I kind of agree with you, but I'm not sure what difference it makes whether you call it "broadband" or something else. Is the issue that there are laws requiring them to provide "broadband" to cover certain areas?
I don't really care what you call it, but 4mbps by1 mbps is not "enough". At this point, Americans should be able to anticipate a 10mbps symmetrical "dumb pipe" connection to be available for their home or business, and at a reasonable price. Of course, someone always objects, "So you think AT&T should be forced by the government to run a 10mbps connection to the top of a mountain, just because some idiot chooses to live in a shack on top of a mountain?!" No, of course not. There are places without running water, without electricity, and I expect that there will be places without Internet.
I just think it's shameful that nearing the end of 2014, we have major metropolitan areas where neither individuals nor businesses are able to get upload speeds faster than 2mbps or 5mbps without spending thousands of dollars per month. It's a sad state of affairs, and it's a drag on the economy. It just shouldn't be considered "acceptable", and clearly companies like TWC, AT&T, and Verizon have dropped the ball.
First off, there's no "reasonably" about it, because often big advances in science require a break from some fundamental previous assumption -- hence, something that was "unreasonable" according to knowledge at the time. So, scientists really would need to systematically list "every possible cause" and then disprove them.
Exactly why science can't be said to "prove" things, because you'll never compile a list of "every possible cause, including those that I can't think of."
The rest of your post is just discussing how people compile the list of "every possible cause I can reasonably think of" and how people discount possible causes as "unreasonable". You haven't really provided any argument against what I said. In fact, you're reinforcing it by agreeing that scientific "proof" never rises to the level of mathematical proof, and that scientists can never hope to falsify every possible cause of a phenomenon.
That could always come later. It wouldn't be unusual for something like that to start with someone saying, "Look, we may be interested in some kind of partnership, but first take the whole thing down until we can work out licensing."
Rarely, if ever, do we prove something experimentally.
It's also argued that science doesn't actually "prove" anything, but only refutes. That is, science doesn't tell you what the cause it, but it can tell you what the cause *isn't*. What scientists do then, according to this argument, is systematically list every possible cause that you can reasonably think of, and then set out to disprove each of those possible causes. If one of those causes survives every attempt at refutation, then that's the closest you'll ever get to a scientific proof.
It's absolutely true that science is not about consensus. Science is not a body of knowledge, but a process of (roughly speaking) formulating an explanation of phenomena, devising a means to test the explanation, and then using that test to determine whether the explanation adheres to the "real world". One of the criteria of a good test is that it must be reproducible, but nothing in the process of science actually requires "consensus".
However, you have a bunch of different scientists with different specialties studying different phenomena, so much so that no single person can actually be aware of it all. Certainly no single person can actually reproduce all of the tests and experiments. In the face of such complexity, we've developed another system which, speaking strictly, is not "science". It's more of a social/political system whereby the various experiments are reviewed by other scientists who attempt to determine whether the tests were good, and whether the tests actually tested the explanation/phenomena they were supposed to. In a formal setting, this process is called "peer review", but it also happens informally (i.e. scientists read each others' work, challenge it, devise other tests).
The upshot of this social system is that, if you aren't enough of a climate scientist to review the existing knowledge of global warming and evaluate its validity, then you should probably just trust the consensus. You trust that there are a lot of smart people working on the problem, and if 95% of the climate scientists agree, then the safe guess is that they're probably at least on the right track. It doesn't mean that they're absolutely correct-- no scientific or social process can guarantee absolute correctness-- but you're going to find more success going with the overwhelming consensus than going against it.
Of course, every once in a while, there is some genius who figures out that the overwhelming consensus is wrong. Most of the time, the scientific community catches on pretty quickly and the consensus changes.
Out of curiosity, can you explain what's so bad about it?
Honestly, I thought it was awkward and confusing until I got used to it, and then it seemed... not so bad. Is it really bash itself that's so good, or is it tools like awk, grep, and sed?
Because Powershell has some nice little things built-in like parameter validation for function parameters, and extremely simple XML parsing, without even using other tools. I'm not much of a programmer, but for my purposes, I can sometimes write simpler and more readable code in Powershell than I know how to do in Bash-- I usually often write my scripts in Ruby because I feel like my complex Bash scripts become unreadable to me. I'm curious what, from a real programmer's point of view, is so bad about Powershell?
In elementary school, my kids did an independent science fair project every year.
