You actually need to prove that statement. I'm not saying its wrong, I actually think its probably correct, however its not science until its tested and validated a couple times.
We were lied to about the dangers of tobacco for half a century. Doctors at one time were pimping cigarettes. Millions of deaths occurred due to primary use and secondhand exposure before any tobacco company ever admitted their product was deadly.
Lies and deception surround our meat-processing industry that purposely shrouds itself in secrecy. Ever seen the inside of the processing plant where your meat comes from? Do you really know how that food source is made? I didn't think so.
I don't have to say anything beyond Medical Industrial Complex to describe how bad that multi-trillion dollar industry has become. The killer irony there is medical error is now a leading cause of death, which is conveniently excluded from death certificates.
TL; DR - Prove that statement? How about you first prove that Greed N. Corruption won't distort the truth. The "science" is far too often bought and sold these days in order to protect profits.
I've been doing a lot of that stuff - eating, drinking, singing - for FIFTY YEARS. I got my first cell phone in 1990, and I've been talking on the phone since then. I don't have a problem with "distractions".
No, you have a problem with comparative analysis, chance, and the human toll of time.
Talking on a phone is not even close to the same thing as the other 95% of society addicted to social media that requires considerably more interaction (and that headset isn't statistically helping you). Driving distractions include eating and drinking, which were proven factors long before cell phones.
Your hearing, eyesight, and reflexes; I can assure you that you do NOT hold the same capabilities that you did FIFTY YEARS ago. One accident in half a century? There is no insurance company in the world that would attribute that statistic to skill alone. Luck has been on your side my friend.
Then again, none of this matters. That Pepsi and McShit food you're putting in your body says a lot about your longevity.
Sorry but aliens were invented to convince dumb people to give smart scientists money. Let me explain. No life can exist without a sun, which is actually a star. The closest star to us is about 4 light years away. That means it takes light 4 years to travel that distance. Light travels extremely fast, 186,287 miles per second, and according to special relativity we can never go the speed of light because it requires infinite energy. So even if we could go a speed we can never go, it would take 4 years to get to the closest star. From there the distance goes up. Those stars you see in the sky are hundreds and thousands of light years away, which means at the fastest speed man has ever heard of, it would still take hundreds or thousands of years to reach. But imagine for a second there is some being that has the technology to travel that fast, why in the hell would they waste hundreds or thousands of years to visit us? Their technology compared to ours is like comparing humans to ants, there is nothing interesting about us at all compared to them. So aliens either don't exist or can't or won't visit us
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
To clarify my H2G2 reference, time is a human concept. Humans tend to have a specific definition of a lifetime based on our biological makeup and limitations, roughly equating to a century or less. We have no idea what alien makeup will be, but logic dictates that their definition of a lifetime will be relative.
There are countless galaxies in existence, and you are failing to take into account that an alien lifetime could last a million light years, and a trip to our planet could be no more than a lunchtime break for them, even traveling considerably slower than our perceived light-speed limits.
TL; DR - Stop limiting your thinking within human-defined bounds. Whomever may come and visit, I just hope they know how to make a decent Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. It would certainly help answer the question posed here.
...The only thing that is increased, then, aside from tempers, are the number of beans the bean counters get to count. It is, after all, cheaper to pack sardines into a can than it is to individually wrap them.
Uh, cheaper? Are you saying this one-of-a-kind-Jobs-dream building was cost-effective?
For what they paid, they could have probably constructed a normal building with individually wrapped luxury offices for every employee.
As usual, the Devil is in the details: essential liberty? Who gets to define that? Let's try that out on abortion. A woman should have the essential liberty to chose. A fetus should have the essential liberty to choose. Oh, gee, it gets complicated.
Yes, it gets complicated quickly, but we're talking about the considerable abuses of citizens and privacy here, so let's not stray too far off topic here, and focus on the 4th Amendment and below for now.
Besides, the Rights of a fetus and abortion are clouded even further with religious beliefs, making those discussions even more difficult to have.
Nowhere does it guarantee a right to privacy. The government needs to be able to keep people safe and they cannot do this unless they have to the correct tools.
I agree. Let's look at the Constitution, along with the Amendments we've made to it.
We can start with the Government looking at it, and then reviewing all of the blatantly illegal processes and procedures they employ, under the guise of protecting us.
