awolf

The connection between saturated fat and coronary heart disease has had a lot of legitimate doubt cast upon it in the past decade.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648

If you say "eating fatty things will give you heart disease", most people will blindly agree with you. In actuality there is very little valid basis for making that claim.

(Edit, and this is a parenthetical because I do not believe anecdotal evidence is useful for arguing for general cases: My personal n=1 experiment: I have comprehensive blood panels done every three months. Over the past four years I adopted a diet that is high in healthy animals fats and proteins, high in vegetables, low in fruit, and devoid of grains. As in: 3 eggs plus sausage or bacon and a salad for breakfast. Every day.

Prior to starting, I had mediocre to bad cholesterol. My numbers are now: 105 LDL, 70 HDL, 52 triglycerides. Superb by all measures.)

Eh, I dunno. Dude creates something. It gets widely adopted. Other group of people want to improve on it by changing it.

Dude's stance is: That's fine, I guess... but use your own name.

Seems reasonable.

From an evolutionary standpoint periods of famine were certainly a selective pressure for our ancestors. It could make sense that prolonged periods of no-food are not only something our bodies have adapted to survive, but have adapted to thrive upon as part of their natural cycle.

If bicyclists are to be allowed in vehicular traffic lanes, then they should be treated as vehicles and governed by the exact same laws as vehicles. No exceptions.

Bicycles are part of a larger system and that system runs on expectations. Adding a new class of movement patterns for bicycles which are sharing lanes with cars makes this system much more difficult to predict for everyone. There's no way this would be safer in dense, highly trafficked cities.

This is a good tip but it comes too late. To deal with this exact frustration I decided years back to simply never minimize anything ever. It's working well for me.

>For example, people who like the taste of plants are probably far less likely to enjoy eating red meat, salty foods, and many other things that have been associated with increased mortality.

Which, incidentally, have really only been associated with increased mortality through flawed epidemiological studies such as this one.

I don't really have pony in this race, but one thing I'll say is "ease of use for users" is paramount.

Perhaps bitcoin will go mainstream and everyone will be using it sometime in the future. Perhaps. But until then, the marketplace you're building isn't really even competing in the same space as this.

For ruminants, yes.

But I think "just" might be understating it. Corn-fed cattle do not have the proper stomach ph to naturally protect against bacteria overgrowth in their stomachs (whereas if they consumed solely grass, this is naturally not a problem). As a workaround to the bacteria problem they are force fed antibiotics for their entire lives. Additionally: corn fed cattle yield 30-50% more meat because they are insanely obese. Beef producers have a perverse incentive to keep these animals in confined conditions (read: knee deep in their own shit) so that they don't get too much exercise. When you eat conventionally raised cattle, you're consuming the meat of a crippling infirm animal that lived its life in appalling conditions. It's a bad scene.

Estimating here but I'd put my breakdown by calorie as:

-45% high quality meat (grassfed, pastured, cage-free depending on species)

-10% low quality meat (traditional supermarket stuff)

-30% green leafy vegetables (read: very low non-dietary-fiber carbs)

-10% fruit or carby veggies (e.g. tubers)

-5% grains (never gluten containing)

So I definitely have other confounding factors that might influence my CRP number: low carbs, very low grains. That said, I arrived at my current diet via 3.5 years of A/B testing what works for me, optimizing for specifically what causes my digestion the least inflammation. I'm very happy with the results.

For a counter-point, I eat an extremely meat heavy diet and have a superb CRP number (.23).

It's more likely about avoiding low quality meats, which unfortunately is what 95% of the meat produced in the US is.

I'm going to go ahead and down vote you here as well. I'm a type one diabetic on a ketogenic diet. Continuous glucose monitoring is still extremely valuable to my health.

I said expensive [AND] disposable parts, not OR.

I'm sure it will be expensive, but doubt it would need to be disposable: current CGMs rely on injecting a metal sensor into subcutaneous fat. After about a week your body starts to heal around it and the sensor becomes ineffective. Do to the nature of the application process, there is no way to re-inject a sensor once used. The sensors are on the order of $50 each, so $50/week.

As a type 1 diabetic I can say this would be a huge improvement over current continuous glucose monitoring systems. No expensive disposable parts. No needing to inject a new sensor each week. No strange, uncomfortable, and (often) painful bulge stuck to your abdomen.

>We’re in discussions with the FDA, but there’s still a lot more work to do to turn this technology into a system that people can use

I'm chomping at the bit. Anyone familiar with process know how soon this could possibly be available?

>set completion-ignore-case On

Thanks. Keeping track of whether certain directories were capitalized or not has been unnecessarily occupying my mental bandwidth for years.

Your point was

> NOTHING about Apple's 'curated, controlled' approach [that of having a closed source operating system] protects users

Definitely shifted goal posts.

Unrelated: you've said nothing to support this point anywhere throughout this thread.

In the same vein, I highly recommend people try cutting out grains for 40 days. If you're like me, you may very quickly feel so drastically better that going back to grain-eating would be out of the question.

Don't get me wrong: many people do just fine on grains. But some non-negligible percent of people live with a low-level general malaise without even knowing that it's not normal. I know I did for years.

I agree that tactile feedback is an advantage to physical typing. I'm not ignoring that aspect when I say that virtual keyboard typing is fine. Virtual keyboard typing is not as fast as physical keyboard typing. I type 80 WPM on a physical keyboard and 50 WPM on my iPad. It's slower... but fine.

