I disagree. I believe that the core of these problems are carbohydrates. Insulin spikes from carbohydrate consumption cause fat retention. Sugar doesn't create satiety, so it compounds eating.
The "it's an over-eating problem" fallacy keeps getting introduced by sugar companies. It happened in the states, then moved to South America, and is currently hitting India [1]. It's a playbook by the sugar industry that echoes of the tobacco industry's old tactics.
Suddenly, societies that have maintained healthy BMIs for thousands of years are having obesity problems as sugar gets introduced. They didn't develop gluttony overnight - it's a sugar problem.
This guy lost 27 pounds eating your "weaponized carbohydrates." The thing is you have fallen hook, line, and sinker for people and groups that make money off of selling you books and info about "weaponized carbohydrates."
Is sugar overconsumption bad? Of course. That doesn't mean that we have to begin breaking the laws of physics concerning calorie intake to justify it.
I mean, can't you both be right? I doubt the OP was indicating that any amount of sugar automatically and magically makes you gain weight.
You can diet off of pure sugar if you want. Calories in, calories out. I doubt anyone denies that. Weaponized carbs is akin to drinking a beer vs hard liquor. Sugar gets pushed into everything, you like it, you eat a ton of it, and eventually you run into massive problems.
I think the weaponized carb idea is correct. Carb's aren't inherently bad, but when you take out ability to be sated from carbs, when you take out fiber from the carbs, removing natural barriers to consumption, when you refine it to pack in more carbs per weight.. all these things start becoming weaponized carbs. We're refining a drug.
Your reply also ignores sudden climbs in carb related problems. Eg, the India article that the OP linked. Your reply seems to suggest that suddenly, for no reason, India is just wanting to over eat. This over eating trend has been caused by something.
Modern junk food with massively refined carbs seems likely to blame.
I'd love to see his A1C measured before and after that experiment.
Conservation of energy is basic physics. The relevant questions are whether a normal person has satiety on 1800 calories of sugar, and whether the metabolics of sugar are different than other sources of energy [1].
You reply with an accusation of falling prey to a supposed vast group of profiteering researchers and support it with one anecdote?
The body is sufficiently complex that some people smoke cigarettes for 40+ years and still manage to die of something that isn't respiratory related first.
By "nobody" I meant "nobody representative of a noteworthy population in statistics".
Even if you do not trust the scientific consensus regarding nutrion (all recommend fruits (sugar) and vegetables, most recommend a whole food plant based diet, most warn against a high fat diet, most warn against animal products in large quantities) there are other reasons for avoiding animal products:
- Ethics. An animal is a sentient emotional being. Like a human.
- Destruction of the environment. E.g. waste of food by feeding animals, deforestation, water pollution, greenhouse gas emission.
Not debating any of those points, only that sugar and junk food makes you hungrier and therefore harder to diet. There is an obesity epidemic that seems to be getting worse. I'm more interested in that problem.
Some of what you describe can be attributed more to factory farming which I generally disagree and personally don't buy.
Animal products aren't expensive if you compare calories per dollar.
I am certainly not saying steak isn't more filling but just a random anecdote. As a dieted down currently lean person I ate 4000-6000 calories (all weighed to the gram) of steak/ground beef a day for a month no problem.
This was sufficient to gain a substantial amount of weight in that time. But figured id try the meat only thing being talked about in the last year on myself.
Have you been to a restaurant in the US? Food portions are ridiculous. Even a fast food meal has 1200 calories. A sit-down casual dining place will give you > your daily allowance in one meal.
Our drink and appetizers sizes are enormous. It's disgusting.
I think an interesting direction to take reading up on the subject is instead of it being the spread of sugar look into the spread of industrial seed oils and how much their intake has increased.
Sure but it's not a uniquely American problem. Some other countries are even worse, and others are catching up fast. In a few decades this will be a worldwide issue.
I wish Apple would just make their own ATX case (or any other standard *TX form factor), their own ATX motherboard with their TPM on it, and then use commodity components for everything else. I'd pay a huge premium for that product, but Apple is so far up their own ass trying to imitate themselves they can't see what their customers really need.
