But also, it is unhealthy. Unless you're ordering the grilled chicken salad, you're not eating healthy. Bread isn't healthy, it's just not the worst offender and red meat with cheese aren't the worst offenders either.
Add in 90% of fast food includes fries and chips yes it's unhealthy. Very unhealthy. It's disingenuous to pretend that fast food and restaurants with what we eat isn't a huge problem for most people. We've all set the bar too low on what's healthy and I can accept that but don't pretend fast food is healthy.
Look around at active projects at any lifecycle at NASA right now and you should be able to count at least 100 that involve the ISS. It's not just for growing purple lettuce, it's a crucial hub for many small satellite projects.
If you want to count all of the advancements made because it exists, we have literally hundreds of projects full of data to choose from.
We could certainly do science without it, but right now it'd be a different kind of science.
Or there's another trend you could look at. We went through a HUGE non-fat spree for decades when I was growing up. This meant eating lots of lean meat instead of fat and, of course, meant eating more sugar and carbs and other substitutes.
People are so afraid to address the carb epidemic because nobody wants to live without them. If we just tried, our appetites would decrease and our pallets could expand to other healthier frontiers. Having done the keto diet multiple times, this is all quite obvious.
But what would the food industry do if we all ate lots of salad and stopped eating carbs? 80% of a grocery store is carbs, and 90% of those are unhealthy. All IMO of course.
There's a lot of arguing going on about who's to blame for this. We have the facts (they're repeated on here about 100 times). We need to focus on the point and that is we're screwed if we don't do something.
It says something that the city's problem is "robots crowding the streets" and not the part of homeless people crowding the streets. I don't know what that is, but it says it.
It's funny the number of people who post every time UBI is discussed about "giving poor people more money won't help them" or some other criticism that is filed against more welfare in general. That's not what UBI is, at least not to me.
For me, UBI could not propose increasing welfare at all and I'd STILL be for it. To me it's about removing the complicated network of welfare and simplifying it. It's about removing the negative stigma. You can argue for higher, or lower UBI, and I'd STILL be happy that at least we've 1. simplified the system and 2. shown the U.S. that there are advantages to systems like these.
Do I think it'll work as pretty as it is in my head? No. But you can't tell me it's not worth trying to improve our current system, regardless of politics.
Looks like my 5 year long boycott of EA is going well for me. It started with Origin, and realized that they've gone off the deep end for me.
As a side note it's not JUST EA I don't play, but I'm pretty picky with my games now. They have to have feeling. I've played Breath of the Wild, Odyssey, and quite a few indie games lately, and that's fine with me.
To me, Star Trek was about being inclusive and open minded. SJWs are about as exclusive and close-minded as they come, it's just that the pendulum is on the other side. Just my opinion.
I don't think the problem is that this statement isn't true, it's that it ignores the actual people you're talking about. Every person should have the right to individual judgement, not based on race or gender.
Apparently making a truthful statement without the intent to incite or troll gets you marked as "Flamebait".
I was worried because dissenting and non-racist opinions are marked racist. Now I'm worried because someone trying to appeal to reason is offensive as well.
If you're not free from the consequences you don't have freedom of speech. It's pretty simple. Otherwise "free speech" means nothing. In North Korea they are free to speak, until they are put to death for it.
A lot of people keep calling this stupid, but it's actually pretty simple. The design started back in 2004. When you're working a rigid project like this, things get locked in once approved, like design and technology. If you postponed even whenever a new Windows came out, you'd have to go back, have a new CONOPS, new requirements, and start all over again and the project would never finish. Yes you'd get to reuse a lot of the previous architecture, but just think about it. If you're running the program, and software people tell you they're going to just use a new OS, you have a whole host of new things to think about.
And in the government, hardware tends to drive software, so software is constantly trying to keep to the same milestones. And believe me, once you've tested, NOBODY wants to think about switching OS and libraries now. Throw in a few of the typical delays that come in the government, (funding/changing of the guard, etc...) and this all makes sense.
So stupid? That's not really the issue here. It's choosing between a rigid process, that can't afford to do things quickly and is very risk averse...or finishing quickly. The most common mitigation to this issue is to include an update later, with newer Windows and some regression testing. You can't really win with the public these days anyway...imagine if they pushed it out quickly and the report instead said that there was a malfunction because it was a rush job. These days, you're damned if you do (spend a lot of money but this is what we get) and damned if you don't (rush job leads to malfunction leads to public embarrassment).
I agree with your skepticism of those programs, they're likely not a realistic sample. But we also have to be cautious that IQ is trending upwards. For one, I noticed a trend when I went to school that we started teaching towards the test.
And for two, IQ is derived from a standardized test. Which means the tests are constantly updated to represent modern intelligence, which means the goal posts are constantly moving, and IQ could be more and more associated with what is common knowledge and combine that with the internet and the age of information, might not reflect critical thinking as much as access to social media.
I'm probably exaggerating a little bit here, and I'm not criticizing IQ, but just doing a thought exercise on what people measure as smart these days. We may have knowledge but do we have critical thinking?
Slashdot Mirror
But also, it is unhealthy. Unless you're ordering the grilled chicken salad, you're not eating healthy. Bread isn't healthy, it's just not the worst offender and red meat with cheese aren't the worst offenders either.
Add in 90% of fast food includes fries and chips yes it's unhealthy. Very unhealthy. It's disingenuous to pretend that fast food and restaurants with what we eat isn't a huge problem for most people. We've all set the bar too low on what's healthy and I can accept that but don't pretend fast food is healthy.
