Haha it foolded me: a bit ambigious to call it 'visible'.
The light is in the 'visual wavelength spectrum'.
Also by far not bright enough to be visible.
The meat is bad for you propaganda.
Cannot believe people buying that.
It is known for millennia that a varied diet including vegs fruits and yes meat and fish is healthier then skipping any of those.
But somehow now when overpopulation makes our hunger for meat less convenient it becomes suddenly unhealthy.
Of course I understand that the antibiotic and and heavy metal infested meat and fish we eat is way less healthy then the meat our ancestors would eat.
If you live in 1500 north europe and your diet in winter is mostly grain in the last months, then a bit of meat and dairy is very important for not getting nutrient deficient.
If you live in modern day north europe the typical meat and dairy you get is heavily polluted and often processed. You can get veggies, fruits, seeds, nuts, legumes, mushrooms all year round. You can be fully nutrient complete based on the and skip the toxins in meat and dairy (and i forgot fish, especially sea fish is usually very toxic with mercury nowadays).
The gold standard tool is cronometer.com; try to make a diet there with only plant/fungi source and you probably only lack some b12 (which we used to get from drinking untreated surface water).
Saying we need animal products is simply not backed up by science. You are commenting on a book that has shown that some of the healthiest+longlived groups of people on the planet are vegan or near-vegan (okinawa and the adventists in calif).
What you sprout is unfounded "meat is needed for a balanced diet" propaganda. The plant based diet is backed by lots of research.
While for some people a plant base diet might well be good if well constructed and supplemented this is not always true on a population level.
The average person isn't drs Greger disciple and will not wake up early in the morning to be measuring his foods to be sure that his intakes are following the RDAs.
Combine that with the fact that nutrients from vegetables are not as easily accessible by our bodies, meaning that for some people with digestion problems it could cause dangerous deficiencies.
And last but not least, yes meat can be contaminated or polluted, so you should be very careful when choosing your cuts. But the same can be said about vegs and fruits I'm afraid:
"European citizens have been exposed to a
dramatic rise in the frequency and intensity of
residues of the most toxic pesticides on fruits
and vegetables sold in the EU. This report
and its primary conclusion contradict official
claims that toxic pesticides use is declining
and that food residue levels are under
control. This report also exposes a complete
failure by Member States and the European
Commission to implement EU Regulation and
protect consumers. "
> While for some people a plant base diet might well be good if well constructed and supplemented this is not always true on a population level.
The majority of meat eaters also have vitamin and micronutrient deficiencies, I don't think plant based diets are the issue here but general culture. Bread and salt have iodine added, but when B12 gets added to plant milks it's suddenly "supplemented". No, most diets have vitamins supplemented, and most western people are having sub optimal diets.
What meat eaters? If we are talking about health conscious people the ones eating meat will always have an advantage compared to people who eliminates food groups.
If you are comparing a health conscious vegan to the average fast food freak then yes, I can agree with you.
Still, the deficiencies caused by meat avoidance are usually more dangerous with worse consequences.
The Blue Zones book shows that people in all times where able to eat healthy. You are commenting on a post about this book.
Toxins are bad. But all research has shown that persistent toxins are much more common in animal products than in plant foods. In some German research they found glyphosate concentrations were lowest in vegetarians and vegans.
I'm not aware of those studies so I can't judge. What meat are you talking about? From which country? Was it cheap supermarket meat or locally sourced from a trusted butcher?
I hope all of those questions are taken into consideration when judging which foods we should avoid.
But still I don't buy this whole meat avoidance stunt. Most studies show only small effects linked to meat avoidance which can be usually be well explained by the fact that vegetarians are usually health conscious people:
The problem with the evidence and research around the "plant based diet" is that there is an ulterior motive for most of the research (legitimate ethical concerns around meat eating) which taints a lot of the data.
