It is quite obvious from the words I used that I've already done that research.
Go out and do the search you recommend, then do a search that would uncover results similar to what I was claiming, and then get back to me with words that make it sound like you exposed yourself to both sides of the argument.
Then you might have something to say. I already checked, and I already tried to educate you.
Oh, and when you do your own recommended search, it will tell you right away that it is only a minority who is affected. Oh, also, when you're reading stuff talking about reductions of 2 points, look up if small reductions in blood pressure improve health outcomes. I gave that answer above, but don't believe me: look it up!
As for myself, I can just do the simple challenge test: measure blood pressure. Eat a tablespoon(!) of salt. Wait 30 minutes. Take my blood pressure again. It is not a mystery. A small percent of people will experience a 10+ point jump, and for those people, reducing salt intake will likely add years to their lives. However, most people will only experience a 2 point increase, and that difference makes no positive difference at all to health outcomes! This is well established stuff, there is just a lot of bogus bullshit using important-sounding weasel words, including from weasels with letters next to their names. However, the study results are not actually in dispute; the entire dispute is over the PR benefits, over the question of if doctors should lie to the world when they think the PR will benefit people. You can look up if that is part of the public debate on this narrow issue, or not. (spoiler: it is)
Right, that is what I was saying; you're getting your categories from the fashion industry. That's why when I call you on it, you're so fucking clueless that you jump straight into talking about body image, combined with fat-shaming. Pretty moronic for you to be claiming to be a messenger of health information, while fat-shaming! LOL
And BTW, since you can't read very well and don't understand American government data, the NIH website is a place the publishes everything. If it is published there doesn't mean it is true, or known to be true, it means it is one of the things that somebody with the correct letters next to their name is claiming. It is an amazing resource that I make frequent use of, but if you don't understand what it is then it is simply harmful to consume the data in that way.
If you don't know that there is mainstream debate in the medical community over the whole BMI system and how it is interpreted, that's your own problem. I talked about actual death rates and health outcomes, you pointed at a chart you don't understand and presented an appeal to authority.
Notice in the complaints, nobody is claiming that there complaint is dependent on your feelies. I don't care what your feelies are.
Why do you think I would find your feelies relevant to my complaint? That's the part you should focus on. Why do you have an emotional attachment to my complaint? My complaint has no emotional attachment to you! That's probably why I shared my opinion, instead of asking you what opinion I should have. Complaining that my opinion exists is just sad; form your own opinion, and have it exist separately from mine, since you don't agree with mine! It is really that easy.
If you learned to think for yourself, you might be able to understand that many others are already thinking for themselves and don't really care about what negative feelies you had when you heard their opinion. It isn't an idea or a counterpoint, it is just pathetic childishness.
Ah yes, thank your for your reading from Iggypedia. If you ever make it to Earth, perhaps forward it to somebody so they can make updates.
If your comprehension is so low you have to argue that my comprehension is bad in response to a link to information, well there is no cure for that. I know there are lots of theories, but there is really no cure. If you're making up for yourself what a species is, I don't care. Maybe you're right and the science is all wrong, but I don't care. I'm going to stick with Earth Science.
It says right in the link I gave you what it is a hybrid of, and how long ago it was hybridized. You can't comprehend that knowledge, that's on you not me. My comprehension could be shit, and you still didn't understand how long ago that hybrid was created.
I don't know, perhaps you're translating from metric and losing a digit?
Which category has the lowest death rate? That weight is not in the healthiest part of the range at all.
Actually look at the chart again; it is closer to the bottom of the normal range than it is to the middle of the normal range. And remember, the healthiest people are in the range from the upper part of normal, to "overweight." The category titles are based on the fashion industry, not the health studies. What is unhealthy is to be obese, or underweight.
So why link to what I assume is some sort of blog site, if you've been exposed to a bunch of higher quality data? Is it that you reviewed higher quality sources and they said something different, or some better reason?
I was addressing the issue of platform lock. Perhaps I should have been more clear that I meant there are API-compatible alternatives that you can drop in. You can put them on a cloud, or not, when they're under your own control. Don't just assume that you have to give away the crown jewels just to make it up into the cloud!
Personally, I look at the domain name of your source, and choose not to click on it. It isn't a journal, it isn't an educational institution, it isn't an encyclopedia, and it even has a propaganda-friendly name!
