JamesianP

It can be frustrating how studies always lump in processed meat with unprocessed meat. Unprocessed meat is nearly google-proof, since every media outlet is busy broadcasting the evils of "red and processed meat" like they're inseparable. Seems like the cholesterol argument regarding meat itself is basically the main one left.

But why would you do that? I think it's just calorie density and behavior. You might just as well have eaten a bucket of ice cream as fast as you could. I.e. before your rising blood sugar has a chance to stop you.

Though I do think the public would be better off if they replaced the bread with lettuce or something. It seems like they're willing to do that anywhere I've gone.

Even artificial sweetener leads to craving carbs in my case.

As for the "gut punch" though, sounds like gastritis or something. Unless you're being metaphorical. For me, water helps when I'm fasting and stomach pains start.

That also sounds like the opposite of xenophobia.

And the US befriended China for important strategic reasons starting with Nixon. If they underestimated anything it was the ability of an authoritarian regime to retain power through such a period of economic growth. Middle classes tend to want western products and media. But the economic growth itself was a deliberate goal of US policy.

I'd expect there to be a high correlation. People willingly choose to spend less time with friends and devote themselves to activities when the choice is easy because those activities are almost completely fulfilling, except occasionally when they aren't fulfilling anymore but the person is still alone.

On the other hand there are people who can't bear to be alone at all. Which seems like a different issue.

Depends how they got that way. Will they pay for it? Perhaps they made an unwise investment and should have paid for more rights.

I have seen the case where someone buys a parcel from a larger property. Then turned around and demand easement access from the neighbor on the other side who was not party to the deal, because that neighbor has better roads and is easier to cross.

Yes in that the situations they refer to account for all investment of any kind being "a bad thing", while I criticize certain govt policies. But other than that, same page yes.

Financial leveraging is risk. You can lose your principal. Investors pay for building new homes too.

Speculators do need to get burned periodically to correct bubbles though. Especially now. Making money because you bought sooner than someone else could (practically enshrined in the California constitution) is not really adding value so on average should not pay off any better than inflation.

Are these houses or apartments?

I don't see a problem with these real estate developers that are building and managing large apartments complexes themselves. Seems like they're doing a lot to add supply at the lower end. Even if they do maintain a certain vacancy rate.

But equity is supposed to go up in value because of profit and growth and whatnot, not just in price. That's why you buy it. At least in a normal universe. They still need to know there was a scam going on to be culpable for it.

Though I can see taking whatever cash payments they got back, if it rightfully belongs to scammed customers.

US culture doesn't trap people in minimum wage jobs their entire lives. Even fast food places have raises and promotions. Maybe you're being hyperbolic there? It does generally require people to work and try, which can appear impossible if they lack a working parent or other role model to help them believe they can do it. This is not something welfare solves though. It possibly makes it worse. Something like shop classes in schools (which used to exist) and apprenticeships would be a direct solution, because as we constantly hear, the jobs are there looking for people.

I wouldn't call infrastructure the root problem when people are murdering others. My point was the murders are evidence that there's psychos down there. Hence people want more cops.

I would have thought Singapore had more policing in all respects versus US cities.

Also the subway stories are probably more about general fear of whatever criminals are apparently lurking down there. It can get kind of scary in the subway when it's deserted. especially Upper Manhattan where it's so deep down. Meanwhile when I travel in developed Asian cities, it's not scary at all. Just really really crowded.

But if you fight against overzealous enforcement you will necessarily be shielding some bad actors along with the good.

Not that I'm personally against the SEC (and other agencies) crossing into crypto and interpreting their mandate broadly, rather than being overly conservative and waiting for new laws while the scammers run wild. But in other areas these paperwork demands could be a huge burden...

We have something exactly like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shopkeeper%27s_privilege

The return policy was the reason I started buying stuff (besides books) from Amazon in the first place. Initially it was just computer components where alternatives commonly had restocking fees and shipping costs for returns.

I think Amazon is going back to being a place where you only get certain things when you know exactly what you're looking for.

