It's already pretty cool, actually, even if you're so scared of "moving around your living room blind" that you're just sitting down and watching stuff.
I mean... uh... have you tried it? If you haven't, you might not understand that pranking people in VR isn't a negative, it's super fun. Poking people while they're playing (especially if they are covered in spiders) makes the whole thing more immersive and social.
I don't know how VR will play out, but it's already pretty entertaining - and there's no reason it won't get to be more entertaining over time as hardware and especially software gets better.
Well, I actually understand this reasonably well. I'm a programmer, and I've done some 3d development - I've also spent some time with Cardboard, and I've had an Oculus DK2 since they launched.
There's definitely special concerns around VR, and I'm sure a custom designed mobile architecture will be able to get some juice out of tight system integration... but you also just need to fill a bunch of polygons at very consistent, very high FPS. Huge dedicated boards in PCs are a lot better at this than tiny low power mobile chips.
This new chip apparently rivals a GTX 940M. That's a bloody long way from anyone's minimum specs for VR. That's not to say that there isn't some experiences that would work great on one of these. I've seen some fun things on Cardboard, and there's definitely advantages to being less tethered (though right now, tracking is also a real problem for these sorts of setups). But many VR experiences just need more horsepower than these things are going to have for a couple generations.
..but they are not the present. Top-end processor/GPUs are just now getting fast enough for VR to work well. The next generation will be wireless connections to the PC doing the rendering. A fully integrated solution that doesn't suck is at least a couple generations away.
Yes, those Republicans and their constant drive to change things and break with tradition. Oh wait that's exactly the opposite of a typical Republican perspective. If you Americans have to crap on every discussion with this boring local politics, at least get your stupid stereotypes the right way (pun!).
Anyway, I have never purposefully hit backspace intending to page back (I use gestures or click the back button). I have accidentally lost stuff by hitting backspace (especially in "pseudo-textbox" type fancy input controls where the focus is not always clear). I'm sure there's people who won't like it, but I think it's a good change for most users.
...is pretty much a guaranteed signal of a terrible idea. Obviously if you were actually carrying on some work from Einstein that would be super cool, but this phrase gets used for every perpetual motion machine and grand unified crackpot theory; it's a weird dog whistle for conspiracy theorists, dreamers and idiots.
Heck, I thought by this point that was kind of an established joke - like saying your new board game "takes minutes to learn, but a lifetime to master".
and artificial sweeteners may be better food for the growth of bacteria that favors an obese phenotype.
It seems very unlikely that artificial sweeteners are actually an important food source for some kind of bacteria. I mean, even someone who goes nuts on artificial sweeteners is unlikely to ever eat a whole gram of them in a day (a random diet soda might only have 20mg of sucralose or acesulfame potassium or aspartame). And why would it happen that "artificial sweeteners", which look very different chemically, happen to support the same sort of bacterial growth? (Sugar alcohols make some more sense here - since they're consumed in greater quantities and look much more alike).
Surely, if there is some effect from low-dose artificial sweeteners (by which I mean aspartame/sucralose/etc..) as a class, it has to be mediated by our body's detection of them (ie. the sensation of sweet taste or something) changing something, rather than how they might directly affect bacterial growth.
Indeed. But also entirely predictable - look at how things have turned out for recent, more typical GOP candidates. McCain and Romney were exactly the sorts of candidates we might expect the GOP to field, and they ended up not only losing, but being demonized by their own party. If you were the a reasonable, conservative leaning guy with some relevant experience - the next McCain or Romney - why would you step up right now? 2/3rds of your own party hates you because you won't accept all of their conservative purity vows - and you're still too far right to have any hope in a general.
There are plenty of skills that were very common 50 years ago and are gone now. How many people here under 30 are competent horse-riders, or know how to pickle fish? All of my father's family (well, the men at least) are competent at hunting, trapping, skinning animals, logging, and basic carpentry. People still hunt, but many fewer would be able to really feed their family that way (as my father fed us).
Lots of skills still exist, but are much less common then they were even 20 years ago. Fewer drivers would be able to change their oil, rotate their tires, or perform other basic maintenance.
Things are moving fast in the world now. There will be skills that are lost with every generation - heck, there's some skills that came and went within a generation (eg. identifying and replacing failed vacuum tubes, VCR repair, making a config.sys that could run Wolf3d) - and skills that are new to each generation. When that cycle stops is when we'll have to start worrying about whether our civilization is advancing.
