Are you under the impression that families are going to the grocery store every day and trying to eat everything within 48 hours of picking it up from the store? No, people are buying the week's worth of stuff and might not be getting to actually cooking it until 6 days later.
Buy a week's worth of food, with each perishable item in quantities small enough to go into a few meals per week, out of the 21 meals you'll be eating that week.
Fresh vegetables and fruit last a week or two. Fresh meat lasts a week. Eggs last a few weeks. Most dairy products last a week or two.
Make meals out of a combination of fresh ingredients, dry goods (pasta, rice, beans, breads), canned/preserved foods/sauces/condiments, frozen foods. With basically one perishable feature ingredient per dinner, it doesn't take that much planning to feed yourself for maybe 10-25% as much as it costs from takeout or restaurants. Even if your food waste is double as a single person, that's still 20-50% the cost.
for some reason it doesn't produce the foul egg smell that is typical with boiling eggs
That sulfurous smell is associated with overcooking eggs. Sounds like the device you have doesn't overcook eggs.
It's true of all combat sports, and, to some degree, any other sport in which you go face to face with your opponent.
And although it might be true that at the very very top levels people both learn to be more ambidextrous (so that there's less of a mismatch between sides whether right or left handed) and are more experienced/skilled at dealing with left handed opponents, the early years of learning the sport will weed out fewer left handed people so that the top levels have more left handed people.
Yeah, a lot of popular webcomics seem to try to mine personal experiences (especially around introversion or social awkwardness) for relatability: Sarah's Scribbles, Pizzacake, etc.
Your links, especially the WEF link, support the correlation, but explicitly describe a confounding variable as being household work (especially childcare). And that's consistent with the observation that the motherhood penalty has a different magnitude for different countries and different industries. All that suggests that a combination of household division of labor, parental leave policies (either employer policies or government regulations), and workplace accommodations generally can make a big difference.
None of this is inevitable or immutable. We can learn from the countries and the industries where the motherhood penalty is lower, or doesn't last as long.
No, the Mediterranean diet has plenty of evidence in favor, including actual interventions where groups were switched to the diet and studied compared to a control group, and had better health outcomes. Those studies, plus population-wide data, supports the idea that a Mediterranean diet improves longevity and health in general.
That's just the unusual prevalence of 100+ year olds, in the so called "blue zones." Overall country life expectancy statistics aren't thrown off by that type of fraud as much, because the vast majority of people don't live anywhere close to 100, and these specific blue zones are a very small overall portion of the larger country.
For the most part, we can observe a correlation between wealth/income and life expectancy, where the blue zones are outliers on that general trend (both long lived and very poor). So there's no reason to believe that these small communities are poisoning the overall stats in any significant quantity.
It's thousands of tiny little things, pushing and pulling lifespans up and down.
As the screenshot notes, it's both diet and access to healthcare.
It's also other lifestyle factors, like amount of walking or driving, amount of alcohol consumed, tobacco use, etc.
It's social and economic factors, like income, education levels, employment status, type of job, disability status, marital status, number of close friends.
It's mental health issues, and related statistics like suicide rates, substance abuse rates, etc.
There are environmental factors, like environmental exposure to certain hazards or pollution, sunlight exposure, altitude, certain illnesses isolated to certain climates, maybe things like localized microbiomes (although those are also correlated with foods eaten and things like that).
There are also genetic factors for individual families or potentially ethnic groups.
And perhaps the one that can't be ignored entirely is just plain old recordkeeping. Some places have high rates of people living past 100, but don't seem to have much in the way of a lifestyle or environmental explanation, and may more accurately trace back to unreliable birth records 80+ years ago such that people might be mistakenly reported as living longer than they actually did.
how is that implied by 'a man likes to feel like a man'?
What's the context that you're imagining this topic coming up? Because from my perspective, as a man, if someone said this to me about someone else I'd assume that I'm being asked to come up with some made up work, so that some junior guy on my team, or some dude in my social group who is feeling down, can feel more useful.
