Ha. The fact that there are no barriers to entry is exactly what I'm calling attention to - it's what makes it interesting that women aren't enrolling in CS and Eng. I left it open-ended as to the reasons. I can buy that gender differences are in play, but that's all anecdotal and tends to backfire as an argument. It would be interesting to see a study tracing work preferences to genetics or brain chemistry.
That in itself seems harmless, they're just throwing money around telling women to code. On the other hand, making policy decisions based on meeting a quota (which we already do based on race) would pose a problem for a good chunk of men who were set on this type of work. In the end they might declare these crusades a victory after modest increase in enrollment but I don't foresee a 50/50 split between men and women in programming/IT in any near future.
The thinking is that some kind of invisible, perverse social force is coercing girls into thinking programming isn't interesting and boys into thinking it is. I don't think you'd need to go that far.
After the days of being confined to reserve army jobs and specific gender-roled positions like nurse or secretary, on the onset pretty much everything else was male-dominated. But overwhelmingly women sought out higher-education, with some others instead sticking with typical female-dominated trades, as opposed to construction and the like. All of academia opened up, but the large part b-lined for social sciences in spite of the fact that engineering and hard sciences are just as available and feasible.
To reiterate, there came a point in the 20th century where women ventured into new territory not typically frequented by women, which meant that the argument that social constructs have dictated their direction as far as higher education goes falls flat - there was no convention until later. There's certainly the basic pull of being surrounded by people of your own gender if you're hyper-feminine or hyper-masculine (this should be uncontroversial but somehow is), but that doesn't explain everything.
Over time they've come to dominate most professional fields and upper-management, and you'll now see more in most science classes (e.g. Biology, Chemistry) than men. Basically, most of higher-education is female-dominated, which to me is a huge advantage. But still they lag in Engineering and CS. I don't think it's the case that most ought not or couldn't enjoy it, but clearly they've demonstrated some preferences. So you may have to start asking more uncomfortable questions as to why.
Few seem to be asking why tech giants are tripping over themselves with promotions and initiatives to encourage more women to code. It's not done out of the goodness in their hearts.
"Actually nutritionally it would seem all sugars are treated equally in studies and research" - red herring. The makeup of isolated sugars found within produce are not under scrutiny; one type of sugar in itself has the same overall effect on our systems as any other. It's just the fact that those extracted, most popularly from sugarcane, are a) used so generously in products, and alone as an accompanyment, as to raise overall level of consumption in individuals, and b) isolated as it is, a high-glycemic food, skyrocket blood-glucose concentration and increase chances of diabetes.
"Because processed granulated sugar is not something that specified on the side of any package" - er, it's in the ingredients list. Glucose-fructose, or just sugar.
"so rather than talk about cutting sugar to zero" - you're basically having a semantic argument with yourself at this point
Asia has it right when it comes to immigration. We rely on this too much and downplay the (very real) repercussions way too much for fear that it isn't PC. Accepting refugees is one thing, opening the gates completely is another.
With a new middle-class generation it's about the right time to change or be rid of the policy altogether, as that range of "overproduction" typically found in impoverishment and agrarian/low-skilled working conditions is being surpassed. The policy worked only too well considering they're projected to have difficulty supporting an enormous aging population with much fewer offspring, mostly male at that. So that will be the hurdle.
It's true the population is still growing, but at a much more diminished rate per capita. Eventually (like, 80-100 years from now) it will be in decline much the way Japan's is if immigration policy is kept intact. And that's ok. You don't NEED a perpetually growing population to be prosperous. Growth does help skyrocket GDP but once the country is in a comfortable stage it seems redundant, unnecessary.
"Cutting sugar out of your diet may literally leave you starving... don't pretend zero sugar is possible while eating any kind of normal food consumed by people all over the world" - That's disingenuous. We both know we're talking about processed, granulated sugar. Whole foods by definition don't have added sugar. They may vary along the glycemic index with complex sugars and carbs but tend to have copious soluble or insoluble fibre. The "paleo" fad for example, if followed to the letter, effectively cuts out refined sugar completely. So yeah, it's possible. But nowhere will you see a reputable study read that we OUGHT to cut out sugar (i.e. refined sugar), just what happens when we do.
