The concept of "ultra-processed" seems similar to the precision in "non-natural" processing - processing that isn't commonly done in nature or traditional cooking methods. Without actually defining _why_ some type of processing should be considered ultra-processed and some others shouldn't I can't see this as a homogeneous group without some "natural magic" added. And nature isn't magical.
One very common example of ultra-processed (using the vague definition given) is pre-processed starches of which there are many variants. One that is commonly used is pre-gelled starch: one takes a starch and treats it like it would be when cooked (heating in water) which generates a gel which is then dried and pulverized. This means that when one add the processed starch into water it will produce a gel without needing heating and with much less tendency to clump. Doing this saves time but gives the exact same result as if one would take a non-processed starch, add it to a water-based liquid and then heating the result!
That fact haven't stopped people claiming that using this kind of processed starch is somehow bad, if not in some magic non-natural way then as a way of "cheating" consumers from properly prepared food.
Lifestyle choices? In the real world people eat things that they have money for, have time to prepare etc. Often people are living stressful lives eating cheap easily prepared food not by choice but of necessity.
I absolutely hate that phrase as it is disconnected from realty and in most cases are used in a judgmental way. Drug abuse is a lifestyle choice, being a homosexual is a lifestyle choice, working two jobs to feed the family is a lifestyle choice etc.
However with that (huge) reservation I fully agree.
Probably as it breaks down to some somewhat nasty vapors? With protective gear it's not dangerous and the dangers without isn't AFAIK significant - not something one should do every day but as a one-off thing shouldn't do much*.
But it will not explode.
(* disclaimer: research this yourself before trying)
What about direct democracy in the small - the things people actually interact with daily or at least several times per month? Then they can see the effects of their choices faster.
Also this would allow a more dynamic process by allowing people to together move towards a (local) system that works according to their wants and needs. This could be done for instance by having several periods with increasing length so that the first vote will have a short period of validity, the second vote for the same question will have a longer period and the third an even longer (e.g. 4-8 years minimum before a new vote).
While this wouldn't scale it could have positive effects in educating people about democracy and what it requires from the voters.
I don't really agree that Americans can't make something significant (though often by importing talent from other countries) and one can't really call them a "race". And the Japanese have also made significant contributions and still do.
Really? I think the terms are best described as "someone I don't agree with" and "someone I don't agree with that have some conservative views" - at least as used by idiots on the Internet.
Racist? Not really - just that one learns to identify people by looking at people. So Africans generally think Asians and "whites"* look all the same, Asians generally think "whites" and Africans look the same etc. Nothing strange or racist about that.
Then add the fact that many people have problem identifying others from facial features alone we get a cultural aspect of this "look alike" thing.
Gender: homosexuals can have behavior linked to the opposite gender (but unlike popular media depictions often not), heterosexuals can too (e.g. tomboys). Some cultures have a third or more extra "genders". So false.
Sex: the obvious example of binary classification being wrong is that of intersex people. That is people that have physical attributes from both males and females, often with one more developed but not always. Then we have the case of XX males and XY females. So false.
Observe that I didn't even begin to talk about transsexual though that is also an interesting part of this question. Well, this is enough off-topic as is.
Slashdot Mirror
I propose using Futhark as it's easier to carve into stone making it future proof to the world after WW III.
30 years ago? UTF-8 didn't exist 30 years ago.
Never thought it would make any difference, have to try it. :)
You really are dumber than a brick! Have you any idea of the situation in Russia before and after 1917?
First I wondered how you could be so fucking stupid - then I saw it and understood. Ayn Rand - not even once!
If you are referring to Windows I'll just point out that Windows NT is the newest among common consumer operating systems.
Mac OS - evolved from Nextstep - 1988 release.
Linux - 1991 release.
Windows NT - 1993 release.
It's one faster.
The concept of "ultra-processed" seems similar to the precision in "non-natural" processing - processing that isn't commonly done in nature or traditional cooking methods.
Without actually defining _why_ some type of processing should be considered ultra-processed and some others shouldn't I can't see this as a homogeneous group without some "natural magic" added. And nature isn't magical.
One very common example of ultra-processed (using the vague definition given) is pre-processed starches of which there are many variants. One that is commonly used is pre-gelled starch: one takes a starch and treats it like it would be when cooked (heating in water) which generates a gel which is then dried and pulverized. This means that when one add the processed starch into water it will produce a gel without needing heating and with much less tendency to clump.
Doing this saves time but gives the exact same result as if one would take a non-processed starch, add it to a water-based liquid and then heating the result!
That fact haven't stopped people claiming that using this kind of processed starch is somehow bad, if not in some magic non-natural way then as a way of "cheating" consumers from properly prepared food.
Any reason for selecting a low gluten flour?
Lifestyle choices? In the real world people eat things that they have money for, have time to prepare etc. Often people are living stressful lives eating cheap easily prepared food not by choice but of necessity.
I absolutely hate that phrase as it is disconnected from realty and in most cases are used in a judgmental way. Drug abuse is a lifestyle choice, being a homosexual is a lifestyle choice, working two jobs to feed the family is a lifestyle choice etc.
However with that (huge) reservation I fully agree.
Probably as it breaks down to some somewhat nasty vapors? With protective gear it's not dangerous and the dangers without isn't AFAIK significant - not something one should do every day but as a one-off thing shouldn't do much*.
But it will not explode.
(* disclaimer: research this yourself before trying)
Please don't use logic, it upsets a lot of people.
Seek help.
There are many atomic clocks in space already. Just the satellite positioning systems alone adds up to more than 100 clocks.
Ridiculous! If some software is designed for use in a single timezone it isn't broken and saying so is just pure crap!
What about direct democracy in the small - the things people actually interact with daily or at least several times per month?
Then they can see the effects of their choices faster.
Also this would allow a more dynamic process by allowing people to together move towards a (local) system that works according to their wants and needs.
This could be done for instance by having several periods with increasing length so that the first vote will have a short period of validity, the second vote for the same question will have a longer period and the third an even longer (e.g. 4-8 years minimum before a new vote).
While this wouldn't scale it could have positive effects in educating people about democracy and what it requires from the voters.
Trolling?
Of course he have - it's his mother!
You mean the Japanese? Or perhaps Americans?
I don't really agree that Americans can't make something significant (though often by importing talent from other countries) and one can't really call them a "race".
And the Japanese have also made significant contributions and still do.
Really? I think the terms are best described as "someone I don't agree with" and "someone I don't agree with that have some conservative views" - at least as used by idiots on the Internet.
Racist? Not really - just that one learns to identify people by looking at people. So Africans generally think Asians and "whites"* look all the same, Asians generally think "whites" and Africans look the same etc.
Nothing strange or racist about that.
Then add the fact that many people have problem identifying others from facial features alone we get a cultural aspect of this "look alike" thing.
I'd prefer it be written as VK-tests (otherwise I can't spell it!) but otherwise support this.
Though it isn't as fun without the device and turtles on their back in a desert
+1 Insightful
Gender or sex?
Gender: homosexuals can have behavior linked to the opposite gender (but unlike popular media depictions often not), heterosexuals can too (e.g. tomboys). Some cultures have a third or more extra "genders". So false.
Sex: the obvious example of binary classification being wrong is that of intersex people. That is people that have physical attributes from both males and females, often with one more developed but not always. Then we have the case of XX males and XY females. So false.
Observe that I didn't even begin to talk about transsexual though that is also an interesting part of this question. Well, this is enough off-topic as is.
Prior art: 4chan /b