Saying it happened because people weren't getting as much exercise is an explanation.
No it isn't, because it doesn't explain why "lack of exercise" caused no significant increase in obesity in the 1960s and 1970s, and then in the early 1980s causes a dramatic increase.
In the early days, McDonalds had one size of burger (what is now their smallest burger) and one size of fries (which is now their smallest size.) And they didn't offer 32 oz sodas, either.
The "plus" portion sizes were a reaction to the obesity epidemic, not the cause.
Stress.
How was 1985 stressful in a way that 1975 was not?
computer/network usage became much more widespread during that time.
Nope. Desktop computers were very rare in the early 1980s. They didn't really take off until the late 80s and early 90s. Obesity rates rose fastest among the poor, the people least likely to use a computer.
Safe places to land are limited (how does it actually 'make the delivery' - it can't ring a doorbell!).
I have seen prototypes. The payload is on a tether. The drone hovers about 12 feet about the drop-point, and then reels out the tether to put the payload on the ground. The tether then detaches from the payload and reels back up.
Navigating an urban area in 3D is hard (avoiding vehicles, overhead cables, etc).
None of that is a problem. The drone takes off vertically, goes up 400 feet (far above almost all obstacles), flys to the destination, and then descends vertically right above the drop point. Any obstacles taller than 400 feet can be mapped as "no go" areas.
This isn't looking good for anyone thinking they can drive or ride for Uber in the long term.
When I rideshare I always chat a bit with the drivers, and ask them how they like the job. Based on these conversations, I can assure you that few of them are planning on a long career with Uber.
Yes it was. Fast food took off in the 1950s, and spread in the 1960s and 1970s. The result was almost NO increase in obesity. Then in the 1980s, with no significant change in fast food availability, obesity rates dramatically increased.
People werenâ(TM)t slurping frappucinos all day.
Frappuccinos were not a fad until well into the 1990s, a decade into the obesity epidemic.
People worked active jobs not sitting in offices.
Jobs were becoming less "active" for decades, with no increase in obesity. There was no significant change in the early 1980s.
Itâ(TM)s calories.
Of course, but saying "people got fat because they ate more" does nothing to explain WHY obesity suddenly skyrocketed with no significant change in availability or affordability of food, no significant change in opportunities for exercise, etc. Why did a hundred million people suddenly start eating more?
Helicopter parenting became common more than a decade after the obesity epidemic started. Also, in the beginning of the epidemic, obesity rates rose faster in adults than in kids.
Lets see TV with 24/7 cable channels.
Median and average hours of TV watching did not significantly increase in the early 1980s.
Computers, the internet, iphones and ipads.
Those came a decade (computers) or more than two decades (iphones and ipads) after the obesity epidemic started.
Now a days you just see kids sitting around with their face buried in some I device
Food became much more palatable. We got a lot more quick snack type foods
No we didn't. I grew up in the 1960s. We had Twinkies, DingDongs, HoHos, all sort of chips and dips, and Velveeta "cheese". Pringles were available in 1968. McDonalds was everywhere.
All these piles of junk food caused almost no change in obesity rates compared to the 1940s and 1950s. Then the 1970s came. No increase in obesity.
Then the 1980s came. There was no significant change in availability of junk food, processed food, or fast food. But there was a sudden and dramatic change in metabolisms.
People got fat because they weren't going out and exercising as much.
This is a DESCRIPTION of the problem, not an EXPLANATION. It doesn't explain why obesity rates TRIPLED. What CAUSED a hundred million people to stop exercising and start eating more? Why didn't they stop in the 1970s or the 1960s instead? There was a massive change in metabolisms for no apparent reason.
You had video games becoming a big thing.
Video games actually became big in the 1990s, and mostly they displaced TV watching.
You had more television via cable in 1980
Median and average TV hours did not change much from a decade earlier.
The things you list might explain a 5% or 10% rise in obesity. Not a 200% rise.
Also, the early 1980s were part of the disco years, and long distance running was a fad.
Republican politicians should be targeting ALL potential voters
Nope. If they do that, they lose in the primaries to someone willing to focus on the base.