But that aside, we don't really disagree. My point in the previous comment is that it's possible to drastically reduce sugar consumption while still enjoying products with refined sugar to a modest degree. And I realize that "modest degree" is rather arbitrary but I trust people can use their own discretion. Aside from USDA guide and the like there's no accurate metric available to the public as per "ideal" levels, so the only widespread recommendation is "cutting down". Staying away from processed crap, as you say, is sound advice.
Yes. I like how people like to play dumb with ridiculous semantic arguments about what constitutes sugar. Obviously these studies refer to granulated sugar, not those found in vegetables and fruit. The level of insoluble fibre in plant matter reduces the insulin needed to break down sugars.. add to that, they are more complex, and there's less of it.
"Cut sugar out completely and you effectively can't go shopping anymore".
If it comes in a box, I would believe it. Veg, meat and whole grains are clear of added sugar and plentiful, but that aside, the sugar content of a trailmix bar -- or a dab of bbq sauce, or a single cookie -- is a far-cry from a can of soda or orange juice, which ranges usually from 40g and above. If the glycemic load isn't monstrous I'd say you're in the clear.
Another case of throwing our hands up in the air over lazy misrepresentation of the consensus today. No, "everything" is not bad for you. Published research is not prescriptive - no reputable source states we ought not consume ANY level of sugar to be healthy, nor alcohol. It's possible to be healthy by choosing a diet lower in carbs OR fat, and it's widely thought essential to include both in our diets. To say nothing of the fact that not all carbohydrates and fats are created equal.
Too many choices, if that's really the case, means some products will mostly collect dust on the shelves and get swapped out. Fast food chains go through a cycle of simplifying their menus every now and then, and grocery store items disappear all the time.
Mind you, I've never seen "30 types of jam". I'd be surprised if you could even find that except in a specialty store. Most large grocery chains have highly limited contracts with just a few key suppliers (for a specific commodity) who then offer a few varieties. You could argue there's too little choice when you're forced to buy American produce from Canadian grocery stores. You know, the shitty kind that's been in cold storage for a year then gassed and god knows what else.
And what a rarity that was. Mind you those games had responsive text dialog you could skip through. And cutscenes were few and far between. The average Assassin's Creed game is an offender today in terms of sheer excess and FF games are even worse.
Well it begs the question, what is the target audience? Millennials? I'd have thought anyone so ga-ga about the old series has already played them to death. There must a vocal group saying "we haven't played these, but we'd kind of like to, but we want a graphical overhaul, but the games are already great, but GRAPHICS".
I'm surprised SE see so much value in regurgitating old, but already great, content. The required investment is still high, and there's no guarantee they will sell as well as a new entry. But I guess SE knows something I don't.
The ones who've been clamoring for a FF7 remake are the most naive dolts. We're not "just" getting FF7 with "updated" graphics. We're getting full 3d motion, a new action-rpg battle system, and likely INCESSANT voice over and cut-scenes in keeping with the latest trends. Pacing completely, utterly destroyed. That already sounds awful. Frankly if the original was so damn great in their minds I don't see why a remake would make a difference - you've already played it how many times??? - nor why the new generation should care. But there you are. As punishment I hope they shell out the $60+ at launch, I look forward to the whining.
Basically if you can't understand why ease and frequency of murder is a greater problem to the public consciousness than accidental death (within reason), I can't help you. In most cases those involved in vehicular accidents are at fault - they fucked up. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger isn't a mistake.
Slashdot Mirror
Ha. The fact that there are no barriers to entry is exactly what I'm calling attention to - it's what makes it interesting that women aren't enrolling in CS and Eng. I left it open-ended as to the reasons. I can buy that gender differences are in play, but that's all anecdotal and tends to backfire as an argument. It would be interesting to see a study tracing work preferences to genetics or brain chemistry.