I'm having trouble with the fact that it's so accurate at identifying men but not women. Gender politics aside, how does this work?
What are the odds that all of these stories and data coming out about Russia Trolling the U.S. is just another part of Russia trolling the U.S.?
I guess one defender represents us all. But sure, "Insightful"
Look around at active projects at any lifecycle at NASA right now and you should be able to count at least 100 that involve the ISS. It's not just for growing purple lettuce, it's a crucial hub for many small satellite projects.
If you want to count all of the advancements made because it exists, we have literally hundreds of projects full of data to choose from.
We could certainly do science without it, but right now it'd be a different kind of science.
That might have been true for Bush Jr., but not for Trump.
It's definitely true that he came across as an idiot. The funny thing is, his IQ puts him above 94% of the population. Just not 94% of presidents...
Or there's another trend you could look at. We went through a HUGE non-fat spree for decades when I was growing up. This meant eating lots of lean meat instead of fat and, of course, meant eating more sugar and carbs and other substitutes.
People are so afraid to address the carb epidemic because nobody wants to live without them. If we just tried, our appetites would decrease and our pallets could expand to other healthier frontiers. Having done the keto diet multiple times, this is all quite obvious.
But what would the food industry do if we all ate lots of salad and stopped eating carbs? 80% of a grocery store is carbs, and 90% of those are unhealthy. All IMO of course.
There's a lot of arguing going on about who's to blame for this. We have the facts (they're repeated on here about 100 times). We need to focus on the point and that is we're screwed if we don't do something.
It says something that the city's problem is "robots crowding the streets" and not the part of homeless people crowding the streets. I don't know what that is, but it says it.
I'm sure we've all felt a disturbance...
You can't tell someone a twist without it being a spoiler, now I know there's a twist!
Well....but Trump signed this one!
It's funny the number of people who post every time UBI is discussed about "giving poor people more money won't help them" or some other criticism that is filed against more welfare in general. That's not what UBI is, at least not to me.
For me, UBI could not propose increasing welfare at all and I'd STILL be for it. To me it's about removing the complicated network of welfare and simplifying it. It's about removing the negative stigma. You can argue for higher, or lower UBI, and I'd STILL be happy that at least we've 1. simplified the system and 2. shown the U.S. that there are advantages to systems like these.
Do I think it'll work as pretty as it is in my head? No. But you can't tell me it's not worth trying to improve our current system, regardless of politics.
Everybody is different. But I found the same success as above. Cut out all carbs and you'd be surprised I think but just try it for your self
No mod points, but the parent is correct. So what you heard was wrong in at least one way
Looks like my 5 year long boycott of EA is going well for me. It started with Origin, and realized that they've gone off the deep end for me.
As a side note it's not JUST EA I don't play, but I'm pretty picky with my games now. They have to have feeling. I've played Breath of the Wild, Odyssey, and quite a few indie games lately, and that's fine with me.
I don't lock my door. If you want to feed my dogs, then I can stay out later!
Is the birthdate including year or is it not?
The success of Miku is taking music ownership in the right direction for us all.
To me, Star Trek was about being inclusive and open minded. SJWs are about as exclusive and close-minded as they come, it's just that the pendulum is on the other side. Just my opinion.
I don't think the problem is that this statement isn't true, it's that it ignores the actual people you're talking about. Every person should have the right to individual judgement, not based on race or gender.
Apparently making a truthful statement without the intent to incite or troll gets you marked as "Flamebait".
I was worried because dissenting and non-racist opinions are marked racist. Now I'm worried because someone trying to appeal to reason is offensive as well.
If you're not free from the consequences you don't have freedom of speech. It's pretty simple. Otherwise "free speech" means nothing. In North Korea they are free to speak, until they are put to death for it.
A lot of people keep calling this stupid, but it's actually pretty simple. The design started back in 2004. When you're working a rigid project like this, things get locked in once approved, like design and technology. If you postponed even whenever a new Windows came out, you'd have to go back, have a new CONOPS, new requirements, and start all over again and the project would never finish. Yes you'd get to reuse a lot of the previous architecture, but just think about it. If you're running the program, and software people tell you they're going to just use a new OS, you have a whole host of new things to think about.
And in the government, hardware tends to drive software, so software is constantly trying to keep to the same milestones. And believe me, once you've tested, NOBODY wants to think about switching OS and libraries now. Throw in a few of the typical delays that come in the government, (funding/changing of the guard, etc...) and this all makes sense.
So stupid? That's not really the issue here. It's choosing between a rigid process, that can't afford to do things quickly and is very risk averse...or finishing quickly. The most common mitigation to this issue is to include an update later, with newer Windows and some regression testing. You can't really win with the public these days anyway...imagine if they pushed it out quickly and the report instead said that there was a malfunction because it was a rush job. These days, you're damned if you do (spend a lot of money but this is what we get) and damned if you don't (rush job leads to malfunction leads to public embarrassment).
I agree with your skepticism of those programs, they're likely not a realistic sample. But we also have to be cautious that IQ is trending upwards. For one, I noticed a trend when I went to school that we started teaching towards the test.
And for two, IQ is derived from a standardized test. Which means the tests are constantly updated to represent modern intelligence, which means the goal posts are constantly moving, and IQ could be more and more associated with what is common knowledge and combine that with the internet and the age of information, might not reflect critical thinking as much as access to social media.
I'm probably exaggerating a little bit here, and I'm not criticizing IQ, but just doing a thought exercise on what people measure as smart these days. We may have knowledge but do we have critical thinking?