I don't have kids, but when I was a kid, they did things like having a science fair every year. It wasn't actually helpful for fostering creativity, though, as far as I can remember. It was bizarre in that they were both very restrictive-- in that they'd shoot down any idea that they didn't think would work out well-- but they also wouldn't provide guidance. They'd just say, "Make a science fair project." I don't know how the other kids came up with their projects, but I vaguely remember that I just ping-pong-ed between my parents and my science teacher. My parents would suggest something, and I'd go suggest that project to my science teacher. The science teacher would reject it, and I'd go relay the rejection to my parents.
I could see it being helpful if someone actually helped the kids find things that they were interested in, and let them pursue that interesting thought even if it wouldn't work. As it was, though, for me it was just another shitty experience of school being completely inane and discouraging.
What I'm getting at here is, it's not just a matter of doing these things and making these programs, but of executing these programs in a way that they're accessible and rewarding for students. Your child's school may do this, but I would guess that most don't, even if they have these kinds of programs at all.
You know, I kind of hated Powershell until I was forced to use it.
I still hate it. But then I have to write a bash script, and I run across some specific problem while writing a bash script, and find myself thinking, "This would be easier in Powershell." So that's something.
It's really not like Batch files, though. It really isn't that bad of a scripting language.
IMO, a worthy "update" to a TI graphing calculator would not be more RAM or a faster CPU, it would be power envelope improvements so it could run on solar (like a 4-function calculator can) and a slimmer, lighter body. (Of course, these days I just use a TI-89 emulator on my Android cellphone instead, so I'm not the target market...)
Do the screens completely suck? I remember seeing them no-so-many years ago, and the screens were still blocky, monochrome, low contrast screens. Considering what they're doing, I'd expect that you could make a paper-thin model with a retina display and a batter that lasts for a month and still cost around $100, if someone good were making them.
Obviously I'd advocating a balanced approach, and not an "all or nothing" approach.
But I agree. The system is broken, and we should fix it-- not with stricter password requirements, but with a public key system. That will require developing standards and building infrastructure. Unfortunately, nobody is going to do that.
No sysadmin should allow a computer to harm someone.
I think this statement indicates some kind of misunderstanding of security. If you want a perfectly secure system that prevents any unauthorized access must also prevent authorized access. Any security model that prevents users from doing anything potentially harmful will also prevent users from doing anything useful.
Everything else is compromise. How much are you willing to restrict a user's freedom, convenience, access, and power?
Because if you give a user access to their own data, then you're also allowing for a social engineering attack where they hand over their own data. If you allow people to share their data, you open up the possibility that they will share data with someone who will abuse the data. Keep in mind, I'm not even talking about issues where there's a technical security exploit. Normal functionality constitutes a security hole.
It could just be the nature of what we're talking about - health being tied to will.
I don't think so.
Regarding the placebo effect, man unless you work at some drug-making facility, how are you more knowledgeable than I am?
Because I read a lot, and studied related topics in college. I've continued to study psychology in the years since.
It's mainly the drug-making companies that have to deal with the placebo effect while they're trying to validate their latest drug.
They do have to deal with the placebo effect, yes, but psychologists/researchers have spent a lot of time studying the effect. They've studied willpower too, and found that it can be influenced by various factors.
TFA indicates that people were discussing hacking tools on one of the same websites where people were talking about the leaks. There were early rumors that this hack (or some similar hack) was exploited to get access to all kinds of information on iCloud, and then quickly released a lot of data gathered from the attack.
After investigating these early rumors, more information came out (both reliable information and unreliable rumors) that indicate while *some* of the photos seem to have come from iCloud, they were probably not acquired through this hack. The photos most likely represent a collection that has been in existence for a some time already, gathered from various sources. The fact that the collection was leaked around the same time as an iCloud exploit was discovered is likely to be a coincidence.
Now, enough of this is still rumor and conjecture, but the more recent explanation seems more likely.
How hard is it to inspect a password and tell a person that it's just too weak and here are the rules, so please comply or die?
It's pretty hard. Whatever rules you use to automate the detection of weak passwords can be fooled. That was my point with "P@$$w0rd12". By most automated systems' ability to check, that's a strong password. Still, if you're running a dictionary attack, you're going to include things like that.
How hard is it to enforce two level authorization at sign-up?