Wheat is also not one of the crops that is typically GMO! lol
From wikipedia:
As of 2013, 34 field trials of GM wheat have taken place in Europe and 419 have taken place in the US.... As of 2015, no GM wheat had been approved for release anywhere in the world.
Bread wheat is an allohexaploid (an allopolyploid with six sets of chromosomes: two sets from each of three different species). Of the six sets of chromosomes, two come from Triticum urartu (einkorn wheat) and two from Aegilops speltoides. This hybridisation created the species Triticum turgidum (durum wheat) 580,000–820,000 years ago. The last two sets of chromosomes came from wild goat-grass Aegilops tauschii 230,000–430,000 years ago.[6][9]
Free-threshing wheat is closely related to spelt. As with spelt, genes contributed from Aegilops tauschii give bread wheat greater cold hardiness than most wheats, and it is cultivated throughout the world's temperate regions. History Common wheat was first domesticated in Western Asia during the early Holocene, and spread from there to North Africa, Europe and East Asia in the prehistoric period.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Check the dates before deciding if it is really different to what they were eating prehistorically.;)
There are mostly only 2 types of American beer; the fancy expensive stuff which is made with quality organic ingredients, and the cheap stuff made from malted rice.
Regardless of your lack of understanding of the science, here in the US we have organic vegetables for sale at all the major groceries, and even more at the small local ones!
BTW, the reason that organic is popular is because it is bad for the environment to dump all those chemicals that kills things into the ground! You have less weeds in the field, in the short term, but you also kill the established water plants while fertilizing the "pioneer" weeds!
Also, exposure to concentrated pesticides causes serious health problems for farm workers, and they'll always be having to handle it in concentrated form.
It isn't because the pesticides are directly bad for humans. The problem GMO is only that they then use increased amounts of pesticides.
As an example, the river that runs through my city has a health warning; adults are recommended not to eat more than 2 8oz servings of fish per month because of the dangerously high levels of pesticides in the fish. That's because of farm runoff. But the level of pesticides on the vegetables from those farms is not a direct problem for human health!
Here is what the regional cuisine looks like in the part of America that I live in: (this is the most popular restaurant in my neighborhood, though not the most expensive) https://s3-media1.fl.yelpcdn.c...
No, you were told by the researchers to ignore the media and talk to your doctor, and wait for the numbers to make it to your doctor.
The media told you to believe the numbers they were making up, because golly, those researchers know better and you should listen to the media to know what the researchers said, because gosh all that science is hard to understand!
For example, they said that preliminary research showed that some forms of fat were really harmful, but they didn't know which kinds yet. And that it appeared it was going to turn out to be one of the types of saturated fat. And they made it clear that they didn't know yet. And they also gave people advice, "This doesn't change any dietary recommendations; eat the same low fat diet with an emphasis on traditional, whole ingredients. Do not change your diet because of this research; as far as we know, the healthiest diet is a traditional healthy diet." And what did the media convince most people concerned about health to do? Switch to margarine! And it turns out, most of that 80s/90s margarine was full of transfat; replacing healthy butterfat with the exact worst fat from the research!
Stop listening to the news and thinking you learned about research, and you'll have increased your knowledge level by orders of magnitude.
Look at the studies for the affects of salt on blood pressure. Some people can drop their pressure 3 points with reduced salt - for others, it doesn't change anything.
The funny part is, the studies show that there is a minority of patients where removing dietary salt has a 10+ point difference, and those are the only patients who improve outcomes by reducing salt.
Reducing blood pressure by 3 points doesn't improve outcomes in the vast majority of patients; only patients who also have serious heart disease will have an improved outcome. If you have high blood pressure but don't have heart disease, your risk of death did not improve by lowering blood pressure 3 points; regardless of the reason it went down.
In many people exercise will not lower their blood pressure. And yet, regular moderate exercise will lower their chance of death! We just don't understand or have measurements for all the benefits. Increasing intake of fresh vegetables will also lower the chance of death; and eating vitamin pills will increase it!
Slashdot Mirror
It is quite obvious from the words I used that I've already done that research.
Go out and do the search you recommend, then do a search that would uncover results similar to what I was claiming, and then get back to me with words that make it sound like you exposed yourself to both sides of the argument.
Then you might have something to say. I already checked, and I already tried to educate you.
