I don't think anyone can disagree. If you ask someone to give you an interpretation of the works of, say, Allen Ginsberg, or of the theory of relativity, and they come back with a pile of documents ordered in some fashion, you won't be satisfied because that's not what you asked for.
> Getting one sentence direct answers is a much superior UX compared to getting 10 links you have to read through yourself.
If we assume that people want a 'direct answer', then of course a direct answer is better. But maybe some of us don't want a 'direct answer'? I want to know who's saying what, and in which context, so I can draw my own conclusions.
Thanks. I think we've always had the ability to publish content on the internet without relying on external services, and we still have. It's just not something that most people are willing to do, because it takes expertise and resources, and corporations can do it better by specializing in providing these kind of services. This is why people use them. For the same reason people don't usually make their own clothes, furniture, etc., either. Specialization and division of labour allows us to be much more productive and as a result enjoy a higher standard of living than we would if every individual had to produce everything they consume themself.
But if the measurement isn't representative of your actual blood pressure what's the point of taking it? It's completely non-informative. Another problem is that even under very controlled conditions, I sometimes find big differences in blood pressure from one minute to the next.
Exactly, this is my concern as well. They say you have to be seated for 5 minutes at least, completely relaxed, not hungry, not having to go the bathroom, in a quiet a room, it must not be too hot or too cold, with both your feet on the ground, before you can have your blood pressure measured, otherwise the reading could be 'artificially' high. Really? It seems to me that if you do all these preparations, the reading will be artificially low, since such conditions are nothing like the conditions that you'll typically find yourself in through the day in your everyday life.
The Fed has a public mandate, and the Congress has the responsibility and the power to make sure that it fulfils such mandate. Therefore it is accountable and it is subject to democracy, and at the same time independent from the electoral cycle.
It's not just willpower but also lifestyle. It's rare for people who are physically active, and have a balanced diet, to suffer from obesity. I can eat A LOT without putting on a ton of weight, and it's because the types of foods I eat and because I do strength training, which means have a fair amount of muscle mass which acts as metabolic furnace. I'm a little overweight, at the moment, but it'd take a lot of effort on my part to become obese. I think treating obesity as a health condition is the wrong approach.
I don't know that we do that. For instance, physicists are able to describe motion in physical terms and don't insist that it literally is a vector. It only happens with quantum fields.
My point is that physical reality cannot be made of something that doesn't exist physically, such as mathematical objects, abstract concepts or more generally ideas of any kind. Do you not agree that this must be true?
Let's say we describe a particle as being an excitation of a field. Can't we describe any physical phenomenon in the same way? For example, describe a football as an excitation of the football field. I think we all agree that this description does a terrible job of actually describing a football. In fact, I don't think it can be called a description at all. Likewise, I find describing a particle as an excitation of a field to be equally unsatisfactory.