For example, Dan Buettner (the author of Blue Zones) suggests that Okinawans eat a 98% plant based diet which is...I won't say "fraudulent" because I think it's possible it's an honest mistake but it's definitely not "correct" at all. It's based off of some sketchy anecdotal accounts of WWII starvation diets where the only ate potatoes. Western centenarian researchers and health gurus repeated that factoid a bunch and it became "the okinawan diet is basically a potato-heavy vegan diet" in some twisted game of telephone.
In actuality both modern and ancient Okinawans have the highest meat consumption in Japan. Lard is the go-to frying oil even for vegetable dishes. The largest proportion of calories come from animal products. The Okinawan diet is a high fat, high carb, moderately high meat diet whose main "secret" is conscious portion restriction (the local "eat until you are 80% full" mantra). They do eat plenty of fish too, just not as much as the mainlanders (the idea that the okinawan diet is low in fish is crazy because the okinawans have a super unique and proud local history of fishing and seafood foraging traditions).
You can get veggies, fruits, seeds, nuts, legumes, mushrooms all year round
Idk about production methods, but am forced to eat vegetables due to a medical condition. First concern, it is still not healthy after half a year and few consultants. Second, all highly available fruits and vegetables are so identical piece-wise that their semi-synthetic origin isn’t even a question to me, please correct me if I’m wrong. I think that access to really healthy/natural vegetables is as expensive and nontrivial as to healthy meat. I even know where I can get healthy meat in bulk (village economies), but have no idea where to start with plants.
for meat it is different, usuallu people do not like to eat it without applying technology (heating (baking), salting, spicing with plant products, saucing with plant products) to it.
we do not actually like meat in its raw form, or when we have to manually strip it from animal bones.
I am sorry but your comment is ridiculous. You're commenting on article that represents part of "lots of research" and it just shows to be propagandistically skewed.
Correlation is not science. It has its place in science but it's pretty limited tool. Sardinian research shows the longest living people there are meat eaters.
Why did I say your comment is ridiculous, because it simply is for anyone who has basic understanding of macro and micro nutrients and their presence in food. Especially amino acids. Plant based diet may work only if you are an office worker with minimum activity and access to synthetic vitamins.
Majority of pro-vegan drives are ideologically charged or have business intent behind them.
Why wouldn't people buy it? It's put forth by reputable science whereas the "meat is good for you" position is mostly preached by the jordan petersons of this world. At least I have better things to allocate my energies than figure out whether obvious charlatans are actually correct.
Because desktop apps are harder to make money with.
They are easy to crack / pirate.
Also making a monthly subscription is harder for a desktop app (you would need still also a webapp to check for the monthly subscription).
It is on the other hand very hard to pirate software that only runs on some server. Also quite easy to force a monthly subscription if you simply hide app behind a login screen.
Additionally your webapp also has the data of the user hostage so the user can not switch to a competitor.
So basicly I think webapps are a dark pattern. The user of course prefers desktopapps but due to above reasons there is hardly incentive to build them.
Will this change?
I think so yes. Eventually this whole Saas bubble will burst, because
- Chrome filesystem API will make building a desktop app as easy as a webapp
- Open source and crowd funded software will pay the bill for those making desktop apps and users will be more then willing to switch.
When will this happen?
If we are lucky within 5 years, but more likely 20 or 30 years.
So, you start with the idea that people prefer making web apps essentially because "money". Then conclude that making desktop apps will eventually go back to be the favorite, because they'll become as easy to make as web apps. Doesn't that imply that ease of development, distribution, and maintenance are (the?) current major factors?
The economics of web apps is a pretty straight line and may not point to a particular cupid trend. If you make a web app and want to serve it, someone has to foot the bill (bandwidth, storage, security, maintenance, etc). Also, people will keep asking for improvements and fixes. If you want to offer nicer things, you may want to hire a UI/UX dev. If the app becomes popular, at some point you'll have no choice than to generate some income. It means that you can finance the app through either donations (which you can pull off if you're super popular, like Lichess), ads (if you're reasonably popular, like Photopea), or subscriptions (if you're in a niche, like many of the one-person SaaS out there).
