51 karma · joined October 2, 2016
But, at least the stakes and muttons and whatevz can be enjoyed.
I solve a problem at SPOJ [1], Codeforces [2], or project euler [3] or other similar sites. Put it as a card in Anki and revisit it after it appears again.
Solving the problem for the first time requires some research into algorithms and methods (took as much as 4 hours when I was just starting), and solving it again is remembering the tools.
Nice thing is that the evaluator tells me if I'm right or wrong, or if it takes too much time I've obviously forgotten how it's done.
I unfortunately stopped doing it as most problems take more than a minute to solve (each needs about 10-150 lines of code [depends on problem complexity]) and I eventually had to do 10-20 per day. At a particular moment in my life I didn't have time. I'm thinking of starting it again though as I've noticed my coding was much more fluent.
[1]: http://www.spoj.com/
> What animals are fed soy beans, hopefully only pigs and not ruminants (grasses/seeds eaters)?
50% of worlds meat is raised using intensive animal agriculture. liquified soy for the chickens, fishmeal and soymeal for growth and finishing of livestock.
brazilian beef which is practically their biggest export, along with soy, eats it in ridiculous amounts, so long amazon rainforest.
given the amount of energy that is put in the process for producing meat and dairy, it's ridiculously huge compared to what can be done with the land in other way. most efficient production is of chicken flesh and that's already being done on ridiculous scale (about 50 billion of chickens every year in USA - other issues appear then).
IMO raising 60 billion land animals for food, given our current technological, moral and materialistic status is highly irrational, irresponsible, inefficient and ridiculous.
As much as I'd like everyone to severely decrease their meat consumption and eventually stop using all animal products I won't scare them with shaky facts.
Would USA population benefit from eating less food, definitely. Are epidemiological studies strong enough evidence for diet related health benefits? No.
HN is full of orthorexic hivemind demonizing ingredients like sugar, cholesterol, fat, meat or whatever.
There are plenty of valid, rational reasons to stop eating meat. If one is in good health then health is not a valid reason.
the only thing animals do is save time, when we were naked and running the meadows, other animals collected nutrients for us, stored them in the bodies and saved us extreme amounts of time.
currently, most of the animals we eat are just inefficient in converting edible to edible, soybean to meat. we're filtering food that we grow for them just so that we can eat food.
currently a pretty nice reactive mobx-state-tree is on the frontpage of hn.
This too, additional to other links. Meat consumption has a huge carbon footprint.
Their government institutions see the problem and invent guidelines. We'll see the same stuff from the USA, most likely never.
The biggest percentage of Amazon rainforest deforestation is for the livestock industry. The beef that USA and Europe gladly import, and the soybean that Brazil gladly exports.
Palm oil in Asia also.
Consumers just have to stop voting with their money for oblivious and blind short-sighted products. Politiciancs obviously will never tax beef or Lays chips.
this kind of superiority isolationism leads to the problem. it lead to brexit and to the election of many right-wing politicians in european countries.
when a large mass of people is isolated and unrepresented, they will strike.
Keeping the product vegan is an image choice that many similar companies take.
[1]: http://www.clinicalnutritionjournal.com/article/S0261-5614(1...
Although, the biggest worry is the stored methane. [1]
The amounts stored are equivalent (in CO2) to about 20-35 years of human activity (2014 CO2 output). If that gets quickly released, who knows what will happen.
Milk is in our diet for several thousand years, not millions.
1. There's also a lot of people who ate balanced meals and kept weight. Drinking that much milk has some unwanted stuff in it - like IGF-I - which can cause cancer in those huge amounts.
2. Maybe soy, but that's a side-effect of the dairy that uses it not for the sake of human consumption. But it's highly likely the soy used is the one for human consumption, which would remove the necessary subsidies.
It is also a very inferior product made with zero genetic engineering. Just silly crossbreeding until the cow has big enough milk gains.
Don't see how it's, from a nutritional or health perspective, superior to Soylent.
Milk is also super cheap because it's heavily subsidized through taxes. I'm not saving idiot entrepreneurs by buying their unsustainable products.
Five of my family members ate some amount too, and seemed fine.
How are they sure people aren't misattributing this to something else, or just being nocebo about it after the first news reports came?
I did have diarrhea a couple of times during last 5 months but why should I attribute it to Soylent?
edit: downvoters, if you have any information I don't know, please reply so I don't look like an idiot.
Even a Microsoft Research project has a fairly complex reductions implementation of a POS tagger that is blazingly fast and production ready (learning to search interface). [1]
sampling is slow.
general AI needs structured prediction. yes, graphical models can do that (HMM, CRF etc.) but inference starts to get slow and special case implementations are required for different domains. [1]
I see no way for someone getting automatic inference and training for [1] with a probabilistic programming language.
given the new deepmind paper on discovering shortest path algorithms, it's quite clear that structured predicition assisted by deep networks works quite well (this was demonstrated by a vast array of work) and graphical models represented by probabilistic programming languages are far away from being that successful.
Edit: Thanks for the flags and downvotes, hate is so fresh here.
G C Buehring, H M Shen, H M Jensen, D L Jin, M Hudes, G Block. Exposure to Bovine Leukemia Virus Is Associated with Breast Cancer: A Case-Control Study. PLoS One. 2015 Sep 2;10(9):e0134304.
G C Buehring, H M Shen, H M Jensen, K Y Choi, D Sun, G Nuovo. Bovine leukemia virus DNA in human breast tissue. Emerg Infect Dis. 2014 May;20(5):772-82.
K Alibek, A Kakpenova, A Mussabekova, M Sypabekova, N Karatayeva. Role of viruses in the development of breast cancer. Infect Agent Cancer. 2013 Sep 2;8:32.
J Akhter, M A Ali Aziz, A Al Ajlan, A Tulbah, M Akhtar. Breast cancer: is there a viral connection? Adv Anat Pathol. 2014 Sep;21(5):373-81.
G C Buehring, S M Philpott, K Y Choi. Humans have antibodies reactive with Bovine leukemia virus. AIDS Res Hum Retroviruses. 2003 Dec;19(12):1105-13.
J S Lawson, B Heng. Viruses and breast cancer. Cancers (Basel). 2010 Apr 30;2(2):752-72.
(Author unknown) Bovine Leukosis Virus (BLV) on U.S. Dairy Operations, 2007.Veterinary ServicesCenters for Epidemiology and Animal Health. APHIS Info Sheet.
J F Ferrer, S J Kenyon, P Gupta. Milk of dairy cows frequently contains a leukemogenic virus. Science. 1981 Aug 28;213(4511):1014-6.
G C Buehring, P M Kramme, R D Schultz. Evidence for bovine leukemia virus in mammary epithelial cells of infected cows. Lab Invest. 1994 Sep;71(3):359-65.