Not necessarily easy, unless you can assume (a) everyone has whatever they need for the second factor; and (b) people will tolerate using the second factor. Even if you strictly enforce a second factor which sends an SMS to a person's cell phone, you're assuming that they have a cell phone. Most people do, but do all of your customers?
And I'm not actually blaming the victim. I'm blaming the Internet at large, which is still using passwords alone. Like I said, "we need to be using a public key system, and create a secure, reliable, easy method of managing keys."
There's no real reason to think that Apple is at fault here, or even that all of the photos came from compromised accounts on iCloud. The rumor going around last I saw was that this was a collection that was acquired over sever years, contributed by many different people who acquired the photos from many different accounts that were attacked in many different ways. It wasn't gathered all at once from a single attack on iCloud. It was just leaked all at once.
I have no evidence of that-- just the rumor I've seen on a couple different sites-- but it makes more sense than a massive iCloud hack that scooped up all of these photos at once.
What does this have to do with a secure method of log-in? If I make my password "password", then it's my own fault, not the login system's fault. You could say that they could require a strong password, which is great. Require it to be 10 characters, including at least 1 upper-case, 1 lower-case, 1 number, and one symbol. You know what the password will be then?
"P@$$w0rd12"
If you want to do better than that, we need to be using a public key system, and create a secure, reliable, easy method of managing keys. Otherwise, if you're letting people set their own password, they're going to choose bad passwords.
Do you care? Are you one of these that requires certain speech patterns in order to understand the point of the conversation?
No, but if English is not your native language, it would explain part of the difficulty of communicating, and why your word choice is strange. Otherwise, I would need to look elsewhere for an explanation of those things.
Proficiency with language is important to communication.
I think that you and I both obviously know what the placebo effect is. As far as I understand, the science that is, no one knows how or why the placebo effect works.
Well I think you've heard of it, but scientifically, we understand quite a bit about it and how it works. We don't understand it fully, but then again, we don't understand much of anything "fully". The placebo effect isn't a huge mystery of a mystical force. We just don't quite know all of the nitty-gritty details about how it works.
He certainly seems to have health problems, and will continue to have health problems. He may be relatively healthy, considering his condition. He may be inspirational in various ways. But ultimately, no, he's not completely healthy.
The placebo effect is caused by the will.
No, it's not. Just speaking of the science, it's really not caused by the will. This is where you seem to misunderstand what the placebo effect is. It's is not connected to what you *want* or what you *choose*, but what you *believe*. I can want to feel less pain, and a can choose to persevere in spite of pain, but neither of those are connected to the placebo effect. The placebo effect is when you believe that something will cause you to feel less pain (or some other negative symptom), and as a result of the belief and expectation, you feel less pain.
It's also important to note that as powerful as the placebo effect is, it's also very limited. The effects are generally temporary. It can't actually cure diseases, e.g. if you have cancer, the placebo effect won't help. The effects are usually limited to allowing people to feel less fear/pain/stress.
It's funny, because every once in a while, something bad is traced to 4chan, and you see people on the news talking about it like it's some kind of horrible monstrosity with no redeeming value. But then they'll spend 15 minutes covering some stupid Internet meme that may have had its roots in 4chan, if you traced the evolution of the meme back far enough.
I think the bizarre thing about 4chan is how pretty much no normal people know what it is, in spite of having a massive influence in our culture over the past several years.
I am indicating that health is the ability to use your will.
Again, sounding a bit cult-leader-y. Are you a non-native English speaker?
It is not correct to say that "if you're healthy, you can use your will"
Being unhealthy can certainly have an adverse effect on decision-making, in various ways.
because it indicates that health is the cause of will power, and that's not so. If it were the case, there would be no placebo effect to speak of.
That argument doesn't make sense. The placebo effect doesn't describe people getting better because they have a strong will to get better. It's describing when people feel better because they believe that they will feel better. That is to say, it's not a matter of will, but a matter of being fooled.
So I guess that by your logic, when people are fooled into believing they are healthy, they are healthy.
Also, what the hell is a "hipster" diet? I think this is a big sign that people need to stop talking about "hipsters". Since when were "hipsters" known for being fat?
I've really come to believe that the word "hipster" doesn't mean anything anymore. It's just an adjective that you attach to things you don't like.
Michael Phelps was a gold medal Olympic athlete who was basically in training 24/7. Most of us have jobs, an other things in our lives which prevent us from training 24/7 with an Olympic trainer.
