I don't think the 7-minute Workout was supposed to give you large muscle mass. It's supposed to simulate the effects of high intensity training, which may make you more toned but not make you the Hulk.
According to the article the program "essentially combines a long run and a visit to the weight room into about seven minutes of steady discomfort". I remember reading this article when it was published (i think it was posted here on HN) and thinking it was just hyperbole, scientific claims notwithstanding. I'm happy someone has actually tried it and reported the results back, but I think it clearly demonstrates the hyperbolic nature of the claims.
* Although HICT can be an efficient means by which to improve health and decrease body fat, it may be inferior to creating absolute strength and power, specific endurance, and other specific performance variables (3). If these are the goals of a program, as with competitive athletes, traditional programs may elicit greater absolute gains.
[...]
HICT seems to be an efficient means of exercise to help decrease body fat, improve insulin sensitivity, and improve V˙O2max and muscular fitness.*
Personally, I think the guy gets much more attractive as time goes on. Much less fat and better defined muscles.
Granted he's not completely stacked or anything, but I don't think that's what the program was designed to do - and some guys look silly with huge muscles anyway.
It really feels in my body like running + weightlifting for about an hour and a half. That is what I was doing about a year ago to get the same results I am getting today.
I don't know, maybe I was expecting more given the article, but I'm sure even 7 minutes a day go a long way when it comes to feeling better and energized. I'm still skeptic about the claim that you can swap an hour-and-a-half long routine for 7 minutes worth of intense training.
I really appreciated when I was trying to log into a website on my phone and kept getting the password wrong. After a few tries, it said "we know typing on a phone sucks, would you like to unmask the password field?".
Nowadays, just looking at the last character briefly before it gets masked is enough for me to correctly type in my more complicated passwords.
I'd like arbitrary password restrictions to disappear before things like default masked password fields. I can never remember whether this unfrequented site required 6-8 characters, or a special character, or no more than three alphanumeric characters, etc. in the password. I just usually reset the password each time I need to log in, in such cases.
I used to "open" marketing emails for fractions of a second while browsing my inbox with keyboard shortcuts. I go to the next email, and if it's a marketing email, I move to the next email.
But with the Promotions tab, I check the titles, and if they're not interesting, I mark them together as read without opening it.
So, my reading behaviour hasn't changed even though tracking my open rate with tracking pixels will now show different results. If it's an interesting email, I'll read it. If not, I won't.
If you didn't have 'show remote images' on, there's no difference as it wouldn't count as an open. And it's off by default for all senders in gmail and every other worthwhile webmail provider.
I'm actually interested in this. I'm out of space on my Macbook Air, but I have gigabytes of photos that I'd like to be able to use with Aperture or Lightroom without using an external drive.
Has anyone tried a solution to mount an online server/drive/storage as a network drive in order to do the same things that this new SkyDrive will do?
I think Malcolm Gladwell was suggesting that the first officer wanted to tell him something but couldn't because he couldn't be direct.
But looking at just the transcript, would you really come to that conclusion? By leaving out most lines, the transcript seems to show a FO with an internal struggle to speak out, but I don't think that was what happened at all.
> Does it mean that Google did too little, too late? Does it mean that the major social networks are all syphoning off their own unique customers that will never overlap? Is Google inflating the numbers artificially and it is, in fact, dying a slow death? Or, most disturbingly, does it mean that having a superior product doesn’t matter as much as strong network effects?
I've never given Google Plus a serious try, but I would totally do it if it had no barrier to entry (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000052.html). If I could try it for a while, use it to create content, then know that if I don't like it, I can go back to Twitter and others won't even know that I left, then I would give Google Plus a try.
If Google Plus already does this.. well. Then it's marketing's fault.
What are you looking for? Are you asking that Google+ automatically brings over all of your Twitter followers? Or automatically Circles everyone you follow? I don't think either of those would work out very accurately. I'm not sure what the barrier is that is keeping you from trying Google+, considering it's completely free, it's competitor is completely free, Google+'s character limit is far greater than any of its competitors (so you can post the same stuff)...
You literally can just try Google+ for a while, use it to create content, and if you don't like it you can go back to Twitter. They're not mutually exclusive. Google+ doesn't deactivate your Twitter account. It doesn't edit your hosts file to null route www.twitter.com. There are even browser plugins that let you post all your existing Twitter and Facebook content to Google+ retroactively, and let you post to both for future posts as well.
So... that doesn't seem like it's marketing's fault. I'm not sure what would be a barrier to entry to something that's completely free and demands literally nothing of you.
