What non-seasonal, non-tropical plants have high enough fat content, with low enough carb content to maintain ketosis? Because yep, you could eat nothing but macadamia nuts and avocado -- but those wouldn't exactly be available in colder climates year round before modern times.
My point was (as i'm sure you surmised) you have populations of people who basically had to subsist on nothing but meat, and the occasional vegetable when in season (like tubers, as you pointed out). They thrived, and spread all across the northern hemisphere. Could they have done without ketosis?
(And no, it's not 'dangerous' to human health, it's not the same thing as ketoacidosis.)
But it's impossible that people who are already on the way to diabetes are the ones most likely to go on a low-carb diet right?
Take a disease caused by over-production of insulin, which has absolutely nothing to do with sugar intake, right? Yes, it clearly makes way more sense to implicate fat, a substance has fuck-all to do with insulin production. Got it!
well the thing is.. animals do tend to eat each other. Yes we have fancy things like clothes and cars, but at the root of it, we're still made of the same stuff as a cow, pig, or horse.
Humans are still animals, while animals are not human. Why would eating them be an ethical concern for us?
Factory farming, sure, i can see that being an ethical concern. It's incredibly wasteful in terms of water usage, results runoff that contains antibiotic waste, hormones (though curiously birth control pills also cause a bit of this... wonder what the overlap between people against factory farming and against hormonal contraceptive use would be) But these lab grown meat contraptions get around that (as do local small-scale farms)
As far as the health issues; bear in mind people have been eating meat since there were people there to eat it. Heart disease and diabetes are largely new (at least at current levels of prevalence) -- but clearly, the vegan/vegetarians are right, it *must* be the meat in our diets.
yup. tech companies will try to get out in front of this to avoid being the next Google; but once the extreme super serious outrage dies down and the angry mob finds someone else to target; they'll return to the status quo:
80-90% male 30-50+% asian 30-50+% white
The irony of all this is having quotas, diversity hires, etc.. doesn't really 'help'. Rather... well, kind of.. reinforces the stereotypes on some level. (the only reason so and so got that job is because of _).
It is no longer 1950; companies do have the incentive to get the best candidate for a job. But sadly it'll never be completely fair. A hiring manager will, being human have unstated biases, which can range from race, to lip piercings and tattoos. That's just human nature. But having big-brother government step in and mandate hiring practices can't possibly be the answer, nor can letting an angry mob of internet commentators dictate how you should run and staff your business =/
sheesh, years and years of research into self driving vehicles.. billions upon billions of dollars spent.. and we're just now reaching the level of the soccer mom?
Or has the group-think, hive-mind that's become corporate america reached a level of jimmy rustling anytime one of their sacred cows gets challenged that borders on 'infinite' ?
The real problem here is that we as a society are losing the ability to respectfully disagree. Can there really be a functioning democracy (fuck off pedants) with the mindset of "you either agree with us, or you're part of the $problem" ?
"we are tolerant, strive for diversity, and value all opinions" subtext: "as long as you fit into our mold, hold the same opinions, and fit our diversity quotas"
They're biased and utterly regressive -- while suffering from the great western delusion.
Do you think about what you're saying (critically) before you say it? I'm guessing not, but rather a knee-jerk reaction to assuage some kind of white guilt. But, here's a test.
Explain the fact that the NFL and NBA are +90% black. (And before it gets mentioned, I'd argue what google does is just as trivial as football or basketball.)
Do that without contradicting yourself in regards to the situation at Google, and corporate America at large.
The long and short of it is that life is simply not fair. People, no matter how much you'd like to it to be otherwise, have differences. That applies to groups, genders, and nationalities (hell, even speakers of different languages within a single country will have a different world-view). It's no more racist to say "black people have darker skin than whites and asians" than it is to say, "Statistically the traits that make someone a good power forward are more common in blacks than latinos." or "The nurturing instinct is more common in women, therefore they gravitate towards education and child care more often than men"
Pointing out that the way people are wired mentally can lead them towards certain career paths is not sexist, and it's not racist. it's an explanation of an outcome that occurs far too often to dismiss as solely coming down to systemic bias in hiring/promotion.
