valval

Who would you say should have more control over your computer: 1. The operating system provider 2. A video game company

You can come up with measures for it and then watch them, that’s for sure.

You’ve been eating the wrong things all your life. Animals aren’t obese in the wild, nor would you be if you didn’t eat slop.

I went through a phase of wanting the most possible screen estate to do sick multi tasking gimmicks like having chats, documentation, code editor, and prototype open at once. It was glorious, a 5k2k ultrawide monitor filled to the brim with a mishmash of sometimes related, sometimes unrelated windows.

Then it hit me that I can only focus on one thing at a time since I’m a human being, and having multiple attention grabbing things in front of me is never good. I now run a single Studio Display and have a code editor in full screen, switching to other content through virtual desktops. I’m WAY more productive this way.

Now I might just have a short attention span and that’s that, but using a TV as a monitor sounds like hell to me now.

Let me restate this: your body doesn’t need fiber or carbs for any essential process. You don’t need ANY carbs or fiber throughout your life.

I don’t research the topic for a living, so I don’t know — I’ve read none of the studies.

If the conclusion that comes out of the other end of the pipeline is that we should avoid eating the things we’ve eaten for millions of years, it’s fair to say what went in might have been based on false premises.

If you’ve played the game RuneScape, you know well that some players accomplish feats that are hard to comprehend.

You have people gaining billions of experience points or tens of thousands of boss kills in the same amount of calendar days the average player accomplishes tens of millions or hundreds of boss kills.

I don’t see why this couldn’t be the case for software engineering. I have a wife and kids and spend 10 to 15 hours doing sports a week. I’m maybe more efficient than average since my career has gone well, but there are people who are way more efficient and way smarter than me. Couple that with them being able to spend twice or more the number of hours, and you might arrive at similar 10-100x productivity numbers that you see on the game RuneScape.

For a fun and eye-opening experiment, you can try eating less than 20% of your daily calories from carbs. For, say, a month.

For added fun, you can try to eat “too many calories” as well.

After, you can report to me how successful you were in gaining weight.

Having spent two years working for a paper company, marketing had a lot of work trying to get rid of the public perception that recycled paper is good. It takes a lot more energy to deink and treat recycled paper than manufacturing from fresh fiber.

What makes ranching/farming industrial?

You should point out that weak evidence is on the side of those things.

Frankly, the number of carbs and fiber you need throughout your life is 0.

Frankly, you can get everything you need from one food source. Meat.

Meta-analyses are a cool way to perform a garbage in, garbage out exercise.

What? Your diet is by far the most important part of your health. You can be sedentary and still remain healthy if you eat the right things.

We’re good survivors for sure, but try eating only deep fried donuts for a year and let me know how omnivorous you feel.

The tone is snarky and condescending, which already means it can't be taken seriously. Your initial comment struggles with the same issue to a lesser extent.

To me the popular vote is irrelevant and in my original post I meant the winner, despite saying the majority which you interpreted to mean “more than 50% of the population of the US”. We have a system in place to counterbalance the fact that large numbers of likeminded people concentrated in one area could otherwise rule over everyone else through tyranny of the majority. To me the majority therefore just means “most of the US”.

If you think betters do not have the odds right, you should start betting right now.

The essay you linked to reads an awful lot more like a joke than the article in the OP.

To me it’s no secret that the mainstream nutrition science is a joke. The latest Nordic nutrition guidelines I’ve heard of recommend the same amount of sugar and red meat per week — 350 grams.

If that’s not enough to tell you everything these organisations do is based on false premises, I have a bridge to sell you.

For me that would just be another reason to avoid the person and spend the time instead with people who are easier to get along with.

That doesn’t make me a dick, I just have a limited number of hours on the clock and energy to spare.

We understand that your disability is much worse than the rest of us. Everyone else should stop what they’re doing to accommodate your severe disability.

I’d wait for the results of this study to be expanded upon in any case before claiming causality. I didn’t read the study but I can think of half a dozen reasons why the claim in the article wouldn’t mean higher red meat intake -> higher cancer risk.

I’m fine with other people eating less red meat since that means less competition for me, but I’d still encourage healthy skepticism when people tell you to eat less of something that we’ve eaten since the dawn of our being and replace that in any degree with something novel.

There are plenty of benefits to eating red meat. It’s one of if not the most nutritious food we know of.

Betting odds.

Your last sentence isn’t grounded in reality. Negatively impacting the lives of millions of people is less ethical than negatively impacting the lives of a few.

Who’s to be the judge of what people need to know?

We can easily bring the meta level down one more step to conclude that given the editorial staff are individuals with different beliefs, this dictates that they’re impartial to the extent of the (weighted) average of their beliefs.

I’d argue impartiality isn’t a thing in any human domain anyway.

You’re thinking about this too hard. It’s a definitional question. If you have two candidates and you endorse one of them, you’re de facto partial with nothing else playing any role in the definition.

You perfectly summarise my relationship with food, although I’ve never taken any appetite suppressants. I spent my early adulthood competing in bodybuilding, and ever since I can’t really treat food as entertainment.

I cherish every meal I have and everything tastes amazing to me, since I only eat to hunger. Food can’t get better to me than the stuff I eat every day, so I don’t go out or spend money on fancy food. I just eat what keeps me healthy.

I’m not sure if it’s a good or bad thing that people are now able to join this camp without destroying their relationship with food through questionable activities.

I agree that you should be grateful for each moment you spend on this planet.

I don’t agree that you’re not allowed to be proud of the condition you spend those moments in.

If you want to affect the decision making of the majority, the burden of proof is on you.

Otherwise, your best option is to boycott.

I don’t think there’s any friendly way to say this, but that might have more to do with you.