If you mean the clones, that's not exactly what I'm suggesting. I want Apple to continue building computers, but to use industry standard form factors, and to use as many commodity components as possible.
They could get such a product out faster than 2019 and it would be better than whatever they will end up announcing. Instead we have to wait a year for Apple to figure out how to make a computer that is 'pretty' and 'innovative' enough for Apple, even when their professional customers don't give a toss how pretty or innovative it is.
I think perhaps they mean something like the Intel-based developer boxes offered to Mac software developers, between the announcement of the move to Intel and the offical release of Intel Macs. It was basically a not very fancy motherboard with an Intel CPU, in a G5 PowerMac case with a different arrangement of fans.
People are naive and easy to manipulate. Often (in history) they are manipulated into killing other people against their own interests. Few people are wilfully "good" or "bad".
A high rate of road deaths isn't a fait accompli. Musk would have us believe that technology is the only answer.
The UK has the 2nd-lowest rate of road deaths in the world (after Sweden).
The roads in the UK are not intrinsically safe, they are very narrow both in urban and rural areas which means there are more hazards and less time to avoid them.
However, the UK has strict driver education programme. It is not easy to pass the driving test, with some people failing multiple times. It means that people only get a license when they are ready for it. Drink-driving will also get you a prison sentence and a driving ban.
Just a note. Switzerland ranks better than the UK. By inhabitants: Switzerland (2.6), Sweden (2.8) and UK (2.9). By motor vehicles: Switzerland (3.6), Finland (4.4), Sweden (4.7) and UK (5.1). By number of kilometres driven: Sweden (3.5), Switzerland (3.6) and UK (3.6).
I'd also note that most European countries are hot on the heels of the UK, Sweden and Switzerland by the above measures. By comparison, the US numbers are 10.6, 12.9 and 7.1, respectively. Most European countries are well below those numbers.
Particularly in Western European and Nordic countries, the driving tests are very strict. Even for all the stereotypes, France's numbers of 5.1, 7.6 and 5.8 are quite good, and they are moving in the right direction.
As someone that has been caught speeding, it's also worth mentioning that one of the big reasons why the UK has improved its road safety statistics is a reasonably new initiative where you get an option on your first offence to either take the points on your license or to attend a safety workshop.
IIRC, the workshop was about three hours, but it was surprisingly useful. The instructors treated you like adults and not children or criminals, and they gave fairly useful tips on driving and looking out for things like lights suddenly changing, ensuring you are in the right gear, how you're supposed to react if an emergency vehicle wants you to go forward when you're by a set of traffic lights with a camera, etc.
However, on the drink driving front, given the news with Ant from Ant and Dec I think it's safe to assume that not everyone gets a prison sentence for drink driving.
Out of curiosity, how are you supposed to react if an emergency vehicle wants you to go forward when you're by a set of traffic lights with a camera?
I would think to look carefully at all directions and, if visibility allows, pass the red light, then contest the fine with an "emergrncy vehicle passing through" defence. But what is the official position?
I am not sure the UK has traffic light cameras, but they do some places in Germany. And the official position in Germany, and in most of Europe I think, is that emergency vehicle decisions trumps everything else. If a police officer directs you to do something that would break the law, then you should do it, as a police officer's decision trumps regular traffic laws.
At least, that's how it works in Germany and Denmark. But I don't think Denmark has traffic light cameras. I've never seen them anyway. But I've seen them in Germany.
Of course, this is assuming you don't actually cross the entire junction, but rather just moves out into the junction, so the emergency vehicle can get through.
Yep, that's what we were told. It doesn't matter if you're doing the right thing by getting out of someone's way, you'll get a fine/points if you cross the line.
Although, if you are at a set of traffic lights and an emergency vehicle tries to get you to cross the line, what you should do is write down the registration plate and contact the relevant service to report the driver. The instructor on this course was ex-police, and according to him police, paramedics, and firefighters in the UK are taught to not do this under any circumstance, and if they are caught trying to persuade someone to cross a red traffic light then they can get in a lot of trouble.