I think you've misunderstood me because none of what I said contradicts you.
That in itself seems harmless, they're just throwing money around telling women to code. On the other hand, making policy decisions based on meeting a quota (which we already do based on race) would pose a problem for a good chunk of men who were set on this type of work. In the end they might declare these crusades a victory after modest increase in enrollment but I don't foresee a 50/50 split between men and women in programming/IT in any near future.
The thinking is that some kind of invisible, perverse social force is coercing girls into thinking programming isn't interesting and boys into thinking it is. I don't think you'd need to go that far.
After the days of being confined to reserve army jobs and specific gender-roled positions like nurse or secretary, on the onset pretty much everything else was male-dominated. But overwhelmingly women sought out higher-education, with some others instead sticking with typical female-dominated trades, as opposed to construction and the like. All of academia opened up, but the large part b-lined for social sciences in spite of the fact that engineering and hard sciences are just as available and feasible.
To reiterate, there came a point in the 20th century where women ventured into new territory not typically frequented by women, which meant that the argument that social constructs have dictated their direction as far as higher education goes falls flat - there was no convention until later. There's certainly the basic pull of being surrounded by people of your own gender if you're hyper-feminine or hyper-masculine (this should be uncontroversial but somehow is), but that doesn't explain everything.
Over time they've come to dominate most professional fields and upper-management, and you'll now see more in most science classes (e.g. Biology, Chemistry) than men. Basically, most of higher-education is female-dominated, which to me is a huge advantage. But still they lag in Engineering and CS. I don't think it's the case that most ought not or couldn't enjoy it, but clearly they've demonstrated some preferences. So you may have to start asking more uncomfortable questions as to why.
Few seem to be asking why tech giants are tripping over themselves with promotions and initiatives to encourage more women to code. It's not done out of the goodness in their hearts.
"Actually nutritionally it would seem all sugars are treated equally in studies and research" - red herring. The makeup of isolated sugars found within produce are not under scrutiny; one type of sugar in itself has the same overall effect on our systems as any other. It's just the fact that those extracted, most popularly from sugarcane, are a) used so generously in products, and alone as an accompanyment, as to raise overall level of consumption in individuals, and b) isolated as it is, a high-glycemic food, skyrocket blood-glucose concentration and increase chances of diabetes.
"Because processed granulated sugar is not something that specified on the side of any package" - er, it's in the ingredients list. Glucose-fructose, or just sugar. "so rather than talk about cutting sugar to zero" - you're basically having a semantic argument with yourself at this point
Asia has it right when it comes to immigration. We rely on this too much and downplay the (very real) repercussions way too much for fear that it isn't PC. Accepting refugees is one thing, opening the gates completely is another.
With a new middle-class generation it's about the right time to change or be rid of the policy altogether, as that range of "overproduction" typically found in impoverishment and agrarian/low-skilled working conditions is being surpassed. The policy worked only too well considering they're projected to have difficulty supporting an enormous aging population with much fewer offspring, mostly male at that. So that will be the hurdle.
It's true the population is still growing, but at a much more diminished rate per capita. Eventually (like, 80-100 years from now) it will be in decline much the way Japan's is if immigration policy is kept intact. And that's ok. You don't NEED a perpetually growing population to be prosperous. Growth does help skyrocket GDP but once the country is in a comfortable stage it seems redundant, unnecessary.
True, I thought this was dejavu as I was under the impression that the policy had changed a few years ago.
"Cutting sugar out of your diet may literally leave you starving... don't pretend zero sugar is possible while eating any kind of normal food consumed by people all over the world" - That's disingenuous. We both know we're talking about processed, granulated sugar. Whole foods by definition don't have added sugar. They may vary along the glycemic index with complex sugars and carbs but tend to have copious soluble or insoluble fibre. The "paleo" fad for example, if followed to the letter, effectively cuts out refined sugar completely. So yeah, it's possible. But nowhere will you see a reputable study read that we OUGHT to cut out sugar (i.e. refined sugar), just what happens when we do.