I think he's entertaining, and he has some interesting, creative ideas.
But I think his stuff is interesting proportionally with how far away in time he's referring to. Distant future? Fun speculative ideas. Right now? Pseudo-science speculative nonsense.
Right now, discoverability is terrible in the app store. Unless I know what I want already, I don't go there - because the suggestions I get will be for Star Wars, Angry Birds, and Star Wars Angry Birds.
As a comparison, look at Steam. I buy all sorts of weird crap on Steam because they have so many ways to explore their content. One day I'm buying a AAA title for $50, the next I'm the 100th person to buy some random indie title for $2, the next I'm getting some older thing that just went on 70% - and I'm having a good experience with all those. The Queues are brilliant, their sales system is great, and their social features actually work (even though I only have a few friends on Steam, I quite often get sucked into buying something that they've played or reviewed or whatever).
Google and Apple (who both enjoy essentially monopoly status on their platforms) should both be stealing ideas as hard as they can from Valve here (who earned its popularity with users and developers by providing value to both over the long term).
Trying to monetize placement is completely backwards - it's creating win-lose situations between developers, and win-lose for Apple and consumers. Doing better work to help show people the stuff they might want is win-win-win, where the pie gets bigger, developers sell more, and consumers are more satisfied with what the stuff they get because it matches their preferences better.
Yeah, but it's more like 1984 than the bloody Dark Ages. I'm not saying things were worse then, I'm saying they were more like the Dark Ages. This is really, really a simple point.
Yes there's scary stuff, but "The Dark Ages" is a terrible, terrible metaphor to express the current state of affairs. Dark Ages doesn't imply "lots of things look nice and peaceful on the surface, but there are threats from sophisticated players that is likely soon to result in serious large scale conflict".
The Dark Ages implies that there isn't a bunch of big established powers, there's lots of disorganization, nobody has any idea what's going on, few people are recording a detailed state of affairs, and someone is going to shiv you to take your bread and deface your Geocities page. Like the Internet was =2000, not so much 2016.
Well sure. Most home users have a hardware firewall by default now, configured by their ISP - it's the norm.
Many/most home users didn't have any such thing in 1999, and many still wanted to have a Windows PC connected to the Internet. That's why it was the dark ages of Internet security. That's my point.
I remember having these conversations with corporate IT departments in the mid 90s. We had services we wanted to run between companies, and we wanted them to open up corresponding firewall rules, so both parties could manage the traffic. They wouldn't. They said, "if we open up holes for everyone who wants one, our firewall will be Swiss cheese [actual quote]". So we made all our services run over the web, and so did everyone else in a similar place. By trying to stay in tight control of security, corporate IT effectively let go of it completely.
I often wonder what the internet would have been like if all those conversations had gone the other way, if people ran different services on different ports with explicit destinations, and effectively had a whitelist that covered all of their significant business traffic. It seems quaint now, I guess, but it could have shaken out that way.
Does he remember the dance you had to do to install Windows 2000 on an unfiltered connection (if you didn't want it to be instantly owned)? You had to install completely disconnected, disable a bunch of services, and then try to connect and download patches as quickly as you could in order to get to a viable state. And everyone else's Windows computer you used had 9 layers of browser toolbars and adware and anti-anti-anti-adware that made their system effectively unusable?
I'm sure there's lots of security battles to come - maybe even a World War or two - but the real dark ages of security are in the past.
I certainly don't think that any information about this phone (or some new approach to getting info off it) is what prompted the change here. Giving up at this stage means one of two things:
1. They flinched. They thought they'd lose, either in court or in public opinion - so they kicked the can down the road. 2. They've already won; they know that legislation is about to become more favorable for them, and they'll have the tools they want without needing a precedent here. 3. They've already lost; they know that there will soon be enough robust/secure devices in the wild that having leverage over companies like Apple won't actually help them (because the Apple's of the world may not be able to break their own devices)
We'll find out which it is over the next few years.
I assume they'll be leaning on some kind of "unique purchaser identification" - like, we can identify your copy of the film in some kind of robust way, we'll require some kind of secure ID/credit in order to purchase, and we'll come eat your face if "your" copy of the film gets leaked?
Because it's obviously not going to be possible to prevent people from setting up a video camera in their own house.