Which I might or might not accommodate, but it's kinda patronizing and would effectively have the opposite effect in building up my respect for that man.
That's not part of this comparison. The comparison in this article and the metric it covers is for people who are renting versus buying in 2024. The renter in 2024 can rent from a landlord who purchased in 2010, and is borrowing at 2020 interest rates. But a buyer today is buying at 2024 prices and 2024 interest rates.
To the person he exercises leverage over, who makes money on each sale made, and pays his wages/commissions? Isn't that obvious? He agrees to sell some stuff, in exchange for money that comes from the sale.
Producing value gives leverage. A salesman who brings in lots of revenue and profit can negotiate a pretty high commission, because controlling that level of revenue/profit represents some leverage.
Two things: first, landlords aren't entitled to a profit, and second, landlord input costs might be completely different from an owner resident.
On the first point, if the landlord's costs are $2000/month, and the market rent for that unit is $1900/month, the landlord would rather lose $100/month on a lease than lose $2000/month on a vacant property.
On the second, it might be that the landlord bought the place when it was much cheaper, or has a much lower interest rate than what is available today. So if the landlord's costs are $2000/month for a property that would now cost $4000/month at today's purchase prices and interest rates, but can rent for $3000/month at a profit to himself.
Similarly, some volume landlords can spread certain costs around and not pay nearly as much as an owner resident. It might cost $1200 to hire a plumber to do a 6-hour job, but it also might cost $150 to simply have a plumber on the payroll to do that job, if you've got enough steady work that it's cheaper to have him around.
In the U.S., the convention set by the national chains are small (10"), medium (12"), and large (14"), with some having extra large (16") as an option. Most local places will follow that convention as well.
The Chinese have a method for curing eggs in alkaline solution until they turn black and somewhat translucent, too.
With olives, there's basically no way to eat them off the tree and have them taste edible. They have to be processed in some way to remove the bitter compounds, usually by brining or curing. So using an alkaline brine is one method, and not that uncommon (even for other colors of olives).
Other uses of alkaline compounds in cooking include using a lye bath for browning for baking pretzels or bagels, certain types of springiness and chewiness for noodles (for example, for fresh ramen), and processing corn into cornmeal through nixtamalization.
This is the opposite side of the "wowthanksimcured" hashtag/subreddit/topic that was popular about 10 years ago. These feelings don't always have an objectively rational cause. Which also means that if there's some kind of medical cause or intervention necessary, screening for it is important.
You keep calling it a "die off" because you're being visually tricked by the misleading population pyramid. Use the actuarial tables instead.
Among 65 year old men, the probability of surviving to 75 is 76%. The probability of surviving to 85 is 39%. The probability of surviving to 95 is 5.9%.
For women, the odds are 84%, 52%, and 12% of getting to 75/85/95, respectively.
Yes, these are higher death rates than at younger ages. But nowhere near what the shape of the population pyramid suggests, where the 85 age cohort is about 1/4 as large as the 65, which misleadingly suggests a probability of 25% of living 20 more years, when the real number is closer to 45%.
That's the baby boom moving up the chart.
Yes, exactly my point. The boomer generation itself made the population pyramid look different at every stage of its life, which is why the 1980 chart looks so different from the 2023 chart. When you introduce a cohort that has its own slope from birth statistics, the shape of the drop off at 60 is confounded by the preexisting shape of the slope before they entered old age.
So the appropriate method of isolating the variable that shows what you call a "die off" would be to just pull up the actuarial tables that show what percentage of 60, 61, 62 year olds, etc., die that year. Not to compare how many of those there are as a percent of overall population.
You don't think that 1980 chart has a very different shape? The current chart is almost flat from 20-60, while the 1980 chart is actually pyramid shaped, with the steepness is only slightly sharper past 60. And matches the steepness of the range from 25-50. Nobody talks about a 25-year-old die off.
You're better off charting the actuarial tables to convey the data you're trying to talk about (death rates), rather than relying on a stat that is influenced by birth rates and death rates in an opaque way.