baked_ziti

I totally agree. I actually find this whole discussion encouraging because it indicates to me that people are trying to find that middle ground by talking the whole thing out.

On the other hand, the inability to be blunt is a serious deficiency and indicates you're sacrificing honesty somewhere.

> "you're just plain wrong" can be "I don't think that's correct" or "I feel this may be mistaken".

I read these sorts of communications as passive-aggressive and patronizing 100% of the time. I'm certain I'm not the only one. And your assumption that your rewording was a constructive comment is unwarranted and condescending.

> the philosophy and sociology of science are a VERY different thing from "the humanities".

I'm not sure that they are.

But my point is simply that accusing scientists of not being self-reflective is silly, accusing them of ignorance of history is silly, and for this piece to be elevated beyond the level of polemic would require something, anything, in the way of persuasion that its assertions were true.

> tried to raise some more philosophical questions with them.

Like what? Genuinely interested, not seeking to argue.

> They do not think about which hypotheses are promising because their education has not taught them to do so. Such self-reflection would require knowledge of the philosophy and sociology of science, and those are subjects physicists merely make dismissive jokes about.

Accusing working scientists of being insufficiently reflective on any topic, let alone themselves or the field they work in, seems without merit on its face, and frankly so bizarre as to be silly or even dim-witted. Further, the assertion that only the humanities will save science, or indeed the accusation that scientists are ignorant of the history of science, is a weighty charge that I see no reason to even consider believing.

> They believe they are too intelligent to have to think about what they are doing.

Come on.

> I think this gets to perhaps a main confusion that is happening. I often see emotional labor referred to as the management of other people’s emotions, or doing things so that other people stay happy and stay comfortable.

This strikes me as something worth examining closely. Attempting to manage (solicited or not, though I would guess most often not) other people's emotions seems guaranteed to end in discord.

It would be reasonable I think, to extend to the woman who devised the concept enough charity of interpretation to believe that she is capable of understanding the nuance involved in discussions and arguments of this sort.

One out of every four people on earth is Muslim. I don't think they're in any danger of losing their cultural relevance or influence.

It's not a gap, it's an absence, and the deficiencies incurred by eating zero fruits and vegetables are not analogous to a b-12 deficiency (which most meat eaters also suffer, just to a lesser extent than vegans). These deficiencies aren't going to be made up for in pill form. Not to mention consuming no fruits and vegetables means you are essentially on a very low fiber diet, which has huge health implications on its own and is probably a bad idea.

This is a lot of work to go to in order to hang on to a pet diet that is shown to cause arterial injury and doesn't lead to greater weight loss than less harmful diets.

This is a one hundred year old study which literally states on the first page:

> These studies were supported in part by a research grant from the Institute of American Meat Packers.

Inuit populations suffering lower incidence of heart disease is a myth.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12535749

> The mortality from all cardiovascular diseases combined is not lower among the Inuit than in white comparison populations. If the mortality from IHD is low, it seems not to be associated with a low prevalence of general atherosclerosis. A decreasing trend in mortality from IHD in Inuit populations undergoing rapid westernization supports the need for a critical rethinking of cardiovascular epidemiology among the Inuit and the role of a marine diet in this population.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25064579

> Most studies found that the Greenland Eskimos and the Canadian and Alaskan Inuit have CAD as often as the non-Eskimo populations. Notably, Bang and Dyerberg's studies from the 1970s did not investigate the prevalence of CAD in this population; however, their reports are still routinely cited as evidence for the cardioprotective effect of the "Eskimo diet."

They don't have lower incidence of ischemic heart disease than white westerners, they don't have lower levels of atherosclerosis, and these have actually improved as their diets have become more western and less traditional.

> "losing the ability to process sugar" seems really sketchy, because those are all critical cellular processes that don't just go away.

I have no idea as to the validity of this anecdote but the idea isn't unprecedented. For example, correcting an iodine deficiency can cause the same thyroid issues that a deficiency can cause.

Eliminating carbohydrates from your diet means eliminating vegetables from your diet. I'm highly skeptical of the claim that any such diet can ever be healthy in the medium to long term. I fail to see how malnourishment isn't a certainty under such circumstances.

The fact that humans can fast for weeks or months isn't evidence in favor of:

> The amount of carbohydrates you need in your diet to survive is exactly zero.

Housing is perfectly reasonably priced in all sorts of places. Because demand is lower. Because jobs are fewer and the salaries for those jobs are lower. This isn't a coastal elites vs. working-class midwesterners issue, either.

I'm very pleased to have antibiotics, indoor plumbing, and climate control, but that isn't relevant. Being priced out of the housing market, or having difficulty finding an affordable rental are life-diminishing prospects. It's taking place, it's what is up for discussion in this thread, and it isn't millennial whining to want to be able to comfortably afford your living situation.

Decades of stagnant wage growth combined with decades of the "charge what the market will bear" mantra ensuring you're paying the absolute maximum you can possibly tolerate have resulted in people earning less with which to buy things that cost more. This setup is going to be difficult to navigate for a lot of people.

The cost of housing and rent outpace inflation by a wide margin and cost considerably more than they did in the past. The age of the typical home buyer has increased 10-20 years in the last 40 years. Living costs more now than it did 40 years ago. It's not such a surprise then that fewer are able to achieve, or are achieving later in life, what used to be very common life milestones.

Pardon me if you're being sardonic and I'm not detecting it, but you're pointing out the flaw is this form of criticism yes?

In addition, this kind of project is emblematic of the hobbyist nature (and origin) of linux. When that's no longer possible, the fun and interest, for me at least, is dead. And when I get gently pushed into some kind of software standardization I can't opt out of, I'm going return to windows.

Is this appropriate behavior for managers? It seems not to me, but my experience is limited. It seems to me that "convincing someone to change" is inappropriate in just about, if not every, context and that being a manager doesn't make it more appropriate, it just makes the appropriate feedback (negative response, criticism) impossible.

If I found myself in this situation with a manager, I would ignore them to the degree possible and failing that, avoid them entirely, whatever that meant. Outside of a managerial context, I would just say something rude.