algoatecorn

Then don't compare the media coverage. Instead look at the actions of both countries. Read proposed legislation from US lawmakers going back almost two decades addressing the game theory between both nations. Read about the rampant IP theft that China has committed over the years, particularly in US-tax funded institutions. The US is simply planning ahead and severing ties which have kept us in a compromised position.

Sure, maybe some people are warhawking but most of the concerned people are focused on trade dependence and worried that China will take over Tiawan's production as a last resort. Is that an unreasonable view? What happens if they do decide to do that? Just let them do it?

Not to mention the many fossil-fuel derived goods that will face diseconomies of scale

Both mine and rayiner's commentary wasn't focused only on nuclear, but rather the harebrained and unrealistic doomscape narrative coming out of the West. When did it become so unpopular to point out what is most likely to happen? Because if we're placing bets, I'm gonna put my money on the developing nations not giving a flying F about emissions. Therefore, we need to think like realists and instead of idealists.

This is the most reasonable take. For some reason people in the West tend to ignore that 80% of the world is on the lower part of the exponential slope of progress, income, and demand for fossil fuel derived goods - and they are running up that slope at breakneck speed as a result of technological innovation.

Is the other 20% going to look down from our place of wealth and abundance - built on fossil fuels and countless externalities - and tell them that they have to achieve wealth and abundance through other means? It's ridiculous.

Sorry Sub-Saharan African, we have found that meat consumption is bad and therefore you can't do what we did, even though increased demand is a natural tendency as incomes rise.

All that cheap and dirty energy we used to make our infrastructure and grow GDP? You can't do it that way either. We made a big oopsie and have decided you have to do it through renewables and sustainable practices only.

By the way, are you interested in financing for this solar array? It's ok if you don't have the cash on hand, we'll just hold your highest quality farm-land as collateral.

We have to find ways to sequester. And we have to find ways to live in a warmer climate. It's the most probable outcome.

Have something to offer.

Some people want your perspective. Some people want your ear. Some just want your presence. Figure out what you want, and pay attention to what others want. Finding the right match is when you end up having a great time.

Consider the medium you use for interaction and find a balance. My theory is that many people feel lonely nowadays because they overuse certain mediums for communication - the internet. It's not bad, but just doing something outside or in real life can make all the difference.

Biology is complicated. If we start digging for mechanistic underpinnings, we'll uncover thousands of genes, variants, expression levels, metabolic pathways, epigenetic factors, etc etc etc. None of which will result in a cure-all pill or method to replace exercise and all its benefits. Just not gonna happen unfortunately

Within that 70%, most of them can:

- Afford to eat healthier foods. Rice, potatoes, bell peppers, onions, lentils, ground beef, pork chops, eggs, are not expensive. Time is a bigger factor but I don't buy the time argument in most cases either. Just need to prioritize.

- Improve their sleep. Most people have terrible sleep habits and there is a load of free information available for anyone who wants to make a positive change.

- Exercise. Walking 30 minutes each day yields most of the available benefit. Strength training is also available for most of the population. A secondhand kettlebell is like 20 dollars. Calisthenics are free. Some gym memberships go as low as 10/month.

>Is your argument that most people are lazy and should suck it up and get over it and fix themselves?

If you want to phrase it that way in order to paint me as the bad guy, then sure. But I would prefer to start with not giving up personal responsibility. Not throwing our hands up and blaming externalities, big food, and big pharma. If someone has that attitude, what hope do they have? Do you not believe in empowering people? If we validate every single persons' victim card, they will eventually believe they have no control over their lives. And that's just not true.

Let's be intellectually honest here.

It's not victim blaming to point out that "can't" isn't reasonable language. Life is hard. Doesn't mean we "can't" have some control over these variables. As I said, there are edge cases that deserve sympathy but they don't represent the bulk of scenarios.

But exercise yields more benefit than just cancer prevention. Don't you want to maintain strength and mobility as you age? Sleep better? Build mental and physical resilience?

I'll wager that we won't see a substitution for exercise and its benefits. Ever. It's just part of human life, and embracing it is by far the healthiest mindset.

