yaketysax

"The real way to obtain information is to be helped with those that can give you some clues to construct the required mental framework"

"how are you going to get the one click to the concept of diffeomorphism if don't know about the hierarchical structure necessary to define that concept."

Um, you do further reading online or in a textbook until you understand the things you don't understand. Of course some ideas require context. Why do you believe people can't develop that mental context on their own?

It's not the role of every single worker to deal with how the customer interfaces with the product. So what's the point in having diversity at every level?

"and if you disagree with that, you either believe there is something inherent about certain groups that makes them better or worse at these jobs,"

no.

"or you believe that there are external social biases which cause the discrepancies."

nope

That's an odd thing to say considering Rhinehart initially got all this attention because he was LIVING OFF OF IT. It's almost like he was trying to make a statement. Hmm...

"More than 25,000 phytonutrients are found in plant foods. WebMD takes a look at these six important phytonutrients -- and their potential health effects: Carotenoids, Ellagic acid, Flavonoids, Resveratrolm Glucosinolates, Phytoestrogens"

Find them in Soylent? It's cute that you put nonessential nutrients in quotes though. It's like this foreign term that only I use.

2. Our idea of "everything the body needs" can change.

3. We don't know the long term effects of relying solely on it.

The author spends a lot of time on stupid counterarguments. Seriously, do your homework.

Even worse in terms of what?

Because most people don't give a shit? Why doesn't every STEM graduate have the same ambitions as Elon Musk? The reality is that most people are too chicken shit to have their own interests and to pursue them in a serious way. You think throwing money at things solves problems?

Uh ya. New evidence comes to light, people change their minds. That's not necessarily a fault of the methodology.

Also I don't know why the author put prospective and retrospective in quotes. "Prospective study" and "retrospective study" are terms.

So what? Something being "natural" has no bearing on whether it is favorable or preventable.

"You could exclusively eat prime quality fish, raw organic fruits and veggies and still get a heart attack at 52 and cancer at 58."

Of course it's possible. But if you had any amount of sense, you wouldn't be making conclusions from a single case.

"In other news, I seriously question the idea that paleolithic humans had incredible food wisdom and perfect health."

Who's making that claim? The claim most paleo advocates seem to be making is that you should eat food that the body is adapted to eating.

"The reason for the change was more thorough epidemiology. The earlier studies tended to be "retrospective," relying on people to remember dietary details from the distant past."

So what? Which are the studies that are invalid? If none of them are invalid, then why disregard any information they might give us? 4000 studies with similar observations is not "scant evidence", unless you can rule out every single one. And are these 4000 the only studies which have similar conclusions? Probably not.

"These results were often upended by "prospective" protocols, in which the health of large populations was followed in real time."

I don't know what this means.

"Your argument is that Rudin is hard for incidental reasons: he skips steps in his proofs. I personally did not feel this way when I read the book. But I am open to the idea that Rudin is imperfect. I personally admire Rudin's concision, but that may just be my personal aesthetic preference."

Good god.

"As to why successful people don't read more difficult books, well, being a great mathematician just isn't that important to success."

???

"Rudin is like reading the source code"

Rudin's book is incomplete to a beginner. The analogy doesn't work at all.

Somebody, at some point, declared a book to be "great". And now you have a bunch of people recommending that "great" book because that's all they're familiar with (and why would this top notch faculty force us to use this book if it wasn't great anyway?). Few professors actually make an effort to structure classes in a pedagogical way.

yes... and so different groups of people were under different pressures. So when oneeyedpigeon said "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.", and you responded mentioning the Inuits, I decided to remind you that that's not relevant. You haven't made a counterargument to the claim that you should be eating mostly plants. A given person's ancestors were probably not under the same sort of pressure to consume meats.

If crime is so evil why has its pay fed my family, paid for my house