the river runs through my heart

- if it's fuckass degrees celsius inside your home as well as outside, it's far better to put the additional heat outside your home as well

- easy to make social in a way indoor cooking often isn't: a grill in a park, apt complex courtyard, or large lawn can have a dozen-odd people around it, easy. my kitchen fits 1.4 people and socializing with a chef is not easy. socializing around a patio is. the cook gets to enjoy company! people bringing grillable foods to share adds to the enjoyment

- cooking over charcoal or wood gives a good smoky flavor that I find hard to replicate in a kitchen

- grilled veggie kebabs, pineapple, sweet corn, peaches, brats/sausages, and burgers all taste better off a charcoal/wood grill, and I would say grilled pineapple/peaches/sweet corn don't have a clear indoor-kitchen equivalent

- i respect the hard and important work my apartment smoke alarm does but I don't want to invite it to every party

(x)

spawning responses like

(x) which is... not entirely wrong

and

which is completely misunderstanding the original study - the Carbon Majors Database, CDP Carbon Majors Report 2017.

What this report absolutely does not say is "100 companies burn enough fossil fuels to produce 70% of emissions per year." It says something more like "70% of emissions since the 1988 can be traced back to extraction of fossil fuels by 100 producers." Those 100 producers include 36 state-owned companies, 7 state-owned producers, 41 public companies, and 16 private companies.

It also says that over half of industrial emissions since 1988 can be traced to just 25 producers. Of those 635 gigatons of emitted CO2, 59% come from state-owned producers, 32% from public companies, and 9% from private companies.

The largest shares here at the bottom of the graph are all state-owned producers: an aggregate of Chinese state-owned coal producers, Saudi Aramco (owned by the Saudi Arabian state), Gazprom (a Russian company with majority ownership by the state and partial public ownership), National Iranian Oil (unsurprisingly, nationally owned), and then finally we get to the first non-state-owned company (ExxonMobil).

The fraction is nearly identical for values for yearly emissions in 2015 - 59% of emissions since 1988 are tied to extraction by state-owned producers. Nonetheless:

"Emissions from investor-owned companies are significant: of the 30.6 GtCO2e of operational and product GHG emissions from 224 fossil fuel extraction companies, 30% is public investor-owned, 11% is private investor-owned, and 59% is state-owned."

There is absolutely immense responsibility on producers for extracting, marketing, and selling fossil fuels, and for (in several notable cases) deliberately covering up anthropogenic climate change as an outcome of fossil fuel use. But that extraction doesn't occur in a vacuum - fuels are extracted and burned for heat, for electricity, for transport, for industry.

The tweet about nothing changing if people didn't drive and used plastic straws is exactly wrong: fossil fuels are valuable to extract because they're used for everything around us. In the US, transportation accounts for ~29% of greenhouse gas emissions, and 57% of that is from personal vehicles. In 2016, the average passenger car fuel efficiency in the US was 22.1 miles per gallon; an electric car can easily get > 100 miles-per-gallon-equivalent, some as high as 142 miles-per-gallon-equivalent. Magically substituting all gas cars in the US alone for electric would slash nationwide emissions by 13 percentage points even if all those vehicles were powered by electricity made from fossil fuels! (Clearly there are a lot of gross assumptions and approximations there.) (Also, yes, magic wand car swaps aren't a thing we can do in real life, but it's what the tweet said, so I wanted to toss it in there.)

i could scan a DIFFERENT QR code to download an app to pay for xyz after which I will delete the account and delete the app and somehow not have unsubscribed from some email list which will torment me with an email about a survey wherein I am to rate my fee-paying experience. Or I could pop a fiver into an autoteller machine and live the rest of my life free of these chains.

i got a plate of tofu rancheros tacos plus an order of hash browns and a cinnamon latte for an even twenty dollars yesterday from a place that prices their menu with tax included. one singular bill over the counter and a fiver in the tip jar. this is fast and beautiful. this is peak performance.

@closedcaptioning yeah they do! from the wikipedia article on glycogen:

for full context / it's a nice explanation / thank you for getting me to read this section, the paragraphs in Marathon Excellence talking about it

When glucose is used for energy in a muscle fiber, a phosphate ion is tacked onto the glucose molecule to convert it into G6P. Glycolysis quickly splits G6P into pyruvate which is then converted to lactate, shuttled into the mitochondria, metabolized to acetyl-CoA, and oxidized for energy to produce ATP. Glycogen is a very large molecule that functions as a warehouse for glucose. A typical glycogen molecule might contain tens of thousands of glucose molecules fused together. Glycogen stored in the liver can be broken down into glucose, which is then shuttled back to the muscles via the bloodstream. However, muscles also store copious amounts of glycogen, and this intramuscular glycogen is responsible for the majority of the carbohydrates you burn during running. In both the liver and the muscles, glycogen's large, sprawling molecular structure means it binds to a large number of water molecules, which get stored alongside the glycogen molecules. Three to four grams of water are stored per gram of glycogen, and this water acts as a "free" source of additional hydration. [...] Intramuscular glycogen is oxidized almost exactly the same way as glucose. There's one relevant difference, though, and it has to do with how individual glucose molecules are removed from the giant chains of glycogen. When a glucose molecule is leaved off from glycogen, it doesn't actually come off as glucose -- it comes off as G6P. In the liver, this is no problem: an enzyme rapidly converts G6P back to glucose and it's sent away in the blood. Muscles, though, lack the enzyme to convert G6P to glucose. As a consequence, our body cannot directly move glycogen from one muscle to another. For example, if our quadriceps are running low on glycogen, there's no way to transport any glycogen from other muscles to help out -- that muscle is stuck with only its locally available intramuscular glycogen.

so for short, that i guess that means that if someone only does upper/push/pull days, they're not going to be able to walk forever.

but i'm grumpy because he usually cites a bunch of stuff and doesn't cite this because i guess it's just common knowledge for the sports science people grumble grumble

oh yeah, when i try to search for stuff about muscle glycogen content, there's a bunch of papers ... from the 90s and earlier. so i guess it's fairly settled.

this meta-analysis from 2018, Skeletal Muscle Glycogen Content at Rest and During Endurance Exercise in Humans: A Meta-Analysis, supposedly talks about trained subjects storing about 30% more than untrained subjects.

and i got the paper, so here we go:

nb this is in mmol/kg, not g/person. not sure how many g of glycogen are in a mole of glycogen.