_brnu

> Politicization is not a new thing, it's a fact that there's a lot of extremely conservative individuals in each country.

How are you using “conservative” here? The right certainly has no monopoly politicizing science.

How are the SAT/ACT not objective tests? Are they not objective measures of how you perform on the SAT/ACT? There are abundant low cost practice guides and study materials. I came from a very poor family and with some practice at home scored very well on the SAT. It was one of the few tools I had to attract college admissions boards. I feel like taking that away will severely disadvantage poor kids who are otherwise bright with strong work ethics.

As a mid-sized US manufacturer that recently went through a ransomware scare, we contracted with FireEye for remediation and cybersecurity consultation. I was shocked that they recommended we install ad-blockers as a corporate policy. I remarked ads are sometimes useful and that many local companies rely upon them (e.g., the local newspaper). I use an adblocker just to make the internet more useable, but I was reluctant to make that a corporate policy. I couldn't imagine there was any meaningful threat from malware in ads as every company from the Journal to the Times to Nordstrom would be screwed without ads. But FireEye insisted and we now have adblocking installed with the usual image. Wild times. I have to believe this is truly disruptive to the internet as we know it. It seems to me the ad providers would have a huge incentive to counter this narrative and to make damned sure ads are safe. I have no idea why that's not happening.

Generally speaking, I think it's a reference to this video with predictions of the future. Whether or not it was advocacy for that outcome is the subject of debate, but it does appear to be an actual WEF video. https://www.facebook.com/worldeconomicforum/videos/101539205...

I never said I preferred anyone suffer. I just said I'm ambivalent. But to your question, I am highly skeptical of the efficacy of those methods, and I think they come at marginal cost to deterrence. I also think there are better places for society to put its money than improving the lot of rapists in prison. I'm also of the opinion that, relative to other countries, US prisons are not the hell the author makes them out to be. By way of example: https://brownpoliticalreview.org/2016/03/26050/

Agreed. The problem is that many of these decisions are not exclusively "science." They involve policy-making, and agenda-driven organizations are masking their preferred policy choices as "science." Toxic risk assessments are a perfect example. Toxicity assessments are famously arbitrary (e.g., adjusting acceptable dosages by orders of magnitude on the basis of uncertainty when one could argue for any other uncertainty factor).

I actually agree with most all of your posts. The one big difference, though, in my opinion, is that when adapted to a very low carbohydrate diet, it's actually easier for me to not eat. That's it. To me, it's the lone advantage. It's not about the palatability of the low-carb meals. It's that I just seem to be less hungry. I can skip a meal and it's no big deal. When I'm higher carb, missing a meal takes a way bigger toll.

One other thing I'd offer -- for long endurance activities at higher heart rates (e.g., cycling in zone 4 for more than an hour), you absolutely have to supplement with carbs. You can go a long time in Zone 3 on a low carb diet, but as exertion increases, you burn through those sugar stores and bonk. I've tested this repeatedly. In case it's helpful to others, you can consume quite a bit of sugar on a hard ride and be right back in ketosis hours later as your muscles take up the glucose first.

To the contrary, anyone who's seen a herd of bulls when the cows are in heat knows there's a big difference between boys and girls -- and that the difference is principally nature, not nurture. Testosterone is powerful stuff.