Slashdot Mirror
I kind of agree with you, but I'm not sure what difference it makes whether you call it "broadband" or something else. Is the issue that there are laws requiring them to provide "broadband" to cover certain areas?
I don't really care what you call it, but 4mbps by1 mbps is not "enough". At this point, Americans should be able to anticipate a 10mbps symmetrical "dumb pipe" connection to be available for their home or business, and at a reasonable price. Of course, someone always objects, "So you think AT&T should be forced by the government to run a 10mbps connection to the top of a mountain, just because some idiot chooses to live in a shack on top of a mountain?!" No, of course not. There are places without running water, without electricity, and I expect that there will be places without Internet.
I just think it's shameful that nearing the end of 2014, we have major metropolitan areas where neither individuals nor businesses are able to get upload speeds faster than 2mbps or 5mbps without spending thousands of dollars per month. It's a sad state of affairs, and it's a drag on the economy. It just shouldn't be considered "acceptable", and clearly companies like TWC, AT&T, and Verizon have dropped the ball.
First off, there's no "reasonably" about it, because often big advances in science require a break from some fundamental previous assumption -- hence, something that was "unreasonable" according to knowledge at the time. So, scientists really would need to systematically list "every possible cause" and then disprove them.
Exactly why science can't be said to "prove" things, because you'll never compile a list of "every possible cause, including those that I can't think of."
The rest of your post is just discussing how people compile the list of "every possible cause I can reasonably think of" and how people discount possible causes as "unreasonable". You haven't really provided any argument against what I said. In fact, you're reinforcing it by agreeing that scientific "proof" never rises to the level of mathematical proof, and that scientists can never hope to falsify every possible cause of a phenomenon.
That could always come later. It wouldn't be unusual for something like that to start with someone saying, "Look, we may be interested in some kind of partnership, but first take the whole thing down until we can work out licensing."
I don't know if they technically "produce" anything, but they sure provide a service that lots of businesses use.
Rarely, if ever, do we prove something experimentally.
It's also argued that science doesn't actually "prove" anything, but only refutes. That is, science doesn't tell you what the cause it, but it can tell you what the cause *isn't*. What scientists do then, according to this argument, is systematically list every possible cause that you can reasonably think of, and then set out to disprove each of those possible causes. If one of those causes survives every attempt at refutation, then that's the closest you'll ever get to a scientific proof.
It's absolutely true that science is not about consensus. Science is not a body of knowledge, but a process of (roughly speaking) formulating an explanation of phenomena, devising a means to test the explanation, and then using that test to determine whether the explanation adheres to the "real world". One of the criteria of a good test is that it must be reproducible, but nothing in the process of science actually requires "consensus".
However, you have a bunch of different scientists with different specialties studying different phenomena, so much so that no single person can actually be aware of it all. Certainly no single person can actually reproduce all of the tests and experiments. In the face of such complexity, we've developed another system which, speaking strictly, is not "science". It's more of a social/political system whereby the various experiments are reviewed by other scientists who attempt to determine whether the tests were good, and whether the tests actually tested the explanation/phenomena they were supposed to. In a formal setting, this process is called "peer review", but it also happens informally (i.e. scientists read each others' work, challenge it, devise other tests).
The upshot of this social system is that, if you aren't enough of a climate scientist to review the existing knowledge of global warming and evaluate its validity, then you should probably just trust the consensus. You trust that there are a lot of smart people working on the problem, and if 95% of the climate scientists agree, then the safe guess is that they're probably at least on the right track. It doesn't mean that they're absolutely correct-- no scientific or social process can guarantee absolute correctness-- but you're going to find more success going with the overwhelming consensus than going against it.
Of course, every once in a while, there is some genius who figures out that the overwhelming consensus is wrong. Most of the time, the scientific community catches on pretty quickly and the consensus changes.
Out of curiosity, can you explain what's so bad about it?
Honestly, I thought it was awkward and confusing until I got used to it, and then it seemed... not so bad. Is it really bash itself that's so good, or is it tools like awk, grep, and sed?
Because Powershell has some nice little things built-in like parameter validation for function parameters, and extremely simple XML parsing, without even using other tools. I'm not much of a programmer, but for my purposes, I can sometimes write simpler and more readable code in Powershell than I know how to do in Bash-- I usually often write my scripts in Ruby because I feel like my complex Bash scripts become unreadable to me. I'm curious what, from a real programmer's point of view, is so bad about Powershell?
In elementary school, my kids did an independent science fair project every year.