The only case that trumps a red traffic light is when given a signal by an authorised person (e.g., police officers, traffic officers, etc).
I think under a literal interpretation of the law you are obliged to commit an offence if you are beckoned on across a stop line at a red traffic light; you can either refuse the instruction to be beckoned on (an offence) or you can cross the stop line (an offence). That said, there's plenty of habit of the beckoning taking precedent over the lights.
Basically the only time you see any police officer instructing traffic from a vehicle is when on a motorbike, typically when they're part of an escort.
That's the way I think it works - I had to do that on a set of lights I thought had a camera (turns out it mustn't have been on as nothing came of it), but quickly weighed it up in my head of "several hours of BS arguing it for me" vs "someone might die".
Police cars will have dash cams, not sure on ambulances or fire engines.
That being said, scariest thing I did on the road was going through a red light to let an ambulance through at a motorway off-ramp. You better hope everyone else has heard those sirens.
Drink driving rarely attracts a prison sentence. In the vast majority of cases it attracts a driving ban along with a significant fine. The sentencing guidelines have imprisonment as an option for blowing over 120 where the limit is 35 (in England and Wales, it is lower in Scotland now).
The UK went through a major cultural change relating to drink driving several decades ago, it isn't viewed as acceptable, the police get tip offs on a regular basis.
It's not too common to head to prison for a single DD incident. It's also worth noting that England&Wales and Scotland have different drink driving laws.
In Scotland, the BAC limit is lower than in England and the punishment is a 12 month driving ban and fine for being over the limit - no grey areas or points or getting away with it.
In England a fine and penalty points are common, repeat offenders can be suspended and jailed. The severity of the punishment can often depend on how far over the limit you are and other factors.
> However, on the drink driving front, given the news with Ant from Ant and Dec I think it's safe to assume that not everyone gets a prison sentence for drink driving.
Nope, I think his court case has been moved back. The court wouldn't say why, but it's believed to be because they want him to ensure he gets the most out of his time back in rehab.
Other innovations include an off road "hazard perception test" I'd be pleasantly surprised if derivatives of self driving software could reliably pass.
> The roads in the UK are not intrinsically safe, they are very narrow both in urban and rural areas which means there are more hazards and less time to avoid them.
Actually, paradoxically that means they are actually safer. People drive slower on narrower roads, which means that accidents are within the safe energy envelope that modern cars can absorb.
Very, very few people will ever die as a passenger or driver in a car accident at 25 mph / 40 kph. At 65mph / 100kph, the story is completely different.
You say that but people will happily drive at 50+ down a narrow country road. I think the "narrow = slower" only works for a limited period of time before people get normalised to it.
Had to thread a van through a temporary concrete width restriction the other day - when it's that narrow, even the Uber behind me wasn't giving me grief for going that slowly!
The country roads one has always dumbfounded me though - why some of those have national speed limits I will never know.
As far as I'm aware, they're national speed limits because they don't have the resource to work out the limit, or police them. I learnt on country roads and my instructor was very clear that although I could go at 60mph, I should drive to the conditions of the road.
Growing up driving in country roads in the UK you learn some tricks (dumb tricks you shouldn't do). One example is at night time you can take corners more quickly by driving on the wrong side of the road. If you can't see another cars headlights, then there are none coming.
The thought of doing this now scares me and I don't do this and suggest that no one else does either. But I know many people still drive like this.
> The country roads one has always dumbfounded me though - why some of those have national speed limits I will never know.
Why not? Even roads with lower speed limits you're required to drive at a speed appropriate for the road, the conditions, and your vehicle; the speed limit merely sets an upper-bound, and it's not really relevant whether it's achievable. Just look at the Isle of Man where there is no national speed limits: most roads outside of towns have no speed limit, regardless of whether they're a narrow single-lane road or one of the largest roads on the island.
If you set a limit, some people will drive it regardless. Even if you're supposed to drive to the road and conditions, there are enough utter morons out there who'll take a blind narrow corner at 60.
