Formerly fat person here. That article is just an overblown list of common sense advice to sell you some crap you don't need. Losing and maintaining your weight is actually really simple. Here is what worked for me (I am not a doctor):

- First of all, drop sugar. Right now. Even if you are not fat, you should not eat it. It's not just extra calories, it's poison. Don't be like "oh, I'll just finish this stuff I still have around", throw it out. If your are only going to follow one point from this list, then let it be this one.

- Forget about calories, a calorie is not a calorie. You cannot "work off" that cake your have eaten, your are not an oven. Calories are an upper limit (you cannot break thermodynamics), but the human metabolism is much more complicated than just balancing an equation.

- Exercise is necessary, but not sufficient. That means you should exercise to get your metabolism going, but exercising itself will not let your lose weight. And when I mean exercising I don't mean you need to get a gym membership. Just going for a walk for half an hour or an hour is good enough for starters.

- Fat won't make you fat. I grew up under low-fat propaganda, yet I kept getting fatter. Then when I increase my fat consumption I started losing weight. By fat I mean real animal fat from meat, not seed oils or other processed fats.

- Eat real food. If you cannot tell what it's made from by looking at it, then it's not real food.

- Processed fruits and vegetables are still processed food, and thus not real food. Don't be fooled by marketing, stuff like fruit juice is not healthy, no matter how many vitamin labels the manufacturer keeps putting on the packaging.

- Caloric restriction works in the short term, but will drive you crazy in the long term. This is why people lapse eventually and regain all their weight.

It is important to understand that obesity is not a "surplus of energy", it's a medical disorder brought about by disruption of your metabolism. I was able to keep eating and eating without ever feeling satiated. It is pure torture to be hungry with a full stomach. It was my body telling me "stop feeding me this garbage, give me real food". I have since been able to keep my weight and never feel hungry. It's only when I find myself unable to eat real food and lapse back into old habits that I start gaining weight again.

Usually at least one of parents is allowed to legally stay to take care of a kid.

There was and is a whole literature about unstructured and less-structured and alternatively-structured organisations; it even used to get a fair amount of coverage in mainstream news publications. But some time shortly after the year 2000 someone rang a bell, and now the only way to discuss the subject is to reshare "The Tyranny of Structurelessness" (which to be clear, is very good) every so often. (EDIT: And to re-emphasise, I'm not criticising yamrzou for sharing it!) Pasting one of my earlier comments on one of the earlier reposts:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36292289

> This is really a good essay and surely deserves a high profile, but it's disappointing that it, and some bits of angst about Valve's internal situation, seem to be the only discussions of organisational structure that get widely shared these days. Back from about the '70s to the early '90s it seems that there was quite a lot of management-theory/theory-of-the-firm research into different organisational structures and how they affected innovation, ability to change and other desirable or undesirable characteristics of organisations. And it didn't just stay hidden in academia, as the results got a fair amount of coverage in newsmagazines and the like in the early '90s. (Which is how I heard about it: I'm no expert.) As you might expect, the findings on relatively "structureless" orgs seem to have been pretty compatible with Freeman's observations. But there was also research on many other unusual forms of structure and hierarchy, for example the "matrix management" which famously got implemented at Dow Chemical in the 1970s https://hbr.org/1978/05/problems-of-matrix-organizations .

> But for some reason interest and attention seems to have completely faded out, at least at the popular level, by about 2000 or so. So the Valve situation gets reported on as if it's some kind of unprecedented novelty, and not an example of a sort of situation whose outcomes had been hashed out pretty thoroughly a decade or more earlier.

Google Maps allows you declare your allegiance. You can mark a business as LGBTQ+ friendly (why should I have to declare that and it not just be assumed?).

https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/small-business/addi...

You can also declare a business as "woman owned/led"

https://blog.google/outreach-initiatives/small-business/empo...

and "black owned"

https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/31/21348990/google-black-own...

It's probably impossible to counter-act the aggressive reactions here on the "NPC" term. But the way people interpret his phrase, and how I read it, seem very different? People seem to read it as him saying "colleagues are NPCs". I read it as 'in your life, you will come across co-workers who appear to approach their jobs as though they were NPCs'. IE, you will experience some colleagues who act as if they were controlled by bad game AI. The point then is: If you are one of those who care about "the ball/the game", it can be very aggravating to "play the game", when some of your coworkers act with an "NPC attitude" ("I can't go into that other room, there is an obstacle blocking my path").

So I read it as him saying "staying at the company where I am no longer in control, would drive me nuts having to tolerate groups of colleagues who insist on behaving like NPC's / show up to work on auto-pilot".

As an example, the company where I work recently had an AI hackathon event, where we could work together on AI prototypes on company time. Some of us were thrilled to be given these tools and opportunities. And then there were some other colleagues, whose enthusiasm could be summed up as "Whatever, I'm out the door at 15:30 afternoon, I'm not paid after that".

In short, being annoyed at NPC coworkers is not the same as believing "coworkers are only NPCs".