The same folks pushing for diversity at Google are no where to be heard from when discussing the lack of men in elementary education or nursing, but other than the salaries, what's the difference?
Teaching people to use computers is still a more achievable task than teaching computers to understand people
The difference though: Once someone figures out computers accurately understanding natural language; then it's a technology that will be everywhere in a couple of years. Like strong AI it only needs to be invented once; versus having to continually train new users in the arcane.
Government acting in the interest of consumers: "That's anti-competitive, anti-freemarket. A free market is what made this country great." Government acting in the interest of business: *crickets*... "A free market is what made this country great, and we're job creators. We're simply acting on our fiduciary duty to maximize value for our share-holders"
The double talk coming from these types is positively awe inspiring. On one hand decrying government intervention while simultaneously engaging in every conceivable manner of rent-seeking.
My gut instinct was something like that but specifically, think of Everquest 17 odd years ago. Surely Everquest and other MMO's zombified a good number of teenage/20 something year old males. It's a pretty common refrain, complaining about time lost to social activities in highschool and college.
But realistically, video games and the like only had that deleterious (subjective) effect on a relatively small portion of the population (middle class males between 15 and 30).. but smart phones and the like, well just about everyone has them.
Do they hinder social development ? probably. will society adjust? sure.
Slashdot Mirror
What non-seasonal, non-tropical plants have high enough fat content, with low enough carb content to maintain ketosis? Because yep, you could eat nothing but macadamia nuts and avocado -- but those wouldn't exactly be available in colder climates year round before modern times.
My point was (as i'm sure you surmised) you have populations of people who basically had to subsist on nothing but meat, and the occasional vegetable when in season (like tubers, as you pointed out). They thrived, and spread all across the northern hemisphere. Could they have done without ketosis?
(And no, it's not 'dangerous' to human health, it's not the same thing as ketoacidosis.)
But it's impossible that people who are already on the way to diabetes are the ones most likely to go on a low-carb diet right?
Take a disease caused by over-production of insulin, which has absolutely nothing to do with sugar intake, right? Yes, it clearly makes way more sense to implicate fat, a substance has fuck-all to do with insulin production. Got it!
well the thing is.. animals do tend to eat each other. Yes we have fancy things like clothes and cars, but at the root of it, we're still made of the same stuff as a cow, pig, or horse.
Humans are still animals, while animals are not human. Why would eating them be an ethical concern for us?
Factory farming, sure, i can see that being an ethical concern. It's incredibly wasteful in terms of water usage, results runoff that contains antibiotic waste, hormones (though curiously birth control pills also cause a bit of this... wonder what the overlap between people against factory farming and against hormonal contraceptive use would be) But these lab grown meat contraptions get around that (as do local small-scale farms)
As far as the health issues; bear in mind people have been eating meat since there were people there to eat it. Heart disease and diabetes are largely new (at least at current levels of prevalence) -- but clearly, the vegan/vegetarians are right, it *must* be the meat in our diets.
But yes, it's not mandatory, strictly speaking.
Well, i'd wager that the fact we can go into a ketogenic state in absence of carbohydrate is an adaptation specific to eating meat.
Puzzle me this though, if human beings were anywhere but the equator during the last ice age, how did they survive on a plant based diet?
two words: virtue signaling.
do you know where you are?
you mean like 4chan? because that's what you'd get. (for better or worse)
Plotline from "The Usual Suspects 2: Fedora Island"
yup. tech companies will try to get out in front of this to avoid being the next Google; but once the extreme super serious outrage dies down and the angry mob finds someone else to target; they'll return to the status quo:
80-90% male
30-50+% asian
30-50+% white
The irony of all this is having quotas, diversity hires, etc.. doesn't really 'help'. Rather... well, kind of.. reinforces the stereotypes on some level. (the only reason so and so got that job is because of _).