If you want moderate government, you should support open non-partisan primaries. Several states already have them, and middle-grounders tend to do well.
False. Some plastics, including BPA and DEHP have been shown cause obesity. The effect is strongest when exposure is prenatal or in early childhood.
People get fat because they eat too much.
Thanks for stating the obvious. Now explain why a hundred million people suddenly starting eating more in the early 1980s. Food didn't get cheaper. Jobs didn't get easier. TV shows didn't get better. So what was the cause?
No they don't. Your citation basically says that "people got fat because they got fat". It identifies no underlying cause.
Following WWII, food became much cheaper in America. Working hours became shorter. Jobs involved much less physical labor. People zoned out in front of the TV. All of these things happened DECADES before obesity rates started to rise.
Then in the 1980s, with no significant change in any of the above trends, obesity rates started to SOAR. Climbing, not 5%, not 10%, not even 100%, but 200%, tripling the rates of the 1970s. Why did that happen? Nobody has come up with a plausible explanation. And, no "they got fat because they gained weight", is not an explanation.
It is caused by High Fructose Corn Syrup consumption and obeisity does correlate directly to that
Correlation is not causation. HFCS consumption went up in America along with obesity. But many other countries also became obese, some worse than America, and they did NOT consume much HFCS, because they have no corn lobby pushing it.
Dietary surveys of Americans show a weak correlation between HFCS and obesity. Many people that avoid it got fat. Many people drinking several sodas per day stayed skinny. Some sodas are made with cane sugar, and people that drink those get fat at the same rate as people that drink HFCS soda.
There is plenty of evidence that all types of sugar are bad for you in excess. There is not much evidence that HFCS is worse than other sugars.
Animal studies are inconclusive. Some show a correlation of HFCS with weight gain, but most do not.
I have the right to be protected from the subversive force of foreign governments.
Perhaps you should learn to be a discerning listener. If what they say makes sense, and is supported by evidence, then perhaps you could learn something. If not, then you should learn to discount what they say regardless of their citizenship.
Hillary's collusion with the DNC to undermine Bernie's campaign was first disclosed by foreigners. The Iran-Contra scandal was also first disclosed by foreigners. Do you really believe that Americans should have been "protected" from those facts?
One of the central roles of government is to protect it's people.
One of the central tendencies of government is to concentrate, hoard, and abuse power. You should think carefully about giving them the power to "protect" you from listening to "bad people".
Plastics go in, plastics go out? Whats the problem? Do they get into the blood stream? Do they degrade in the body and produce toxins?
Around 1980 obesity rates in America suddenly started to rise dramatically. Within a few years, the same thing happened in other countries. By the time they leveled off, obesity rates had tripled. We have no idea why. It is very likely an environmental contaminant.
Other explanations are either restatements of the problem ("people suddenly began eating more", "people suddenly became more sedentary") or are unsupported by evidence, such as blaming it on HFCS, which is an "American thing" yet the obesity epidemic is a worldwide phenomena.
while we're at it we should get that Newton schmuck to stop wasting his time on his "theory of gravity". I mean, if you can't show profitable results in a decade or two it's time to pack it in.
Poor analogy. Newton was able to explain and predict the elliptical orbit of the planets as soon as his theory was published. It was an instant success.
What was the justification used for laws regulating speech on radio and TV? Clearly they found some way around the 1st Amendment rule.
The justification was that the airwaves are a limited resource, owned by the government, and licensed to operators based on them providing a "public service". Since obscenity is not a public service, it was banned by regulation.
Many people believe that these regulations are unconstitutional, and the courts have repeatedly trimmed them back.
Stop the goalpost shifting. You said that NOBODY wanted speech regulated. I provided a survey with evidence that over A HUNDRED MILLION Americans think it should be. The specific names of those millions is irrelevant, and you know it.
Your own article says:
An overwhelming majority of Americans believe that “it would be hard to ban hate speech because people can’t agree what speech is hateful
Keep reading. They think it will be hard to do, but a sizable minority think it should be done anyway. 40% think the government should have the power to silence people saying "Men are better at math than women".
