Sounds like the study measures colonial vestiges and not real world usage.
67 karma · joined September 14, 2012
Sounds like the study measures colonial vestiges and not real world usage.
> Is it io.js or IO.js or iojs or IOjs or iOjS?
> The official name is io.js, which should never be capitalized, especially not at the start of a sentence, unless it is being displayed in a location that is customarily all-caps (such as the title of man pages.)
I think you mean typeclasses?
One of the things that always bothered me about interfaces was the inability to define a default implementation, especially when developing UIs. A proper mixin system (like what's used by React's components) has solved this particular problem for me.
> showed “no evidence of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of the data”, said a statement from Elsevier, which publishes the journal. But the small number and type of animals used in the study means that “no definitive conclusions can be reached”.
The type of animal is the same as used in the compared Monsanto study, so that seems shaky.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/07/05/ten-years-af...
Yes, that's correct, but everything is relative. The recommended daily intake is the recommended nutrient amount divided by 2000 calories, and this value is then compared against every other food. The bars for each nutrient are calculated according to the formula ((nutrient/calorie)/maxValue), where maxValue is the highest (nutrient/calorie) in the comparison set, and the result is a percentage of the maxValue, and is the percentage the bar is filled. So it's all relative - the highest value will always be a full bar. If something has half as much per calorie, the bar will be half-full. On the nutrients page, there is no daily value that's being compared against - it's just foods against each other.
Measuring something per-serving isn't something that you can glean from the data as presented. For amaranth, if you compare it to the recommended daily intake, you'll see a full bar for amaranth and just a sliver for the recommended daily intake, meaning 2000 calories of amaranth would have way more calcium than you need. More usefully, the app can show you how amaranth compares against other foods to help you make choices. I'll think about how per-serving data could be included - thanks!
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/ryanatkn/mydentity-is-a-...