If you put diet, exercise, sleep, and social support on a sliding scale, can you honestly say that you're doing everything in your power to maximize each one?

I don't know your personal details, but most people who think this way are not actually trying their hardest in each category. Sure, some small percentage is going to face monumental challenges. But look at the data in the US for example. 70% of our deaths are caused by NCDs. Most of that 70% has enough control of these factors to reap their benefits

How would you feel about a lifestyle guidance app?

Perhaps something that uses CBT, gratitude, and postive reinforcement to help people build good exercise and diet habits?

Is there a way for a company to implement sufficient privacy protocols that would appease the most privacy-concious users?

Last year, I started an experiment with my diet.

It started with the idea of eating as cheaply as possible with nutrient dense foods, but I started off with an elimination diet.

I chose 2-3 "meals" that I could easily prep and only cost $2-4 each. Mostly eggs, ground beef, white rice, potatoes. I quickly added bell peppers and onions.

I tracked macros, and filled in the micros with new additions. Calories as well of course.

The result was fantastic.

1. I got really fast at cooking, and even now that I cook more complex meals, I'm much faster than before. Probably because I introduced new ingredients gradually and maintained efficiency in the kitchen.

2. My ability to eyeball macros on a plate is pretty good now. It's much easier to regulate my energy levels because of this. I can also guess my bodyweight within ~5lbs before checking the scale.

3. I figured out what I digest most easily. As an athlete, I can't really afford to have days where I'm "bathroom dependent".

The consistency in all these aspects has greatly improved my life.

If you want to get better at cooking, understand your body better, save time, and eat a healthier diet, this method might work well for you.

Disclaimer: after the first 2-3 weeks, I switched from 100% compliance to ~80% compliance. That way I get the benefits of regimented eating without going crazy. Even if you eat healthy, it's not good to obsess over calories and food options.

Remind me again how much the reviewers get paid.

If you are a US taxpayer, you should be highly critical of exorbitant publishing fees of major journals. Grant money is automatically reduced by the rent seeking behavior of firms like Elsevier i.e. you are not getting your money's worth out of taxes which make their way through NSF et al.

If you read the article, it states the shortage has to do with flooding, not drought.

While most of your points are true, they are skewed toward some resentment toward the West.

The eating habits of rich countries, relative to developing countries, has become much more sustainable. Look at meat consumption by source, over time, in USA. Chicken, which has the highest feed conversion ratio, leads the pack by a huge margin since the late 90s/early 2000s.

Developing countries' demand for meat has exploded and will continue to rise as incomes go up.

What percent of the global population lives in a developing country? ~85%.

Over time, these countries will be responsible for most meat consumption. And emissions.

Regarding pollution, you are focusing on the wrong things. Sure, private jets are inefficient. What is their contribution to GHGs? Less than 0.05%. Super car and yachts? Come on..

As energy infrastructure is built out for this 85% of the population, the emissions per nation will flip on its' head.

Every submission in there has to do with precipitation. I was curious which techniques are used to sustained warming throughout the winter

Example of one of these techniques please

Someone is going to have to extract gDNA from whatever sample you provide, saliva or blood usually.

Then you need to perform a search for various genes or SNPs.

There are a few different assays to do this, but most require molecular biology reagents and special equipment.

You may even need to do some sequencing.

All of these services are provided by private companies but you can't be sure of the fate of your genetic information.

Doing it yourself is possible but would cost a few grand for bare essentials.

Based on the history of the courts, I think a fair use claim wouldn't hold up in this context.

Even if the AI is only used for lyrics as a voice filter, it's still quite close to the heart of the work.

Then you have its market effect, where original artists will face a heavy economic impact from the infringement (if that's what the courts rule).

That's just my prediction, but I have limited experience in the area.

The role of eccDNA in cancer is not a particularly new concept. However, studies like this are important to further elucidate cancer-promoting mechanisms.

Additionally, the use of artificial eccDNA holds a lot of promise for genetic enhancement in many forms of life from humans, to livestock, to plants.

Essentially, we could create artificial chromosomes which express useful genes or have inverted repeats which deliver siRNA to silence other genes and viruses.