It is no longer 1950; companies do have the incentive to get the best candidate for a job. But sadly it'll never be completely fair. A hiring manager will, being human have unstated biases, which can range from race, to lip piercings and tattoos. That's just human nature. But having big-brother government step in and mandate hiring practices can't possibly be the answer, nor can letting an angry mob of internet commentators dictate how you should run and staff your business =/
but at the same time, for a company the size of HBO; that's a paltry sum per year to prevent these kinds of shenanigans.
sheesh, years and years of research into self driving vehicles.. billions upon billions of dollars spent.. and we're just now reaching the level of the soccer mom?
Those are called mutations; even god (lower case 'g'..) is guilty of sloppy practices -- using eval.
Was anything he said unreasonable?
Or has the group-think, hive-mind that's become corporate america reached a level of jimmy rustling anytime one of their sacred cows gets challenged that borders on 'infinite' ?
The real problem here is that we as a society are losing the ability to respectfully disagree. Can there really be a functioning democracy (fuck off pedants) with the mindset of "you either agree with us, or you're part of the $problem" ?
"we are tolerant, strive for diversity, and value all opinions"
subtext:
"as long as you fit into our mold, hold the same opinions, and fit our diversity quotas"
They're biased and utterly regressive -- while suffering from the great western delusion.
tl;dr, dude's better off working somewhere sane.
that poor girl.
Do you think about what you're saying (critically) before you say it? I'm guessing not, but rather a knee-jerk reaction to assuage some kind of white guilt. But, here's a test.
Explain the fact that the NFL and NBA are +90% black. (And before it gets mentioned, I'd argue what google does is just as trivial as football or basketball.)
Do that without contradicting yourself in regards to the situation at Google, and corporate America at large.
The long and short of it is that life is simply not fair. People, no matter how much you'd like to it to be otherwise, have differences. That applies to groups, genders, and nationalities (hell, even speakers of different languages within a single country will have a different world-view). It's no more racist to say "black people have darker skin than whites and asians" than it is to say, "Statistically the traits that make someone a good power forward are more common in blacks than latinos." or "The nurturing instinct is more common in women, therefore they gravitate towards education and child care more often than men"
Pointing out that the way people are wired mentally can lead them towards certain career paths is not sexist, and it's not racist. it's an explanation of an outcome that occurs far too often to dismiss as solely coming down to systemic bias in hiring/promotion.
The same folks pushing for diversity at Google are no where to be heard from when discussing the lack of men in elementary education or nursing, but other than the salaries, what's the difference?
Are you saying you've never heard of the Schrodinger's fetus thought experiment?
shhhhhhhh you're disturbing the echo-chamber.
Teaching people to use computers is still a more achievable task than teaching computers to understand people
The difference though: Once someone figures out computers accurately understanding natural language; then it's a technology that will be everywhere in a couple of years. Like strong AI it only needs to be invented once; versus having to continually train new users in the arcane.
Business logic:
Government acting in the interest of consumers: "That's anti-competitive, anti-freemarket. A free market is what made this country great." ... "A free market is what made this country great, and we're job creators. We're simply acting on our fiduciary duty to maximize value for our share-holders"
Government acting in the interest of business: *crickets*
The double talk coming from these types is positively awe inspiring. On one hand decrying government intervention while simultaneously engaging in every conceivable manner of rent-seeking.
My gut instinct was something like that but specifically, think of Everquest 17 odd years ago. Surely Everquest and other MMO's zombified a good number of teenage/20 something year old males. It's a pretty common refrain, complaining about time lost to social activities in highschool and college.
But realistically, video games and the like only had that deleterious (subjective) effect on a relatively small portion of the population (middle class males between 15 and 30).. but smart phones and the like, well just about everyone has them.
Do they hinder social development ? probably. will society adjust? sure.
great, when will get elected?
downmodded troll? have you people not seen fight club? :(
Do you have *any* idea how much telemetry they need to go through? Every click, every window, every interaction -- everything!
Once Team Windows gets that telemetry data back from the NSA, they still need to sift through it, and then look for ways to improve the OS.
But once they start getting caught up, you'll see more game changing improvements out of Redmond.
someone must have had his grande latte enema.