Oh, and when you do your own recommended search, it will tell you right away that it is only a minority who is affected. Oh, also, when you're reading stuff talking about reductions of 2 points, look up if small reductions in blood pressure improve health outcomes. I gave that answer above, but don't believe me: look it up!
As for myself, I can just do the simple challenge test: measure blood pressure. Eat a tablespoon(!) of salt. Wait 30 minutes. Take my blood pressure again. It is not a mystery. A small percent of people will experience a 10+ point jump, and for those people, reducing salt intake will likely add years to their lives. However, most people will only experience a 2 point increase, and that difference makes no positive difference at all to health outcomes! This is well established stuff, there is just a lot of bogus bullshit using important-sounding weasel words, including from weasels with letters next to their names. However, the study results are not actually in dispute; the entire dispute is over the PR benefits, over the question of if doctors should lie to the world when they think the PR will benefit people. You can look up if that is part of the public debate on this narrow issue, or not. (spoiler: it is)
Right, that is what I was saying; you're getting your categories from the fashion industry. That's why when I call you on it, you're so fucking clueless that you jump straight into talking about body image, combined with fat-shaming. Pretty moronic for you to be claiming to be a messenger of health information, while fat-shaming! LOL
And BTW, since you can't read very well and don't understand American government data, the NIH website is a place the publishes everything. If it is published there doesn't mean it is true, or known to be true, it means it is one of the things that somebody with the correct letters next to their name is claiming. It is an amazing resource that I make frequent use of, but if you don't understand what it is then it is simply harmful to consume the data in that way.
If you don't know that there is mainstream debate in the medical community over the whole BMI system and how it is interpreted, that's your own problem. I talked about actual death rates and health outcomes, you pointed at a chart you don't understand and presented an appeal to authority.
s/there/their/
Notice in the complaints, nobody is claiming that there complaint is dependent on your feelies. I don't care what your feelies are.
Why do you think I would find your feelies relevant to my complaint? That's the part you should focus on. Why do you have an emotional attachment to my complaint? My complaint has no emotional attachment to you! That's probably why I shared my opinion, instead of asking you what opinion I should have. Complaining that my opinion exists is just sad; form your own opinion, and have it exist separately from mine, since you don't agree with mine! It is really that easy.
If you learned to think for yourself, you might be able to understand that many others are already thinking for themselves and don't really care about what negative feelies you had when you heard their opinion. It isn't an idea or a counterpoint, it is just pathetic childishness.
Since a long time ago, Jr.
Since a long time ago.
Ah yes, thank your for your reading from Iggypedia. If you ever make it to Earth, perhaps forward it to somebody so they can make updates.
If your comprehension is so low you have to argue that my comprehension is bad in response to a link to information, well there is no cure for that. I know there are lots of theories, but there is really no cure. If you're making up for yourself what a species is, I don't care. Maybe you're right and the science is all wrong, but I don't care. I'm going to stick with Earth Science.
It says right in the link I gave you what it is a hybrid of, and how long ago it was hybridized. You can't comprehend that knowledge, that's on you not me. My comprehension could be shit, and you still didn't understand how long ago that hybrid was created.
lol that's hilarious! thanks
I love Cornell
I don't know, perhaps you're translating from metric and losing a digit?
Which category has the lowest death rate? That weight is not in the healthiest part of the range at all.
Actually look at the chart again; it is closer to the bottom of the normal range than it is to the middle of the normal range. And remember, the healthiest people are in the range from the upper part of normal, to "overweight." The category titles are based on the fashion industry, not the health studies. What is unhealthy is to be obese, or underweight.
So why link to what I assume is some sort of blog site, if you've been exposed to a bunch of higher quality data? Is it that you reviewed higher quality sources and they said something different, or some better reason?
To me it seems like that was already true the past 25 years :)
The hard part was never porting the code, the hard part was always the decision to allow the code to be ported!
For companies, it was just a negotiation bluff that they finally became wise to after decades of engineers screaming it.
I was addressing the issue of platform lock. Perhaps I should have been more clear that I meant there are API-compatible alternatives that you can drop in. You can put them on a cloud, or not, when they're under your own control. Don't just assume that you have to give away the crown jewels just to make it up into the cloud!
That's why I try to stay on tiny microcontrollers.
There isn't enough RAM or ROM for most frameworks.
You might have 1 framework to choose from across a product line, or else you write your own.
If you want 2 features, I give you... 2 microcontrollers!