Similar to plasmids, except would have much larger payloads and ideally a heritable mechanism, perhaps by tethering against native chromosomes via zinc fingers, viral-encoded protein, or AT-hook motifs.

Hilarious that Twitter thinks of Substack as a rival. I don't think they are similar products at all.

One platform is has a temporal advantage, and the other has a quality advantage.

No one is going to Substack for breaking news and no one is going to twitter for nuanced, quality perspectives.

Linking between the two is net positive, is it not?

-Electrolysis

-Ammonia production

-Land use modelling

-BJJ

It's way more complicated than that.

For starters, a commercial scale composting operation needs inputs from various sources in order to achieve NPK balance - not just food waste. Therefore, the complexity increases by an order of magnitude as we have to orchestrate the logistics of food waste, manure, wood chips, and more.

Second is that compost is not even close to ammonia-based fertilizer in terms of elemental nitrogen, which is critical for our most calorie dense crops. Places like the Rodale Institue are not at all intellectually honest about organic production yields. Their systems fall apart at the global population level.

It is a fact that if we were to shift all-organic farming that we would need MORE land, and MORE people to create the same amount of food. That's the opposite of our current goal which is to create more food with less land and less people.

Third, the application of compost would actually increase soil compaction due to larger, heavier equipment required. It just so happens that these large equipment (tractors included) are not yet able to run on electricity. There are some electric tractors, yes, but nothing with the power equivalent to modern combines.

Fourth, is the bias toward energy density that I hinted at in the third point. But it isn't just tractors. Many farm operations are unable to electrify due to their proximity to the grid and the energy draw. I'm talking about grain storage and refinery, and many others.

These are all problems that could be solved with innovation. But to your point, it is probably HARDER than many people suppose. Definitely harder than you are making it out to be. Food systems are incredibly complicated. It is also incredibly optimized, and advocating for a massive shift comes with the intellectual responsibility of addressing this complexity and coming up with a solution that can compete with the status quo.

To your final point, the government is doing a lot to aid in the transition actually. Not sure where you are from, but the USDA is now offering more grant programs than ever before to address all of the above.

Greenhouses are a tiny sliver of overall food production. The rest of agriculture is heavily biased toward the energy density of fossil fuel, particularly nat gas and diesel. The innovation required to move away from the actual energy problem in agriculture is much greater than a bit of creativity

This was the most probable outcome. Hikes greater than or equal to 0.5 would be perceived as too hawkish. Powell knows this.

If you thought the fed was gonna drop rates, there's a good chance you live in an echo chamber of wealthy private investors.

80% of the global population lives in a developing nation, keen on quick and dirty energy sources and a growing appetite for hyper consumerism and meat consumption.

The West is living in lala land with some of the proposed policy measures.

A popular one is implenting a carbon tax at the border which forces buyer and seller to internalize societal cost.

But this would result in redefined trading blocs, particularly with united developing nations. The other bloc (paying the border carbon tax) will enter a post-growth period due to slow and expensive trade

Isn't the primary goal of a Bachelor's degree to make someone a well-adjusted individual that can craft a reasonable world view?

>Is it really a choice when 75% of all food found in the supermarket has been spiked with sugar and 88% of the US population is suffering from metabolic issues? And sugar has been linked to a host of degenerative neurological conditions.

Yes, it is. If you walk into the store, pick up the item, pay for it, take it home, and eat it, then it was 100% your choice. Just because a decision is difficult doesn't absolve an individual of responsibility.

>We can't outrun a bad diet.

You can, but it's not easy. However, what tends to happen is when you increase you activity level your body will auto-regulate cravings for better food. High performance athletes can get by on mostly fast food if they need. Most don't because they know it's not optimal.

Both of your notions are currently popular but that doesn't make them right. Emotional reasoning has taken over diet, fitness, and health and caused millions of people to give up their personal responsibility and sense of control. It's harmful thinking.

Agreed. The anti-sodium crowd has done some real damage to nutritional education IMO.

People who train intensely wind up with a sodium deficiency due to this propaganda. You can welcome 6-10g/day into your diet if you just sweat through exercise. Problem is, most aren't doing that.