The "perfect probabilities" are a bit more complicated than people seem to be giving them credit for. This is sort of Nash equilibrium/game theory space, not "do the best move" simple game space. To elaborate:
You can't build an "optimal" Poker agent in the sense that you return a certain move for a given position (because you could game against that), but you can build a composite strategy that no player can win against. To be clear, your composite strategy would say that, for a given position, you should do X this percentage of the time, Y this percentage of the time, etc... The agent would then choose an outcome randomly based on those weights. The probabilities are chosen such that no strategy wins against you (and any human-implementable strategy would be dominated over time). I'm not saying this is practical, but this is how "perfect probabilities" would work.
So no, there's no theoretical problem with writing an optimal Poker agent that is effectively unbeatable - regardless of tells or patterns or anything.
That said, it's very possible that, against a poor player, such an agent wouldn't do as well as a simpler agent that made assumptions about the opponent's play. For example, an unbeatable agent for Rock Paper Scissors can simply choose randomly (with no weighting). They will split games with everyone evenly over time. But if you know your opponent just loves "Rock" for some reason, you can outperform the "unbeatable" agent against that opponent by throwing more Paper.
The difference is that, for Poker, the unbeatable agent is much more complicated to design - and will not just split games with, but will dominate lesser strategies. Poker is a complicated game, but it will fall the same as Chess and Go did once computers and machine learning progress some more (and once it receives more attention, which it is likely to with Go being essentially broken).
I see no reason to believe this game wouldn't fall to serious effort (ie. computers would surpass human players if a good team made a large effort as has been made here with Go). Rather, I think there's many reasons to believe it would be much easier to reach that point. The game state is much clearer and much more amenable to search than Go is, and the game doesn't have the kinds of complicating factors that would make me think of it as a "hard game" for computers to play (eg. hidden information, simultaneous action selection, broad ranges of choices, deeply "non-local" interactions). The game has interesting properties, but none of those seem relevant to the task at hand, other than that they suggest the game probably isn't a tough one for computers to play well (eg. the fact that 9x9 boards have an explicit winning strategy).
In game design theory, the kinds of politics you describe is normally treated as a form of luck - and as such it makes determining "who is better at this game" a meaningless question. If 3 random people are playing Risk against the best Risk player in the world (the person who understands the game the best), there's a rational argument that their best strategy is to co-operate and eliminate him first (no matter what he does or says or how he behaves). This sort of interaction effectively decouples skill from game success.
This is also why modern game design has generally abandoned games with lots of politics - they effectively all become the same game, and that game is really uninteresting after a while.
For all I know those doing the dumping have a point or maybe they don't but it doesn't matter because the assumption made is dumping must be bad or there can be nothing systemically wrong with the current market resulting in reflection of disproportionately negative opinions
Yeah, sure. I guess I just miss the time when the balance was a little more optimistic. If 2003 Slashdot was discussing VR, you'd have people talking about cool things they wanted to try, or speculating about how they could do even more if they just had this extra bit or whatever.
Right now, comments on this article are 100% Anonymous Cowards, who all agree this is dumb and won't go anwhere. And that's pretty much par for the course here - people dumping on random consumer tech, websites, every company in software, VR, robotics, AI, self-driving cars.
I think VR is going to be big. We bought an Oculus DK2 a while back, and people are blown away by it, despite it being flakey, being a generation behind in hardware, and there being essentially no professional content.
Maybe I'm wrong and VR won't go anywhere, but it's sad that Slashdot has become so blase about technology and the future. There's plenty of places VR could go and plenty of things you could do with it that are at least potentially exciting. But nobody is imagining any of that, they're thinking "meh, I'm happy playing normal FPS games on my normal monitor", "this didn't work before, so it won't work now", and "nobody wants to wear goggles on their head".
Ballooning might have been too strong of a word. I wasn't getting huge, but I was slowly, consistently gaining weight over the years.
For a while I was having success with more vegetables and less meat than I'm doing now; specifically, I was eating a lot more East Indian style stuff with vegetables as well as tofu and cheese (lots of protein at night seems quite important for me to have success over time). But it was a lot of work to make it all balance out (and to prepare), and lots of it is stuff that doesn't fit well now because my kids won't eat it. The chicken works because I can double up on chicken, while they eat chicken plus rice/pasta (which I skip). (That's not to say we have chicken every night, but we eat lots of it).
