hallole

The website is animated, so there's no question of which direction to read in, the left side literally pops up first lol. I can't lie, I miss websites that stood still, this could've just been a PDF.

BTW, you say "lobbied leaders" -- if you're talking about the scientists who have their names on this report, you'd be very correct. The "conflicting interests" section has loads of references to the cattle and dairy industries.

Meat and dairy contain the bulk of the saturated fat in the average diet. It's pretty absurd to imagine a diet in which the largest food group is just meat and dairy, but due to the ordering, that almost seems to be implied.

The saturated fat → LDL-C → heart disease relationship has a lot of evidence and history behind it. A very interesting research project if you needed one. I call this advisory a "downgrade" because heart attack and stroke (among other conditions) are both: 1) downstream of saturated fat consumption, and 2) the most prevalent causes of death among people in the developed world.

It's not just a personal belief that plant sources are, on the whole, better from a health perspective.

Since we're talking about the actual wording of the report, it admitted the significance of previous reports deciding to order plant foods before animal products. That is reversed in this most recent report, and very intentionally, which they make clear. They also pretend that the health effects of saturated fat intake are still fuzzy, as if the evidence doesn't heavily point towards it being detrimental.

If anyone is holding to unshakeable beliefs and unwilling to consider evidence, it's the shoddy scientists (many with meat-industry related conflicting interests) that wrote the report.

The first food group listed is literally meat and dairy. The ordering here is purposeful, too, as they admit. One promo graphic includes a block of butter and a carton explicitly labelled "whole milk." This is a very definite downgrade.

> "grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make money with those."

They actually make a considerable amount on those last two items, taking advantage of those who want to consume meat more ethically.

(Though, in reality, "grass fed" and "free range" are both misleading terms, and none of the meat on offer is likely to be humane.)

Snow Leopard, Mountain Lion were so peak. The first step into minimalism was beautiful, too, I'll admit, but it's culminated in this Liquid Glass garbage, so it was ultimately a misstep.

I think, at a minimum, a return to print or radio news is called for. They necessitate attentive consumption of information in a way that video just doesn't. I feel like they leave mental space open for critical thought. TikTok is the total opposite.

And then they scoff, and say, "so you just 'trust the experts,' then?"

I don't have the time to become expert in global affairs, history, climate science... all the fields implicated by the big hot-button issues. The next best thing is defer to someone knowledgeable and objective (given you can find such a person), IMO.

> Assaults see the largest jump — up to 93% after unexpected home team outcomes.

Insane that assaults nearly double. And this is just sports betting. The real-world betting sites (like Kalshi) haven't taken off too quickly, but what about if/when they eventually do?

LOL I didn't think it needed to be said! So I didn't include it in my reply to you. I am here replying to someone else, not to you.

I think, generally, it is due to a lack of will, yes. Of course, eliminating the bad options altogether -- I mean, restricting what products can appear in stores -- would be more effective than relying on the willpower of individuals. Although, that would require some serious market intervention...

I guess I agree with you. Deep down, I wish they hadn't given up on prohibition, and that we'd have banned smoking, too. Still, though, there's gotta be a point where people become responsible for their actions. We're running on "monkey hardware," true, but one who gives in to their monkey brain rage and commits murder will still rightfully end up imprisoned. We expect individuals to have self control.

Couple other notes: I agree that excessive sugar is bad, but there's nothing wrong with whole grains. Also, we talk of corporate lobbies altering the public narrative on nutrition, but honestly, how much does it really matter? How much heed do most people pay to their image of a healthy diet? Is anyone really fooled into thinking soda, or fast food, is good? I don't think so.

> "The indices of anxiety and DA/ACh imbalance were qualitatively similar to withdrawal from morphine or nicotine"

The key word being "qualitatively." Yes, something like a dependency can develop, but unless it's of roughly equal severity to hard drug dependencies, then the comparison is inappropriate. Hard drugs substantially affect one's agency, to a degree which sugar just doesn't.

It's sugar, not a hard drug. Your agency isn't substantially subverted by the drive to consume it. Self control isn't easy, though; that's why it's a virtue.

In fairness, one could characterize that brokenness as being the fault of us, the consumers. The "boot" is self imposed. People demand their Twinkies and 2 liter soda bottles. Undoubtedly, this is a good thing, but it's a tad sad it took a miracle pill to do what good individual decision-making could've accomplished just as well this whole time.

