You mean, being honest?

In most of the world no, they can't.

This has to be one of the most corporate-simping bloated think pieces I have ever seen.

I didn't even know one could be so in love with the biggest corporations on earth and get enraged at the thought of them not being able to make the largest profit they possibly can.

Or the people fancying themselves as smart aren't actually all that.

Don't know why you're downvoted, HyulianGrader is quite literally a Nazi.

Delusional about what?

The Windows API is just that: an API. An interface. Who cares whether it's implemented by Windows or Linux or whatever else?

Keep believing that, it did wonders for OS/2.

Make a point instead of pithy remarks.

No, this is not how this works. You have to actually explain yourself here so that others can address your point. Nobody wants to imagine arguments from a half-sentence.

This is nonsense. There's no evidence that "glucose control" is helpful for anyone but actual diabetics. Glucose spikes are completely normal physiology and nothing to be concerned about unless your actually diabetic.

This whole "all sickness is metabolic disorder, caused by glucose" is a fringe grifter youtube quack theory. On the other hand, semaglutides have actual science behind them.

Echoing the other reply, there is a raging scientific debate between the energy balance model and the carbohydrate insulin model of obesity and diabetes. There are large cohorts of very smart scientists on both sides of this debate.

No there isn't. There's no serious debate and no evidence for the carbohydrate insulin model of obesity.

It seems you're unable to add something to debate, rather than shallow dismissals.

FYI, per HN guidelines, so you can reflect on your future contributions:

- Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.

- Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something.

There absolutely is not. There is raging internet debate, not scientific debate.

> There's no evidence...

I just pointed to an entire book written by a psychiatrist and Harvard professor, with citations to hundreds of studies linking metabolism to metal disorders, insulin resistance, the effect of diet on mitochondrial dysfunction, and your argument is "trust me bro, it's quack theory"?

Don't you think you're being overly reductionist and close-minded, without even reading the evidence provided?

There are books for every theory, this isn't one that any scientist in the actual field takes serious.

But fringe theories are always popular among certain people, same as conspiracy theories.

2) Not true.

3) More livestock => more crops => more herbicide

Presumably referring to this sentence from the Wikipedia page you linked to, quote: "Marginal deficiency is much more common and may occur in up to 40% of Western populations.".