Forget a full review. We probably won't even get past the 4th Amendment.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Over 250 years old and yet it still rings true today.
That simple combination has been proven to minimize or avoid the most common afflictions that are killing millions of humans every year.
One really common affliction that kills millions of people every year is cancer. That's pretty well correlated with longevity, so the easiest way to reduce the cancer death rate is to have people die younger, like they used to. This stuff isn't as simple as it looks.
100 years ago cancer affected 3 out of every 100. Today if affects 1 in 3. The government declared a War on Cancer well over 45 years ago (1971), which has basically done nothing to the ever-rising impact of cancer. We certainly have a lot of evidence that points to the shit we've added to our food supply. In 1935, there was but one case of cancer reported in the last half century from Eskimos living in Alaska and Canada. After they began adding processed foods into their diet, the cancer rate exploded until it was eventually equal to us "modern" folks killing ourselves with food.
GMOs and insecticide use, fat-free diets, synthetic estrogen, polyunsaturated fats, HFCS and refined sugars...all of these play their role, with corruption silencing any evidence that even hints at a negative impact on our health due to the massive profits made within these powerful industries. Of course we can't overlook the largest factor that created the Cancer Industrial Complex; the disease of Greed. A cure for cancer? Yeah, that will never be allowed to happen.
We've seen many of our most common afflictions reversed with nothing more than converting to a good diet and exercise regimen. Yes, it CAN that simple. The masses simply refuse to believe it, and greed and corruption prevent this simple truth from perpetuating.
Please define "ultra-processed".
Please tell us which ingredients cause cancer, and in what amounts.
What would it matter? The masses didn't want to believe that cigarettes were harmful for the better part of a century, despite millions dying from it. I already know that it would take at least two dozen studies and a few million deaths in order to define "ultra-processed". I really don't understand the logic of always defaulting to the "It's bad, but not THAT bad, right?" defense when it comes to food. Have we not heard a greedy food industry LIE enough to defend profits? Is it THAT difficult to look for a benefit in food instead of justifying the lethal threshold? I mean, damn.
The fact is overeating and being overweight are far more dangerous to your health than processing and preservatives that make your food safe to eat by the time it gets to you.
So, a handful of cigarettes a day isn't so bad, right? I mean, it's not like I'm gorging myself on two packs a day. Bottom line is it wouldn't matter if we actually DID prove that the food you eat matters as much as the weight you maintain. Millions would have to die in order for mentalities to change. And given the obesity epidemic, I doubt it would even change then.
There are plenty of things I avoid, such as soy (most commercial soy is produced in an unsafe way because proper fermentation takes longer, also I don't exactly need estrogenic shit all up in me) and HFCS (your typical 55/45 blend is far enough off from the expected 50/50 that it can cause issues, but the main reason I avoid it is to limit the quantity of sugar overall because it's unnecessarily added to so many things). But you clowns are worrying about food coloring because rats given a full pint of it showed a 2% increase in cancer risk, and you're treating "processed" foods as evil despite not understanding that the various processing involved is what makes it so you can have bread without mold and meat that doesn't make you puke your own feces.
So, you understand and are adverse to certain known poisons, but you simply blindly trust the food industry with other questionable additives?
I guess statistics and common sense get in my way of believing that the food processing industry holds my safety over their profits, especially as people tend to cure common ailments and achieve good health when they start AVOIDING all that "Grade-A" processed shit the industry labels "safe". To each their own I suppose.
Deaths from Botulism or food poisoning like Cholera?
The trade off is living long enough to get cancer.
Sorry, but stupid argument is stupid.
It's often hard to completely avoid the risk of food poisoning unless you're going to strictly control the ENTIRE food growing and processing process.
It's rather easy to completely avoid any risk associated with eating over-processed shit food. Just don't fucking eat it.
And the goal is to not get cancer at all. There is no "trade-off" when you work your entire life to retire, only to hand your retirement nest egg over to the Medical Industrial Complex. Fuck that.
> We now understand that excess sugar creates diabetics,
"We" don't. Most Type 1 is an auto-immune problem that destroys beta cells that make insulin, it's the far more severe form of diabetes. And it's triggered by types of flu. Type 2, which is 20 times as common, is mostly insulin resistance. The *treatment* is weight control exercise, exercise, healthy lifestyle, etc.