I don't have kids, but when I was a kid, they did things like having a science fair every year. It wasn't actually helpful for fostering creativity, though, as far as I can remember. It was bizarre in that they were both very restrictive-- in that they'd shoot down any idea that they didn't think would work out well-- but they also wouldn't provide guidance. They'd just say, "Make a science fair project." I don't know how the other kids came up with their projects, but I vaguely remember that I just ping-pong-ed between my parents and my science teacher. My parents would suggest something, and I'd go suggest that project to my science teacher. The science teacher would reject it, and I'd go relay the rejection to my parents.
I could see it being helpful if someone actually helped the kids find things that they were interested in, and let them pursue that interesting thought even if it wouldn't work. As it was, though, for me it was just another shitty experience of school being completely inane and discouraging.
What I'm getting at here is, it's not just a matter of doing these things and making these programs, but of executing these programs in a way that they're accessible and rewarding for students. Your child's school may do this, but I would guess that most don't, even if they have these kinds of programs at all.
You know, I kind of hated Powershell until I was forced to use it.
I still hate it. But then I have to write a bash script, and I run across some specific problem while writing a bash script, and find myself thinking, "This would be easier in Powershell." So that's something.
It's really not like Batch files, though. It really isn't that bad of a scripting language.
IMO, a worthy "update" to a TI graphing calculator would not be more RAM or a faster CPU, it would be power envelope improvements so it could run on solar (like a 4-function calculator can) and a slimmer, lighter body. (Of course, these days I just use a TI-89 emulator on my Android cellphone instead, so I'm not the target market...)
Do the screens completely suck? I remember seeing them no-so-many years ago, and the screens were still blocky, monochrome, low contrast screens. Considering what they're doing, I'd expect that you could make a paper-thin model with a retina display and a batter that lasts for a month and still cost around $100, if someone good were making them.
The "all or nothing" approach is unnecessary.
when I had just said,
Everything else is compromise.
Obviously I'd advocating a balanced approach, and not an "all or nothing" approach.
But I agree. The system is broken, and we should fix it-- not with stricter password requirements, but with a public key system. That will require developing standards and building infrastructure. Unfortunately, nobody is going to do that.
No sysadmin should allow a computer to harm someone.
I think this statement indicates some kind of misunderstanding of security. If you want a perfectly secure system that prevents any unauthorized access must also prevent authorized access. Any security model that prevents users from doing anything potentially harmful will also prevent users from doing anything useful.
Everything else is compromise. How much are you willing to restrict a user's freedom, convenience, access, and power?
Because if you give a user access to their own data, then you're also allowing for a social engineering attack where they hand over their own data. If you allow people to share their data, you open up the possibility that they will share data with someone who will abuse the data. Keep in mind, I'm not even talking about issues where there's a technical security exploit. Normal functionality constitutes a security hole.
It could just be the nature of what we're talking about - health being tied to will.
I don't think so.
Regarding the placebo effect, man unless you work at some drug-making facility, how are you more knowledgeable than I am?
Because I read a lot, and studied related topics in college. I've continued to study psychology in the years since.
It's mainly the drug-making companies that have to deal with the placebo effect while they're trying to validate their latest drug.
They do have to deal with the placebo effect, yes, but psychologists/researchers have spent a lot of time studying the effect. They've studied willpower too, and found that it can be influenced by various factors.
TFA indicates that people were discussing hacking tools on one of the same websites where people were talking about the leaks. There were early rumors that this hack (or some similar hack) was exploited to get access to all kinds of information on iCloud, and then quickly released a lot of data gathered from the attack.
After investigating these early rumors, more information came out (both reliable information and unreliable rumors) that indicate while *some* of the photos seem to have come from iCloud, they were probably not acquired through this hack. The photos most likely represent a collection that has been in existence for a some time already, gathered from various sources. The fact that the collection was leaked around the same time as an iCloud exploit was discovered is likely to be a coincidence.
Now, enough of this is still rumor and conjecture, but the more recent explanation seems more likely.
How hard is it to inspect a password and tell a person that it's just too weak and here are the rules, so please comply or die?
It's pretty hard. Whatever rules you use to automate the detection of weak passwords can be fooled. That was my point with "P@$$w0rd12". By most automated systems' ability to check, that's a strong password. Still, if you're running a dictionary attack, you're going to include things like that.
How hard is it to enforce two level authorization at sign-up?
