been switched at birth or something. There were a bunch of other problems with it, but at least it wasn't a goofy comedy, and it stayed pretty true to Clark Kent's character. Oh, people complain that he killed Zod in cold blood and Superman would never have done that. Which is weird, because he didn't. He begged Zod to not make him do it, he begged him to not try to kill those humans. When Zod didn't listen, he did the only thing he could to protect innocent people, and then agonized about it as if it was his fault and he could have done something different. Unlike, say, in Superman II when, with a grin on his face, he killed a defenseless Zod that had just been stripped of all his Kryptonian powers and was no longer a threat to anyone.

There is no permanent victory, on any side.

The way to look at this isn't, "after fighting tirelessly for twelve years, we lost net neutrality." It's, "because we've fought tirelessly, we got to keep net neutrality for twelve years." Now you've lost it, and the corporations who don't like net neutrality have to keep fighting to prevent it from being reintroduced. If you don't fight, they get to keep it off the books for longer. If you fight, you get a version of it back sooner.

Being involved in government isn't like getting your high school degree. Ok, I did all this work, I have it, don't need to go to high school ever again. It's like brushing your teeth. You brushed this morning, and if you don't brush again tonight, you're in trouble. You're going to keep brushing your teeth multiple times a day, every day, for the rest of your life. And if despite doing that you get a cavity, it would be irrational for you to say, "I did all that work, and I still got a cavity, so I'm going to give up brushing my teeth." If you do that, the situation is going to get worse, not better. If anything, it signals you need to work harder at it.

If you care about something, you'll have to fight for it your entire life. You won't always win, but the alternative is a guaranteed loss.

They would be useful for the general public (assuming we could make them work as a plug in chip or something, which right now we can't), but they are good at solving a particular class of problems.

Think of it like a GPU. It's really good for what it does, but it doesn't replace your CPU, you have it in addition to it.

Quantum algorithms also generally have a need for classical computing as part of it. Shor's Algorithm for instance, which is the quantum algorithm that can factor large numbers quickly and threatens encryption, has a step where you verify the results classically and try again if they're not right. Because the quantum parts are probabilistic and the results of the qubits have a high probability of being the results you want once measured, but not 100%.

So you use the quantum computer to factor a number, but you don't use it to multiply numbers.

Why would you want to be compensated? This is purely an act of compassion.

Why would you want to limit it to purely acts of compassion? If you get more kidneys by getting those who want to be compensated to become donors, you save more lives.

Are you concerned about that living person that has been more sick than you have ever imagined, or are you concerned about some moral purity test of donors?