> It is not easy to pass the driving test, with some people failing multiple times. It means that people only get a license when they are ready for it.
And that's the way it should be. The driving test may not be easy, but it's not any more difficult than driving is. People should be held to a high standard when controlling high speed hunks of metal.
It's not comparable with Python, which broke correct code to the point where even `print "Hello world"` was broken! This mootools issue only affects a very small number of users.
It amounts to a denial-of-service attack against the language, if you author a popular enough JS library you can screw things up for everybody in perpetuity. That isn't a healthy way to design a language.
Most people just don't care about the voice assistant on their phones, despite the efforts of Google, Apple and Samsung to make them care. Using a voice assistant in a public place still marks you out as some kind of weirdo. Siri is great for setting timers, that's all that matters really.
I'm honestly not sure what else I'd use a voice assistant for and Siri works great for all of those tasks. Usually when I have an issue it's due to background noise, so hardly Siri's fault.
Quite frankly the "siri is crap" meme seems to be just that: a meme, with very little basis in reality. She's not quite as feature rich as the others but... who cares?
Agreed. Looking forward to when voice assistants can be taught new tricks by regular device users instead of having the new tricks be programmed by developers.
Quite possibly, but Google and Facebook are known entities that can afford flotillas of lawyers. The next up-and-coming startup to reach the "backlash" stage of the hype cycle will be a much more vulnerable target to European regulators. And if it's too easy for some hated target to comply, then the government can ratchet up the regulations even higher, and Google and Facebook will have the resources to keep up while the newer market entrants will be fucked. Google and Facebook will only be at risk if they deliberately flout regulations the way e.g. Volkswagen did.
European here and I feel this is a bit shortsighted. Not really sure the sentiment is to target US companies (if for nothing else ours are quite open/interconnected economies and there's lots of fondness for US services - check both market share as well as revenues) but really.. Facebook's tax of 5k/year in the UK, the double irish with a dutch sandwich, the backroom deals from the 80s with the Irish govt.. these are global practices which truly devastate everyone in the long run. I actually trust bureaucrats to step in and audit - and subjectively think they very often do a decent job of explaining rationales given europeans' known tendency of bickering on pretty much everything.
> Facebook's tax of 5k/year in the UK, the double irish with a dutch sandwich, the backroom deals from the 80s with the Irish govt.. these are global practices which truly devastate everyone in the long run.
And are all legal, and designed as so by the government. Auditing won't make a difference, since it is legal. Don't like it? Make it illegal. Simple as that.
> actually trust bureaucrats to step in and audit - and subjectively think they very often do a decent job of explaining rationales given europeans' known tendency of bickering on pretty much everything.
Oh, no issue with that. My issue is with this:
> Or Google and Facebook will be held to a higher standard of compliance.
This would be a valid point or topic of debate should the subject be an actual law (the 70 years copyright law for instance?)
What we're dealing with here is loopholes and nothing more under various incarnations - take patents in the US or the lax tax policies of Malta or Isle of Man as an example - and you'll get a sense on why a bit of cleaning up is sorely needed.
> What we're dealing with here is loopholes and nothing more under various incarnations - take patents in the US or the lax tax policies of Malta or Isle of Man as an example - and you'll get a sense on why a bit of cleaning up is sorely needed.
Suggesting that US companies should be above reproach or oversight, by definition, or that the EU would treat local or Asian companies who tried to pull the same stunts more generously is not based on evidence.
If US corporates try to flout European law, they'll suffer consequences. Market cap does not provide a free pass for being a bad actor.
In the past, "nutrition" meant "getting enough calories", as in the opposite of malnutrition. Grains are plentiful, cheap calories and so they are "nutritious".
Of course if you cut them out of your diet and still eat the same amounts of everything else you will lose weight, that's just thermodynamics!
That is why you build robots with size and strength of a child first, to limit amount of damage it can do, and to allow human adult to overpower it if necessary.
They could make a Linux distro, a "yellow box" for Linux. I know it sounds totally ridiculous, but if Apple really doesn't want to make computers for software engineers, it doesn't stop them making an OS for software engineers.