Show me somebody who matters that wants to regulate hate speech through the government.
More goalpost shifting. First it was "nobody", then it was "nobody credible", then it was "nobody that can't be specifically named", now it is "nobody that matters".
Preferably someone on the left.
Why does that matter? Some progressives want to ban "hate speech". Even more conservatives want to ban disrespect to the flag. It is an infringement on free speech either way.
Anyway, since you asked, here are a few specific people that have advocated government regulation of online speech: 1. Larry Kudlow, advisor to Donald Trump 2. Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce 3. Kevin Knight, former Facebook executive 4. Ro Khanna, California congressional representative
I now await your objection that these people "don't matter" or that I didn't list all 120 million.
They have been getting pretty good results and have several products
Their "products" consist of the knowledge database and inference engine. Making it actually do something useful is up to the customer.
Using these products as evidence that they get results is sort of like saying a company is good at building houses because they sell hammers.
Deep Learning (the opposite approach to AI) has many applications including, processing images of checks for the banking industry, face recognition in security applications, speech recognition and generation, fake porn, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Saying it happened because people weren't getting as much exercise is an explanation.
No it isn't, because it doesn't explain why "lack of exercise" caused no significant increase in obesity in the 1960s and 1970s, and then in the early 1980s causes a dramatic increase.
Why was 1985 different from 1975?
In the early days, McDonalds had one size of burger (what is now their smallest burger) and one size of fries (which is now their smallest size.) And they didn't offer 32 oz sodas, either.
The "plus" portion sizes were a reaction to the obesity epidemic, not the cause.
Stress.
How was 1985 stressful in a way that 1975 was not?
computer/network usage became much more widespread during that time.
Nope. Desktop computers were very rare in the early 1980s. They didn't really take off until the late 80s and early 90s. Obesity rates rose fastest among the poor, the people least likely to use a computer.
Safe places to land are limited (how does it actually 'make the delivery' - it can't ring a doorbell!).
I have seen prototypes. The payload is on a tether. The drone hovers about 12 feet about the drop-point, and then reels out the tether to put the payload on the ground. The tether then detaches from the payload and reels back up.
Navigating an urban area in 3D is hard (avoiding vehicles, overhead cables, etc).
None of that is a problem. The drone takes off vertically, goes up 400 feet (far above almost all obstacles), flys to the destination, and then descends vertically right above the drop point. Any obstacles taller than 400 feet can be mapped as "no go" areas.
This isn't looking good for anyone thinking they can drive or ride for Uber in the long term.
When I rideshare I always chat a bit with the drivers, and ask them how they like the job. Based on these conversations, I can assure you that few of them are planning on a long career with Uber.
Economic downturn
There was an economic dip in 1982, then the economy boomed for a decade. So why didn't people get skinnier?
Video games and home entertainment arrived in the 80s
Only for a tiny fringe. They became mainstream in the 1990s.
Cheese and milk products added to everything
Nope. That happened decades earlier. Also there is no evidence that milk causes obesity.
Fast wasnâ(TM)t a common meal until the 80s.
Yes it was. Fast food took off in the 1950s, and spread in the 1960s and 1970s. The result was almost NO increase in obesity. Then in the 1980s, with no significant change in fast food availability, obesity rates dramatically increased.
People werenâ(TM)t slurping frappucinos all day.
Frappuccinos were not a fad until well into the 1990s, a decade into the obesity epidemic.
People worked active jobs not sitting in offices.
Jobs were becoming less "active" for decades, with no increase in obesity. There was no significant change in the early 1980s.
Itâ(TM)s calories.
Of course, but saying "people got fat because they ate more" does nothing to explain WHY obesity suddenly skyrocketed with no significant change in availability or affordability of food, no significant change in opportunities for exercise, etc. Why did a hundred million people suddenly start eating more?
It's called, Kids dont go out to play any longer
Helicopter parenting became common more than a decade after the obesity epidemic started. Also, in the beginning of the epidemic, obesity rates rose faster in adults than in kids.
Lets see TV with 24/7 cable channels.
