Hacker News Reader

Comment by breezybottom | Hacker News Reader

Yes, you got me, I get paid $50 Soros bucks for every snarky post. It couldn't possibly be that "not commonly used in the home" is a vague and unhelpful definition, which varies across time and cultures. Or that these researchers still haven't explained the theoretical basis linking all these wildly different "UPF"s to the negative health consequences they're supposed to explain.

View on HN

No. I didn't think you were an astroturfer. I wonder where you derived this objection.

Also, good luck with your bottom. Perhaps look into your consumption of UPFs. ;-)

Soros bucks? You're spouting a right wing position, not a progressive one.

I didn't know right-wing means rejecting bad science and progressive means accepting it.

It doesn't, so there's something you're correct about!

But certainly pro-processed-foods stuff gets pushed by the right, and Soros is on the left, so there's the contradiction.

Huh? You're on the side of RFK Jr and the MAHA nutjobs. This is the kind of "science" they believe in.

Sometimes among large groups of people there are varying opinions, you'll see this more as you grow up. The american right wing is one such group.

So it's not as simple as "questioning bad science makes you a conservative". Glad we agree.

Absolutely we agree. Being able to recognize and intelligently question bad science does not appear to have much overlap with conservatives, at least in America.

The only point I'm making is that it's nonsensical for you to claim to be receiving "Soros bucks" for shilling ultra-processed food as healthy. That's not a stance the Soros foundation takes.

I didn't say ultra processed foods are healthy. I said the entire idea of ultra-processed is vague and incoherent.

It's true, some people do lack the language skills to understand vague or ambiguous terms, even in context. Ultra-processed is certainly a vague term. "Incoherent" is a trait on the recipient's end rather than a trait of the term though.

The solution is to improve our education system so these people can understand ambiguous language. Not only will this resolve arguments around the colloquial use of "ultra-processed" but it will improve society overall by increasing the communication ability of some of its currently less skilled memebers.

No, the label itself is incoherent. If we had a better education system, we probably wouldn't have quack science like this being accepted.

I'm sure the label seems incoherent to you. It must be frustrating seeing others discuss things that you can't make sense of.

The insight I offer, is that for many, a term may be both vague and lack a rigorous scientific definition, while still being meaningful and useful. This is a foundational concept and if you manage to internalize it I suspect that "ultra-processed" will be only one among many things that will begin to appear coherent to you.

I don't care if it's useful to you, you're obviously not a scientist. I am, and such sloppiness would never be accepted in my field.

We've already established liguistics is not your field. You would benefit from gaining even a layman's understanding of it though.

I do work as a scientist, but it's not so core to my identity that I throw tantrums over internet comments failing to adhere to the same professional rigor.

> I don't care if it's useful to you

> such sloppiness would never be accepted in my field.

Braden dismissing useful tools and willful blindness to things beyond your exact field, I daresay you are a bad scientist.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com