Doesn't everyone use words to mean what they want to mean by the words?? I seriously though your post was a defense at first. Why would their rule not protect you from liability also?

If it's legal it isn't vigilantism. Isn't it the law in some states that you are allowed to use force to prevent theft? I assume that's what they meant. Yes it has its drawbacks but I think the current pacifist course has us headed for 24/7 surveillance.

Coding is not a great example. It can be fixed silently and the error disappears, unlike published claims. And I'd say you're making an analogy that is extreme. The corrections we are talking about are shared in the same forum the error was shared. If you had presented the mistake to the CEO or on linkedin then it would be appropriate for the error to be pointed out there too. Otherwise the audience will remain misled.

If it's some minor code bug from a typo or something, your embarrassment should be correspondingly tiny. And still the right thing to do is say "thanks" or "nice catch".

> They were not an attempt to fool people.

That's exactly what they are. The whole reason People started pushing them was to pursue an agenda to affect developmental psychology. Perhaps you are misreading my point, as are others who seem to equate not being a loser with first place. A third place trophy is not fooling anyone that the winner is equal to the first place winner either. Participation trophies allow children to accumulate a room full of trophies and praise from relatives.

> Why make people feel bad when its so easy to make them feel good?

Isn't the answer to this question point of the thread?

Participation trophies aren't just about tokens. Everyone who runs a race can get a shirt or something to show they were there. This kind of thing has always been around. Participation trophies are for protecting people from knowledge that there were winners and losers in a competition and that they are one of the losers.

The etiquette is if someone catches you in a real mistake, you should thank them (yes it can be hard, etiquette isn't always the same as reacting naturally). After all they could have ignored your existence but bothered to read your work.

If you think they are wrong you are expected and encouraged to respond publicly with why. Perhaps many people misread your work just same as that person so would benefit from the debate.

EDIT: and by the way, if you think they are wrong you should thank them for the same reason.

Sure if your goal is to get something from a person then you should use another tactic. People have always had egos and taken criticism personally. Often it becomes an argument. But those arguments can still be very good for everyone else in the field to hear and for research progress.

In this article the problem was the new "weapons" people have created by which the person being criticized can automatically win that argument based on emotion basically.

Sometimes the plane will be too full and you'll get required to check your overhead bag. So you can't count on it for fragile/valuable stuff. In my case I bring a cloth handbag stuffed in there so I can take out the electronics and carry it as a personal item. I've had to use it a couple times.

Herd behavior, very common in finance certainly. I guess because they can profit from momentum even when the market ends up going nowhere over the long term.

I agree but then that makes it "dual use" clickbait, since there's always less-savvy new people coming along.

Someday it will be possible to effectively filter all info that is presented on my devices, and along with anyone/anything mentioning Trump and Musk, overly-clever articles that sound like clickbait will be gone along with the real thing.

> So an older browser that doesn't support HSTS is good, because it means you can browse a page even when your browser has valid reason to believe a downgrade attack could be occurring?

Well I mean false positives are bad because they are false. That much doesn't require further justification or someone to embrace false negatives instead or whatever. This policy of "treat everyone as stupid and gullible and ditch them if they won't upgrade" makes sense for giant tech companies, but not necessarily for everyone. Some of us have to be able to work with old technology.

Or maybe Microsoft finds it's a cheaper and easier to leverage their monopoly position if they operate in "perpetual beta" by rushing out new features before competition can get a foothold, then using their (paying) users as their testers. Rather than, say, testing and hardening their products sufficiently before launch.

It's closer to 25 percent for immigrants. Your stat includes children of immigrants.

Maybe the US is just a better place for business? With the attraction to immigrants being an effect not a cause. Economic predictions have been saying for decades that the number of software engineering jobs will be increasing much faster than the population. It's supply and demand.

Probably goes under the category of "bad faith effort" which should lose in court.

It does amount to saying if they seek out workers at all, that process needs to include seeking out US workers. At least as I read it.