TFA concludes with a statement along the lines of (paraphrasing) "diet is complicated and what's wrong with our current diet is more than just one demonized nutrient." People used to blame fat. Then sugar. Now carbs. It seems likely that it's a wee bit more complicated than that.
"1. Eat food*; 2. Not too much; 3. Mostly plants."
Michael Pollan hey? I like the guy already. Those rules (well, the first is a little fuzzy) summarize the scientific evidence pretty well. You could also add "4. Not trans fats".
The US is weird. Apparently there are places where it's hard to get actual food, because there aren't any markets around. Places that have a McDonalds but no grocery store. My home town has a grocery store, but if you want fast food you have to drive an hour. My current community has two grocery stores, a couple of sushi places, a cafe and a Greek restaurant, but if you want fast food I still have to drive.
The US seems to be some weird anomaly in terms of eating. Most other places, including the rest of the first world, rich people eat out, including fast food, and poor people have to cook their own. For me, a trip to McDonalds costs about $10. I can make a meal with leftovers for lunch the next day for less than that. Perhaps it's because your labour costs are so low. Here, it costs more for someone to prepare food, hand it to you and take your money than you save by using the cheapest ingredients you can find.
When I was a kid we ate out on special occasions, birthdays, anniversaries, Mother's Day. "TV dinners" (highly processed stuff on a cardboard tray) were expensive, emergency rations kept in the freezer and used rarely.
If you don't eat the seeds and crap them out somewhere random, in an environment similar to the one the fruit tree was growing in, you're breaking your contract with the tree. Not very ethical.
That's a good point. If by "economy" you mean transactions, which a lot of people do, then sure, grow away. More transactions is easy. The problem is, what most of us actually think of as "the economy" is the measure of the value that we can apportion using those transactions. When your share gets too small, you die. The only way to increase the total value is to add raw materials by getting them from outside, and we have to do that constantly just to stay even since the third law of thermodynamics dictates that we're constantly losing value, whether it's usable energy or useful arrangements of atoms.
Yes, it does. The whackadoodles who think exponential growth can go no forever like to say things like "oh, but we trade in ideas!" That's great, but it's based on an economy that deals in things like food. You can accumulate money as long as you can convince somebody what you're selling has value, but accumulating money isn't the same thing as growing an economy (even if it's often made to look that way). If you can't pull new value out of the ground, harvest it from the sun, create it by arranging atoms into useful things, or having sex, then the rest is just trading pieces of paper.
The economy is not a zero sum game so long as there's external input. When you exhaust the external input, in the form of exploitable resources, it's a negative sum game, since there's always some unrecoverable waste.
We live on a physical planet. Unless we change that, the economy must stop growing eventually. The exponential growth we expect has to end quite soon.
I've found that in places where there are no time signals, having a hyper accurate watch doesn't do you much good because nobody else particularly cares what time it is. Unless you have OCD and get stressed if you don't eat your watercress sandwich with no crust, cut at a 45 degree angle, at precisely the same time every day.
Yes. And both my phone and my iPad have lots of evidence of being dropped on their sides and corners. They're really quite resistant to it. It's tough to design scratch resistance into something that has to have a big, flat screen though.
Sure it does. The rubber doesn't have to be exposed. IIRC the 3 and 3G did have a rubber buffer between the case and the class. The metal antenna/bezel on the 4 and 4s wee an okay shock absorber but the glass stuck out too far on either side. On the 5 and 5s the glass is lower profile and more protected.
I got a scratch on my phone the first day I had it. Then I dropped it (quite a few times, the last time cracked the glass when it fell face down on gravel) and got it replaced under warranty. So I guess my experience has been even. A quick survey shows a few scratches and a few smashed screens on the phones near me - it looks pretty even. But the smashed screens are much more noticeable, of course.
Apple has used gorilla glass to this point. They're investing in sapphire, presumably to make screen covers with. They're not stupid. Presumably they know something.