My response to taude still stands. If you constantly need to concentrate on the act of typing then you need to train your muscle memory.

Then you're doing it wrong.

Either you don't use proper typing style on a physical keyboard (all 10 fingers, each responsible for a specific set of keys), or you haven't put the effort into adapting that typing style for virtual keyboards.

Typing is about training your muscle memory for each finger for each keystroke it could possible be responsible for. Once your muscle memory is trained, it becomes a subconscious skill that you should not need to concentrate on.

The fact that this muscle memory is being used on a virtual keyboard vs. a physical keyboard does not matter whatsoever. The same concept applies.

Edit: email me adam@flairify.com and I'll give you a free download for my paid typing trainer app. It works.

Typing is such a widely voiced complaint because it's new and difficult at first and requires practice. Instead of putting in the effort, almost everyone assumes the virtual keyboard paradigm is broken and simply throws their hands up in the air in frustration. It baffles me.

Typing on the iPad virtual keyboard is fine. Just like when you were learning to type on a physical keyboard, it takes practice up front. I can easily type 50 WPM on the virtual keyboard, and I'm not alone. See also: my app TapTyping.

People use Chrome because it's better than Firefox. Much better.

The cleaning fees on Airbnb are listed in the final price you pay before confirming the reservation, so I'm not sure I see the difference.

Edit: good points from those who responded below. For the sake of comparison these cleaning fees do matter and weren't accounted for.

Yup, it does narrow your market even further. But not in a very meaningful way. iPhone owners are drastically more likely to download and use your app than on any other platform.

The hard question is whether to launch on the web or mobile first. Once you've decided on mobile first, choosing iPhone first is a fairly obvious choice.

I don't have a Facebook account. I deleted it years ago. I guess I can't make any new amigos on your site.

Oh, I forgot! I DO have a fake one that I use for development. I guess I can just use that...

Please do explain.

I think the sharing economy is brilliant and the way of the future. If there's spare capacity in the world, why should it not be utilized. Unsafe? Is it more unsafe to a degree that the ends don't justify the means? I doubt it.

Exactly. The jury is still out on exactly how prevalent gluten intolerance is, but the percentage is definitely a lot higher than most would guess.

A second problem is that there is a whole spectrum of how intolerant people can be to gluten. Some people will simply find they are a little more constipated or gassy the next day if they eat gluten and some will find that they need to urgently visit the restroom 30 minutes after consuming it. Neither of those groups of people would be considered celiacs. Many of the people in those groups go through live oblivious as to the cause.

Unfortunately, ignorance like that of lysol's grandparent comment dominates this debate. It's amazing and a bit scary the number of otherwise intelligent people who blindly assume that what is true for them is true for everyone. It's as if the mere fact that some people prefer to avoid gluten in their diets is a personal affront to them. It baffles me.

What I'm responding to is the fact that most foods don't contain gluten in the first place and people who are severely allergic to gluten know better than to eat foods in which gluten has been "removed" from the food through some chemical process (which is extremely rare, by the way, I can think of only one such product off the top of my head... much more common is accidental cross contamination which is a constant worry for celiacs and gluten intolerant people).

Celiacs don't even eat food prepared in the same production environment as foods that contain gluten. The sentiment that these people are deluding themselves because their very careful planned and meticulously controlled gluten free diets still contain gluten is preposterous.

Gluten free means contains no gluten. What are you talking about?

Thanks for the clarification. I'd say as long as it was clear that a message was going to be sent, then a the "Who would you vouch for?" context actually makes the recommendation less inappropriate and puts FD even more in the right.

(Of course, there is still the questionable practice of writing such an enthusiastic endorsement in the first person, but again you had final veto powers on the wording and you opted in to it. Such practices are unfortunately "par for the course" nowadays.)

I'm the first to jump into the pit and start publicly shaming companies that abuse my privacy but in this case I'm not sure FounderDating deserves as much flak as it's getting:

1) Selection of which contacts to message was opt-in. The OP decided that he wanted to send a message to a particular subset of his contacts.

2) There was a View/Edit message link that the OP didn't bother to utilize.

So between 1) and 2), we have case where somebody opted-in to having a service message their contacts, didn't look to see what that message was going to be even though they had the option to, and then got angry when they discovered they didn't like the content of the message that they could have viewed or edited beforehand.

The "I highly recommend applying... you'll thank me later" piece of the message is certainly inappropriate because this was a "get friend to vouch for you" feature, not a "recommend founder dating feature". Still, I don't see this as "spamming your LinkedIn contacts" nor a massive violation of trust. Also, OP's failure to mention the existence of the View/Edit Message link in his rant seems rather dishonest.

Edit: I'd love if the early down-voters could explain why they disagree. You seem to have read my entire message in about 20 seconds..

>Keyboard configurations are newly important as we think about how we should type on tablets and other devices. The calling card of the personal computer was the keyboard, and now, we are carrying around pieces of glass on which we simulate the old QWERTY design. Are we going to keep that layout going?

I vote yes. A majority of people have already invested a ton of time learning propper typing style on physical QWERTY keyboards. Translating that existing muscle memory to use a similar style on virtual keyboards is a lot easier than people would guess. After about 30 minutes of practice on a virtual keyboard people normally get their typing speeds to a slower, but adequate level in order to be productive.

An entirely new input system offers very little opportunity for re-use of existing skills.