I said we understand that excessive sugar intake can cause diabetes, which the link to sugary drinks has been proven. No doctor or nutritionist looks at the soda addict facing the onset of diabetes and says "Oh, you drink a gallon of soda a day? Yeah, no problem. You can keep drinking that, just exercise more."
Yes, there are many other causes of diabetes, but there's little left to dispute the influence of sugar.
You ate the premise of the article hook and sinker. Whatabout quantity ? Maybe over-eating causes cancer ? Maybe those who eat processed food also eat too much ?
Poison is poison. And it makes little sense to put it in your body regardless of quantity. While we may argue the correlation of this study, there are NO studies out there claiming that over-processed foods are good for you (at least not yet; I'm certain the Meat Mafia will chime in soon).
When it comes to food, simplicity is key, and there should be enough evidence of the benefits of that logic by doing nothing more than looking at the community of people who stick to a healthy diet and combine that with some exercise. That simple combination has been proven to minimize or avoid the most common afflictions that are killing millions of humans every year.
No, we should not fall victim to correlation automatically defining causation. But when it comes to our food supply, there is far too much evidence that proves that greed and corruption will bend facts and defend their poison-ladened profits to the death. To each their own. Life is full of risk. I simply see some risks as utterly pointless, and therefore avoidable.
Nobody under 20 uses it. They use whatever proprietary messaging app their friends use this year. And they are getting older every year.
Middle aged women use Facebook messenger.
Email is dead. Get over it.
Thank you for clarifying why so many 20-year olds are still living in their parents basement. Guess they should stop whining about not being able to find a job and get over it.
They found that a 10% increase in the amount of ultra-processed foods in the diet was linked to a 12% increase in cancers of some kind. The researchers also looked to see whether there were increases in specific types of cancer and found a rise of 11% in breast cancer, although no significant upturn in colorectal or prostate cancer.
It's the fatness of the people eating the food, not the "ultra-processed foods".
Uh, a diet of "ultra-processed" food usually causes obesity. There's a rather obvious correlation there when you shove SHIT food in your body all day vs. eating raw/non-processed foods.
The fact that breast cancer rates elevate and other, more common cancers aren't should be the dead give away.
There's nothing that is a dead give away here when talking about three cancers out of dozens. It took us half a century to admit and accept that cigarettes cause cancer. We now understand that excess sugar creates diabetics, and excess amounts of sodium creates high blood pressure. Is it really going to take another few decades of study for us to admit and accept that processed food should be avoided? I sure as hell hope not.
If a man (or a woman) works in say a mine, eight hour a day, with a heavy hammer, then he can eat about anything he wants.
Putting aside the "healthy" mining job for a moment, no they cannot merely eat anything they want. That may maintain one's weight, but weight is not the only metric when measuring ones overall health and risk of cancer.
But it is very different for an office worker. The problem is that we engineered out the physical movement from our lives. And any food becomes dangerous in such circumstances.
The best way to deal with it is to widen sidewalks, build bicycle trails, nice stairs in buildings, etc. So that we can start move again regularly.
If an active lifestyle would actually enable you to exercise the risk of cancer away, we wouldn't hear of people getting cancer in countries where most citizens are active, and do not suffer from an obesity epidemic. This is not the case, and reducing or eliminating the risk of cancer starts with eliminating the habit of putting poison in our bodies via the food we consume. There is a reason that the medical community beats the Diet and Exercise drum, because both are required to maintain a healthy life, and one cannot be merely eliminated by the other.
Yeah, you could, but will you? The answer is no. My employees are considerably less productive when they work from home. If people didnâ(TM)t abuse the privilege Iâ(TM)d grant it more often. As is, I have learned to expect at least a 50% productivity drop on WFH days. Sucks becaus now I donâ(TM)t work from home ever since I canâ(TM)t restrict it and at the same time do so myself, but thatâ(TM)s how it goes.
If you manage employees that suffer a 50% drop in productivity in a WFH environment, then you're not a manager, you're a babysitter.
Personally, I don't find value in employing children. To each their own.
I'll believe printed journalism is dead when the Paperless Office and IPv6 become more than a kitschy theme song.
Been hearing about that shit for the last two decades, and the overwhelming majority of business still runs on IPv4 and holds on to their beloved multi-function paper killing machines.
Is one robot worth 100 workers? If so the 631 to 10,000 number seems significant.
