Just because you don't have a trait doesn't make that trait "obsolete."
By the way, a large majority of humans in the United States marry and even among the ones who don't marry a vast majority of them have dated. A large majority of people in the United States are not tall and muscular, we come in all shapes and sizes.
You may find this shocking but Women aren't uniform brainless sheep. Women come in all forms with all sorts of different things they find attractive. For example, I don't find muscles especially attractive and tallness does absolutely nothing for me. My husband is overweight and I don't mind a bit, doesn't distract from his attractiveness to me. Some women are even attracted to other women.
(Hint: it actually might be you since 99% of society can somehow manage to get a date)
Looking at japan, that number seems overestimated. That might be your personal experience, but because of survivorship bias - you'd be less likely to meet antisocial shut ins etc.
What's with these shit posts lately? This is specifically talking about using the "GI bill," (actual name is The Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944) which is certain benefits provided in exchange for active duty military service. Education is just one of those benefits, access to special loans is another. It's one of the reasons why people sign up for military service in the first place. It's something that is earned, not given.
The argument presented here is you are allowed to use your GI Bill to learn to be a HVAC technician so why shouldn't you be able to use it to learn to be a software engineer? Incidentally, this article is pretty pointless anyways because you actually can learn to be a software engineer with your GI Bill you just have to go to an accredited traditional college or university. They even mention there are "boot camps" that are becoming accredited. Even so, I question how much you can actually learn in less than six months, certainly not enough for a real career in software in my opinion, I base that on my own journey learning and my decade plus experience in industry. I think the point of this article is something like "coding is the new blue collar" or something else irrelevant.
I'm not the person you replied to but I'll churp in. I only eat once a day, at dinner time, so I eat in about a half hour block a day. I've been doing it for years. It's not really that odd once you get used to it. My appetite and food consumption has decreased dramatically and I am full much quicker. My food bill has decreased and it's very, very freeing to only have to worry about eating once a day. It's absolutely amazing for me though certainly not for everyone.
If you are affiliated with the US DoD ("A member of the U.S. military, Reserve, Coast Guard, National Guard; military dependent; or DoD civilian employee") you need to sign up with https://www.salutetolife.org instead.
In 2008 there was a global financial crisis that was caused, in part, by criminal actors in the financial industry yet there were no criminal convictions.
> but actual medically-approved food replacements are at a big price premium, because their use is so niche
No, they're expensive because no food manufacturer wants to kill the customers, and these customers tend to be at significantly increased risk of death.
> And if it's not going in your mouth, it can taste like ass.
Medical sole-source of nutrition products can be given through a naso-gastric tube, but many of them are designed to be drunk. Manufacturers have increased the range of flavours because they recognised that people hated the vanilla / chocolate / banana / strawberry limited range.
Funny how that information buried on the site. I've re-ordered a few times based on its (prominently featured) use of Isomaltulose, thinking that is where the sweetness came from. Some evidence that sucralose will spike insulin. Seems to jibe with personal experience. Will probably hold off until they eliminate sucralose. Perhaps trehalose?
Last year, though, a team of Israeli scientists put together a stronger case. The researchers concluded from studies of mice that ingesting artificial sweeteners might lead to—of all things—obesity and related ailments such as diabetes. This study was not the first to note this link in animals, but it was the first to find evidence of a plausible cause: the sweeteners appear to change the population of intestinal bacteria that direct metabolism, the conversion of food to energy or stored fuel. And this result suggests the connection might also exist in humans.