Median and average hours of TV watching did not significantly increase in the early 1980s.
Computers, the internet, iphones and ipads.
Those came a decade (computers) or more than two decades (iphones and ipads) after the obesity epidemic started.
Now a days you just see kids sitting around with their face buried in some I device
That is a consequence, not a cause.
Food became much more palatable. We got a lot more quick snack type foods
No we didn't. I grew up in the 1960s. We had Twinkies, DingDongs, HoHos, all sort of chips and dips, and Velveeta "cheese". Pringles were available in 1968. McDonalds was everywhere.
All these piles of junk food caused almost no change in obesity rates compared to the 1940s and 1950s. Then the 1970s came. No increase in obesity.
Then the 1980s came. There was no significant change in availability of junk food, processed food, or fast food. But there was a sudden and dramatic change in metabolisms.
People got fat because they weren't going out and exercising as much.
This is a DESCRIPTION of the problem, not an EXPLANATION. It doesn't explain why obesity rates TRIPLED. What CAUSED a hundred million people to stop exercising and start eating more? Why didn't they stop in the 1970s or the 1960s instead? There was a massive change in metabolisms for no apparent reason.
You had video games becoming a big thing.
Video games actually became big in the 1990s, and mostly they displaced TV watching.
You had more television via cable in 1980
Median and average TV hours did not change much from a decade earlier.
The things you list might explain a 5% or 10% rise in obesity. Not a 200% rise.
Also, the early 1980s were part of the disco years, and long distance running was a fad.
Republican politicians should be targeting ALL potential voters
Nope. If they do that, they lose in the primaries to someone willing to focus on the base.
If you want moderate government, you should support open non-partisan primaries. Several states already have them, and middle-grounders tend to do well.
Open primaries in the United States
Plastics don't make people fat.
False. Some plastics, including BPA and DEHP have been shown cause obesity. The effect is strongest when exposure is prenatal or in early childhood.
People get fat because they eat too much.
Thanks for stating the obvious. Now explain why a hundred million people suddenly starting eating more in the early 1980s. Food didn't get cheaper. Jobs didn't get easier. TV shows didn't get better. So what was the cause?
Seems some people have a pretty good idea
No they don't. Your citation basically says that "people got fat because they got fat". It identifies no underlying cause.
Following WWII, food became much cheaper in America. Working hours became shorter. Jobs involved much less physical labor. People zoned out in front of the TV. All of these things happened DECADES before obesity rates started to rise.
Then in the 1980s, with no significant change in any of the above trends, obesity rates started to SOAR. Climbing, not 5%, not 10%, not even 100%, but 200%, tripling the rates of the 1970s. Why did that happen? Nobody has come up with a plausible explanation. And, no "they got fat because they gained weight", is not an explanation.
HCFS certainly plays its part, but not because it's any worse for you than sugar, because it's cheaper.
It is only cheaper in America, where corn is subsidized and cane sugar tariffs are sky high. In the rest of the world, cane sugar is cheaper.
It is caused by High Fructose Corn Syrup consumption and obeisity does correlate directly to that
Correlation is not causation. HFCS consumption went up in America along with obesity. But many other countries also became obese, some worse than America, and they did NOT consume much HFCS, because they have no corn lobby pushing it.
Dietary surveys of Americans show a weak correlation between HFCS and obesity. Many people that avoid it got fat. Many people drinking several sodas per day stayed skinny. Some sodas are made with cane sugar, and people that drink those get fat at the same rate as people that drink HFCS soda.
There is plenty of evidence that all types of sugar are bad for you in excess. There is not much evidence that HFCS is worse than other sugars.
Animal studies are inconclusive. Some show a correlation of HFCS with weight gain, but most do not.
NIH: Lack of evidence that HFCS causes obesity
List of countries by BMI. America is 17th.
I have the right to be protected from the subversive force of foreign governments.
Perhaps you should learn to be a discerning listener. If what they say makes sense, and is supported by evidence, then perhaps you could learn something. If not, then you should learn to discount what they say regardless of their citizenship.