My field is robotic and in the few dozen robot I've installed, none goes even near that 100 worker equivalent.
At best, at very best a robot barely replace 9 workers (3 worker, 3 shift a day). But it's usually more 1-2.
I think you're failing to take into account the benefits in certain scenarios. Aside from the fact a robot will not become sick, slow down, need maternity leave, workmans comp, disability, FMLA, or create a risk of a sexual harassment lawsuit (yeah, that last one can be very costly), the largest benefit automation can bring is for that shop that could only afford to run 8x5 before automation. After implementing automation they can run 24x7. In those situations that is a rather massive increase in overall output. You're not merely replacing 9 workers in that scenario.
...But it gets worse. The oldest cohort, nearing retirement is 4th internationally. But the youngest is 12th, and since the ranking gets worse as you get younger, and all signs point to a continuing deterioration in support for higher education, we can expect it to be much worse, rather than better of even the same in another 10 years.
When you say "continuing deterioration", are you referring to college graduates who can't find a decent job due to "entry-level" positions requiring a decade of experience? Or the fact that a college degree now creates crippling debt with questionable value-add? Or is it perhaps the government tightening down on federal student loans after amassing a trillion or two of outstanding debt?
Just trying to understand what is really contributing to this deterioration. Might as well add "$100K Masters degree" to that list too, since a measly $60K college degree is now the new high school diploma.
Slashdot Mirror
Does it?
You actually need to prove that statement. I'm not saying its wrong, I actually think its probably correct, however its not science until its tested and validated a couple times.
We were lied to about the dangers of tobacco for half a century. Doctors at one time were pimping cigarettes. Millions of deaths occurred due to primary use and secondhand exposure before any tobacco company ever admitted their product was deadly.
Lies and deception surround our meat-processing industry that purposely shrouds itself in secrecy. Ever seen the inside of the processing plant where your meat comes from? Do you really know how that food source is made? I didn't think so.
I don't have to say anything beyond Medical Industrial Complex to describe how bad that multi-trillion dollar industry has become. The killer irony there is medical error is now a leading cause of death, which is conveniently excluded from death certificates.
TL; DR - Prove that statement? How about you first prove that Greed N. Corruption won't distort the truth. The "science" is far too often bought and sold these days in order to protect profits.
I've been doing a lot of that stuff - eating, drinking, singing - for FIFTY YEARS. I got my first cell phone in 1990, and I've been talking on the phone since then. I don't have a problem with "distractions".
No, you have a problem with comparative analysis, chance, and the human toll of time.
Talking on a phone is not even close to the same thing as the other 95% of society addicted to social media that requires considerably more interaction (and that headset isn't statistically helping you). Driving distractions include eating and drinking, which were proven factors long before cell phones.
Your hearing, eyesight, and reflexes; I can assure you that you do NOT hold the same capabilities that you did FIFTY YEARS ago. One accident in half a century? There is no insurance company in the world that would attribute that statistic to skill alone. Luck has been on your side my friend.
Then again, none of this matters. That Pepsi and McShit food you're putting in your body says a lot about your longevity.
Annoys the hell out of me that they had to specifically put traffic laws into place that say: "Don't text and drive"
Uh, you can thank a lawyer, and the society litigation created for that bullshit.
I can already hear the defense of a 17-year old smartphone addict in a courtroom: "Well, you didn't specifically tell me don't text and drive, so..."
Betterridge says No.
Ian Betteridge was a human.
And as (Spock) logic would kindly dictate, your weak human concepts and limitations should not be automatically applied here.
Stop thinking like a human. We're talking about the infinite possibilities surrounding alien life.
Sorry but aliens were invented to convince dumb people to give smart scientists money. Let me explain. No life can exist without a sun, which is actually a star. The closest star to us is about 4 light years away. That means it takes light 4 years to travel that distance. Light travels extremely fast, 186,287 miles per second, and according to special relativity we can never go the speed of light because it requires infinite energy. So even if we could go a speed we can never go, it would take 4 years to get to the closest star. From there the distance goes up. Those stars you see in the sky are hundreds and thousands of light years away, which means at the fastest speed man has ever heard of, it would still take hundreds or thousands of years to reach. But imagine for a second there is some being that has the technology to travel that fast, why in the hell would they waste hundreds or thousands of years to visit us? Their technology compared to ours is like comparing humans to ants, there is nothing interesting about us at all compared to them. So aliens either don't exist or can't or won't visit us
"Time is an illusion. Lunchtime doubly so."
