The old myth that running is bad for your knees. It isn’t unless you have a condition. What you may not have is tendons ready for the effort or the right supporting muscles. These can be worked on.
The main thing 90% of people will benefit from is learning to activate their glutes, then strengthening their glutes. Clamshells are a great place to start.
A lot of people hurt their knees because their glutes don’t activate and are weak from sitting all day. This forces them to become quad dominate, which puts more strain on the knees.
Some need to walk before running. Walk the distance you want to run (e.g., 10K) and your body will tell you where your fitness level is at. I walked a month before running.
Most layoffs are happening in growth businesses that aren’t even profitable on paper. Apple, make things, things people want and quite often need. they are a solid business that are unlikely to suffer much in a short term tightening of people’s finances interest rate rises.
My guess most of these companies were also borrowing money. You can look on their balance sheets for the stock. When that rate is low it makes a lot of sense to grow and borrow. When that rate goes up the math changes. No matter how profitable you are. There could be quite a bit of 'someone had to go first' fad going on too. Adding headcount just because you make tons of money does not necessarily make sense. It just means you are probably overcharging for your existing products and really should be passing those cost savings onto your customers. If you do not do that you risk a competitor doing exactly that. Interest rates plus decent inflation plays into how much debt/risk you can take on what your headcount will be plus what you charge your customers.
This is the important word. Although Alphabet, Meta and Microsoft overall are profitable there are parts of it that a) was (and still not profitable) and b) was in demand in the last three years but are now softened enough that it turns "okay, unprofitable but manageble" into "this has become a money pit". Since that they are cutting off anyway, why not throw laggards and undesirables into the mix? I estimate that around half is genuine cost-savings and another half is euphemistic firing, which I'll be honest muddies the explanation up a bit.
For Google, their focus was on the cloud and productivity products. Even discounting the already-planned Stadia layoffs, it is well-known that Google has targeted 2023 as its Google Cloud break-even point. If they can't profit on user acquisition then they need to cut up costs. This is why they're now aggressive on closing up GCP products so that the core GCP product can be operated with less expense. Additionally, their Workspace and ChromeOS team were also gutted because the Chromebook boom induced by the pandemic is now over (will expand over at Microsoft's explanation).
Microsoft's cuts are also focused on productivity suites. The boom times for PCs is over so they need to cut costs there, and it shows hard. Both the Windows and 365 subteams were gutted further since that companies have now time to actually count up how many licenses they need, plus since Windows 11 is "free" the only revenue is from OEMs and business. OEMs now buys fewer licenses because the boom times is over. Businesses are not thrilled at Windows 11 and are secretly waiting for a Windows 12 or a 10 ESU. Azure is now slightly profitable but as you might have guess "slight" is unacceptable to shareholders so some were also let go too.
Meta no longer grows in its traditional business in social media and fails to crack the secret to an enjoyable metaverse, with most people passing it off as a fad and even metaverse believers flocking to competitors that were already there and have better products. It's plain obvious why they need to reduce headcount.
> Meta no longer grows in its traditional business in social media
"Almost 20 years in, Facebook is still growing. The social network now has 2 billion daily active users, Meta reported alongside its fourth-quarter earnings. The report marks the first time Facebook, which added 16 million users last quarter, has reached 2 billion daily users." https://www.engadget.com/facebook-2-billion-meta-q4-2022-ear...
I'm guessing Google and Facebooks profit centers are much more narrow? Eg. Google Ads. Facebook has the Metaverse Black Hole whereas has Googles countless endeavours (eg. Chat)
Yeah but they’re still some of the most profitable companies in the world, and Google at least has many billions in the bank. I feel you’re moving goalposts?
Yes true but they overhired and most growth has stalled. The idea I'm getting are the layoffs are happening in the less profitable parts of the business.
Also, I was told because of the severance packages, these companies aren't going to be saving any money until a few months down.
That said I read a few days ago Apple may start doing cuts in the future. iPhone sales are down 8% and smartphone sales in general are down 18%!
It does but it doesn’t mean you get any treatment available. They carefully make decisions on what treatments they can/should provide. This may be offered eventually but at the moment it’s a case of be very fat and get offered gastric sleeve or just be overweight and no treatments are offered other than advice about losing weight
You need to realise that weight bearing exercises (this means running, walking etc) are good for bone health. Low impact activities like cycling don’t give your bones the right stimulus to stay strong. And as the other commenter has said, the impact damage is probably in the minds of people who say that running does then damage but in reality it doesn’t do damage, it is actually a benefit to bones and joints.
NHS is focused on the appropriate allocation of resources to the problem. It strikes an excellent balance of doing the right work when necessary and based on probabilities. If you have evidence that the process recommended by the nhs is failing patients in statistically significant numbers I would agree with you on them not doing enough tests but frankly, I think NHS would perform very well if it was adequately resourced (it’s currently starved of necessary funding).
The NHS follows a strict set of guidelines for the identification and treatment of illnesses. They do not act like medical businesses such as hospitals whose goal is to do as much testing as they can justify to get more money from insurers.
If you're not sick you should not be subjected to too much testing, because the risk is that you are diagnosed with a thing that will not harm you. And once you're diagnosed with it the tendency is to treat you for it. Treatment is not a neutral option, it carries risk.
Over-testing, over-diagnosis, and over-treatment all contribute to patient harm.
The argument was that the NHS does the exact correct amount of testing, diagnosis and treatment. That’s patently false.
The NHS regularly fails me, my friends, my family by refusing to do diagnostics while clearly sick. My GP refused to test me for Lyme disease even though I had lots of classic symptoms and had been in close contact with a deer (because he believed they’re not an issue in the area.)
I feel we’ve strayed quite far from my original point but that’s to be expected in any religious discussion.
I thought this post was going to show me something profound but it’s clearly a surface level idea without any real knowledge of the topic. Human error comes in many forms and from a safety perspective we want to identify what impacts human error will have and then work to reduce the risk associated with each one to as low as is reasonably practicable.
Process design, interface design, organisation and manning, ergonomics etc all play a role.
It is inevitable that a human will make an error, with a well designed system it should be very very hard for them to do so.