Also, your target audience may express its preference for one monetization model over others. If you build a web competitor to the Salesforce suit, you might be surprised to see many of your prospective users frown when they ask you how much it costs and you reply "donations".
I sure hope so. Because if not, that will mean everything is on "the cloud" -- and the main thing to know about "the cloud" is that there is no such thing, it's just someone else's machine. And if everything is on that, the owner of that machine will in practice have become Big Brother. It doesn't matter if there's just one of him or some oligarchy of a few of them.
Wether it be the Federation or the Empire; MicroGoog, OraFace, or Applazon; or any combination thereof -- Big Brother will inevitably be evil because A) Power corrupts (where is "Don't be evil" now?), and B) the whole idea of a "Big Brother" with absolute power is evil.
Yes true! I once had the honour to work with a 'tech-lead' dev that rewrote a whole map application to AngularJS, which was the hype back then.
I remember him not being able to get a just slightly complicated chain of asynchronous stuff working in vanillaJS.
No problem, because he had AngularJS double binding now. No need to learn vanillaJS. Wicked stuff.
I would like to add:
Increases range for sending and receiving communication via air.
This in addition the the already mentioned:
- greater field of sight (eye of Sauron)
- greater range of fire
- symbolic (to heaven)
- status symbol
- defense against enemy
I remember this scene from movie 3 lotr where the 2 wizards communicate to each other to invade, by shooting beams from their towers.
Average websites goal is now to keep you on them as long as possible. According to some metric folks, the longer you stay on a website the more money you spend there. Linking to another website destroys that metric.
Also if you are going to make a purchase somewhere, any website would try to get a cut of the money you spend by actually sending referral links to the product. So small websites that do not allow this service will not get linked so much.
On a metalevel it is thus that links or connections between items are information. Information is money. And as soon as that became evident links and connections also became more scarce.
Yup and developers have been allowing the marketing and product teams to break the back button as well opening every external link in a new window instead so users have to keep something open to their site. You always had middle-click to do this, but now it's being forced on users.
I just noticed even the goobers at GitHub break the back button when you click a project link too. I don't know why people champion this brand when they have dark patterns and shoehorn 'social' functions into the proprietary platform.
"But another part of me isn't okay with a world in which the vast majority of people do nothing (or do something that doesn't really produce value) while forcing higher-income people (like many of us, myself included) to fund that lifestyle."
But I feel it is the other way around really. Low income people support the lifestyle of all us "highly educated".
I feel the biggest amount of us programmers / managers are really creating little value, but are nonetheless rewarded by a vast institution of governments and corporations.
I am sometimes thinking about use master branch of my repo and add a folder called 'tickets'. Then in this folder create issues as markdown files. Use some Vscode, Emacs or Vim plugin to automatically number these markdown files and present comments as lists.
No more dependency on online saas tooling and you can use the search option of your ide / os / command-line to search through them.
You are right, but very traditional. Try to think in a modern spirit.
If the logo can be created for by a few hundred bugs of ai service there is no need for it to last longer then a few months.
Also traditional logos were created for print. If you are a 'onscreen only' company, there is really no need for a simple logo. (dont bother about asset size when the average website includes several mb of spam and js frameworks)
Further I would not know why a ai would eventually not be capable of generating a 'simple' logo with just blezer curves and few colors.
Lastly I think many of these 'simple logos' are boring. I admit I prefer the ai logos from the post. Yes call me a barbarian and yes the human drawn logo's could probably be better if made by a top notch designer (and costs $$$$$).
The future will probably be a hybrid situation where the designer is aided by ai.
"then there is no need for it to last more than a couple months" - this isn't true at all, a long lasting logo is something that is very important to branding. If you keep changing your logo, customers won't form opinions on your brand it will simply be left in the memory hole