To clarify my H2G2 reference, time is a human concept. Humans tend to have a specific definition of a lifetime based on our biological makeup and limitations, roughly equating to a century or less. We have no idea what alien makeup will be, but logic dictates that their definition of a lifetime will be relative.
There are countless galaxies in existence, and you are failing to take into account that an alien lifetime could last a million light years, and a trip to our planet could be no more than a lunchtime break for them, even traveling considerably slower than our perceived light-speed limits.
TL; DR - Stop limiting your thinking within human-defined bounds. Whomever may come and visit, I just hope they know how to make a decent Pan Galactic Gargle Blaster. It would certainly help answer the question posed here.
I mean seriously why do they even have their smartphones at work? Doesn't that go against virtually all sane rules on corporate security?
I can think of a lot of words that employees would use to describe a security policy banning smartphones.
Ironically, sane isn't one of them.
...The only thing that is increased, then, aside from tempers, are the number of beans the bean counters get to count. It is, after all, cheaper to pack sardines into a can than it is to individually wrap them.
Uh, cheaper? Are you saying this one-of-a-kind-Jobs-dream building was cost-effective?
For what they paid, they could have probably constructed a normal building with individually wrapped luxury offices for every employee.
So... people don't pay attention to their surroundings and somehow it's the building's fault?
What did Reality say to the Apple employee?
You're holding it wrong.
As usual, the Devil is in the details: essential liberty? Who gets to define that? Let's try that out on abortion. A woman should have the essential liberty to chose. A fetus should have the essential liberty to choose. Oh, gee, it gets complicated.
Yes, it gets complicated quickly, but we're talking about the considerable abuses of citizens and privacy here, so let's not stray too far off topic here, and focus on the 4th Amendment and below for now.
Besides, the Rights of a fetus and abortion are clouded even further with religious beliefs, making those discussions even more difficult to have.
Nowhere does it guarantee a right to privacy. The government needs to be able to keep people safe and they cannot do this unless they have to the correct tools.
I agree. Let's look at the Constitution, along with the Amendments we've made to it.
We can start with the Government looking at it, and then reviewing all of the blatantly illegal processes and procedures they employ, under the guise of protecting us.
Forget a full review. We probably won't even get past the 4th Amendment.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Over 250 years old and yet it still rings true today.
One really common affliction that kills millions of people every year is cancer. That's pretty well correlated with longevity, so the easiest way to reduce the cancer death rate is to have people die younger, like they used to. This stuff isn't as simple as it looks.
100 years ago cancer affected 3 out of every 100. Today if affects 1 in 3. The government declared a War on Cancer well over 45 years ago (1971), which has basically done nothing to the ever-rising impact of cancer. We certainly have a lot of evidence that points to the shit we've added to our food supply. In 1935, there was but one case of cancer reported in the last half century from Eskimos living in Alaska and Canada. After they began adding processed foods into their diet, the cancer rate exploded until it was eventually equal to us "modern" folks killing ourselves with food.
GMOs and insecticide use, fat-free diets, synthetic estrogen, polyunsaturated fats, HFCS and refined sugars...all of these play their role, with corruption silencing any evidence that even hints at a negative impact on our health due to the massive profits made within these powerful industries. Of course we can't overlook the largest factor that created the Cancer Industrial Complex; the disease of Greed. A cure for cancer? Yeah, that will never be allowed to happen.
We've seen many of our most common afflictions reversed with nothing more than converting to a good diet and exercise regimen. Yes, it CAN that simple. The masses simply refuse to believe it, and greed and corruption prevent this simple truth from perpetuating.
Please define "ultra-processed". Please tell us which ingredients cause cancer, and in what amounts.
What would it matter? The masses didn't want to believe that cigarettes were harmful for the better part of a century, despite millions dying from it. I already know that it would take at least two dozen studies and a few million deaths in order to define "ultra-processed". I really don't understand the logic of always defaulting to the "It's bad, but not THAT bad, right?" defense when it comes to food. Have we not heard a greedy food industry LIE enough to defend profits? Is it THAT difficult to look for a benefit in food instead of justifying the lethal threshold? I mean, damn.
The fact is overeating and being overweight are far more dangerous to your health than processing and preservatives that make your food safe to eat by the time it gets to you.