His reed sounded true for me, maybe you're listening wrong?
There's only one person to blame for that...
... and he sure does look sexy riding that pony around topless all the time!
Orgasms lower blood pressure. Americans aren't getting enough sex. Prescribe vibrators.
Prescribe a real sex life. Nothing beats the real thing.
Science says the health benefits don't even require a partner, simply completing the deed with frequency brings the benefits.
You might find that if you wipe the derp off your chin and shave your neckbeard, people will direct less hostility at you.
6'3" 160lbs is exactly what I'd expect the average weight to be of a person that height, even today! ... in North Korea!
Personally, I look at the domain name of your source, and choose not to click on it. It isn't a journal, it isn't an educational institution, it isn't an encyclopedia, and it even has a propaganda-friendly name!
Wheat is also not one of the crops that is typically GMO! lol
From wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
As for "not even the same species,":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... ;)
Check the dates before deciding if it is really different to what they were eating prehistorically.
See also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
There are mostly only 2 types of American beer; the fancy expensive stuff which is made with quality organic ingredients, and the cheap stuff made from malted rice.
Regardless of your lack of understanding of the science, here in the US we have organic vegetables for sale at all the major groceries, and even more at the small local ones!
BTW, the reason that organic is popular is because it is bad for the environment to dump all those chemicals that kills things into the ground! You have less weeds in the field, in the short term, but you also kill the established water plants while fertilizing the "pioneer" weeds!
Also, exposure to concentrated pesticides causes serious health problems for farm workers, and they'll always be having to handle it in concentrated form.
It isn't because the pesticides are directly bad for humans. The problem GMO is only that they then use increased amounts of pesticides.
As an example, the river that runs through my city has a health warning; adults are recommended not to eat more than 2 8oz servings of fish per month because of the dangerously high levels of pesticides in the fish. That's because of farm runoff. But the level of pesticides on the vegetables from those farms is not a direct problem for human health!
This is what American food looks like: https://www.gannett-cdn.com/-m...
Here is another example: https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
Another: https://static1.squarespace.co...
Here is what American Food looks like in a big city: https://c1.staticflickr.com/3/...
Here is what the regional cuisine looks like in the part of America that I live in: (this is the most popular restaurant in my neighborhood, though not the most expensive) https://s3-media1.fl.yelpcdn.c...
Here is what American food looks like in a "red state": https://ncstatecommuters.files...
No, you were told by the researchers to ignore the media and talk to your doctor, and wait for the numbers to make it to your doctor.
The media told you to believe the numbers they were making up, because golly, those researchers know better and you should listen to the media to know what the researchers said, because gosh all that science is hard to understand!
For example, they said that preliminary research showed that some forms of fat were really harmful, but they didn't know which kinds yet. And that it appeared it was going to turn out to be one of the types of saturated fat. And they made it clear that they didn't know yet. And they also gave people advice, "This doesn't change any dietary recommendations; eat the same low fat diet with an emphasis on traditional, whole ingredients. Do not change your diet because of this research; as far as we know, the healthiest diet is a traditional healthy diet." And what did the media convince most people concerned about health to do? Switch to margarine! And it turns out, most of that 80s/90s margarine was full of transfat; replacing healthy butterfat with the exact worst fat from the research!
Stop listening to the news and thinking you learned about research, and you'll have increased your knowledge level by orders of magnitude.
Look at the studies for the affects of salt on blood pressure. Some people can drop their pressure 3 points with reduced salt - for others, it doesn't change anything.
The funny part is, the studies show that there is a minority of patients where removing dietary salt has a 10+ point difference, and those are the only patients who improve outcomes by reducing salt.
Reducing blood pressure by 3 points doesn't improve outcomes in the vast majority of patients; only patients who also have serious heart disease will have an improved outcome. If you have high blood pressure but don't have heart disease, your risk of death did not improve by lowering blood pressure 3 points; regardless of the reason it went down.
In many people exercise will not lower their blood pressure. And yet, regular moderate exercise will lower their chance of death! We just don't understand or have measurements for all the benefits. Increasing intake of fresh vegetables will also lower the chance of death; and eating vitamin pills will increase it!
If you can't find healthy flavor, you just suck at eating.
Sucking at cooking is lame enough, it is such a simple and easy skill. The results are even subjective, so it should be even easier!
But sucking at eating, wow. That's some really hash idiocy there.