wdewind

> With millions of SSN and personal information being available after numerous breaches from health care, etc how exactly are you supposed to vett someone's identity over the Internet?

I can't really get into our entire KYC and fraud prevention process, but I'll just say there are many more ways to vet someone's identity then simply asking for their SSN.

Edit: I totally misunderstood the comment I was replying to and agree with it.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/279735/global-apparel-mar...

http://www.statista.com/statistics/237749/value-of-the-globa...

On what basis have you arrived to those conclusions?

No, it's completely different. The entire point of keys is avoid having to store credentials, it has nothing to do with permissioning. In the case of Mint etc., they have to store credentials because there is no token/key system being provided from the banks (ie: oAuth). In the case of something like oAuth creds are never sent to the 3rd party.

And the ironic part of this is if they banks simply provided something like oAuth then they would have MUCH more control over who they worked with and have an easier time managing 3rd party data.

> The rise of the Net and the Web represents a victory for the counterculture and the subculture. The next generation, raised on the Net as their primary medium, won't even know what consensus reality is.

followed by this from the comments:

> This is what happens when you let little children manage grownup things.

basically begging for a more traditional power structure, and being extremely upset when the next generation, raised on the Net as their primary medium, manage it differently than how he'd expect.

I don't think RU Sirius is right about the internet being a win for the counter culture (I do hope he is right, though). I can't find a year for that, but I'll bet it was said before all the Snowden stuff.

I want to be clear though: there is certainly evidence that very high blood sugar causes significant damage, sometimes permanent, I'm not contesting that. How high "very high" is varies, and as far as I know doesn't really happen in people who aren't diabetic. All I'm saying is I don't think blood sugar spikes are bad for non-diabetics, but they certainly are for diabetics.

I don't really think these studies show that acute blood sugar level elevation is causing the damage you are talking about. The first one talks about how TII diabetics tend to have lower β-cell count and higher apoptosis frequency, but that doesn't mean they go through waves of apoptosis more frequently (ie: during blood sugar spikes), it means that they have a lower life span. The study doesn't establish causality, so it's unclear whether diabetics have lower β-cell count because they are diabetic, or whether lower β-cell causes diabetes. It is a great study though, pretty well designed and building on kind of amazing resources from the Mayo Clinic.

The second study is interesting but extremely limited due to the fact that it was does in vitro. The problem is that it's talking about kidney fibrosis, or scarring of the kidney due to inability to regenerate. But when you remove much of the kidney and the surrounding body and then attack the kidney with glucose of course there is damage. That doesn't mean that in vivo the body can't deal with it. Kidneys do have a hard time regenerating, so it's an interesting foundational study, but I'd hardly call it "a lot of accumulating evidence."

Can you link to anything about that?

Sure, I wasn't talking about diabetic people.

> In a few years, we will hopefully start accumulating a flood of highly-granular, anonymized biometric sampling data, ideally tagged with true/false flags of known and suspected genetic markers (but not enough DNA data to individually dox someone). Has someone solved the problem of publishing biometrics with tagged DNA data, and be able to update the DNA tags as our understanding of genetic markers improves over time, without risking doxxing an individual from the genetic marker tags?

I also hope that this is the future. Unfortunately we're probably not going to do much better than HIPAA when this technology is widely available and being used. I'm not sure how to prevent the GATTACA side effects, but it feels like the health advances might be worth it.

You're right though, it probably would've been more helpful for me to say carbohydrates in general.

All carbs pretty much are equal, it tends to be the amount of fiber that comes with the carb that changes things. This study was about fructose, not sugar in general, and we've known for a long time that fructose behaves differently from other carbs due to the way it is metabolized in the liver.

This article will give you a good primer on nutrition with a focus on gaining weight:

http://www.barbellmedicine.com/potpourri/584/

If you have any other specific question I'd be happy to chat through them but HN is probably not the best venue. My contact info is in my profile, I love talking about this stuff so feel free to reach out.

So I agree with you, and my point is not to say that carbs are good for you or bad for you, but that anyone saying a major macronutrient group is good or bad without context has a large burden of proof.

Things do get a little more interesting, and the science becomes a little weaker, when you start thinking about nutritional timing in the context of body composition instead of overall weight. For instance, muscle protein synthesis remains pretty constant in someone with protein at most meals. But you are able to "spike" it about once every 3 hours (the mechanism seems to have a threshold around 8g of leucine, after which it can't be spiked again for another 3 hours).

So in theory the optimal way to eat the same number of calories, all else being equal, is evenly divided into a meal every three hours you are awake.

But it's a micro-optimization and doesn't make a huge difference, and again the science isn't super well reproduced there. People certainly succeed at elite levels with many different meal timings.