Anyway, my point wasn't so much about what's working for me being the right answer, or that I couldn't ever find something that would work better for me. My point was more that a focus on simple answers will often preclude the solutions that work best for different people, solutions which might be much more complex. And, more specifically, I think simple plans focused on "healthy" (especially when defining healthy as "natural", "not processed", or traditional) and "not healthy" (especially when excluding things: no dairy, no meat, no gluten, whatever) buckets is often going to push people into dietary patterns that won't work for them, or that they won't be able to sustain at a healthy level when considering their lives as a whole.
Slashdot Mirror
It's already pretty cool, actually, even if you're so scared of "moving around your living room blind" that you're just sitting down and watching stuff.
I mean... uh... have you tried it? If you haven't, you might not understand that pranking people in VR isn't a negative, it's super fun. Poking people while they're playing (especially if they are covered in spiders) makes the whole thing more immersive and social.
I don't know how VR will play out, but it's already pretty entertaining - and there's no reason it won't get to be more entertaining over time as hardware and especially software gets better.
Well, I actually understand this reasonably well. I'm a programmer, and I've done some 3d development - I've also spent some time with Cardboard, and I've had an Oculus DK2 since they launched.
There's definitely special concerns around VR, and I'm sure a custom designed mobile architecture will be able to get some juice out of tight system integration... but you also just need to fill a bunch of polygons at very consistent, very high FPS. Huge dedicated boards in PCs are a lot better at this than tiny low power mobile chips.
This new chip apparently rivals a GTX 940M. That's a bloody long way from anyone's minimum specs for VR. That's not to say that there isn't some experiences that would work great on one of these. I've seen some fun things on Cardboard, and there's definitely advantages to being less tethered (though right now, tracking is also a real problem for these sorts of setups). But many VR experiences just need more horsepower than these things are going to have for a couple generations.
..but they are not the present. Top-end processor/GPUs are just now getting fast enough for VR to work well. The next generation will be wireless connections to the PC doing the rendering. A fully integrated solution that doesn't suck is at least a couple generations away.
Yes, those Republicans and their constant drive to change things and break with tradition. Oh wait that's exactly the opposite of a typical Republican perspective. If you Americans have to crap on every discussion with this boring local politics, at least get your stupid stereotypes the right way (pun!).
Anyway, I have never purposefully hit backspace intending to page back (I use gestures or click the back button). I have accidentally lost stuff by hitting backspace (especially in "pseudo-textbox" type fancy input controls where the focus is not always clear). I'm sure there's people who won't like it, but I think it's a good change for most users.
...is pretty much a guaranteed signal of a terrible idea. Obviously if you were actually carrying on some work from Einstein that would be super cool, but this phrase gets used for every perpetual motion machine and grand unified crackpot theory; it's a weird dog whistle for conspiracy theorists, dreamers and idiots.
Heck, I thought by this point that was kind of an established joke - like saying your new board game "takes minutes to learn, but a lifetime to master".
Indeed. But also entirely predictable - look at how things have turned out for recent, more typical GOP candidates. McCain and Romney were exactly the sorts of candidates we might expect the GOP to field, and they ended up not only losing, but being demonized by their own party. If you were the a reasonable, conservative leaning guy with some relevant experience - the next McCain or Romney - why would you step up right now? 2/3rds of your own party hates you because you won't accept all of their conservative purity vows - and you're still too far right to have any hope in a general.
So of course they aren't getting good candidates.
There are plenty of skills that were very common 50 years ago and are gone now. How many people here under 30 are competent horse-riders, or know how to pickle fish? All of my father's family (well, the men at least) are competent at hunting, trapping, skinning animals, logging, and basic carpentry. People still hunt, but many fewer would be able to really feed their family that way (as my father fed us).
Lots of skills still exist, but are much less common then they were even 20 years ago. Fewer drivers would be able to change their oil, rotate their tires, or perform other basic maintenance.
Things are moving fast in the world now. There will be skills that are lost with every generation - heck, there's some skills that came and went within a generation (eg. identifying and replacing failed vacuum tubes, VCR repair, making a config.sys that could run Wolf3d) - and skills that are new to each generation. When that cycle stops is when we'll have to start worrying about whether our civilization is advancing.
Good thing they're shinning. Don't want to get sued.
I think he's entertaining, and he has some interesting, creative ideas.
But I think his stuff is interesting proportionally with how far away in time he's referring to. Distant future? Fun speculative ideas. Right now? Pseudo-science speculative nonsense.
Right now, discoverability is terrible in the app store. Unless I know what I want already, I don't go there - because the suggestions I get will be for Star Wars, Angry Birds, and Star Wars Angry Birds.