So, a handful of cigarettes a day isn't so bad, right? I mean, it's not like I'm gorging myself on two packs a day. Bottom line is it wouldn't matter if we actually DID prove that the food you eat matters as much as the weight you maintain. Millions would have to die in order for mentalities to change. And given the obesity epidemic, I doubt it would even change then.
There are plenty of things I avoid, such as soy (most commercial soy is produced in an unsafe way because proper fermentation takes longer, also I don't exactly need estrogenic shit all up in me) and HFCS (your typical 55/45 blend is far enough off from the expected 50/50 that it can cause issues, but the main reason I avoid it is to limit the quantity of sugar overall because it's unnecessarily added to so many things). But you clowns are worrying about food coloring because rats given a full pint of it showed a 2% increase in cancer risk, and you're treating "processed" foods as evil despite not understanding that the various processing involved is what makes it so you can have bread without mold and meat that doesn't make you puke your own feces.
So, you understand and are adverse to certain known poisons, but you simply blindly trust the food industry with other questionable additives?
I guess statistics and common sense get in my way of believing that the food processing industry holds my safety over their profits, especially as people tend to cure common ailments and achieve good health when they start AVOIDING all that "Grade-A" processed shit the industry labels "safe". To each their own I suppose.
Deaths from Botulism or food poisoning like Cholera?
The trade off is living long enough to get cancer.
Sorry, but stupid argument is stupid.
It's often hard to completely avoid the risk of food poisoning unless you're going to strictly control the ENTIRE food growing and processing process.
It's rather easy to completely avoid any risk associated with eating over-processed shit food. Just don't fucking eat it.
And the goal is to not get cancer at all. There is no "trade-off" when you work your entire life to retire, only to hand your retirement nest egg over to the Medical Industrial Complex. Fuck that.
> We now understand that excess sugar creates diabetics,
"We" don't. Most Type 1 is an auto-immune problem that destroys beta cells that make insulin, it's the far more severe form of diabetes. And it's triggered by types of flu. Type 2, which is 20 times as common, is mostly insulin resistance. The *treatment* is weight control exercise, exercise, healthy lifestyle, etc.
I said we understand that excessive sugar intake can cause diabetes, which the link to sugary drinks has been proven. No doctor or nutritionist looks at the soda addict facing the onset of diabetes and says "Oh, you drink a gallon of soda a day? Yeah, no problem. You can keep drinking that, just exercise more."
Yes, there are many other causes of diabetes, but there's little left to dispute the influence of sugar.
You ate the premise of the article hook and sinker. Whatabout quantity ? Maybe over-eating causes cancer ? Maybe those who eat processed food also eat too much ?
Poison is poison. And it makes little sense to put it in your body regardless of quantity. While we may argue the correlation of this study, there are NO studies out there claiming that over-processed foods are good for you (at least not yet; I'm certain the Meat Mafia will chime in soon).
When it comes to food, simplicity is key, and there should be enough evidence of the benefits of that logic by doing nothing more than looking at the community of people who stick to a healthy diet and combine that with some exercise. That simple combination has been proven to minimize or avoid the most common afflictions that are killing millions of humans every year.
No, we should not fall victim to correlation automatically defining causation. But when it comes to our food supply, there is far too much evidence that proves that greed and corruption will bend facts and defend their poison-ladened profits to the death. To each their own. Life is full of risk. I simply see some risks as utterly pointless, and therefore avoidable.
Nobody under 20 uses it. They use whatever proprietary messaging app their friends use this year. And they are getting older every year.
Middle aged women use Facebook messenger.
Email is dead. Get over it.
Thank you for clarifying why so many 20-year olds are still living in their parents basement. Guess they should stop whining about not being able to find a job and get over it.
They found that a 10% increase in the amount of ultra-processed foods in the diet was linked to a 12% increase in cancers of some kind. The researchers also looked to see whether there were increases in specific types of cancer and found a rise of 11% in breast cancer, although no significant upturn in colorectal or prostate cancer.
It's the fatness of the people eating the food, not the "ultra-processed foods".
Uh, a diet of "ultra-processed" food usually causes obesity. There's a rather obvious correlation there when you shove SHIT food in your body all day vs. eating raw/non-processed foods.
The fact that breast cancer rates elevate and other, more common cancers aren't should be the dead give away.
