So you're saying that everyone should ride bikes, and there's never a reason not to own one?

Edit: oh you post in r/fuckcars. Never mind - I can't expect to have a rational answer from you.

I'm going to wait on getting an ebike until I can leave it chained outside a store without expecting people to show up with bolt cutters to steal it - which is the reality for Seattle right now.

You do miss the point entirely though:

You can't take two kids to school on your ebike.

You can't ride your bike if your knees are giving out.

You can't get a week's worth of groceries for a family of five on a bike.

You can't drop kid A off at elementary school, and kid B off at middle school across town, and do the reverse before you run out of after school care, if you're on a bike.

The reality is that we need solutions that work for a variety of different people. That solution for many has to include a car, because in the US our cities are huge, and we need to get around and across them.

So while biking is great and I'm all for it, it's not a blanket solution for everyone and never will be. It's not even a blanket solution for most people - in Seattle biking drops to near zero in the winter along normal bike commuter routes. Are those people getting the bus? Maybe. Not all of them. Many of them are just taking their car in the winter.

Exactly. Howdy, neighbor.

How would you change it? Remember that deliveries and emergency vehicles and buses still need to get around or it's pointless - which means that in many cases you're still looking at 3-4 lane arterials at a minimum.

Again, you're making weird statements. Businesses have parking based on how busy they are, not based on the total size of the car-owning population. That's dumb.

Also many of these studies use computer-based ai systems that - at least in my neighborhood - treat playing fields and back alleys and the roofs of hospitals as parking structures, so I wouldn't trust those estimates.

Try about 2.5x for older cities) geographically constrained ones. In the south you might see different densities.

Try reading what I wrote again, in context.

The whole point is that walkable neighborhoods rapidly become "I need a car because..." the moment you're not a hip young urbanite without walking problems, or kids, or needing to bring groceries home to feed a family.

Yes, I did. And I'm telling you that they increase total CO2 emissions where they're introduced.

Lemme guess.. Young, fit, no motion disabilities, no kids, don't cook at home much?

Yes, they do. By 20%.

https://www.marketplace.org/2021/09/24/how-ride-hailing-accelerates-climate-change/

I'm just going to leave this right here: https://www.marketplace.org/2021/09/24/how-ride-hailing-accelerates-climate-change/

And yet when you do the math they increase carbon emissions in every city where they're popular - such as Seattle and San Francisco.

8 per car? I'm calling shenanigans, because you're assuming those spots are "reserved" for each user, which is frankly BS.

Except that other option has existed for decades... So I'm not sure why it's suddenly considered advantageous.

Yep, and many cities have done the analysis to show that it creates way more car emissions than private vehicles because of that behavior, but for some reason it's considered more "green" by many politicians, which is pants-on-head stupid.

Except in many cities they're trying to force the issue by building housing without parking, and all it does is fill the surrounding streets with cars parking there instead of in a building.

It doesn't actually fix anything.

God knows. They contribute far more to carbon emissions than the equivalent privately owned vehicle, because they drive around circling all day.

To answer the headline... Oil smokes and burns when it's hot - why aren't our cars always billowing smoke?

(Because your brain isn't a sponge in a bowl of soup).

No, they're not carnivores - they're omnivores. They'll quite happily eat vegetables - carrot, celery, potatoes, beets, and fruit - berries, and even citrus.

Wolves are also omnivorous.

Unless they have a busted ventromedial nucleus of the hypothalamus, yes.

If that's shot, they'll eat until they burst, but that's very unlikely - though the cause might be glutamate toxicity.

It might happen with people with poor gut barrier function if they consume a lot of wheat; wheat-germ agglutinin (WGA) binds leptin receptors, blocking them. Leptin inhibits hunger. Similarly, WGA also binds insulin receptors, so it's a bit of a double whammy; it takes the brakes off hunger and increases blood glucose, causing it to be more likely to be stored as fat. Regardless, hunger increases.

You seem to be quibbling over the definition of satiety. Satiety means "feels full/done with food". By definition, if someone experience satiety, their hunger is sated, and stops.

That's pretty much the definition of satiating. It sates the urge.

I grew up in another country. Got much fatter once I was here. And chicken bone broth makes me rapidly satiated; even foods cooked in it. I eat it, my hunger gives way rapidly to feeling annoyingly full in about 1/4 the quantity it would normally take. My theory is that it's rich in L-Glutamine, calcium and magnesium, and that's enough to trip the mechanism and to provide enough raw precursors for the gut lumen to generate GLP-1 in large quantities, a bit like semaglutide, but that's just a hunch.

Why don't we just stop eating when we have enough? We're wired with chemical sensors all over the place to determine the content of our food. Some foods are also immediately satiating - for example, chicken bone broth.

There's a missing puzzle piece here, which is why they call it an obesity epidemic - it behaves like a disease, and no-one understands the root cause yet.

We also don't normally extract anywhere near the total energy from our food that it contains, so comparisons with a bomb calorimeter aren't accurate. Microbiome diversity determines whether or not - for example - you break down cellulose in your colon. If you've got methanogenic bacteria in your gut, you're going to put on weight when someone else without them might not.

If you raised children deliberately without that mentality, and they start putting on weight, you'd see that this isn't a great reason either.

And as for calorie aware, our bodies have homeostasis mechanisms for everything else. So why does this fail?

Randomized studies aren't always possible. And I don't know what you'd want them to randomize in this study; they're comparing two populations -- one of obese patients, one of non-obese ones.

Why do they eat too much?

You'd think that with all of our other homeostasis mechanisms, this one wouldn't fall apart quite so easily.

So why? And "because we used to starve" is not a valid answer.