> I bet if you counted the calories in/calories out it would show the calorie deficit accounting for it
By definition it would have to be true that you consumed fewer calories than expended. Calories in/calories out is not wrong, it's just not useful (or at least it's not a nearly complete picture).
Calories in/out are not independent variables. The type of calories you consume dictate at least: 1) how your body processes the calories you consume, 2) the energy you will have to expend, and 3) the hunger you will feel.
That post is old, but the instructions are still valid.
> I assume the API's that NaCl-exposed have a corresponding set of C# interfaces? How does one write to the browser window, get user input, network I/O, etc?
Unfortunately there is nothing available to expose Pepper interfaces directly to the managed environment that is shipped with this, though it is possible to auto generate bindings and glue code to make it work. What you'll see in the HelloWorld example I linked above is a very manual way of doing this, exposing an internal call that itself just calls directly through the C Pepper interface, effectively allowing Pepper calls from C#.
Maybe it just is that complicated (not that I view the above as complicated, I just don't view it as simple as you make it).
> If I put 10 gallons into my tank every day, but use 11 gallons daily.. I'm "using up" gas. That's all that matters.
Imagine an engine that behaves differently depending on the type of fuel is put in it. One type of fuel causes the engine to move slower and burn less gas per unit time. So you may continue to put in your 10 gallons a day with this new fuel, but you'll notice a surplus building up because it only burns say 5 gallons a day because of this change. The output you get from the engine varies depending on what is put in it.
That's what the parent was describing. Calories in and calories out are not independent variables despite how they are treated in some research and most popular media. The type and amount of "calories in" affect your energy level (calories out) and hunger level (ability to limit your caloric intake).
Yeah, the new "Merrie Melodies" (of which that clip you linked) are the worst part of the show IMO. They only lasted the first season, probably for good reason. A couple were funny/interesting but most were not.
Other than that, it's a show I really look forward to watching. You may be disappointed if you're looking for original Looney Tunes, it's not really like that. The characters are the same, their personalities are more fleshed out and exaggerated, the times are modern and they live "ordinary" lives. Some of the reviews I've seen on Amazon for it accurately labeled it as Looney Tunes meets Seinfeld (they were being pejorative but I find the comparison apt and view it in a positive light).
Try watching an episode from Season 2 (the currently airing season) before writing it off. It will only take ~21 minutes out of your life if it's not your thing.
> I don't know what happened to cartoons, but nothing seems to be interesting that's also geared towards children these days
I don't disagree entirely, but there are still some gems today that are enjoyable for kids and adults. Speaking of Looney Tunes, the new "The Looney Tunes Show" is pretty great. And there are some things on Cartoon Network that are passable, like Adventure Time and reruns of other niche shows from the past 10 years.
I think the options are fewer, or the ocean of content is vaster, so it seems like there's nothing there when there is.
By definition it would have to be true that you consumed fewer calories than expended. Calories in/calories out is not wrong, it's just not useful (or at least it's not a nearly complete picture).
Calories in/out are not independent variables. The type of calories you consume dictate at least: 1) how your body processes the calories you consume, 2) the energy you will have to expend, and 3) the hunger you will feel.