Hillary's collusion with the DNC to undermine Bernie's campaign was first disclosed by foreigners. The Iran-Contra scandal was also first disclosed by foreigners. Do you really believe that Americans should have been "protected" from those facts?
One of the central roles of government is to protect it's people.
One of the central tendencies of government is to concentrate, hoard, and abuse power. You should think carefully about giving them the power to "protect" you from listening to "bad people".
a broken immigration system which nobody seems to really want to fix.
Perhaps because most of the "fixes" make the problem worse.
As someone who believes that freedom of movement is an inalienable human right, I certainly don't support any of Trump's proposals.
Indeed. This highlights the silliness of expecting corporations to "fix" a democratically elected government. The voters should be doing that.
Plastics go in, plastics go out? Whats the problem? Do they get into the blood stream? Do they degrade in the body and produce toxins?
Around 1980 obesity rates in America suddenly started to rise dramatically. Within a few years, the same thing happened in other countries. By the time they leveled off, obesity rates had tripled. We have no idea why. It is very likely an environmental contaminant.
Other explanations are either restatements of the problem ("people suddenly began eating more", "people suddenly became more sedentary") or are unsupported by evidence, such as blaming it on HFCS, which is an "American thing" yet the obesity epidemic is a worldwide phenomena.
while we're at it we should get that Newton schmuck to stop wasting his time on his "theory of gravity". I mean, if you can't show profitable results in a decade or two it's time to pack it in.
Poor analogy. Newton was able to explain and predict the elliptical orbit of the planets as soon as his theory was published. It was an instant success.
Deep Learning (the opposite approach to AI) has many applications including,
I disagree that it's opposite to AI.
I meant that the deep learning approach to AI is the opposite of the Cyc approach to AI. Sorry if I wasn't clear.
Cyc is trying to exhaustively list all the "common sense" facts about the world, by creating structured data with human effort.
Deep Learning just randomizes some tensors and then feeds in data until the network figures out the "facts" on its own.
They are completely opposite approaches.
The same can be said for unregistered foreign agents.
How do the words of an unregistered foreigner infringe on your rights?
How would your rights be infringed differently if they were "registered"?
Why would the same words not infringe your rights if they were spoken by an American citizen?
What was the justification used for laws regulating speech on radio and TV? Clearly they found some way around the 1st Amendment rule.
The justification was that the airwaves are a limited resource, owned by the government, and licensed to operators based on them providing a "public service". Since obscenity is not a public service, it was banned by regulation.
Many people believe that these regulations are unconstitutional, and the courts have repeatedly trimmed them back.
I want names.
Stop the goalpost shifting. You said that NOBODY wanted speech regulated. I provided a survey with evidence that over A HUNDRED MILLION Americans think it should be. The specific names of those millions is irrelevant, and you know it.
Your own article says:
Keep reading. They think it will be hard to do, but a sizable minority think it should be done anyway. 40% think the government should have the power to silence people saying "Men are better at math than women".
Show me somebody who matters that wants to regulate hate speech through the government.
More goalpost shifting. First it was "nobody", then it was "nobody credible", then it was "nobody that can't be specifically named", now it is "nobody that matters".
Preferably someone on the left.
Why does that matter? Some progressives want to ban "hate speech". Even more conservatives want to ban disrespect to the flag. It is an infringement on free speech either way.
Anyway, since you asked, here are a few specific people that have advocated government regulation of online speech:
1. Larry Kudlow, advisor to Donald Trump
2. Marc Benioff, CEO of Salesforce
3. Kevin Knight, former Facebook executive
4. Ro Khanna, California congressional representative
I now await your objection that these people "don't matter" or that I didn't list all 120 million.
They have been getting pretty good results and have several products
Their "products" consist of the knowledge database and inference engine. Making it actually do something useful is up to the customer.
Using these products as evidence that they get results is sort of like saying a company is good at building houses because they sell hammers.
Deep Learning (the opposite approach to AI) has many applications including, processing images of checks for the banking industry, face recognition in security applications, speech recognition and generation, fake porn, etc.
What has Cyc done?