As a comparison, look at Steam. I buy all sorts of weird crap on Steam because they have so many ways to explore their content. One day I'm buying a AAA title for $50, the next I'm the 100th person to buy some random indie title for $2, the next I'm getting some older thing that just went on 70% - and I'm having a good experience with all those. The Queues are brilliant, their sales system is great, and their social features actually work (even though I only have a few friends on Steam, I quite often get sucked into buying something that they've played or reviewed or whatever).
Google and Apple (who both enjoy essentially monopoly status on their platforms) should both be stealing ideas as hard as they can from Valve here (who earned its popularity with users and developers by providing value to both over the long term).
Trying to monetize placement is completely backwards - it's creating win-lose situations between developers, and win-lose for Apple and consumers. Doing better work to help show people the stuff they might want is win-win-win, where the pie gets bigger, developers sell more, and consumers are more satisfied with what the stuff they get because it matches their preferences better.
Yeah, but it's more like 1984 than the bloody Dark Ages. I'm not saying things were worse then, I'm saying they were more like the Dark Ages. This is really, really a simple point.
Yes there's scary stuff, but "The Dark Ages" is a terrible, terrible metaphor to express the current state of affairs. Dark Ages doesn't imply "lots of things look nice and peaceful on the surface, but there are threats from sophisticated players that is likely soon to result in serious large scale conflict".
The Dark Ages implies that there isn't a bunch of big established powers, there's lots of disorganization, nobody has any idea what's going on, few people are recording a detailed state of affairs, and someone is going to shiv you to take your bread and deface your Geocities page. Like the Internet was =2000, not so much 2016.
Well sure. Most home users have a hardware firewall by default now, configured by their ISP - it's the norm.
Many/most home users didn't have any such thing in 1999, and many still wanted to have a Windows PC connected to the Internet. That's why it was the dark ages of Internet security. That's my point.
I remember having these conversations with corporate IT departments in the mid 90s. We had services we wanted to run between companies, and we wanted them to open up corresponding firewall rules, so both parties could manage the traffic. They wouldn't. They said, "if we open up holes for everyone who wants one, our firewall will be Swiss cheese [actual quote]". So we made all our services run over the web, and so did everyone else in a similar place. By trying to stay in tight control of security, corporate IT effectively let go of it completely.
I often wonder what the internet would have been like if all those conversations had gone the other way, if people ran different services on different ports with explicit destinations, and effectively had a whitelist that covered all of their significant business traffic. It seems quaint now, I guess, but it could have shaken out that way.
Well, that's the point - there's bigger stakes now, and the actors are more significant using more sophisticated tools.
It used to be more like the Dark Ages, with nobody really knowing what was going on, and lots of petty squabbles and dangerous streets and what not.
Does he remember the dance you had to do to install Windows 2000 on an unfiltered connection (if you didn't want it to be instantly owned)? You had to install completely disconnected, disable a bunch of services, and then try to connect and download patches as quickly as you could in order to get to a viable state. And everyone else's Windows computer you used had 9 layers of browser toolbars and adware and anti-anti-anti-adware that made their system effectively unusable?
I'm sure there's lots of security battles to come - maybe even a World War or two - but the real dark ages of security are in the past.
I certainly don't think that any information about this phone (or some new approach to getting info off it) is what prompted the change here. Giving up at this stage means one of two things:
1. They flinched. They thought they'd lose, either in court or in public opinion - so they kicked the can down the road.
2. They've already won; they know that legislation is about to become more favorable for them, and they'll have the tools they want without needing a precedent here.
3. They've already lost; they know that there will soon be enough robust/secure devices in the wild that having leverage over companies like Apple won't actually help them (because the Apple's of the world may not be able to break their own devices)
We'll find out which it is over the next few years.
I assume they'll be leaning on some kind of "unique purchaser identification" - like, we can identify your copy of the film in some kind of robust way, we'll require some kind of secure ID/credit in order to purchase, and we'll come eat your face if "your" copy of the film gets leaked?
Because it's obviously not going to be possible to prevent people from setting up a video camera in their own house.