There's nothing that is a dead give away here when talking about three cancers out of dozens. It took us half a century to admit and accept that cigarettes cause cancer. We now understand that excess sugar creates diabetics, and excess amounts of sodium creates high blood pressure. Is it really going to take another few decades of study for us to admit and accept that processed food should be avoided? I sure as hell hope not.
If a man (or a woman) works in say a mine, eight hour a day, with a heavy hammer, then he can eat about anything he wants.
Putting aside the "healthy" mining job for a moment, no they cannot merely eat anything they want. That may maintain one's weight, but weight is not the only metric when measuring ones overall health and risk of cancer.
But it is very different for an office worker. The problem is that we engineered out the physical movement from our lives. And any food becomes dangerous in such circumstances. The best way to deal with it is to widen sidewalks, build bicycle trails, nice stairs in buildings, etc. So that we can start move again regularly.
If an active lifestyle would actually enable you to exercise the risk of cancer away, we wouldn't hear of people getting cancer in countries where most citizens are active, and do not suffer from an obesity epidemic. This is not the case, and reducing or eliminating the risk of cancer starts with eliminating the habit of putting poison in our bodies via the food we consume. There is a reason that the medical community beats the Diet and Exercise drum, because both are required to maintain a healthy life, and one cannot be merely eliminated by the other.
one still has to throw out an Apple product after three years because it can't be upgraded.
That is not a bug or a problem, that is a revenue feature.
And most vendors are doing the same damn thing when it comes to support.
Yeah, you could, but will you? The answer is no. My employees are considerably less productive when they work from home. If people didnâ(TM)t abuse the privilege Iâ(TM)d grant it more often. As is, I have learned to expect at least a 50% productivity drop on WFH days. Sucks becaus now I donâ(TM)t work from home ever since I canâ(TM)t restrict it and at the same time do so myself, but thatâ(TM)s how it goes.
If you manage employees that suffer a 50% drop in productivity in a WFH environment, then you're not a manager, you're a babysitter.
Personally, I don't find value in employing children. To each their own.
Let's see: AMP for GMAIL = bad. HTTPS Everywhere = BAD, Youtube demonitization schemes left up to algorithms = BAD
Anyone see the pattern? The pattern is that Google thinks it owns the web now.
Well, you were mostly right.
The need for pushing HTTPS everywhere was born for a valid reason, so that is a rather shitty example of a "BAD" move.
Dear Consumer,
It doesn't matter what you want. You'll get what makes us the most profit, and like it.
Fuck You Very Much, and Have a Nice Day.
Hugs and Kisses,
- Your Friendly Neighborhood Free Service Provider
I'll believe printed journalism is dead when the Paperless Office and IPv6 become more than a kitschy theme song.
Been hearing about that shit for the last two decades, and the overwhelming majority of business still runs on IPv4 and holds on to their beloved multi-function paper killing machines.
Is one robot worth 100 workers? If so the 631 to 10,000 number seems significant.
My field is robotic and in the few dozen robot I've installed, none goes even near that 100 worker equivalent.
At best, at very best a robot barely replace 9 workers (3 worker, 3 shift a day). But it's usually more 1-2.
I think you're failing to take into account the benefits in certain scenarios. Aside from the fact a robot will not become sick, slow down, need maternity leave, workmans comp, disability, FMLA, or create a risk of a sexual harassment lawsuit (yeah, that last one can be very costly), the largest benefit automation can bring is for that shop that could only afford to run 8x5 before automation. After implementing automation they can run 24x7. In those situations that is a rather massive increase in overall output. You're not merely replacing 9 workers in that scenario.
...But it gets worse. The oldest cohort, nearing retirement is 4th internationally. But the youngest is 12th, and since the ranking gets worse as you get younger, and all signs point to a continuing deterioration in support for higher education, we can expect it to be much worse, rather than better of even the same in another 10 years.
When you say "continuing deterioration", are you referring to college graduates who can't find a decent job due to "entry-level" positions requiring a decade of experience? Or the fact that a college degree now creates crippling debt with questionable value-add? Or is it perhaps the government tightening down on federal student loans after amassing a trillion or two of outstanding debt?
Just trying to understand what is really contributing to this deterioration. Might as well add "$100K Masters degree" to that list too, since a measly $60K college degree is now the new high school diploma.