Yeah, and I rode one once downstairs in peon class, shortly after they delivered them. It felt claustrophobic and made me think we were only missing the oars and chains. there was surprising rips in the carpet considering how new they were. I can see why they failed: nobody in their right mind wants to sit through a long flight in that dungeon.
Yes. But it's not more efficient to carpool on a bus when you've only got 4 people to pool together. The A380 only makes sense for the busiest routes which makes greatly reduces its usefulness. And if you can't sell the thing out, it would have been more efficient to use a smaller plane.
However I have found it to be the most comfortable ride when crossing the Pacific. Upstairs in business class. It's very quiet, spacious and smooth.
That's an area where the evidence is pointing all over the place and makes me feel that there's something big that hasn't been worked out.
Why does gut biodiversity go up on a fibre free carnivore diet? I have no clue, but it's what happens and the effects on a range of immune and psych problems can be dramatic. Why is the effect of increased gut biodiversity different with different dietary regimens? I have no clue, but it's what happens.
I didn't link to any studies because I value my time over yours.
Gabor Erdosi has an excellent talk reviewing the literature of GIP/GLP-1 things on YouTube.
The protons series on hyperlipid has a very in-depth review of the literature on F/N ratios of fats and the effects at the mitochondrial boundary
There was a study doing the news rounds on the DHA and EPA thing last week but I can't be bothered to find it for you. The summary is people who eat fish eat less.
But the WHO says clearly that increased cancer is associated with all processed meats. If bacon was the culprit, they should have said that cancer is associated with bacon. Instead, they also mention stuff like corned beef and beef jerky.
I guess bacon is popular, but the typical quantity eaten is rather low. People eat a few strips, not a plate full. I think the total amount of luncheon meats, ham, hot dogs and sausage is much higher, and those are typically not fried. And not everybody eats their bacon crispy. If you heat it up in the microwave, you get very little nitrosamines.
I tried to find statistics on different kinds of processed meat consumption, but could not find anything decent.
The studies on nitrates and nitrites (widely ridiculed for their awful methods) have tended to focus on the hotdog and not the bun it's delivered in. The inflammatory properties of wheat should concern people.
So the underlying assumption that nitrites and nitrates cause cancer and the dose is what is making the difference is wrong. There is no evidence that they cause cancer. Just bad studies that didn't control correctly. this problem of misunderstanding is compounded when outfits like EAT-Lancet and the WHO who stock their review boards with vegan doctors who from a field that includes well run RCT studies, instead choose to reference only the epidemiological subset using food frequency questionnaires that give the answer they are looking for.
Nobody really knows why "processed foods" cause harm. Studies on salt itself say too much salt affects some people negatively, but not all. Salt sensitivity can usually be detected with specific tests. And lower-processed foods are often also salty. Being heavily processed by itself doesn't mean it automatically has more salt.
As the intro hinted, the exact cause is only speculation at this point. Further studies would be needed to isolate the offending trait(s). Candidate factors include but are not limited to:
* More alleged salt * More MSG * More alleged oil/fat * Less fiber and "roughage" * Longer cooking period * More preservatives and "odd" chemicals * More frying * On the shelf longer * Less of certain vitamins and minerals
There are well researched mechanisms:
1) The increased GIP/GLP-1 ratio from finely processed foods (as in chopped up or pureed) promoting insulin resistance. 2) The low F/N ratio fats (aka seed oils) used in western food preparation, impairing satiety signaling by impairing RET. 3) The absence of DHA and EPA, so the body keeps up the hunger till it gets enough. Eat that fatty fishy to feel full quicker.
The strawmen you list are the domain of uninformed speculation.
>Then you must understand that It's MITM. It's really not complicated - There's a MITM component, but it DOES NOT WORK if it is solely MITM. There's and endpoint component too - so it's not just a man in the middle MITM.
It's like saying - (You) "Here's my red car", (onlooker):" But the front half is yellow". (You):"It's still just red", (onlooker): "No it isn't, it's red and yellow, it's not just red".
I spoke to a guy at the UK met office about this in the 90s and he explained how they were basically compute limited. They run a number of sims with randomized perturbations at the start and see which outcomes are the most common across perturbations. They were using all their Crays full whack and that's what determined and limited the accuracy of the results. 30 years later, compute power is somewhat cheaper and my desktop is faster than one of those Crays.
I'm not at all confused. I understand PKI just fine, my day job is crypto system design and I understand how this particular slight of hand works down to the packet level.
A MITM attack is performed between the end points. This particular attack cannot work solely between the end points. An essential element is a modified trust list at one end point. There's a MITM component, but it's not sufficient on its own.
I've done my share of ranting about X.509, PKI and all that goes along with it. This is one of the things that has been broken for a long time. While it's common in corporate deployments, it's still shady as heck because the MITM component is signing everything it sees, without question. What happens when the trust list in the router gets out of date and still carries some discredited CA's cert in its trust list? It compromises the security of everyone on the network. Trust is not transitive, but these systems treat it like it is.
Slashdot Mirror
Einstein derived E=MC^2. That's a neater trick than measuring it.
Yeah, and I rode one once downstairs in peon class, shortly after they delivered them. It felt claustrophobic and made me think we were only missing the oars and chains. there was surprising rips in the carpet considering how new they were.
I can see why they failed: nobody in their right mind wants to sit through a long flight in that dungeon.
So a US carrier then?
Yes. But it's not more efficient to carpool on a bus when you've only got 4 people to pool together. The A380 only makes sense for the busiest routes which makes greatly reduces its usefulness. And if you can't sell the thing out, it would have been more efficient to use a smaller plane.