The "perfect probabilities" are a bit more complicated than people seem to be giving them credit for. This is sort of Nash equilibrium/game theory space, not "do the best move" simple game space. To elaborate:
You can't build an "optimal" Poker agent in the sense that you return a certain move for a given position (because you could game against that), but you can build a composite strategy that no player can win against. To be clear, your composite strategy would say that, for a given position, you should do X this percentage of the time, Y this percentage of the time, etc... The agent would then choose an outcome randomly based on those weights. The probabilities are chosen such that no strategy wins against you (and any human-implementable strategy would be dominated over time). I'm not saying this is practical, but this is how "perfect probabilities" would work.
So no, there's no theoretical problem with writing an optimal Poker agent that is effectively unbeatable - regardless of tells or patterns or anything.
That said, it's very possible that, against a poor player, such an agent wouldn't do as well as a simpler agent that made assumptions about the opponent's play. For example, an unbeatable agent for Rock Paper Scissors can simply choose randomly (with no weighting). They will split games with everyone evenly over time. But if you know your opponent just loves "Rock" for some reason, you can outperform the "unbeatable" agent against that opponent by throwing more Paper.
The difference is that, for Poker, the unbeatable agent is much more complicated to design - and will not just split games with, but will dominate lesser strategies. Poker is a complicated game, but it will fall the same as Chess and Go did once computers and machine learning progress some more (and once it receives more attention, which it is likely to with Go being essentially broken).
I see no reason to believe this game wouldn't fall to serious effort (ie. computers would surpass human players if a good team made a large effort as has been made here with Go). Rather, I think there's many reasons to believe it would be much easier to reach that point. The game state is much clearer and much more amenable to search than Go is, and the game doesn't have the kinds of complicating factors that would make me think of it as a "hard game" for computers to play (eg. hidden information, simultaneous action selection, broad ranges of choices, deeply "non-local" interactions). The game has interesting properties, but none of those seem relevant to the task at hand, other than that they suggest the game probably isn't a tough one for computers to play well (eg. the fact that 9x9 boards have an explicit winning strategy).
In game design theory, the kinds of politics you describe is normally treated as a form of luck - and as such it makes determining "who is better at this game" a meaningless question. If 3 random people are playing Risk against the best Risk player in the world (the person who understands the game the best), there's a rational argument that their best strategy is to co-operate and eliminate him first (no matter what he does or says or how he behaves). This sort of interaction effectively decouples skill from game success.
This is also why modern game design has generally abandoned games with lots of politics - they effectively all become the same game, and that game is really uninteresting after a while.
Yeah, sure. I guess I just miss the time when the balance was a little more optimistic. If 2003 Slashdot was discussing VR, you'd have people talking about cool things they wanted to try, or speculating about how they could do even more if they just had this extra bit or whatever.
Right now, comments on this article are 100% Anonymous Cowards, who all agree this is dumb and won't go anwhere. And that's pretty much par for the course here - people dumping on random consumer tech, websites, every company in software, VR, robotics, AI, self-driving cars.
I think VR is going to be big. We bought an Oculus DK2 a while back, and people are blown away by it, despite it being flakey, being a generation behind in hardware, and there being essentially no professional content.
Maybe I'm wrong and VR won't go anywhere, but it's sad that Slashdot has become so blase about technology and the future. There's plenty of places VR could go and plenty of things you could do with it that are at least potentially exciting. But nobody is imagining any of that, they're thinking "meh, I'm happy playing normal FPS games on my normal monitor", "this didn't work before, so it won't work now", and "nobody wants to wear goggles on their head".
Ballooning might have been too strong of a word. I wasn't getting huge, but I was slowly, consistently gaining weight over the years.
For a while I was having success with more vegetables and less meat than I'm doing now; specifically, I was eating a lot more East Indian style stuff with vegetables as well as tofu and cheese (lots of protein at night seems quite important for me to have success over time). But it was a lot of work to make it all balance out (and to prepare), and lots of it is stuff that doesn't fit well now because my kids won't eat it. The chicken works because I can double up on chicken, while they eat chicken plus rice/pasta (which I skip). (That's not to say we have chicken every night, but we eat lots of it).
Anyway, my point wasn't so much about what's working for me being the right answer, or that I couldn't ever find something that would work better for me. My point was more that a focus on simple answers will often preclude the solutions that work best for different people, solutions which might be much more complex. And, more specifically, I think simple plans focused on "healthy" (especially when defining healthy as "natural", "not processed", or traditional) and "not healthy" (especially when excluding things: no dairy, no meat, no gluten, whatever) buckets is often going to push people into dietary patterns that won't work for them, or that they won't be able to sustain at a healthy level when considering their lives as a whole.