LOL Tapping the address bar crashed my Chrome on mobile.

Thanks for this. Really quells the urge I get every so often to just code my own PDF editor, because they all suck and certainly it couldn't be THAT hard. Such hubris!

"Stop calling it soy MILK! There's no such thing as oat MILK! Milk comes from COWS."

What should they call it, then? Oat beverage? Soy water? No, that's silly. They are, functionally, milks. That's an apt descriptor.

Ditto for other vegan alternatives.

The job of the justices is to interpret the Constitution, not maintain a public image. The law profs who authored this are surely aware of that. "Illegitimate" means more than "people dislike it." I think the late Justice Scalia did things right: delivering decisions that aligned with his Constitutional philosophy, even if he ultimately found the results distasteful (nevermind what the public had to say!).

A small YouTube channel I found, hosted by a constitutional litigator, has a number of solid videos about the S.C., and about this "partisanship problem" in particular [1]. The D/R split of the S.C. is much fuzzier than I once thought.

[1]: https://youtu.be/WKfF-WhIm5o

I think he's old enough to be tried as an adult here. He architected the product, it was no silly accident. I think his choice of role models may be a reflection of his character...

Remote jobs? In tech? In this job market? Credit where credit is due...

And, maybe I'm reading too far into it, but this line:

>With these roles, these individuals allegedly abused their access at the companies to steal virtual currency.

makes it sound like they were stealing Robux or something. Could money be laundered through re-selling video game currencies?

Phenomenal! This is a solid prototype, clean execution. I've had exactly this idea, too: I've already given the spreadsheet the relationships between these values, why can't it just work backwards when values change? That premise hides a ton of complexity, though, I'm sure. Lots of scary matrices.

What an fantastic problem to have! A few Ghibli films are a tad too odd or serious in tone for a movie night, but I can heartily recommend Ponyo, M.N. Totoro, and Spirited Away, the first being probably the most light-hearted and simple fun.

Hugely decisive! Feels more like a policy for idyllic hypotheticals. "Suppose we could ban social media..." well, hey, they actually did it.

I'm very interested to see how their socializing evolves in response to such a shock. Do the social behaviors of pre-internet times re-emerge? "Third spaces" reappear overnight? We shall see!

I hope people aren't reading it as silly protesting when I say "Twitter" or "tweet," I just think it sounds way better.

Surely they're blowing substantial cash on this, right? I'm not sure what sort of cost/benefit analysis is convincing every last tech company to fit the bill for a gimmicky AI add on.

I really wonder why that's the case, because I only ever see it on Reddit. You're very right, and it annoys me to no end how repetitive, corny, and omnipresent the joking is. This is always the case whenever someone posts with a good question; good answers are inevitably buried at the bottom.

I think that's fair. As with good UI, I appreciate when I can navigate via intuition. The solution in Python is intuitive, readable, and memorable. When working in Java, I frequently felt compelled to read and review pages of docs in search of a straightforward solution. I'm a sucker for Python's syntactic sugar.

I'm not a mathematician, but I went decently far into math and hardly ever encountered a summation over non-indexed elements, or really anything beyond the standard \Sum_{i=1}^{n}, even up to my final math courses.

I wasn't aware of its ubiquity! I may only think of it as "abusive" due to lack of familiarity. The way I've seen it used is: \Sum_{e \in S} e_i, where 'i' is never explicitly defined, and this still assumes elements indexed by integers. The only utility seems to be from the abbreviation, leaving out the range of indices being iterated over. Not saying that isn't useful, but the rigor of the math probably doesn't benefit from time-saving omissions.

Fully agree! I don't think life is much more than a sort of chemical engineering, "designed" with the "purpose" of self-replication. Our engineer, natural selection, didn't have "healthspan" in mind; insofar as we are human-making machines, we're pretty well built. I fail to see any reason that necessarily precludes a retooling of our internal machinery to accomplish our desires, not nature's.

I remember being very pleased when I first encountered what might be an abuse of notation, but is nonetheless super convenient: \Sum_{s \in S}, where s is an element of a set S. Or, even better, just: \Sum s_i. Of course, this is defensible as I was writing out 100 summations in a stats course, not writing teaching material.