Ah, are you one of the crappy scientists? People in my lab make their hypotheses before they test them. Perhaps because I won't help them process or analyze the data without one. Good scientists through history have done the same.
Cynicism is very hip these days though. Congratulations.
Whenever someone says "obvious truth", they're almost certainly not talking about science. Particularly if it's in relation to something very complicated and notoriously difficult to measure.
The problem is that people aren't questioning "authority" in the form of celebrities with no qualifications at all, and are unreasonably questioning authority, in the form of people who have spent decades training and studying the things they're talking about.
By unreasonably questioning I don't mean skepticism, I mean unshakeable disbelief.
The scientific method can never prove anything is true. In science, there really isn't any concept of "true." Cigarettes cause cancer. Do they? It's a good theory. It works very well. It has a good amount of predictive power, good mechanistic support, lots of data supporting it. But it could be false.
Manmade global warming is a good theory. It looks like it works pretty well. It has some predictive power, although we're still testing that. There's good mechanistic support. Quite a bit of data. It could be false though.
There's none of this historical science / "because X and Y are true, it makes sense that Z is true" / etc. crap.
Actually, I believe the number of young earth creationists in the US is somewhat smaller than the number of Americans being treated for mental illness. Both numbers are unacceptably high, of course.
That's because the other phones don't continue to function after their screens get broken.:P
I've actually broken a couple of iPhone screens. They seem to survive the corner and edge drops just fine, but the face down drops onto concrete or an uneven stone floor breaks the screen. Still works fine though, which is impressive.
Slashdot Mirror
TFA concludes with a statement along the lines of (paraphrasing) "diet is complicated and what's wrong with our current diet is more than just one demonized nutrient." People used to blame fat. Then sugar. Now carbs. It seems likely that it's a wee bit more complicated than that.
"1. Eat food*; 2. Not too much; 3. Mostly plants."
Michael Pollan hey? I like the guy already. Those rules (well, the first is a little fuzzy) summarize the scientific evidence pretty well. You could also add "4. Not trans fats".
The US is weird. Apparently there are places where it's hard to get actual food, because there aren't any markets around. Places that have a McDonalds but no grocery store. My home town has a grocery store, but if you want fast food you have to drive an hour. My current community has two grocery stores, a couple of sushi places, a cafe and a Greek restaurant, but if you want fast food I still have to drive.
So that's a good excuse then? I can't cook because I don't have an iPad to watch American Idol in the kitchen on?
Someone has a lack of perspective, and penchant for arguing about irrelevant details, but I don't think it's the OP.
The US seems to be some weird anomaly in terms of eating. Most other places, including the rest of the first world, rich people eat out, including fast food, and poor people have to cook their own. For me, a trip to McDonalds costs about $10. I can make a meal with leftovers for lunch the next day for less than that. Perhaps it's because your labour costs are so low. Here, it costs more for someone to prepare food, hand it to you and take your money than you save by using the cheapest ingredients you can find.
When I was a kid we ate out on special occasions, birthdays, anniversaries, Mother's Day. "TV dinners" (highly processed stuff on a cardboard tray) were expensive, emergency rations kept in the freezer and used rarely.
If you don't eat the seeds and crap them out somewhere random, in an environment similar to the one the fruit tree was growing in, you're breaking your contract with the tree. Not very ethical.
I would love to see that. It might happen. Even if it does, it only puts off the problem (admittedly for a potentially long time).
That's a good point. If by "economy" you mean transactions, which a lot of people do, then sure, grow away. More transactions is easy. The problem is, what most of us actually think of as "the economy" is the measure of the value that we can apportion using those transactions. When your share gets too small, you die. The only way to increase the total value is to add raw materials by getting them from outside, and we have to do that constantly just to stay even since the third law of thermodynamics dictates that we're constantly losing value, whether it's usable energy or useful arrangements of atoms.