But that aside, we don't really disagree. My point in the previous comment is that it's possible to drastically reduce sugar consumption while still enjoying products with refined sugar to a modest degree. And I realize that "modest degree" is rather arbitrary but I trust people can use their own discretion. Aside from USDA guide and the like there's no accurate metric available to the public as per "ideal" levels, so the only widespread recommendation is "cutting down". Staying away from processed crap, as you say, is sound advice.
Yep, this needs to be reiterated, for the slow: TOTAL CALORIES WERE NOT CHANGED.
Yes. I like how people like to play dumb with ridiculous semantic arguments about what constitutes sugar. Obviously these studies refer to granulated sugar, not those found in vegetables and fruit. The level of insoluble fibre in plant matter reduces the insulin needed to break down sugars.. add to that, they are more complex, and there's less of it.
"Cut sugar out completely and you effectively can't go shopping anymore". If it comes in a box, I would believe it. Veg, meat and whole grains are clear of added sugar and plentiful, but that aside, the sugar content of a trailmix bar -- or a dab of bbq sauce, or a single cookie -- is a far-cry from a can of soda or orange juice, which ranges usually from 40g and above. If the glycemic load isn't monstrous I'd say you're in the clear.
It's a rather shallow, short-sighted way of looking at it, but stick to your convictions if you like.
Or both. Does the US still get most of its sugar from Hawaii?
Another case of throwing our hands up in the air over lazy misrepresentation of the consensus today. No, "everything" is not bad for you. Published research is not prescriptive - no reputable source states we ought not consume ANY level of sugar to be healthy, nor alcohol. It's possible to be healthy by choosing a diet lower in carbs OR fat, and it's widely thought essential to include both in our diets. To say nothing of the fact that not all carbohydrates and fats are created equal.
A small junk-tax would suffice. Only enough to fund initiatives to facilitate better diet.
I... why cake?
Mind you, I've never seen "30 types of jam". I'd be surprised if you could even find that except in a specialty store. Most large grocery chains have highly limited contracts with just a few key suppliers (for a specific commodity) who then offer a few varieties. You could argue there's too little choice when you're forced to buy American produce from Canadian grocery stores. You know, the shitty kind that's been in cold storage for a year then gassed and god knows what else.
And what a rarity that was. Mind you those games had responsive text dialog you could skip through. And cutscenes were few and far between. The average Assassin's Creed game is an offender today in terms of sheer excess and FF games are even worse.
Well it begs the question, what is the target audience? Millennials? I'd have thought anyone so ga-ga about the old series has already played them to death. There must a vocal group saying "we haven't played these, but we'd kind of like to, but we want a graphical overhaul, but the games are already great, but GRAPHICS".
I'm surprised SE see so much value in regurgitating old, but already great, content. The required investment is still high, and there's no guarantee they will sell as well as a new entry. But I guess SE knows something I don't. The ones who've been clamoring for a FF7 remake are the most naive dolts. We're not "just" getting FF7 with "updated" graphics. We're getting full 3d motion, a new action-rpg battle system, and likely INCESSANT voice over and cut-scenes in keeping with the latest trends. Pacing completely, utterly destroyed. That already sounds awful. Frankly if the original was so damn great in their minds I don't see why a remake would make a difference - you've already played it how many times??? - nor why the new generation should care. But there you are. As punishment I hope they shell out the $60+ at launch, I look forward to the whining.
How does one invalidate the other?
Basically if you can't understand why ease and frequency of murder is a greater problem to the public consciousness than accidental death (within reason), I can't help you. In most cases those involved in vehicular accidents are at fault - they fucked up. Pointing a gun at someone and pulling the trigger isn't a mistake.