However I have found it to be the most comfortable ride when crossing the Pacific. Upstairs in business class. It's very quiet, spacious and smooth.
That's an area where the evidence is pointing all over the place and makes me feel that there's something big that hasn't been worked out.
Why does gut biodiversity go up on a fibre free carnivore diet? I have no clue, but it's what happens and the effects on a range of immune and psych problems can be dramatic. Why is the effect of increased gut biodiversity different with different dietary regimens? I have no clue, but it's what happens.
Too complex for my meager brain.
You didn’t link to any studies, so speculation.
I didn't link to any studies because I value my time over yours.
Gabor Erdosi has an excellent talk reviewing the literature of GIP/GLP-1 things on YouTube.
The protons series on hyperlipid has a very in-depth review of the literature on F/N ratios of fats and the effects at the mitochondrial boundary
There was a study doing the news rounds on the DHA and EPA thing last week but I can't be bothered to find it for you. The summary is people who eat fish eat less.
I refer you to bacon.
But the WHO says clearly that increased cancer is associated with all processed meats. If bacon was the culprit, they should have said that cancer is associated with bacon. Instead, they also mention stuff like corned beef and beef jerky.
Selective interpretation of data - The WHO report was a disgrace. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... .
I guess bacon is popular, but the typical quantity eaten is rather low. People eat a few strips, not a plate full. I think the total amount of luncheon meats, ham, hot dogs and sausage is much higher, and those are typically not fried. And not everybody eats their bacon crispy. If you heat it up in the microwave, you get very little nitrosamines.
I tried to find statistics on different kinds of processed meat consumption, but could not find anything decent.
The studies on nitrates and nitrites (widely ridiculed for their awful methods) have tended to focus on the hotdog and not the bun it's delivered in. The inflammatory properties of wheat should concern people.
So the underlying assumption that nitrites and nitrates cause cancer and the dose is what is making the difference is wrong. There is no evidence that they cause cancer. Just bad studies that didn't control correctly. this problem of misunderstanding is compounded when outfits like EAT-Lancet and the WHO who stock their review boards with vegan doctors who from a field that includes well run RCT studies, instead choose to reference only the epidemiological subset using food frequency questionnaires that give the answer they are looking for.
The FUD is strong with this one.
Oh - and sugar.
sugars are the devil.
Sucrose certainly is. Avoid it.
Nobody really knows why "processed foods" cause harm. Studies on salt itself say too much salt affects some people negatively, but not all. Salt sensitivity can usually be detected with specific tests. And lower-processed foods are often also salty. Being heavily processed by itself doesn't mean it automatically has more salt.
As the intro hinted, the exact cause is only speculation at this point. Further studies would be needed to isolate the offending trait(s). Candidate factors include but are not limited to:
* More alleged salt
* More MSG
* More alleged oil/fat
* Less fiber and "roughage"
* Longer cooking period
* More preservatives and "odd" chemicals
* More frying
* On the shelf longer
* Less of certain vitamins and minerals
There are well researched mechanisms:
1) The increased GIP/GLP-1 ratio from finely processed foods (as in chopped up or pureed) promoting insulin resistance.
2) The low F/N ratio fats (aka seed oils) used in western food preparation, impairing satiety signaling by impairing RET.
3) The absence of DHA and EPA, so the body keeps up the hunger till it gets enough. Eat that fatty fishy to feel full quicker.
The strawmen you list are the domain of uninformed speculation.
Nitrates in processed meat are heavily linked to bowel cancer.
By stupid biased studies. Why isn't celery linked to bowel cancer?
Just like old school cartridge games
But Intel also brought us flash...
Gordon's Alive!!
>Then you must understand that It's MITM.
It's really not complicated - There's a MITM component, but it DOES NOT WORK if it is solely MITM. There's and endpoint component too - so it's not just a man in the middle MITM.
It's like saying - (You) "Here's my red car", (onlooker):" But the front half is yellow". (You):"It's still just red", (onlooker): "No it isn't, it's red and yellow, it's not just red".
It doesn't matter. I got my cheap shot off regardless.
That was my point. Didn't you read it?
Musk not using SI units?
Maybe the shorts were right.
I spoke to a guy at the UK met office about this in the 90s and he explained how they were basically compute limited. They run a number of sims with randomized perturbations at the start and see which outcomes are the most common across perturbations. They were using all their Crays full whack and that's what determined and limited the accuracy of the results. 30 years later, compute power is somewhat cheaper and my desktop is faster than one of those Crays.
And that is just it. Whoever needs such help should stay away from coding in the first place.
I'll try it. I'm not insecure about my programming. Maybe it's nice to use.
The CPU in my computer was manufactured in Oregon, a short walk from my desk.
I'm not at all confused. I understand PKI just fine, my day job is crypto system design and I understand how this particular slight of hand works down to the packet level.
A MITM attack is performed between the end points. This particular attack cannot work solely between the end points. An essential element is a modified trust list at one end point. There's a MITM component, but it's not sufficient on its own.
I've done my share of ranting about X.509, PKI and all that goes along with it. This is one of the things that has been broken for a long time. While it's common in corporate deployments, it's still shady as heck because the MITM component is signing everything it sees, without question. What happens when the trust list in the router gets out of date and still carries some discredited CA's cert in its trust list? It compromises the security of everyone on the network. Trust is not transitive, but these systems treat it like it is.
They should show more pride in their work
That's why it isn't MITM. An essential part of it takes place at one end using privilege not available to a MITM.
Nope. It's because I'm not party to an agreement between Apple and Facebook.