Processing food doesn't necessarily make food less healthy, but it does it so often that it should not be considered neutral.
* it frequently removes the fiber and structure, making it faster to eat, and easier to over consume.
* it frequently adds sugar, salt, etc., not just making it easier to over consume, but with a payload that itself does extra damage.
* simply changing the form of food, without changing the contents, itself can have serious nutritional consequences [0].
For my own choices ultra processing is guilty until proven innocent. Believing that implies a radical change to how most people eat.
TANSTAAFL. Ads are just another way that lunch isn't free. You're welcome to consume all the ad paid content you want and then bitch about it. But it's just like complaining that other things cost money. However we pay for other people's labor, it's a corellary of opposing slavery. The alternative is compelled unpaid labor, or not consuming things. So choose: slavery, poverty, or perform labor to compensate other people for theirs. Sometimes that means waking up at 4am to work in the salt mines, and sometimes it means watching stupid ads. Personally I like having the occasional choice.
In this experiment, a mouse population grew quickly, then at high population density started falling quickly. But rather than recovering when the population decreased, it continued to fall until it was wiped out, in the presence of plentiful resources.
This keeps me up at night. Please someone tell me why it doesn't apply to us.
Because we're not mice. Because he was actually studying the effects of overcrowding and not population growth & decline.
You'd need to look at more than just the population numbers, the issues were around high infant mortality and bad parenting, those are the things you should look out for over low birth rates.
Which is a great backup, but they tend to be physically, psychologically and emotionally less suited to it. Most men are less motherly than most women. We are not blank slates.
Men are less "motherly" because we are discouraged by society from being that. Even your choice of words shows your prejudice.
I was my kids primary parent when married and a single dad after divorce. I am MUCH better suited to raising kids than my ex-wife was. That is largely a result of how I was raised to have empathy and care about people.
My implication that being motherly is good for a primary child raiser shows my prejudice? It's actually just a random phenomenon detached from fitness?
To try to remove the word motherly there, your comment could be written as:
Most men are worse parents than most women.
Do you think that is a good representation of what you are saying? Do you think it's true? Are men inherently worse at parenting, or is there something else at play?
And I would also like to know what your evidence is for that.
The solution is what Lauren did, she rolled her own. Once that took teams of experts and big bucks. Now a single ML expert can do it for small bucks because she "needed a restaurant recommendation" and didn't trust the available ones. Soon any mild mannered programmer will have the same capability, and then the muggles will get it, in a mass, just for the asking of their favorite chat bot.
If the progression holds, oodles of recommendation engines can bloom, and it'll be trivial to fork and customize a favorite with a prompt. As the friction of doing large analysis jobs tends toward nil, the Google moat dries up and their commanding height subsides. Too optimistic?
Can we make a decentralized search engine. Which breaks down into two questions, is it technically feasible and is it socially feasible?
(Maybe the word search would be a bit more broad than retrieving web pages. It could be for everything right.)
I don't know but I'm inclined to say that the difficulty will be more on the social side than on the technical side.
The web was very decentralized 20 years ago, and we had all manner of peer to peer systems already. There just doesn't seem to be much appetite for that kind of thing, at least in the mainstream.
Although there might be something to it, with the AI part of the equation.
Like we had self hostable services for a long time, most people just don't want to be a sysadmin.
Well, I gave Claude root on my $3 VPS. Claude is my sysadmin now. I don't have to configure anything anymore. Life is good :)
The data is the key though. How did they effectively scrape the data? Does every restaurant have a website? I bet half rely on Google Maps. So IMHO you are too optimistic because regularly and effectively getting the data is the hard part, not the model.
This right here. Every time I see these types of articles, I jump straight to the chapter regarding data, and it usually a single line of "I scraped the data", sometimes with explanation, most times not.
In this case it seems like she used their API to get the data. But as she notes, scraping can quickly mean having to spend money. And that's where the scraping dream ends for many people - if they have to spend money in any way, shape, or form, it's a non-starter.
> Mark Lemley, a Stanford Law professor and expert in trademark law, told Ars that X might be able to defend the Twitter marks if it can show that it is still using them.
Tens of millions of times per day twitter.com addresses get redirected to x.com. Is that not evidence that the Twitter trademark is still in use by X, such that twitter.new may cause confusion or dilution?
Hacker News seems to strengthen that argument when it converts x.com domains to twitter.com. But Musk calls that deadnaming, which seems like an announcement of abandonment.
As a Southern California kid in the 70s we were regular beach goers, my pal down the street as much as anyone. We went and saw Jaws in a drive in at about age 13. It didn't make a big impression on me, but he never went back in the ocean for the rest of his life, about 40 more years. He wasn't otherwise neurotic or phobic, but he got one-shot by Spielberg.
[0] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/british-journal-of-n...
reply