Yes, it does. The whackadoodles who think exponential growth can go no forever like to say things like "oh, but we trade in ideas!" That's great, but it's based on an economy that deals in things like food. You can accumulate money as long as you can convince somebody what you're selling has value, but accumulating money isn't the same thing as growing an economy (even if it's often made to look that way). If you can't pull new value out of the ground, harvest it from the sun, create it by arranging atoms into useful things, or having sex, then the rest is just trading pieces of paper.
The economy is not a zero sum game so long as there's external input. When you exhaust the external input, in the form of exploitable resources, it's a negative sum game, since there's always some unrecoverable waste.
We live on a physical planet. Unless we change that, the economy must stop growing eventually. The exponential growth we expect has to end quite soon.
I've found that in places where there are no time signals, having a hyper accurate watch doesn't do you much good because nobody else particularly cares what time it is. Unless you have OCD and get stressed if you don't eat your watercress sandwich with no crust, cut at a 45 degree angle, at precisely the same time every day.
You're right. But give it a few years and the watch will replace the physician. You'll still need the assistant though.
Statisticians have this weird obsession with quantifying the uncertainty of their estimates. Data analytics is about answers, damnit!
Because I'm an Apple shareholder. ;)
Yes. And both my phone and my iPad have lots of evidence of being dropped on their sides and corners. They're really quite resistant to it. It's tough to design scratch resistance into something that has to have a big, flat screen though.
Sure it does. The rubber doesn't have to be exposed. IIRC the 3 and 3G did have a rubber buffer between the case and the class. The metal antenna/bezel on the 4 and 4s wee an okay shock absorber but the glass stuck out too far on either side. On the 5 and 5s the glass is lower profile and more protected.
I got a scratch on my phone the first day I had it. Then I dropped it (quite a few times, the last time cracked the glass when it fell face down on gravel) and got it replaced under warranty. So I guess my experience has been even. A quick survey shows a few scratches and a few smashed screens on the phones near me - it looks pretty even. But the smashed screens are much more noticeable, of course.
Apple has used gorilla glass to this point. They're investing in sapphire, presumably to make screen covers with. They're not stupid. Presumably they know something.
Ah, are you one of the crappy scientists? People in my lab make their hypotheses before they test them. Perhaps because I won't help them process or analyze the data without one. Good scientists through history have done the same.
Cynicism is very hip these days though. Congratulations.
I was kidding. But I'm happy your phone still worked.
Whenever someone says "obvious truth", they're almost certainly not talking about science. Particularly if it's in relation to something very complicated and notoriously difficult to measure.
The problem is that people aren't questioning "authority" in the form of celebrities with no qualifications at all, and are unreasonably questioning authority, in the form of people who have spent decades training and studying the things they're talking about.
By unreasonably questioning I don't mean skepticism, I mean unshakeable disbelief.
Unfortunately, you made up that dichotomy.
The scientific method can never prove anything is true. In science, there really isn't any concept of "true." Cigarettes cause cancer. Do they? It's a good theory. It works very well. It has a good amount of predictive power, good mechanistic support, lots of data supporting it. But it could be false.
Manmade global warming is a good theory. It looks like it works pretty well. It has some predictive power, although we're still testing that. There's good mechanistic support. Quite a bit of data. It could be false though.
There's none of this historical science / "because X and Y are true, it makes sense that Z is true" / etc. crap.
"the effect is obviously going to be amplified."
Ah, obviously. Never mind that most of the things you wrote aren't based on any evidence, and several are very well refuted by actual evidence.
Hypotheses are made by men to test a theory. Evidence is gathered for that purpose. Hypotheses are never generated to fit the evidence.
Actually, I believe the number of young earth creationists in the US is somewhat smaller than the number of Americans being treated for mental illness. Both numbers are unacceptably high, of course.
Congratulations, you've written an electric universe post that contains even more ridiculous claims than the electric universe people have.
That's because the other phones don't continue to function after their screens get broken. :P
I've actually broken a couple of iPhone screens. They seem to survive the corner and edge drops just fine, but the face down drops onto concrete or an uneven stone floor breaks the screen. Still works fine though, which is impressive.