Not necessarily easy, unless you can assume (a) everyone has whatever they need for the second factor; and (b) people will tolerate using the second factor. Even if you strictly enforce a second factor which sends an SMS to a person's cell phone, you're assuming that they have a cell phone. Most people do, but do all of your customers?
And I'm not actually blaming the victim. I'm blaming the Internet at large, which is still using passwords alone. Like I said, "we need to be using a public key system, and create a secure, reliable, easy method of managing keys."
There's no real reason to think that Apple is at fault here, or even that all of the photos came from compromised accounts on iCloud. The rumor going around last I saw was that this was a collection that was acquired over sever years, contributed by many different people who acquired the photos from many different accounts that were attacked in many different ways. It wasn't gathered all at once from a single attack on iCloud. It was just leaked all at once.
I have no evidence of that-- just the rumor I've seen on a couple different sites-- but it makes more sense than a massive iCloud hack that scooped up all of these photos at once.
"P@$$w0rd12"
If you want to do better than that, we need to be using a public key system, and create a secure, reliable, easy method of managing keys. Otherwise, if you're letting people set their own password, they're going to choose bad passwords.
All the more reason why they just shouldn't have these security questions.
Do you care? Are you one of these that requires certain speech patterns in order to understand the point of the conversation?
No, but if English is not your native language, it would explain part of the difficulty of communicating, and why your word choice is strange. Otherwise, I would need to look elsewhere for an explanation of those things.
Proficiency with language is important to communication.
I think that you and I both obviously know what the placebo effect is. As far as I understand, the science that is, no one knows how or why the placebo effect works.
Well I think you've heard of it, but scientifically, we understand quite a bit about it and how it works. We don't understand it fully, but then again, we don't understand much of anything "fully". The placebo effect isn't a huge mystery of a mystical force. We just don't quite know all of the nitty-gritty details about how it works.
English is my mother-tongue.
Somehow I'm not convinced.
I mean, is this guy [youtube.com] healthy or not?
He certainly seems to have health problems, and will continue to have health problems. He may be relatively healthy, considering his condition. He may be inspirational in various ways. But ultimately, no, he's not completely healthy.
The placebo effect is caused by the will.
No, it's not. Just speaking of the science, it's really not caused by the will. This is where you seem to misunderstand what the placebo effect is. It's is not connected to what you *want* or what you *choose*, but what you *believe*. I can want to feel less pain, and a can choose to persevere in spite of pain, but neither of those are connected to the placebo effect. The placebo effect is when you believe that something will cause you to feel less pain (or some other negative symptom), and as a result of the belief and expectation, you feel less pain.
It's also important to note that as powerful as the placebo effect is, it's also very limited. The effects are generally temporary. It can't actually cure diseases, e.g. if you have cancer, the placebo effect won't help. The effects are usually limited to allowing people to feel less fear/pain/stress.
It's funny, because every once in a while, something bad is traced to 4chan, and you see people on the news talking about it like it's some kind of horrible monstrosity with no redeeming value. But then they'll spend 15 minutes covering some stupid Internet meme that may have had its roots in 4chan, if you traced the evolution of the meme back far enough.
I think the bizarre thing about 4chan is how pretty much no normal people know what it is, in spite of having a massive influence in our culture over the past several years.
Well it looks like they changed their name to muut.it.
I am indicating that health is the ability to use your will.
Again, sounding a bit cult-leader-y. Are you a non-native English speaker?
It is not correct to say that "if you're healthy, you can use your will"
Being unhealthy can certainly have an adverse effect on decision-making, in various ways.
because it indicates that health is the cause of will power, and that's not so. If it were the case, there would be no placebo effect to speak of.
That argument doesn't make sense. The placebo effect doesn't describe people getting better because they have a strong will to get better. It's describing when people feel better because they believe that they will feel better. That is to say, it's not a matter of will, but a matter of being fooled.
So I guess that by your logic, when people are fooled into believing they are healthy, they are healthy.
Also, what the hell is a "hipster" diet? I think this is a big sign that people need to stop talking about "hipsters". Since when were "hipsters" known for being fat?
I've really come to believe that the word "hipster" doesn't mean anything anymore. It's just an adjective that you attach to things you don't like.
Look at what Michael Phelps ate.
Michael Phelps was a gold medal Olympic athlete who was basically in training 24/7. Most of us have jobs, an other things in our lives which prevent us from training 24/7 with an Olympic trainer.